Occupy Galway Group (mod note added)

inisboffin

pg633 wrote: »

inisboffin wrote: »

Again, isn't it true this bunch have nothing to do with the occupy Galway camp? I thought they were a bunch of randomers who happened to do this in Clarenbridge?

Their video starts at the camp in Eyre Square.

I thought they just started the film there?Not everything filmed in Vatican Square is made by nuns!

Maybe it's a different version? I tried to look but the one on here now says 'removed by user'?

MadYaker

Shakti wrote: »

Is this your idea of a retraction of your threats?

Obviously you haven't grasped this yet, It wasn't a serious threat that I intend to carry out.

Shakti wrote: »

I suggest you find yourself a law professor in NUIG when your between lectures if you are worried about the legality and potential consequences of your actions

Actions? I haven't done anything.

Shakti wrote: »

also talk to someone in 'Irish Centre for Human Rights, NUI Galway' if you are concerned about the protests in Eyre Sq. and outline to them what you posted and suggested here in this thread.

I know for a fact that it is illegal to camp in eyre square. What do you think would happen if several members of the travelling community set up a campsite in eyre square? The gardai would be down there moving them out immediately. I don't see why these people should be treated any differently.

Shakti wrote: »

Why do you have to be so offensive and assume so much is it that hard for you to put a coherent analysis or argument together?

I was perfectly coherent. However you are right about 1 thing I suppose, I shouldn't have called them idiots since I don't actually know any of them. But what they are doing is ridiculous. My point that you failed to address still stands. The christmas market brings in money and people and is far more beneficial than this occupation and I think if we have to choose one or the other it should be the market.

Also, I find it hilarious that my "threats" to burn their tents down worried you. Did you call the gardai??? I hope you did.

Shakti wrote: »

Dictatorial apathetic insinuation and assumption.

Oh really? Do you honestly believe that this protest will acheive any real results or improvements? If so please tell me what you think they are because I can't see how a few hippies setting up a campsite in the middle of our town is going to change anything.

Shakti

MadYaker wrote: »

Obviously you haven't grasped this yet, It wasn't a serious threat that I intend to carry out.

There is nothing lighthearted about threats of intimidation/arson and violence towards real people at a specified location. Your continuing attempts to try and obliquely defend and justify your statements is becoming nauseating and until you categorically and unambiguously apologise to the protestors and for any distress or worry you may have caused them, retract and distance yourself from your threats and suggestions, your contribution in this thread IMO will be viewed with suspicion.

galway23

mary90 wrote: »

This is probably a really ignorant question and I apologise in advance but what exactly do the protesters hope to gain from camping in eyre square?

Would really love to know the answer to this too....

zero19

This thread just keeps getting better and better.

Shelflife

Burn The Bondholders !!!

Nov 11
Dear Mr Bondholder im not going to pay you back, screw you !!

Feb 12

Dear Mr Bondholder can I have a loan so that i can pay the public sector wages and keep the country running?

reply : Screw you !!


ooooops didnt quiet think that through properly !!!

Danakin

antoobrien wrote: »

I notice you've ignored the fact that we're still spending 3/4 of a billion more than we were last year on providing services.

Do you deny this?

As for cuts, thank your lucky stars I'm not a politician and that I'll never get in charge, then you'd see cuts. Public service strike? Good, we don't have to pay them. We can cut €1 billion by getting them to strike for 4 weeks without nominally cutting anything.

I didn't ignore it.

"Total net voted expenditure at end-October, at €37 billion, is €176 million (0.5%) down year-on-year. Net voted current spending is up €788 million (2.3%) but net voted capital expenditure is €965 million (27.4%) down. Adjusting for the reclassification of health levy receipts to form part of the USC, it is estimated that total net voted expenditure fell 4.1% in the year to end-October (net voted current expenditure fell 1.8% on the same basis)."

You don't think we need a public sector? Nurses, doctors, teachers, Gardaí...?

No one has mentioned a strike.

You don't think the people that do these jobs need to be paid though?

happyoutscan

Shakti wrote: »

There is nothing lighthearted about threats of intimidation/arson and violence towards real people at a specified location. Your continuing attempts to try and obliquely defend and justify your statements is becoming nauseating and until you categorically and unambiguously apologise to the protestors and for any distress or worry you may have caused them, retract and distance yourself from your threats and suggestions, your contribution in this thread IMO will be viewed with suspicion.

I think you need to get over yourself.

Ex Bouncer

MadYaker wrote: »

Obviously you haven't grasped this yet, It wasn't a serious threat that I intend to carry out.



Actions? I haven't done anything.



I know for a fact that it is illegal to camp in eyre square. What do you think would happen if several members of the travelling community set up a campsite in eyre square? The gardai would be down there moving them out immediately. I don't see why these people should be treated any differently.



I was perfectly coherent. However you are right about 1 thing I suppose, I shouldn't have called them idiots since I don't actually know any of them. But what they are doing is ridiculous. My point that you failed to address still stands. The christmas market brings in money and people and is far more beneficial than this occupation and I think if we have to choose one or the other it should be the market.

Also, I find it hilarious that my "threats" to burn their tents down worried you. Did you call the gardai??? I hope you did.




Oh really? Do you honestly believe that this protest will acheive any real results or improvements? If so please tell me what you think they are because I can't see how a few hippies setting up a campsite in the middle of our town is going to change anything.

Dear Shakti,
I think that MadYaker has retracted his arson comments threats at this point, and I think that you are trying to keep this thread going to sensationalize it. I accept that MadYaker spoke with silly comments and I didnt beleive them at the time.
If you want to focus on the threat of arson please focus on those threatning to "Burn the Bondholders"

Roisy7

Ficheall wrote: »

Interesting. What options do you feel you should have "as a college graduate"?
I hope to finish up in college at Christmas, and I'm delighted that I've those three options to choose from.

Apologies if someone has replied to this already, but an entry level position in the field I'm qualified in, in my own country would be very nice.

Shakti

Ex Bouncer wrote: »

Dear Shakti,
I think that MadYaker has retracted his arson comments threats at this point, and I think that you are trying to keep this thread going to sensationalize it. I accept that MadYaker spoke with silly comments and I didnt beleive them at the time.
If you want to focus on the threat of arson please focus on those threatning to "Burn the Bondholders"

The retraction IMO opinion fell well short of sincerity and would never had been forthcoming in the first place had they not been called on it.
Your estimation of the comments as 'silly' I could find equally offensive but in the interest of moving this thread along I will reservedly park it at this time.

"Burn the bondholders' you hear this term ad-nauseum used in and out of every financial and social context on and off the airwaves so to clarify what do you mean when you say 'Burn the bond-holders'
ie.
who are they?
can you outline the 'terms of agreement' they signed for in the original investment agreement?
what were the original risks to there investment under the original terms of agreement they signed up to?
what were the expected/forecasted gains to the original investment under the terms of agreements they accepted and entered into?

celtictiger

The amount of horse sh*t being talked this thread is staggering

MadYaker

celtictiger wrote: »

The amount of horse sh*t being talked this thread is staggering

In fairness, thats what boards is for.

Predalien

Shelflife wrote: »

Burn The Bondholders !!!

Nov 11
Dear Mr Bondholder im not going to pay you back, screw you !!

Feb 12

Dear Mr Bondholder can I have a loan so that i can pay the public sector wages and keep the country running?

reply : Screw you !!


ooooops didnt quiet think that through properly !!!

There is a far better chance of us paying off any new borrowing if we don't pay back the bank's debts. The markets would recognise this and our rate for borrowing from them would be greatly reduced. We didn't assume all the bank's debts with the bank guarantee so there is no legal reason for us to pay the unsecured bondholders... they lent to banks that collapsed and shouldn't be paid back, that's the risk they assumed when they lent the money and normal market rules should apply, that's not just my opinion, it's also the opinion of numerous leading economists and newspapers such as the financial times.

They reason the ECB are pressurizing us to pay back bank debt is to protect other banks (German and French credit institutions were also reckless, but it would suit their politicians better to make out they are bailing out small countries rather than just pump the cash directly into their own banks which is what might have to happen if we stop paying all the bonds). Us paying back these debts using borrowed money is in fact a hindrance to us removing ourselves from the bailout and returning to the markets.

muppetkiller

Predalien wrote: »

There is a far better chance of us paying off any new borrowing if we don't pay back the bank's debts. The markets would recognise this and our rate for borrowing from them would be greatly reduced. We didn't assume all the bank's debts with the bank guarantee so there is no legal reason for us to pay the unsecured bondholders... they lent to banks that collapsed and shouldn't be paid back, that's the risk they assumed when they lent the money and normal market rules should apply, that's not just my opinion, it's also the opinion of numerous leading economists and newspapers such as the financial times.

I just wish all you closet economists would simply stop regurgitating what you read in the newspapers. None of us have a clue of the total details of why the decisions were made so please stop pretending that you know what you're talking about. I work in the financial industry (Software side) and I still can't understand the full details of it. If we did there'd be a simple answer.

But one thing I will say is that these protests accomplish nothing and never will. You've already elected your representatives and they make your decisions for you. If you don't agree with them , then try vote them out again next time around.

I'm a firm believer in people contributing to society to make the world a better place, If you're able to protest for a month sitting on your ar$e then you're contributing nothing and should receive no benefits. If you can't find work then do voluntary work and try and make a difference that way.
Don't expect people to think you're great and you'll change the world by sitting around playing cards and drinking tea. The world doesn't work like that.

For the record I'm all in favor of a day of Protest to show the public's feelings, but only a Day. We cannot afford to take time off work as no taxes get paid that way...and guess what pays the IMF/BANKS/BONDHOLDERS ? TAXES FROM YOU AND ME !

Slozer

Shelflife wrote: »

Burn The Bondholders !!!

Nov 11
Dear Mr Bondholder im not going to pay you back, screw you !!

Feb 12

Dear Mr Bondholder can I have a loan so that i can pay the public sector wages and keep the country running?

reply : Screw you !!


ooooops didnt quiet think that through properly !!!

What about:

Fen 12

Dear Mr Bondholder can I have a loan so that i can pay you back?

reply

Predalien

muppetkiller wrote: »

I just wish all you closet economists would simply stop regurgitating what you read in the newspapers. None of us have a clue of the total details of why the decisions were made so please stop pretending that you know what you're talking about. I work in the financial industry (Software side) and I still can't understand the full details of it. If we did there'd be a simple answer.

But one thing I will say is that these protests accomplish nothing and never will. You've already elected your representatives and they make your decisions for you. If you don't agree with them , then try vote them out again next time around.

I'm a firm believer in people contributing to society to make the world a better place, If you're able to protest for a month sitting on your ar$e then you're contributing nothing and should receive no benefits. If you can't find work then do voluntary work and try and make a difference that way.
Don't expect people to think you're great and you'll change the world by sitting around playing cards and drinking tea. The world doesn't work like that.

For the record I'm all in favor of a day of Protest to show the public's feelings, but only a Day. We cannot afford to take time off work as no taxes get paid that way...and guess what pays the IMF/BANKS/BONDHOLDERS ? TAXES FROM YOU AND ME !

If a business goes bust not all it's creditors should or can be paid, that's the basic rule and there's no reason why that shouldn't be applied to Anglo Irish Bank, you don't need to be an economist to recognise that.

You are basically admitting that you recognise that the real reasons for decisions made are being withheld from us, and you are happy enough with that, we'd be a bit better off in this country without that 'keep the head down attitude'. During the general election the two current government parties both made declarations that bondholders would not be paid back, because of this the bond we paid back in full last week traded at half it's original value. The bondholders took a haircut due to the danger that the bond wouldn't be paid back, it was a normal market response to the reality of the Irish economic condition. Our new government however reneged on their promise and repaid the bond in full, so the bondholder at the time of repayment doubled their money. If that's the kind of decision being taken by our government then it is quite clearly the wrong one, no matter what all the details of it are. I don't see what's difficult to understand about that.

antoobrien

muppetkiller wrote: »

I just wish all you closet economists would simply stop regurgitating what you read in the newspapers. None of us have a clue of the total details of why the decisions were made so please stop pretending that you know what you're talking about. I work in the financial industry (Software side) and I still can't understand the full details of it. If we did there'd be a simple answer.

But one thing I will say is that these protests accomplish nothing and never will. You've already elected your representatives and they make your decisions for you. If you don't agree with them , then try vote them out again next time around.

I'm a firm believer in people contributing to society to make the world a better place, If you're able to protest for a month sitting on your ar$e then you're contributing nothing and should receive no benefits. If you can't find work then do voluntary work and try and make a difference that way.
Don't expect people to think you're great and you'll change the world by sitting around playing cards and drinking tea. The world doesn't work like that.

For the record I'm all in favor of a day of Protest to show the public's feelings, but only a Day. We cannot afford to take time off work as no taxes get paid that way...and guess what pays the IMF/BANKS/BONDHOLDERS ? TAXES FROM YOU AND ME !

The government & bank debts are the least of our worries. They only come to something like €350 billion (gross government debt of c. €170 billion, bank guarantees of €123 billion & NAMA (which is not included in debt) if we have to pay it all back in the morning - something the EU/ECB/IMF are desperately trying to avoid.

It's interesting to note that the total Irish external debt (i.e. owed by the Irish government, companies & private individuals) is estimated to be in the region of €1.7 trillion (€1,700 billion - based on exchange rate of $1.37=€1).

The property sector was estimated to be worth about €550 billion at the height of things, so we've still got several hundred billions of non-property lending out there - credit cards, personal loans, car loans etc.

muppetkiller

Predalien wrote: »

If a business goes bust not all it's creditors should or can be paid, that's the basic rule and there's no reason why that shouldn't be applied to Anglo Irish Bank, you don't need to be an economist to recognise that.

You are basically admitting that you recognise that the real reasons for decisions made are being withheld from us, and you are happy enough with that, we'd be a bit better off in this country without that 'keep the head down attitude'. During the general election the two current government parties both made declarations that bondholders would not be paid back, because of this the bond we paid back in full last week traded at half it's original value. The bondholders took a haircut due to the danger that the bond wouldn't be paid back, it was a normal market response to the reality of the Irish economic condition. Our new government however reneged on their promise and repaid the bond in full, so the bondholder at the time of repayment doubled their money. If that's the kind of decision being taken by our government then it is quite clearly the wrong one, no matter what all the details of it are. I don't see what's difficult to understand about that.

For the record I don't like them paying the unsecured bond holders anymore than the next person but there must be behind the scenes reasons for it.
If we find out that the real reasons are being withheld from us (which they no doubt are) then what are we going to do when find out what that is and we don't like what they've hidden from us ? Riot ? We'd still owe the Money. Rioting accomplishes nothing ...only to maybe overthrow the government...and I thought we just kicked out the last crowd in the last election.

My point is still valid though these protests accomplish nothing.

muppetkiller

antoobrien wrote: »

The government & bank debts are the least of our worries. They only come to something like €350 billion (gross government debt of c. €170 billion, bank guarantees of €123 billion & NAMA (which is not included in debt) if we have to pay it all back in the morning - something the EU/ECB/IMF are desperately trying to avoid.

It's interesting to note that the total Irish external debt (i.e. owed by the Irish government, companies & private individuals) is estimated to be in the region of €1.7 trillion (€1,700 billion - based on exchange rate of $1.37=€1).

The property sector was estimated to be worth about €550 billion at the height of things, so we've still got several hundred billions of non-property lending out there - credit cards, personal loans, car loans etc.

The 1.7 Trillion Euro is probably a correct figure but it might be counting the same debts a number of times ...Example ..If I have a mortgage with a bank (Personal debt) , that bank borrowed from some other institution ( Corporate Debt) so not sure how that is accounted for.
But it does prove that each individual needs to do whatever they can to get as much tax back into the system to pay these debts. And of course look after their own finances.

Shakti

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtL06DVaZ00

Head The Wall

Predalien wrote: »

If a business goes bust not all it's creditors should or can be paid, that's the basic rule and there's no reason why that shouldn't be applied to Anglo Irish Bank, you don't need to be an economist to recognise that.

Anglo Irish Bank has not been wound down so it is still a legal entity and therefore although people think these bonds (which hold the same rights as depositors) should not be paid legally they have to be paid. This is because of the govt decision to guarantee the banks which can't be reversed at this stage.

To wind up the bank now would mean that all bonds would have to be paid straight away and that would bankrupt Ireland.

Danakin

muppetkiller wrote: »

But one thing I will say is that these protests accomplish nothing and never will. You've already elected your representatives and they make your decisions for you. If you don't agree with them , then try vote them out again next time around.

I'm a firm believer in people contributing to society to make the world a better place, If you're able to protest for a month sitting on your ar$e then you're contributing nothing and should receive no benefits. If you can't find work then do voluntary work and try and make a difference that way.
Don't expect people to think you're great and you'll change the world by sitting around playing cards and drinking tea. The world doesn't work like that.

For the record I'm all in favor of a day of Protest to show the public's feelings, but only a Day. We cannot afford to take time off work as no taxes get paid that way...and guess what pays the IMF/BANKS/BONDHOLDERS ? TAXES FROM YOU AND ME !

Protest is a democratic right, just like the right to vote. I don't think it would be in the spirit of democracy if representatives enact policy that you disagree with and you are expected to simply accept this and not attempt to draw attention to your alternative view.

If a person is unemployed during a period of economic crisis which has come about due to massive recklessness on the part of financial and democratic institutions, nationally and internationally, that person is surely entitled to protest in whatever way, and for whatever length, they see fit.

One day of protest is good and will get attention for a short period. Without further action however, goverments and policy makers can acknowledge it for a time and that proceed in the same way as they would have anyway.

A longer protest, or an indefinite one, can keep the issue simmering away and make it more difficult to ignore. In the US for example, income inequality is being talked about in the media and in policy circles for the first time in generations. This is beacuse the protest is not simply "over and done with".

Taking away benefits for protesting would be a very anti-democratic step and would say very bad things about our society.

Predalien

Head The Wall wrote: »

Anglo Irish Bank has not been wound down so it is still a legal entity and therefore although people think these bonds (which hold the same rights as depositors) should not be paid legally they have to be paid. This is because of the govt decision to guarantee the banks which can't be reversed at this stage.

To wind up the bank now would mean that all bonds would have to be paid straight away and that would bankrupt Ireland.

That's simply not true, we are under no legal obligation to pay Anglo's unsecured bondholders.

Shakti

Head The Wall wrote: »

Anglo Irish Bank has not been wound down so it is still a legal entity and therefore although people think these bonds (which hold the same rights as depositors) should not be paid legally they have to be paid. This is because of the govt decision to guarantee the banks which can't be reversed at this stage.

To wind up the bank now would mean that all bonds would have to be paid straight away and that would bankrupt Ireland.

I understand why you and most of the country thinks this is true otherwise why were they paid? right? simply put and if you do not wish to believe me watch the video above were VB will make it clear to you or just about any economist or banker either professional or student will tell you these bonds are NOT part of the governments bank guarantee scheme and are under no legal requirement to pay these debts on behalf of anglo or anyone else also these Bond Holders are not credit unions, schools, pension funds or anything of the sort. They are Anonymous private speculators (hedge funds) is my guess and everyone in government seems to know this EXCEPT FG and LABOUR. Meanwhile people die on trolleys in A&E in UCHG.

cheesemaker

Head The Wall wrote: »

Anglo Irish Bank has not been wound down so it is still a legal entity and therefore although people think these bonds (which hold the same rights as depositors) should not be paid legally they have to be paid. This is because of the govt decision to guarantee the banks which can't be reversed at this stage.

To wind up the bank now would mean that all bonds would have to be paid straight away and that would bankrupt Ireland.

K-9

antoobrien wrote: »

The government & bank debts are the least of our worries. They only come to something like €350 billion (gross government debt of c. €170 billion, bank guarantees of €123 billion & NAMA (which is not included in debt) if we have to pay it all back in the morning - something the EU/ECB/IMF are desperately trying to avoid.

It's interesting to note that the total Irish external debt (i.e. owed by the Irish government, companies & private individuals) is estimated to be in the region of €1.7 trillion (€1,700 billion - based on exchange rate of $1.37=€1).

The property sector was estimated to be worth about €550 billion at the height of things, so we've still got several hundred billions of non-property lending out there - credit cards, personal loans, car loans etc.

The €1.7 Trillion includes IFSC debt, it in now way comes under the guarantee scheme or bondholders. We aren't liable for it.

If the ISFC went tomorrow, it would cost us jobs and reputation but the Americans and British would be very worried!

cheesemaker

If the IFSC went tomorrow it would cost Frankfurt and London a tax and regulatory haven within the Euro. Something they are very keen to hang on to. So the next time you see an Irish politician trotting out scare stories about getting kicked out of the euro and no money in the ATM, laugh in their face and tell them "the market" will replace them with someone more appropriate like is happening to our unfortunate Mediterranean cousins this week.

Head The Wall

It's not my fault ye don't know what ye are taking about. Head over to the Irish economy forum on boards where its explained in detail.

I'd like to know though what is your legal basis for saying they don't have to be repaid.

MadYaker

Last time I checked this thread was about the Occupy Galway movement. Not a debate between amateur economists, none of whom actually know what they are talking about.... Where are the mods?