Occupy Galway Group (mod note added)

chuckliddell

did banks pay all that money back yet or do they have to camp out another few days?

antoobrien

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.

Predalien wrote: »

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

The bonds are legally ranked higher than deposits, this is not just an Irish thing, it is an international convention in banking. Therefore the senior bondholders have more of a claim to the money as creditors than depositors.

In crying "don't pay" what you're really saying to the government is:
I want the banks to have all the money I have deposited with them, I don't want it back.

That's fine for you but I want to be able to buy food and pay the bills.

Shakti

MadYaker wrote: »

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?

the same place they were when you were threatening to burn people out of Eyre sq.

Predalien

antoobrien wrote: »

The bonds are legally ranked higher than deposits, this is not just an Irish thing, it is an international convention in banking. Therefore the senior bondholders have more of a claim to the money as creditors than depositors.

In crying "don't pay" what you're really saying to the government is:
I want the banks to have all the money I have deposited with them, I don't want it back.

That's fine for you but I want to be able to buy food and pay the bills.

There are no deposits left in Anglo!

antoobrien

Predalien wrote: »

There are no deposits left in Anglo!

So? It's not only the Anglo bondholders that people are complaining about (AIB owe them a lot as well and we own that one too). And if you start and Anglo where do you stop - a legal precedent has been set.

Besides, according to Frontline on Monday night one of the major bondholders in Anglo (€54 billion) is none other than our own Central bank. This would be listed as an asset in their books (as loans are assets to banks). this figure is on top of the rescue money.

Who's the ultimate bondholders - we are.

Still want to burn the bondholders?

Predalien

antoobrien wrote: »

So? It's not only the Anglo bondholders that people are complaining about (AIB owe them a lot as well and we own that one too). And if you start and Anglo where do you stop - a legal precedent has been set.

Besides, according to Frontline on Monday night one of the major bondholders in Anglo (€54 billion) is none other than our own Central bank. This would be listed as an asset in their books (as loans are assets to banks). this figure is on top of the rescue money.

Who's the ultimate bondholders - we are.

Still want to burn the bondholders?

The Anglo ones, yes.

Predalien

MadYaker wrote: »

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?

I think the whole point of the protest is to raise awareness and promote discussion of what's been going on in this country over the last few years.

Shakti

The bondholder list for Anglo Irish Bank
http://twitpic.com/79hhkh/full

EDIT: new list provided kindly by cheesemaker

Robbo

Shakti wrote: »

The bondholder list for Anglo Irish Bank

Over on Irish Economy, Scofflaw has poked holes in that list on more than one occasion.

Given that it initially emerged from the blawg of Guido Fawkes, and his views on Europe and the Euro, it's become something of a latter day Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That is to say, a spurious document, wheeled out by those with an agenda to push and a starting point of abject ignorance, despite the lack of credibility of the document.

antoobrien

Predalien wrote: »

The Anglo ones, yes.

Legal precident means that it doesn't stop there. Floodgates opening and all that (why the banks are so scared of the greek deal).

So you don't buring the taxpay - who Anglo owes €54 billion in bonds?

Shakti

Robbo wrote: »

Over on Irish Economy, Scofflaw has poked holes in that list on more than one occasion.

Given that it initially emerged from the blawg of Guido Fawkes, and his views on Europe and the Euro, it's become something of a latter day Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That is to say, a spurious document, wheeled out by those with an agenda to push and a starting point of abject ignorance, despite the lack of credibility of the document.

the what?
If you have a revised list feel free to post it,

zarquon

MadYaker wrote: »

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?

Actually i would say the discussion is on topic as essentially the protesters are just a bunch of uninformed amateur economists none of whom actually really know what they are talking about.

Shakti

zarquon wrote: »

Actually i would say the discussion is on topic as essentially the protesters are just a bunch of uninformed amateur economists none of whom actually really know what they are talking about.

Or maybe were just ordinary people asking reasonable questions and having the piss taken out of us for having the cheek to point out among other injustices that right now at this moment 48 people are suffering on trolleys in A&E in UCHG (and that doesn't include the ones waiting to even get a trolley) while the government just gave away €750,000,000 to parties as of yet unknown and which has transpired had no legal or moral obligation to and were elected on a mandate that they wouldn't.

Danakin

zarquon wrote: »

Actually i would say the discussion is on topic as essentially the protesters are just a bunch of uninformed amateur economists none of whom actually really know what they are talking about.

Because clearly professional orthodox economists have done a bang-up job with respect to this financial crisis.

It is not a matter of protestors believing themselves to be economists.

They are protesting perceived, and correctly in my view, unfairness and injustice in the way financial matters are being handled at a national and international level. Just like their counterparts elsewhere.

I don't pretend to be an economist. I'm putting across an alternative moral and ethical judgement.

It happens that some economists such as Paul Krugman and Nouriel Roubini believe that the alternative moral judgement is the more economically sound one as well.

Predalien

antoobrien wrote: »

Legal precident means that it doesn't stop there. Floodgates opening and all that (why the banks are so scared of the greek deal).

So you don't buring the taxpay - who Anglo owes €54 billion in bonds?

We could still guarantee the other banks, just remove Anglo from the guarantee, this would not create any legal precedent. Plus the Oireachtas make legislation, they can change the law as they see fit, the banks aren't scared of the Greek deal, it's normal for bondholders to take haircuts when the company/country they lent to can't pay them back. That's a risk lenders assume. How do you defend paying back bonds that weren't covered by the guarantee such as the one discussed in the video (subordinated bonds weren't covered by the renewed guarantee) posted previously?

Oh and what's the difference between the taxpayer repaying the bonds of €54b and us simply not repaying any more Anglo bonds? We lose out on the €54b either way. Oh and do you have any source for this figure, I thought it was the ECB not the Irish Central Bank that pumped the money in to keep Anglo going.

The reality of the the interest and debt burden that the state will be under means that at some point, like Greece, we will have to default on the debts, my issue is that we have assumed far too much of the bank debts. Deposits of ordinary people can be secured without assuming all the debts as we did, now that Anglo only has about €1b in deposits there is no reason for us not to simply let it go and let the remaining bondholders count their losses.

Robbo

Shakti wrote: »

the what?
If you have a revised list feel free to post it,

The Protocols is a rather famous forgery, wheeled out here and there by conspiracy types, neo-nazis and the like. It's a supposed framework for Jews taking over the world, but has been discredited as a forgery many times over.

I don't have a definitive bondholder list, nor I suspect, would anyone outside of Anglo or Government quarters. Just a hunch, but I'd imagine that's the kind of thing they want to play close to their chest, lest it lead to a ****storm or ****ticane when we aren't paying them back on a parri passu basis.

antoobrien

Predalien wrote: »

Oh and what's the difference between the taxpayer repaying the bonds of €54b and us simply not repaying any more Anglo bonds? We lose out on the €54b either way. Oh and do you have any source for this figure, I thought it was the ECB not the Irish Central Bank that pumped the money in to keep Anglo going.

As I said in my original - I'm told it was on Frontline this week.

The Irish taxpayer are ultimately behind the central bank, which is a constituent of the ECB. Either way the taxpayer is forking out for it.

The difference is we lose all access to the financial markets - including emergency funding from the IMF (which is what the bailout loans are).

So not only do we not have enough money to pay all the bills, but there are debts totaling about 5 times this years tax take that are all going to come due immediately.

Think about that for a minute.

No services at all.

We can't pay for them without borrowed money.

We don't gather don't gather enough.

What do you stop paying or cut?

We're 8 billion in deficit on current spending for 10 months before putting a penny into banks - this bit really annoys me about the protesters - no mention of just how much money we're p**sing into p**s poor services.

Shakti

Robbo wrote: »

The Protocols is a rather famous forgery, wheeled out here and there by conspiracy types, neo-nazis and the like. It's a supposed framework for Jews taking over the world, but has been discredited as a forgery many times over.

I don't have a definitive bondholder list, nor I suspect, would anyone outside of Anglo or Government quarters. Just a hunch, but I'd imagine that's the kind of thing they want to play close to their chest, lest it lead to a ****storm or ****ticane when we aren't paying them back on a parri passu basis.

So what your saying is that list wherever it came from it is unsubstantiated I'll accept that. I'm not interested in conspiracy theories either so thanks for pointing it out but TBH I couldn't give two ***'s were it came from I just care wether its accurate or not. Have any of the institutions contained on the list objected to being on it?

Predalien

Predalien wrote: »

We could still guarantee the other banks, just remove Anglo from the guarantee, this would not create any legal precedent. Plus the Oireachtas make legislation, they can change the law as they see fit

It might not create precedent but it would probably create a run on the remaining banks.

Danakin

antoobrien wrote: »

The Irish taxpayer are ultimately behind the central bank, which is a constituent of the ECB. Either way the taxpayer is forking out for it.

The difference is we lose all access to the financial markets - including emergency funding from the IMF (which is what the bailout loans are).

So not only do we not have enough money to pay all the bills, but there are debts totaling about 5 times this years tax take that are all going to come due immediately.

Think about that for a minute.

No services at all.

We can't pay for them without borrowed money.

We don't gather don't gather enough.

What do you stop paying or cut?

We're 8 billion in deficit on current spending for 10 months before putting a penny into banks - this bit really annoys men about the protesters - no mention of just how much money we're p**sing into p**s poor services.

Delaying or at least reducing the level of deficit reduction until the economy improves and the degree of aggregate demand has increased has long been the Keynesian ecnomic view.

The adjustment will have to come but it should be slow and incremental until there is a significant level of growth in the economy. Until then, the government runs deficits.

Your problem with the protestors not mentioning money spent on public services can be answered in 2 ways:

1. What you describe as poor services are unlikely to be helped by the large-scale removal of funding.

2. The nature of protest is that it is an articulation of anger at a particular policy in this case, financial irresponsibility, and often stands opposed to the prevailing view at political level which, in this case, favours austerity. The protestors will not seek further austerity as they believe the reasons for its imposition are inherently unfair.

Predalien

Deleted User wrote: »

It might not create precedent but it would probably create a run on the remaining banks.

Why? Anglo is a very special case of banking lunacy, the government should have originally looked at what banks should have been rescued, Anglo was not one of the them. It is a failed company and should be treated as such, the government are perfectly able to continue the guarantee of the other banks without covering Anglo.

antoobrien

Danakin wrote: »

Delaying or at least reducing the level of deficit reduction until the ecnomy improves and the degree of aggregate demand has increased has long been the Keynesian ecnomic view.

The adjustment will have to come but it should be slow and incremental until there is a significant level of growth in the economy. Until then, the government runs deficits.

Your problem with the protestors not mentioning money spent on public services can be answered in 2 ways:

1. What you describe as poor services are unlikely to be helped by the large-scale removal of funding.

2. The nature of protest is that it is an articulation of anger at a particular policy in this case, financial irresponsibility, and often stands opposed to the prevailing view at political level which, in this case, favours austerity. The protestors will not seek further austerity as they believe the reasons for its imposition are inherently unfair.

what the protesters fail to understand is that the IMF were coming in anyways - the banks were merely the last straw.

We already had unsustainable spending before we also had to start funding the banks. That the change from buoyancy to austerity happened so sudden;y and at the same time that the banks got into trouble is a nice smokescreen for those who don't want to admit that we need fundamental change in how our services are provided.

Danakin

antoobrien wrote: »

what the protesters fail to understand is that the IMF were coming in anyways - the banks were merely the last straw.

We already had unsustainable spending before we also had to start funding the banks. That the change from buoyancy to austerity happened so sudden;y and at the same time that the banks got into trouble is a nice smokescreen for those who don't want to admit that we need fundamental change in how our services are provided.

The loan from the IMF/ECB/EU was multitudes of the approximately €8 billion deficit we had at the end of 2008.

An €8 billion deficit could well have been nationally sustainable or certainly sustainable if help came in the form of a bilateral loan from Britain or some combination of Britain and the EU.

The adjustment required from an €8 billion adjustment would be much easier to absorb than the adjustment required for the current debts which include the consequences of the absorbtion of the bank debt.

We may well have not needed the IMF.

antoobrien

Danakin wrote: »

The loan from the IMF/ECB/EU was multitudes of the approximately €8 billion deficit we had at the end of 2008.

The loan from the EU/IMF is for the banks and current spending until 2013.

The total package is for €85 billion, of which 35 billion is earmarked for the banks. The NPRF contributes €19 billion (of this €35 billion) - total bank borrowings are 16 billion.

The rest (that's €50 billion) is to cover the cost of not being able to borrow from the bond markes for the 3 year period between Kune 201 and june 2013 - when we are expected to be able to borrow from the open markets again.

Danakin

antoobrien wrote: »

The loan from the EU/IMF is for the banks and current spending until 2013.

The total package is for €85 billion, of which 35 billion is earmarked for the banks. The NPRF contributes €19 billion (of this €35 billion) - total bank borrowings are 16 billion.

The rest (that's €50 billion) is to cover the cost of not being able to borrow from the bond markes for the 3 year period between Kune 201 and june 2013 - when we are expected to be able to borrow from the open markets again.

Because we were shut out of the bond markets. Because with the bank debt subsumed into the deficit at the time, the markets decided our debt was not sustainable and raised the bond prices.

Without the bank debt being subsumed into the sovereign debt, we would still be in the bond markets.

antoobrien

Danakin wrote: »

Because we were shut out of the bond markets. Because with the bank debt subsumed into the deficit at the time, the markets decided our debt was not sustainable and raised the bond prices.

Without the bank debt being subsumed into the sovereign debt, we would still be in the bond markets.

Talk about deluded.

All these figures are availabe from the department of finance website, I suggest you take a good long look.

Since 2008 the we've put €15.67 billion into the banks. €10.65 billion of that was done this year.

Deficit in billions
2008 - 12.71
2009 - 24.64
2010 - 14.37
2011 - 22.17 (to 31/10)
That's a total of €73.89 billion in deficits over the past 4 budget years - of which the banks are responsible for the €15.67 billion I've already counted.

The IMF came in October/November 2010 - at 30/09/2010 the deficit was €13.37 billion.

Before the IMF came in we had piled a deficit of €50.72 billion - of which less than €5 billion is due to the banks.

Based on the fact that in less than 3 years we put an amount that nearly equals the entire tax take from 2007 (€47.25 billion - a record) onto the debt in budget deficits, do you really expect me to believe that they were not coming in anyways?

antoobrien

Danakin wrote: »

Because we were shut out of the bond markets. Because with the bank debt subsumed into the deficit at the time, the markets decided our debt was not sustainable and raised the bond prices.

Without the bank debt being subsumed into the sovereign debt, we would still be in the bond markets.

Talk about deluded.

All these figures are availabe from the department of finance website, I suggest you take a good long look.

Since 2008 the we've put €15.67 billion into the banks. €10.65 billion of that was done this year.

Deficit in billions
2008 - 12.71
2009 - 24.64
2010 - 14.37
2011 - 22.17 (to 31/10)
That's a total of €73.89 billion in deficits over the past 4 budget years - of which the banks are responsible for the €15.67 billion I've already counted.

The IMF came in October/November 2010 - at 30/09/2010 the deficit was €13.37 billion.

Before the IMF came in we had piled a deficit of €50.72 billion - of which less than €5 billion is due to the banks.

Based on the fact that in less than 3 years we put an amount that nearly equals the entire tax take from 2007 (€47.25 billion - a record) onto the debt in budget deficits, do you really expect me to believe that they were not coming in anyways?

Predalien

The Anglo bail-out in total will cost us €35b. We've paid nearly €11b to banks this year, next year the figure will be what? €20b? That simply isn't sustainable.

cheesemaker

Shakti wrote: »

the what?
If you have a revised list feel free to post it,

New list here

http://twitpic.com/79hhkh/full

edit: and

Scofflaw has..

rofl

Shakti

cheesemaker wrote: »

New list here

http://twitpic.com/79hhkh/full

edit: and

rofl

fair enough cheesemaker but isn't it essentially the same as the previous one only more comprehensive that is complete with figures and new name instead of 'anglo' its now called 'bank resolution corp.'?