Alan Dukes "God only knows what will happen if we don't pay bondholders"

Slideshowbob

Yes folks - that's what Al said on radio 1's drivetime this evening.

Is that good enough? Should he not have a rational answer!?!?

OMG

Scofflaw

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Yes folks - that's what Al said on radio 1's drivetime this evening.

Is that good enough? Should he not have a rational answer!?!?

OMG

It's exactly the same as saying "possibility of...market instability....contagion".

Or, to look at it another way, it's exactly true - nobody, but nobody, knows where all the wires come out, so pulling one at random when things are deeply unstable may not be the wisest plan.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sticky_Fingers

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's exactly the same as saying "possibility of...market instability....contagion".

cordially,
Scofflaw

It's a bit late for that, the whole Euro edifice is collapsing before our eyes so that particular threat no longer holds water. Contagion is here and has been for a long time, Italy is likely going to go next, major European banks at in dire straits and giving away nearly a billion of Irish taxpayers money is not going to make a wit of difference in the end.

Scofflaw

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

It's a bit late for that, the whole Euro edifice is collapsing before our eyes so that particular threat no longer holds water. Contagion is here and has been for a long time, Italy is likely going to go next, major European banks at in dire straits and giving away nearly a billion of Irish taxpayers money is not going to make a wit of difference in the end.

"Threat" implies something cooked up to keep us from doing it, as opposed to a reasonably predictable outcome that's better avoided, precisely because the eurosystem has not yet in fact collapsed but is undeniably unstable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

...are you actually claiming that as a unique insight of the Austrian school!?

highly entertained,
cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's exactly the same as saying "possibility of...market instability....contagion".

Or, to look at it another way, it's exactly true - nobody, but nobody, knows where all the wires come out, so pulling one at random when things are deeply unstable may not be the wisest plan.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That is not particularly credible in this particular instance.

Firstly, the unsecured senior debt that remains to be discharged in IBRT is a comparatively small amount by European banking standards.

Secondly, it would be relatively easy to impose haircuts on creditors of IBRT, as in the first place it is not a viable institution and in the second instance, it has no depositors. Under similar conditions, this has been done elsewhere in Europe without any trouble.

There is some risk to the sovereign, indeed, but as opposed as I am to widespread default of banking debt, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that such risk is quite over-stated.

People who really do oppose burdensharing in this case really need to make a better case for it.

Scofflaw

later10 wrote: »

That is not particularly credible in this particular instance.

Firstly, the unsecured senior debt that remains to be discharged in IBRT is a comparatively small amount by European banking standards.

Secondly, it would be relatively easy to impose haircuts on creditors of IBRT, as in the first place it is not a viable institution and in the second instance, it has no depositors. Under similar conditions, this has been done elsewhere in Europe without any trouble.

There is some risk to the sovereign, indeed, but as opposed as I am to widespread default of banking debt, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that such risk is quite over-stated.

People who really do oppose burdensharing in this case really need to make a better case for it.

To be honest, in this case, I'd say the danger relates more to perception than anything else. Pretty much everybody is in more or less full-on blue funk mode, and that "pretty much everybody" can be taken to include the markets, assuming one isn't one of the people who believe the markets are calmly and rationally assessing the situation using perfect information.

So here it's probably less that we don't know where the wire comes out, and more that being seen cutting any wire is likely to be greeted with shrill screams of panic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bannasidhe

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be honest, in this case, I'd say the danger relates more to perception than anything else. Pretty much everybody is in more or less full-on blue funk mode, and that "pretty much everybody" can be taken to include the markets, assuming one isn't one of the people who believe the markets are calmly and rationally assessing the situation using perfect information.

So here it's probably less that we don't know where the wire comes out, and more that being seen cutting any wire is likely to be greeted with shrill screams of panic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The blue one...no, the red one...no, it's the blue...or is it the red?...aw feck it...just cut the green one!

Given the panic over Greece, in European terms this is small potatoes and is really more about PR and Ireland being seen as a good place to do business - risk free guaranteed! Even if you lose, you can't lose as Paddy Powerless will still have to pay out.

Scofflaw

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The blue one...no, the red one...no, it's the blue...or is it the red?...aw feck it...just cut the green one!

Given the panic over Greece, in European terms this is small potatoes and is really more about PR and Ireland being seen as a good place to do business - risk free guaranteed! Even if you lose, you can't lose as Paddy Powerless will still have to pay out.

That's essentially it - it's a business decision that the government obviously thinks is best for Ireland Inc, while the ECB equally obviously thinks stability is absolutely necessary. To be fair, central bankers always think that - it's a millstone of reliability in a world gone mad, really.

As to the government making decisions that are geared towards making Ireland Inc look good, that's what people get if they decide that running Ireland like a business is the way to a better life. It's a little late to be complaining about it now*.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*note that this is purely rhetorical - complaints are obviously valid at any time, just not necessarily credible.

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be honest, in this case, I'd say the danger relates more to perception than anything else. Pretty much everybody is in more or less full-on blue funk mode, and that "pretty much everybody" can be taken to include the markets, assuming one isn't one of the people who believe the markets are calmly and rationally assessing the situation using perfect information.

So here it's probably less that we don't know where the wire comes out, and more that being seen cutting any wire is likely to be greeted with shrill screams of panic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm not quite convinced; that logic doesn't quite explain how other European banks have previously, during this crisis, been able to impose losses on senior bondholders of unviable and (at this stage) clearly non systemic banks.

Lets not also forget that it has been the Irish media making noise about this, the European and international media have been relatively quiet - I'm really not sure they're particularly interested in IBRT as it stands.

That sort of 'wire cutting' logic is also in danger of developing into a mindset where *any* course of action whatsoever is analogous to "cutting a wire". Sitting back and twiddling one's thumbs isn't exactly saving the patient if what is strapped to him is a time bomb.

To call this sort of burdensharing 'cutting a wire' without any evidence to that effect is little more than scare-mongering. The amounts are relatively tiny by Euro banking norms, and this has already happened inside some of the Euro's non viable banks where burning depositors was not an issue.

So what is the "God knows what" that Alan Dukes is referring to?

Scofflaw

That sort of 'wire cutting' logic is also in danger of developing into a mindset where *any* course of action whatsoever is analogous to "cutting a wire".

I don't know that exactly such a mindset hasn't developed. I take your points, though - there still seems to be a deep undercurrent that is either irrational or has some very confidential explanation. Mind you, PR still works as an explanation - "look, we're so OK that we can pay off even debts which we could probably avoid paying" - but in that case Dukes' comment is at best odd and at worst mendacious.

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

The PR argument has its merits. In fact, the biggest problem with the pro-default crowd (like any extremist group) is that they, time and time again refuse to acknowledge it.

They steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that there is *any* risk, instead of taking the far more reasonable position that there is indeed some risk, but probably not several hundred million's worth in this case.

IBRT's senior unsecured debt is a special case. It should not be exposed to the same sound logic as our insisting that the likes of viable banks like AIB and BOI meet all of their debts - unless IBRT fulfills some special and valuable purpose. Which it now clearly doesn't.

As a post script, what we should also take account of is that all over Europe, the perception of what it means to be a senior unsecured creditor has now changed enormously since 2009. It would be absurd to ignore the fact that markets are now pricing this changed perception into uncovered indentures on the secondary market.

Unfortunately, the governors of our banking and political institutions may be a little slow to take this fact, quite at odds with what they learned at university in the 1970s, fully on board.

Jaysoose

In all fairness what the feck would Alan Dukes know?

Crazy Horse 6

Jaysoose wrote: »

In all fairness what the feck would Alan Dukes know?

He knows how to get a big fat state pension and still pick up a job paying 200,000 a year from a bank that is broke. You honestly couldn't make it up.

headmaster

How come there's not much fuss in the media about Dukes getting his pensions and also working for the goverment, ie Anglo. We hear about teachers that were doing this, guards as well, but this person can keep taking huge payments from the people of Ireland, in pensions and job money and not a word about it, it's asking for trouble and quite frankly if that trouble comes, who can blame the people for wanting to lynch these money grabbers. I wonder if he still has his little problem with the bottle, same as Cowen. If he has, we're not hearing that either. Why the hell not? coming out with statements like he made yesterday might suggest he has gone well past his sell by date. What is this mans accumulated takings every week, between all his pensions and salaries. Can someone say? SURELY THIS IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST?

ei.sdraob

headmaster wrote: »

How come there's not much fuss in the media about Dukes getting his pensions and also working for the goverment, ie Anglo. We hear about teachers that were doing this, guards as well, but this person can keep taking huge payments from the people of Ireland, in pensions and job money and not a word about it, it's asking for trouble and quite frankly if that trouble comes, who can blame the people for wanting to lynch these money grabbers. I wonder if he still has his little problem with the bottle, same as Cowen. If he has, we're not hearing that either. Why the hell not? coming out with statements like he made yesterday might suggest he has gone well past his sell by date. What is this mans accumulated takings every week, between all his pensions and salaries. Can someone say? SURELY THIS IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST?

Sure he is only following the example of our dear leader president :rolleyes:

sbsquarepants

They make this shít up as they go along. Who in their right mind could expect UNsecured UNguaranteed bonds to be both secure and guaranteed? Does that sound like something a professional investor in these things would think? - I mean the clue is right there in the bloody name!
How they can even spout this bullshít and keep straight faces is beyond me. The whole thing is nonsense and without coming over all conspiracy theory - it smacks of a wealthy elite deciding they'd rather have our money than leave us with it, there is no other way to describe it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sleepy

later10 wrote: »

The PR argument has its merits. In fact, the biggest problem with the pro-default crowd (like any extremist group) is that they, time and time again refuse to acknowledge it.

They steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that there is *any* risk, instead of taking the far more reasonable position that there is indeed some risk, but probably not several hundred million's worth in this case.

So, you're saying they're as blind to risk as the evil bankers who created this mess with their risky lending?

jimmycrackcorm

At the end of the day all we have done is replace the bondholders money with ECB money. We've simply swapped creditors.

ebbsy

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

He knows how to get a big fat state pension and still pick up a job paying 200,000 a year from a bank that is broke. You honestly couldn't make it up.

Thats one of the best posts Ive ever read.

He is f**k all use for anything else.

flutered

headmaster wrote: »

How come there's not much fuss in the media about Dukes getting his pensions and also working for the goverment, ie Anglo. We hear about teachers that were doing this, guards as well, but this person can keep taking huge payments from the people of Ireland, in pensions and job money and not a word about it, it's asking for trouble and quite frankly if that trouble comes, who can blame the people for wanting to lynch these money grabbers. I wonder if he still has his little problem with the bottle, same as Cowen. If he has, we're not hearing that either. Why the hell not? coming out with statements like he made yesterday might suggest he has gone well past his sell by date. What is this mans accumulated takings every week, between all his pensions and salaries. Can someone say? SURELY THIS IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST?

believe it or not his pensions are deducted from his anglo wages.

moceri

Alan Dukes is a toady psychophant who fawns to his EU Paymasters. Interesting to see one of the Anglo Irish bond payees is GOLDMAN SACHS. I wonder if this was a deal agreed with his old FINE GAEL pal Peter Sutherland.

It is morally reprehensible what this Government is doing. I admire how the Greek PM stood up to Barosso, who was foaming like a Rabid Dog at a press conference in Cannes

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's essentially it - it's a business decision that the government obviously thinks is best for Ireland Inc, while the ECB equally obviously thinks stability is absolutely necessary. To be fair, central bankers always think that - it's a millstone of reliability in a world gone mad, really.

So Ireland Inc matters more than the Irish People themselves?
Bollocks.

As to the government making decisions that are geared towards making Ireland Inc look good, that's what people get if they decide that running Ireland like a business is the way to a better life. It's a little late to be complaining about it now.

Except we had a general election in February, and both parties assured us that bondholders mistakes would not be repayed in full. Check the Occupy Wall Street thread for the links, posted one or two days ago. Both FG AND Labour said they wouldn't do it.

Democratic accountability, anyone?

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So Ireland Inc matters more than the Irish People themselves?
Bollocks.

Except we had a general election in February, and both parties assured us that bondholders mistakes would not be repayed in full. Check the Occupy Wall Street thread for the links, posted one or two days ago. Both FG AND Labour said they wouldn't do it.

Democratic accountability, anyone?

Ireland Inc is what the people wanted and apparently still want. Fine Gael promised that they could give us an Ireland Inc with fewer debts, that's all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hangon

moceri wrote: »

Alan Dukes is a toady psychophant

Sure he is check out how selfish he was under Tallaght Statedgy.

Bannasidhe

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ireland Inc is what the people wanted and apparently still want. Fine Gael promised that they could give us an Ireland Inc with fewer debts, that's all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think they promised a bit more then that. Specific references were made in regard to bondholders:

Agreed Procedures for Restructuring the Debts of Troubled Banks: Fine Gael in Government will force certain classes of bond-holders to share in the cost of recapitalising troubled financial institutions. This will be done unilaterally for the most junior bondholders (owners of preference shares, sub-ordinated debt and similar instruments), but could be extended – as part of a European-wide framework – for senior debt, focusing on insolvent institutions like Anglo Irish and Irish Nationwide that have no systemic importance

Shutting Down Dead Banks: Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide have no further role to play in the Irish economy. A Fine Gael Government will wind up both institutions by the end of 2011, by transferring their remaining assets and deposits to other financial institutions or other asset recovery vehicles as appropriate. Further losses incurred in this process will be shared with remaining bondholders

http://www.finegael2011.com/pdf/Fine%20Gael%20Manifesto%20low-res.pdf

Scofflaw

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think they promised a bit more then that. Specific references were made in regard to bondholders:

True.

Fine Gael in Government will force certain classes of bond-holders to share in the cost of recapitalising troubled financial institutions. This will be done unilaterally for the most junior bondholders (owners of preference shares, sub-ordinated debt and similar instruments),

OK, that's been done.

but could be extended – as part of a European-wide framework – for senior debt, focusing on insolvent institutions like Anglo Irish and Irish Nationwide that have no systemic importance

There is no European-wide framework, though. This comes back to my earlier point about wanting to have our cake and eat it - that is, to both have a good reputation for paying our debts in full while not actually paying our debts in full. FG are saying there that they'll burn senior bondholders if we can do so without it being seen to be Ireland that does it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bannasidhe

Scofflaw wrote: »

. FG are saying there that they'll burn senior bondholders if we can do so without it being seen to be Ireland that does it.

Agree completely.

My point is that FG are not communicating effectively with the Irish electorate. Noonan expressed his disgust today and then proceeded to blame FF - who did indeed lock us into this arrangement - but this blame game tactic is wearing thin. People remember FG promised to burn bondholders, promised to renegotiate the IMF/ECB deal etc but what they see is a billion dollars being paid which many more effective communicators are insisting did not legally need to be paid, they see Greece being 'allowed' to write off 50% of it's debt while Ireland must pay all of ours. No-one in government is explaining why this is happening.

While FG are catering to a European audience - they are, I believe, loosing ground with the 'audience' that elected them. Should FG lose public confidence what is the alternative to form a government? Labour, I believe, are running a real risk of being contaminated in the same way the Greens were.

FG must be seen in a domestic context to be at least attempting to fulfill it's promises.

A little story - my father is 79, he has voted in every election since he was 18 and always voted FG. Yesterday he met Simon Coveney and berated the poor man for an hour over FG's 'false promises and blasted lies' - he told Coveney, and half of Carrigaline - earning a round of applause from passers by- that 'FG are no better then that other shower and we will destroy you too!'. Now this is from a life-long, fanatical Fine Gealer.

Scofflaw

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Agree completely.

My point is that FG are not communicating effectively with the Irish electorate. Noonan expressed his disgust today and then proceeded to blame FF - who did indeed lock us into this arrangement - but this blame game tactic is wearing thin. People remember FG promised to burn bondholders, promised to renegotiate the IMF/ECB deal etc but what they see is a billion dollars being paid which many more effective communicators are insisting did not legally need to be paid, they see Greece being 'allowed' to write off 50% of it's debt while Ireland must pay all of ours. No-one in government is explaining why this is happening.

While FG are catering to a European audience - they are, I believe, loosing ground with the 'audience' that elected them. Should FG lose public confidence what is the alternative to form a government? Labour, I believe, are running a real risk of being contaminated in the same way the Greens were.

FG must be seen in a domestic context to be at least attempting to fulfill it's promises.

A little story - my father is 79, he has voted in every election since he was 18 and always voted FG. Yesterday he met Simon Coveney and berated the poor man for an hour over FG's 'false promises and blasted lies' - he told Coveney, and half of Carrigaline - earning a round of applause from passers by- that 'FG are no better then that other shower and we will destroy you too!'. Now this is from a life-long, fanatical Fine Gealer.

The problem, I think, is that government and political press people rely on the old strategy of communicating via what they regard as authoritative channels - the mainstream newspapers and TV - and communicating in depth. Unfortunately, the public now lives in an information flood, and that strategy is far too narrow - the result of it is that someone sees the government's viewpoint in the one, maybe two, mainstream channel(s) they use, and they see the alternative viewpoint in maybe a dozen other places.

Width, not depth, is the key to modern communications, and that doesn't lend itself to lengthy expositions of complexity. They need to identify the key element - key sentence - of their position, and get it out in as many places as possible.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jimstir

It's like a great big "game" of Jenga. We could decide not to pay and see what happens

anymore

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Yes folks - that's what Al said on radio 1's drivetime this evening.

Is that good enough? Should he not have a rational answer!?!?

OMG

From my memory of a recent David McWilliam article, why would the markets panic if unseciured bondholders were treated as ..unsecured bondholders ?
Enda Kenny in the I Times today pointed out we had already paid € 94 out of € 97 billion of Anglo bonds, so why wouldnt the markets regard that as a very good record and a very small haircut ?

sbsquarepants

Scofflaw wrote: »

The problem, I think, is that government and political press people rely on the old strategy of communicating via what they regard as authoritative channels - the mainstream newspapers and TV - and communicating in depth. Unfortunately, the public now lives in an information flood, and that strategy is far too narrow - the result of it is that someone sees the government's viewpoint in the one, maybe two, mainstream channel(s) they use, and they see the alternative viewpoint in maybe a dozen other places.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with information channels, it's to do with honesty - or lack thereof. They made many populist promises to get elected and now in power, they don't have the stomach to implement them because enda and co simply haven't the bottle to stand up against sarkozy and merkel and say "this is what we were elected to do and this is what we are going to do, we are the irish governement, not some tiny division of the european government"
They are cowards, plain and simple.

Bannasidhe

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's got absolutely nothing to do with information channels, it's to do with honesty - or lack thereof. They made many populist promises to get elected and now in power, they don't have the stomach to implement them because enda and co simply haven't the bottle to stand up against sarkozy and merkel and say "this is what we were elected to do and this is what we are going to do, we are the irish governement, not some tiny division of the european government"
They are cowards, plain and simple.

Anecdotally there does seem to be a growing trend that believes Kenny, Noonan and co were all talking the macho talk here prior to the election and became yellow belly arse lickers once they arrived on the Continent to 'negotiate'.

sbsquarepants

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Anecdotally there does seem to be a growing trend that believes Kenny, Noonan and co were all talking the macho talk here prior to the election and became yellow belly arse lickers once they arrived on the Continent to 'negotiate'.

"Negotiate" is right. Bend over there Enda while we take turns negotiating you!
They're every bit as slimy and shameless as the shower of imbeciles they replaced. This is a change of government remember, a landslide result demanding change, and this is what we get?
We're fúcked. Totally and absolutely.
I actually heard that clown Spring on the radio yesterday saying that all bonds need to be paid as anglo is still a going concern! You couldn't make this shít up, i mean how much less of a going concern does that pile of toxic sludge have to be, before that man realises?

bbam

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or, to look at it another way, it's exactly true - nobody, but nobody, knows where all the wires come out, so pulling one at random when things are deeply unstable may not be the wisest plan.

I like that analagy..
The whole EU economy is like a huge game of Jenga.. One false move and kaboom, we just don't know what a false or clever move looks like.

Scofflaw

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Anecdotally there does seem to be a growing trend that believes Kenny, Noonan and co were all talking the macho talk here prior to the election and became yellow belly arse lickers once they arrived on the Continent to 'negotiate'.

That's because people have an incredibly simplistic attitude to very complex situations. Most people are really very bad negotiators, not least because they believe it's all about "having balls" and not compromising, which means that ninety-nine times out of a hundred all most people can negotiate is a lose-lose.

There's a reason why there's an enormous legal and mediation industry.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tayto lover

Alan Dukes is already on my list when The Revolution begins.
He is number 67.

Bannasidhe

tayto lover wrote: »

Alan Dukes is already on my list when The Revolution begins.
He is number 67.

Ya know Tayto Lover - we got off to a rocky start but you are starting to grow on me .

tayto lover

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ya know Tayto Lover - we got off to a rocky start but you are starting to grow on me .

You too
You will be a General in The Revolution. "General Bannasidhe of Cork" !!

storker

tayto lover wrote: »

Alan Dukes is already on my list when The Revolution begins.
He is number 67.

Care to publish the list?

Stork

tayto lover

storker wrote: »

Care to publish the list?

Stork

No but i ran out of playing cards a long time ago. Noonan is the Joker though.

hurler on de ditch

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

He knows how to get a big fat state pension and still pick up a job paying 200,000 a year from a bank that is broke. You honestly couldn't make it up.

100% right you could not make it up unreal ,its like fianna fail built de coffin and fine gael nailed the lid down,they(FINE GAEL)MAY as well enjoy this because the wont see government again for a very long time they are only a shower of lying bast;'ds

maninasia

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's because people have an incredibly simplistic attitude to very complex situations. Most people are really very bad negotiators, not least because they believe it's all about "having balls" and not compromising, which means that ninety-nine times out of a hundred all most people can negotiate is a lose-lose.

There's a reason why there's an enormous legal and mediation industry.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So if most people are very poor negotiators why not choose the people that are good negotiators? If you say you are going to negotiate prior to the election and then don't that makes you a liar and a fool and makes fools of the people that voted for you.

I don't really get your logic all through this thread. It's all about 'contagion', 'trust', we are talking about negotiating debts here. Money, bills! One off massive crippling 100 billion Euro plus debts! These are real numbers to be faced in the here and now, not lets take on this crippling debt and magically we will pay it back in the future and everybody says we are great , sure aren't the Irish a great lot. You say we need 'lawyers' and 'consultants'. Well sometimes they are handy. But what we really need are people with core convictions, with strong abilities and a willingness to get to grips with the situation instead of hiding behind circumstances or previous policies. Lead from the front.

Do you mean nobody will loan to us if we selectively default on some debts? Very unlikely don't you think? It simply wouldn't make any sense for creditors to push Ireland Inc to a full scale default situation, they would get a Greek haircut in the end. At the same time if you mean contagion just look at the whole teetering edifice of the eurozone right now. It's going to fall one way or the other. Unlike the Greeks we've just paid the full whack for a burning house.

sbsquarepants

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's because people have an incredibly simplistic attitude to very complex situations. Most people are really very bad negotiators, not least because they believe it's all about "having balls" and not compromising, which means that ninety-nine times out of a hundred all most people can negotiate is a lose-lose.

There's a reason why there's an enormous legal and mediation industry.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That reason is usually money. Sometimes situations really are black and white, all the shades of grey are added to justify peoples wages.
There is nothing complicated about a gamble going pear shaped, gamblers are aware of this. They price in a premium for this risk, it's a bit much to then cry foul and claim you didn't know there was any risk involved! Why were they charging a premium then? Why do bond yields rise and fall? Because of risk. Risk, is by definition, eh....risky!

Scofflaw

maninasia wrote: »

So if most people are very poor negotiators why not choose the people that are good negotiators? If you say you are going to negotiate prior to the election and then don't that makes you a liar and a fool and makes fools of the people that voted for you.

I don't really get your logic all through this thread. It's all about 'contagion', 'trust', we are talking about negotiating debts here. Money, bills! One off massive crippling 100 billion Euro plus debts! These are real numbers to be faced in the here and now, not lets take on this crippling debt and magically we will pay it back in the future and everybody says we are great , sure aren't the Irish a great lot. You say we need 'lawyers' and 'consultants'. Well sometimes they are handy. But what we really need are people with core convictions, with strong abilities and a willingness to get to grips with the situation instead of hiding behind circumstances or previous policies. Lead from the front.

Do you mean nobody will loan to us if we selectively default on some debts? Very unlikely don't you think? It simply wouldn't make any sense for creditors to push Ireland Inc to a full scale default situation, they would get a Greek haircut in the end. At the same time if you mean contagion just look at the whole teetering edifice of the eurozone right now. It's going to fall one way or the other. Unlike the Greeks we've just paid the full whack for a burning house.

I think you've managed to comprehensively misunderstand everything I said there.

sbsquarepants wrote:

That reason is usually money. Sometimes situations really are black and white, all the shades of grey are added to justify peoples wages.
There is nothing complicated about a gamble going pear shaped, gamblers are aware of this. They price in a premium for this risk, it's a bit much to then cry foul and claim you didn't know there was any risk involved! Why were they charging a premium then? Why do bond yields rise and fall? Because of risk. Risk, is by definition, eh....risky!

And pricing risk isn't gambling, even though gambling is risky.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sbsquarepants

Scofflaw wrote: »

And pricing risk isn't gambling, even though gambling is risky.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You've made my point for me there.
It isn't, but it's supposed to be. If there's no risk, why do we pay for risk? If we pay for risk, why is there no risk? The whole system of capitalism is being skewed to make billionaires of people who should be paupers, if they played by the very rules they themselves invented. It's ridiculous.
And what's more it's wrong, plainly, logically and morally wrong.

Joshua Jones

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You've made my point for me there.
It isn't, but it's supposed to be. If there's no risk, why do we pay for risk? If we pay for risk, why is there no risk? The whole system of capitalism is being skewed to make billionaires of people who should be paupers, if they played by the very rules they themselves invented. It's ridiculous.
And what's more it's wrong, plainly, logically and morally wrong.

Exactly. It seems people dont want to admit the obvious and find complex paths to what is a simple problem.

Our leaders and those that control the economic system are greedy criminals.

swampgas

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You've made my point for me there.
It isn't, but it's supposed to be. If there's no risk, why do we pay for risk? If we pay for risk, why is there no risk? The whole system of capitalism is being skewed to make billionaires of people who should be paupers, if they played by the very rules they themselves invented. It's ridiculous.
And what's more it's wrong, plainly, logically and morally wrong.

Anyone who held Anglo shares was wiped out - legally. So there was real risk there.

The bond-holders who lent to Anglo could also have lost money, as at the time time the loan was made, there was a small but real risk that Anglo could be wound up at some future time. The fact that the Irish government in its wisdom decided not to wind up Anglo but instead cover all of its liabilities doesn't change the fact that there was real risk when the bonds were sold.

If we want to burn the bold-holders, all we have to do is wind up Anglo. To try to do otherwise is trying to re-write legal contracts to suit ourselves because we don't like our position. (Open to correction here!)

Scofflaw

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You've made my point for me there.
It isn't, but it's supposed to be. If there's no risk, why do we pay for risk? If we pay for risk, why is there no risk? The whole system of capitalism is being skewed to make billionaires of people who should be paupers, if they played by the very rules they themselves invented. It's ridiculous.
And what's more it's wrong, plainly, logically and morally wrong.

There are moral arguments for rejecting the legal agreement entered into, none of which are being put forward here - perhaps, to be fair, because they're relatively obvious and we all agree them.

What is being done instead is to try to claim that the argument against doing so simply doesn't exist, and that's completely false. Swampgas has it neatly summarised:

If we want to burn the bold-holders, all we have to do is wind up Anglo. To try to do otherwise is trying to re-write legal contracts to suit ourselves because we don't like our position.

The government hasn't wound Anglo up. The government doesn't want to wind Anglo up, in the short term, because it's likely to cost more that way. And until we wind Anglo up, Anglo's debts are legally debts, legally acquired. The argument for paying them is, quite simply, that not doing so is illegal, and if the government acts illegally, it will face the bondholders in court, and the bondholders will win.

And yes, what people are calling for is to rewrite legal contracts because we don't like them. All the pejorative terms like "gamblers" mean nothing, because the contracts are legal. I may not like the position either, but unless there's a legal way out then the government should uphold the legal contracts it entered into, because the government should act legally. I'm not asking that anyone should like it, but it's the answer to the question as to why we should pay them.

cordially,
Scofflaw