"Irish were gripped by Greed" says Head of Credit Suisse

thebman

Cian92 wrote: »

I don't understand why people argue for debt forgiveness. It will be us the tax payer who has to pick up the tab for debt forgiveness essentially. People took out loans and mortgages the terms and conditions were there they knew exactly what they were getting into. Now it is there obligation to continue making repayments.

If they get debt forgiveness, the banks will just make larger losses and require more government help.

The banks are very good here when it comes to people having difficulty repaying their mortgages, repossession rates are very low in Ireland in comparison to the UK or the USA.

Debt forgiveness is the incorrect term, restructure the payments so people have more disposable income at the end of each month, can contribute to the economy which will generate jobs in the long run is what needs to happen.

A lot of people are paralysed out of the economy and living month to month. Many of the rest fear for their jobs/more taxes so are saving everything they can at the moment. Government needs to adopt policies to encourage consumer spending as this will help create jobs.

The constant kite flying at budget time stops this and they really should announce the big tax increase items for the next few years so people have a reasonable idea of where they stand.

Whiskeyjack

padma wrote: »

The Irish, so called greedy gave the most money per head of capita to developing countries who experienced the worst natural and man made disasters over that period. Fact. greed is one thing, generosity is it's opposite and Ireland and it's people are very generous.

I think the greed being discussed here is a logical rather than ethical one. Yes the irish have a stellar track record when it comes to money donated to developing countries. But in domestic economic terms the reckless spending and borrowing by a majority of families was greedy behaviour, and contributed to our downfall.

ssaye

How many years of austerity budgets are likely? Until 2020, 2025, longer What is the general consensus and would people expect each one to be about 3 Billion each year.

antoobrien

ssaye wrote: »

How many years of austerity budgets are likely? Until 2020, 2025, longer What is the general consensus and would people expect each one to be about 3 Billion each year.

I suggest you take a read of the thread that's actually discussing the issue

Gurgle

Whiskeyjack wrote: »

the reckless spending and borrowing by a majority of families was greedy behaviour, and contributed to our downfall.

Once again, is there any evidence to support this claim?

1. That personal / household debt represents a significant proportion of bad loans
2. That the 'majority' have failed to pay their debts

The banks fell, the construction industry fell. The government have done nothing about either problem except to throw our money at them, in the form of bank bailouts for the first and the dole for the second.

This is what has got us into this mess, not extravagant lifestyles and personal debt.

In cases where people borrowed and are now making their payments, that's good for the banks as these are performing loans.

ssaye wrote:

How many years of austerity budgets are likely?

Until the books are close to balanced.

Either we continue in recession with 400k people on the dole, so they keep taxing the surviving earners more and more, or a global turn-around allows some / most / all of those 400k people to get jobs increasing the tax take and reducing the amount needed for the dole.

Most likely the two will meet in the middle sometime in the next decade.

Scortho

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I cannot understand the part I highlighted becaus if I read it as is you are saying that large builders/developers were not pushing up prices by hoarding.

What was wrong with doing this? It was a free market and people were more than willing to pay the market price for the property.
They did nothing illegal in doing this. Or is it wrong for them to want to make money.

I know two developers who kept properties in their developments to rent them out as it was part of their pension as they're self employed.

Gurgle

Scortho wrote: »

What was wrong with doing this? It was a free market and people were more than willing to pay the market price for the property. They did nothing illegal in doing this.

Agreed, it was neither the building companies' nor the banks' job to regulate the market. Businesses are there to make money, and when market conditions are groomed for inflated prices of course they'll sell at inflated prices.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Whiskeyjack

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's irresponsible to just blame central bankers and shrug off all resoponsibilty on our part. Our own economic ignorance which (debatably I admit) was compounded by materialism should still serve as a warning.

Duggys Housemate

Whiskeyjack wrote: »

It's irresponsible to just blame central bankers and shrug off all resoponsibilty on our part. Our own economic ignorance which (debatably I admit) was compounded by materialism should still serve as a warning.

People tend not to be experts.

later12

At a certain point, you just have to shrug.

This thread is overflowing with subjective, morally haughty terms like 'greedy', 'foolish', 'stupidity', 'ordinary punters', with emotional references to holidaymaking social welfare recipients and 'hardworking' Germans.

In terms of understanding the Irish property boom from an objective standpoint, these terms are not conducive to a serious analysis, so much as barstool indignation, to be indulged whilst sipping a gin & tonic & clutching a handbag.

I'm not convinced of the importance such references in an economics context, and I doubt it was one of the more central points being made by O'Sullivan who, by the way, is not the Head of Credit Suisse.

Drumpot

Whiskeyjack wrote: »

It's irresponsible to just blame central bankers and shrug off all resoponsibilty on our part. Our own economic ignorance which (debatably I admit) was compounded by materialism should still serve as a warning.

Most people are taking responsibility for their debts. "Debt forgiveness" doesnt exists in capitalism, bad debts exist. This phrase has been used simply to get people angry at the wrong people (people who have loans) and take the focus off the lenders. Because the banks were bought by the state, people have gotten very sensitive about any debts not repaid. While understandable its a hypocritical stance because most people dont care if large private institutions like banks get shafted if it only effects shareholders, but then have the take a moral high ground when its the taxpayer footing the bill.

How is our former regulator doing ? How are the civil servants who advised on how our economy should be run during the boom doing ? Have they been held responsible for the decisions and strategies they made?

Proportionatley the Irish Taxpayer has taken the brunt of the economic collapse and individuals who played huge roles in decisions made (or not made) at the top have been simply allowed to dissapear/retire. People who have debts have been doubly punished, not just for taking out loans/mortgages but for debts that banks have had to write off and forced on the Irish Taxpayer.

alphabeat

a country suppressed , repressed and poor for hundred of years

is faclilitated by a stupid and near traitorous irish and EU government and absolutley traitorus banking sector
to supply ready cash to anyone with an account

they talked it up and facilitated the financial destruction of the state and its people

what did they expect peoople to do ?

you put a poor man in a rich buffet hes gonna gorge .

the blame sits firmly with the EU and irish Gov for not regulating and controlling it .

its almost as if they wanted it to happen to gain more control over everything ....


the people are not at fault , and its laughable that the people are being blamed .

the gov were fully behind all of this and either too stupid or had a higher agenda to bother damping it down.


TLDR / longtime poor country gets rich , goes mad , gets poor again cos the idiots at the top let it happen .

the only thing the people are guilty off is voting in a bunch of sh1tbags each time who made sure they would balls it up in the end.

Black Smoke

Lecture from Credit Suisse about greed and profligacy:D:D:D

Let's have a look at the record of Credit Suisse http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2012-06-07/can-credit-suisse-solve-its-chronic-cost-problem

Nuf said:cool:

Jaysoose

Black Smoke wrote: »

Lecture from Credit Suisse about greed and profligacy:D:D:D

Let's have a look at the record of Credit Suisse http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2012-06-07/can-credit-suisse-solve-its-chronic-cost-problem

Nuf said:cool:

Whats this got to do with anything? the record of credit suisse is public knowledge and this man is in a much better position to comment then 99.99% of the armchair economists knocking around these boards.

Duggys Housemate

Jaysoose wrote: »

Whats this got to do with anything? the record of credit suisse is public knowledge and this man is in a much better position to comment then 99.99% of the armchair economists knocking around these boards.

As an expert in greed, perhaps.

Scofflaw

Black Smoke wrote: »

Lecture from Credit Suisse about greed and profligacy:D:D:D

Let's have a look at the record of Credit Suisse http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2012-06-07/can-credit-suisse-solve-its-chronic-cost-problem

Nuf said:cool:

That's a classic example of an ad hominem, right there - it should be framed, perhaps! Credit Suisse may well be greedy, but since their own greed has nothing to do with whether Irish people were greedy, their record is completely irrelevant.

When someone shoots the messenger rather than refuting the message, the obvious conclusion is that the person can't refute the message.

amused,
Scofflaw

Black Smoke

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's a classic example of an ad hominem, right there - it should be framed, perhaps! Credit Suisse may well be greedy, but since their own greed has nothing to do with whether Irish people were greedy, their record is completely irrelevant.

When someone shoots the messenger rather than refuting the message, the obvious conclusion is that the person can't refute the message.

amused,
Scofflaw

Dear Scofflaw,

The point I was making, is that in all the background noise, about who was wrong, and who was greedy, and who was careless, and who was profligate during the boom, there is hardly a single politician, economist or banking / financial entity with clean hands.
It's a bit rich, in my opinion to have any manager / banker, in Credit Suisse come here and deliver (a truthful statement) about our foolishness and profligacy, without admitting to their own.
Bankers and investment managers the world, with only a few exceptions, have proven themselves to be nothing more than brigands, and greedy bstards, over the longest time.
By the way, that includes the upper echelons of Deutsche Bank as well. They have Frau Merkel, and Herr Schaueble to thank for seving their asses from the preverbial bacon slicer.
If the PIIGS merrily borrowed, the Credit Suisses and Deutsche Banks, happily lent.
So in my mind, lectures from those quarters, should be delivered with a bit of "mea culpa", on their own belhaf!

Not so amused
B Smoke

antoobrien

Black Smoke wrote: »

Dear Scofflaw,

The point I was making, is that in all the background noise, about who was wrong, and who was greedy, and who was careless, and who was profligate during the boom, there is hardly a single politician, economist or banking / financial entity with clean hands.
It's a bit rich, in my opinion to have any manager / banker, in Credit Suisse come here and deliver (a truthful statement) about our foolishness and profligacy, without admitting to their own.
Bankers and investment managers the world, with only a few exceptions, have proven themselves to be nothing more than brigands, and greedy bstards, over the longest time.
By the way, that includes the upper echelons of Deutsche Bank as well. They have Frau Merkel, and Herr Schaueble to thank for seving their asses from the preverbial bacon slicer.
If the PIIGS merrily borrowed, the Credit Suisses and Deutsche Banks, happily lent.
So in my mind, lectures from those quarters, should be delivered with a bit of "mea culpa", on their own belhaf!

Not so amused
B Smoke

As you and other posters have pointed out their record is indeed a public one, so it's not like they need to keep flogging themselves over it in public.

Besides, as has been pointed out in a few threads the Eurozone banks (Deutsche et al) were not the ones pumping money into Ireland through bonds throughout the credit bubble, it was institutions from outside of the eurozone.

Take a look at this table, compiled form Irish Central bank figures to see where the money held in all banks operating in Ireland was sourced over the past 10 or so years.

I suggest you pay particular attention to the level of deposits from Irish residents and compare it to the various categories of bonds, you'll find that the levels of deposits were almost three times higher than the total bonds.

Scofflaw

Black Smoke wrote: »

Dear Scofflaw,

The point I was making, is that in all the background noise, about who was wrong, and who was greedy, and who was careless, and who was profligate during the boom, there is hardly a single politician, economist or banking / financial entity with clean hands.
It's a bit rich, in my opinion to have any manager / banker, in Credit Suisse come here and deliver (a truthful statement) about our foolishness and profligacy, without admitting to their own.
Bankers and investment managers the world, with only a few exceptions, have proven themselves to be nothing more than brigands, and greedy bstards, over the longest time.
By the way, that includes the upper echelons of Deutsche Bank as well. They have Frau Merkel, and Herr Schaueble to thank for seving their asses from the preverbial bacon slicer.
If the PIIGS merrily borrowed, the Credit Suisses and Deutsche Banks, happily lent.
So in my mind, lectures from those quarters, should be delivered with a bit of "mea culpa", on their own belhaf!

Not so amused
B Smoke

There's some truth in that, but unfortunately, the "greedy banks" notion applies first and foremost, again, to Irish banks. People like to claim that the eurozone's banks were heavily involved in the Irish boom, but nobody has ever backed up the claim - the "evidence" cited by journalists for such involvement is actually evidence only of the size of their involvement in the IFSC. The source of Irish bank funding is most probably the US and UK markets, which is where they have traditionally done their business.

More generally, the Irish banks borrowed money short term on the wholesale markets to lend into the Irish market on the one hand, and sourced deposits - the far larger source of bank funding - primarily from Ireland (c 50% of all deposits), the UK, the US, Switzerland, and the UK's various offshore islands. None of those sources can meaningfully be considered as having "lent into" the Irish boom as the popular story has it - the wholesale markets bought Irish bank bonds because they were high-rated securities, while the deposits were attracted to Anglo by good "wealth management", and to the other banks in the normal course of high street banking.

To put that in a nutshell, probably nearly all of what you believe to have been the case about the Irish banks is factually incorrect - and even if it weren't, it wouldn't change the fact that the whole chain had to be pulled by spending at the Irish end, by the Irish public. Whether that spending was greed or not is a moral question, but it's not possible to force credit into unwilling hands.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

At a certain point, you just have to shrug.

This thread is overflowing with subjective, morally haughty terms like 'greedy', 'foolish', 'stupidity', 'ordinary punters', with emotional references to holidaymaking social welfare recipients and 'hardworking' Germans.

In terms of understanding the Irish property boom from an objective standpoint, these terms are not conducive to a serious analysis, so much as barstool indignation, to be indulged whilst sipping a gin & tonic & clutching a handbag.

I'm not convinced of the importance such references in an economics context, and I doubt it was one of the more central points being made by O'Sullivan who, by the way, is not the Head of Credit Suisse.

Unfortunately, those are the terms in which most of the debate is conducted, because the majority of people are interested primarily in moral outcomes and inputs rather than pragmatic ones. On balance, that's a good thing, however annoying it may sometimes be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

partyguinness

Whiskeyjack wrote: »

It's irresponsible to just blame central bankers and shrug off all resoponsibilty on our part. Our own economic ignorance which (debatably I admit) was compounded by materialism should still serve as a warning.

I cannot agree with that. The central bankers, department of finance etc etc were paid (very well) to protect us from our "economic ignorance" as you put it.

That was their job and they did not do a very good job of it.

Duggys Housemate

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, those are the terms in which most of the debate is conducted, because the majority of people are interested primarily in moral outcomes and inputs rather than pragmatic ones. On balance, that's a good thing, however annoying it may sometimes be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The debate is about greed. As per the thread title

Duggys Housemate

by the way, the ad hominem is a bad argument but an understandable one. Imagine this headline.

Irish were gripped by sexual promiscuousness says head of Europe's largest brothel, and maintainer of a 100 person harem.


Mr Johnny Stringfella -owner of Big Brothel limited - said today that during the recent sexual revolution the Irish were gripped by lack of sexual restraint and lust, increasing the number of partners per person from 1 - 2.1 per lifetime.

"This kinda stuff is going to increase the trajectory of sexual diseases, opined Stringfella - looking exhausted from a night in his town based Harem - " the mathematics of it are certain. Irish people need more restraint".



Nothing my invented harem owner has said is wrong, but it would expecting too much of humanity to ignore the morals of the person who is making it. Same with money.

antoobrien

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

by the way, the ad hominem is a bad argument but an understandable one. Imagine this headline.

Irish were gripped by sexual promiscuousness says head of Europe's largest brothel, and maintainer of a 100 person harem.

The contrary argument being that one didn't have to take the services of either the notional brothel or the real banks, but by god did we fill our boots lads while the going was good.

An now, we'll we're trying to blame everybody else.

Scofflaw

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

by the way, the ad hominem is a bad argument but an understandable one. Imagine this headline.

Irish were gripped by sexual promiscuousness says head of Europe's largest brothel, and maintainer of a 100 person harem.


Mr Johnny Stringfella -owner of Big Brothel limited - said today that during the recent sexual revolution the Irish were gripped by lack of sexual restraint and lust, increasing the number of partners per person from 1 - 2.1 per lifetime.

"This kinda stuff is going to increase the trajectory of sexual diseases, opined Stringfella - looking exhausted from a night in his town based Harem - " the mathematics of it are certain. Irish people need more restraint".



Nothing my invented harem owner has said is wrong, but it would expecting too much of humanity to ignore the morals of the person who is making it. Same with money.

Oh, it's understandable, certainly - after all, the only reason ad hominem attacks remain part of debate is that they work. But as your imaginary example demonstrates quite nicely, they don't actually contradict what is being said - one might in your example derive some entertainment laughing about the morals of the messenger, but if he had his facts right, no amount of such laughter would alter that.

In the case of the Irish property bubble, the facts are fairly straightforward - the Irish public hoovered up vast quantities of credit which they devoted to buying property. Whether one chooses to ascribe that to greed or not, and whether the Irish public was tempted by low interest rates, loose lending policies, or gripped by a national hysteria, it remains the case that the Irish public provided the suction by which money was pulled through the guaranteed banks - it wasn't pushed through from the other end.

cordially,
Scofflaw