42% of entire Euro zone crisis paid for by Ireland according to Eurostat

Poster Boy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Hang on. Are you saying that if all the banks failed, we could have dealt with it by printing money and handing it out?

It would not be my preferred option. However neither is theft. If it were such a Hobson's Choice, the former could potentially be a better option than the latter.

However we never had that national dialogue as it was effectively suppressed, and most Irish citizens are regrettably misinformed, believing that "the money comes from Europe". It doesn't. Ultimately, if they had the decision, it may well be the case that most people may prefer less confrontation with the EU, and not opt for the latter option.

However, without the correct information, they never had the choice.

Which kind of neatly brings me back to my second question of my OP; I have not seen any report by the citizen-funded broadcaster, RTÉ, informing the public of this latest revelation that Ireland is paying 42% of the entire Euro banking crisis. Seems RTÉ is maintaining the same standards that deprived the Irish people from finding out the IMF were in town, until they saw it reported elsewhere. Shame on RTÉ.

Chips Lovell

Biggins wrote: »

Anyone with any insightfulness can possibly see RTE ALWAYS kisses ass to the government of the day.
They don't wish to bit the hand thats feeding it, our money also!

Or maybe, just maybe, instead of a conspiracy theory, it's the fact that the bill for our banking bailout has been published many, many times before and they didn't judge it significant?

noodler

On the issue of which banks.

Anglo and INBS together have cost about 34bn euro, more than half of the total bailout cost.

They had little real impact on the economy (INBS had about 2bn of residential mortgages compared to 8-10bn of commercial loans), lack of High Street presence, ATMS etc etc etc.

I am being ultra simplistic and it is certainly easier to say this now that we know (or hopefully know) the full cost of the bank bailout but I'd definitely have seen very good reason for keeping BoI, AIB, EBS, PTSB afloat.

The problem seems to be we didn't have a mechanism whereby bondholder (and probably depositors) lost out and then the Government takes over. Instead we seem to have guaranteed under false pretenses completely unaware of the scale and then, once aware of the scale, were too afraid to act for all the usual reasons.

If we cut cut the bank bailout in half right now I would jump at it. It might sound defeatist to some but if the cost of this has to be borne by Euro Zone citizens (rather than already paid bondholders) then the State's share of the blame would seem to indicate that we don't get off scot-free.

Chips Lovell

Poster Boy wrote: »

It would not be my preferred option. However neither is theft. If it were such a Hobson's Choice, the former could potentially be a better option than the latter.

It doesn't matter whether you think its theft or not. We can't simply create money in that fashion.

Fratton Fred

Poster Boy wrote: »

For the investor who was unfortunate enough to make an bad investment, whether by being misled or bad luck, it is a case of moving on. I haven't gone into a German bank with a gun looking for my money back , and I wouldn't expect them either to that to our government.

Yet that is what they did, so obviously the old rule book doesn't apply anymore. If the old rule book doesn't apply, I don't see why I should accept new rules made by others which are deliberately designed to cost me through theft.

As to the old "money in the ATMs" chestnut, in my opinion that is up there with the "We" people concept. In my opinion, these incorrect notions are distracting people to the effect where they are allowing them dictate their lives. I regard this as nothing other than "social control", based on what Hitler would have described as "The Big Lie" - say it often and loud enough, and people believe it.

As I already set out, in my opinion the "We" decided narrative is false - and equally the "ATMs will run out" idiom is also without substance. Please let me explain:

1. ATMs are supplied with Euro currency.

2. Each member state prints its own Euro currency.

3. In Ireland, the Euro currency is printed in the mint at Sandyford, where previously all our currency was printed.

4. In the event of private banks failing, this would have no impact on the ability of the Irish mint to continue printing currency.

5. In the instance of ATMs failing, temporary measures would be taken in order to overcome the difficulty. It is not pleasant, but it is doable. In Ireland we are "fortunate" enough to recently have experienced an unintended practice run for such a scenario, with the recent failure of Ulster Bank. The country did not collapse.

Regarding asset seizure by any particularly persistent investor, as one poster has already stated, if the ECB want to seize an acre of land outside Longford - let them.

you are looking at this too simply.

other banks, markets, etc didn't "Invest" in Irish banks, they lent them money so they could lend it to people to buy homes, developers etc. it isn't a case of oh well, tough, you lost your money, it is a case of err, we lent you a load of money, we want it back.

but once these guys have their finer's burnt, they will stop lending money to the banks. if a bank can't borrow money, it can't lend any and it can't give money to anyone.

Banks don't just print money to put in to cash machines, they have to buy it from the central bank. if they have no money, they can't buy it and put it in to ATMs. The Ulsterbank scenario is completely different, Ulsterbank had cash, it has lots thanks to the British tax payer. It's system's were broken.

Poster Boy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Or maybe, just maybe, instead of a conspiracy theory, it's the fact that the bill for our banking bailout has been published many, many times before and they didn't judge it significant?

If RTÉ cannot see the news value to the new revelation from Eurostat that Ireland is being forced to pay 42% of the entire Euro crisis, they should step away from any pretense of reporting "news".

With due respect VK, I really hope you do not work in a news room.

Biggins

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Or maybe, just maybe, instead of a conspiracy theory, it's the fact that the bill for our banking bailout has been published many, many times before and they didn't judge it significant?

Aaa... ok!

Poster Boy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether you think its theft or not. We can't simply create money in that fashion.

Why not?

For too long we have been blinkered in this country to accept flawed orthodoxies from leaders who were not our betters.

What is needed now is to consider all options - including ones that may not work out on further examination.

However we must have that examination process first.

noodler

Poster Boy wrote: »

If RTÉ cannot see the news value to the new revelation from Eurostat that Ireland is being forced to pay 42% of the entire Euro crisis, they should step away from any pretense of reporting "news".

With due respect VK, I really hope you do not work in a news room.

I really don't agree with how you and Michael Taft word that though.

I have never seen extremely reliable figures stating which countries banks directly benefitted from Ireland bailing out its banks.

A bond or a deposit can be held by all kinds of institutions. I mean a German pension fund could have invested in Anglo, a Dutch sovereign welath fund may have placed deposits with INBS etc etc.

For the majority of Euro Zone countries I doubt (although cannot explicitly prove unless somebody has figures I have not seen) that every Euro Zone country had their banks benefit directly from Irish bailout funds.

Now the indirect benefits I think we can safely argue. Whether they told us to do it or not, every single banking system and Government in the Euro Zone would surely have suffered some contagion/consequences/adverse reaction whatever...if we had made an early decision not to pay bondholders.

Poster Boy wrote: »

Why not?

The short version is because we are in a monetary union.

Chips Lovell

Poster Boy wrote: »

If RTÉ cannot see the news value to the new revelation from Eurostat that Ireland is being forced to pay 42% of the entire Euro crisis, they should step away from any pretense of reporting "news"

Because as I've pointed out before, the bill for bailing out the banks is common knowledge. It's hardly like its being covered up.

All this statistic represents is how much of the European banking bailouts came out of general government debt.

So, as I mentioned already, the €20 billion we put into the banks from the NPRF isn't factored in.

Similarly, as pointed out here and here, most of the bailout costs for Germany and the UK aren't factored in, since they didn't come out of general government debt either. For example, the €100 billion Germany put into Hypo, and the €30 billion it put into Bayern aren't there either.

To sum up, they're stats on something we knew already and not representative of the total cost of banking bailouts to EU governments.

Chips Lovell

Poster Boy wrote: »

Why not?

Well we'd have to leave the Eurozone for a start and then have to deal with the massive inflationary consequences of doling out billions in free money to everyone.

Poster Boy

noodler wrote: »

I really don't agree with how you and Michael Taft word that though.

I have never seen extremely reliable figures stating which countries banks directly benefitted from Ireland bailing out its banks.

A bond or a deposit can be held by all kinds of institutions. I mean a German pension fund could have invested in Anglo, a Dutch sovereign welath fund may have placed deposits with INBS etc etc.

For the majority of Euro Zone countries I doubt (although cannot explicitly prove unless somebody has figures I have not seen) that every Euro Zone country had their banks benefit directly from Irish bailout funds.

Now the indirect benefits I think we can safely argue. Whether they told us to do it or not, every single banking system and Government in the Euro Zone would surely have suffered some contagion/consequences/adverse reaction whatever...if we had made an early decision not to pay bondholders.

Fair enough, you may not agree with me as to the cost, but I am basing it simply on Eurostat.

However, if we are to take your assertion as to the lack of "extremely reliable figures", then let's consider it's logical conclusion which is this:

Without having reliable figures, the leaders of the Irish people are allowing them to be plundered for 10s of billions of euro in order to cover a very, very, large part of the entire non-transparent Euro zone crisis.

I am not sure this logical conclusion of argument reflects any better on the current leadership than previous criticisms arising from the analysis that there are identifiable figures.

A bloody awful job is being done, no matter what way you look at it.

squod

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Well we'd have to leave the Eurozone for a start and then have to deal with the massive inflationary consequences of doling out billions in free money to everyone.

We couldn't. We don't have reserves, therefore we can have no currency AFAIK. So, we'd borrow sterling (thank you very much) at some huge rate of interest in an unsustainable fashion. Much like what we're doing already.

So........... borrow Euros and prop up shaggin' banks or herd them all into the sea and use English money?

Chips Lovell

We could have a currency, it would just be worthless if we did it.

gallag

Hey guys, I just bet on the gee gees with the irish owned paddy power and lost, could yous borrow some money and give me back the cash I lost? If yous do enda will get top European awarde and we will think yous are a great bunch of lads.

P.s sterling plz, non of that funny ****.

Poster Boy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Well we'd have to leave the Eurozone for a start and then have to deal with the massive inflationary consequences of doling out billions in free money to everyone.

"Free money". Please allow me to also include in my drawer of misleading terms of despair, along with the other canards of the "ATMs will run out" and "We" decided.

There would be no "free money".

Payments out and in would continue in line with normal standard legal obligations.

As I'm sure you know already, for the most part money is now longer based on the gold standard.

If the ECB/EU conspires to take money away from us, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that we should be willing to print more money - the need for which arises out of theft in the first instance.

Alternatively, if the ECB/EU wishes to continue having any credibility, they should avoid pursuing a process of collective guilt being fixed onto the largely innocent civilians of one small nation.

Failing that they must respect that we will act in accordance with our own needs as priority.

It is that straightforward.

Chips Lovell

Poster Boy wrote: »

If the ECB/EU conspires to take money away from us, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that we should be willing to print more money - the need for which arises out of theft in the first instance.

I give up.

Ush1

Can someone explain why a private business going under has to be bailed out by the state?

Is it legal for the state to do that?

Does it apply to all private buisnesses?(know this answer)

Poster Boy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I give up.

You give up to easily - maybe a bit like too many soft willed Irish people

In all seriousness, VK, please continue to post in this thread; while I may not initially agree, I value your intelligent commentary - as noted previously.

dvpower

Ush1 wrote: »

Can someone explain why a private business going under has to be bailed out by the state?

Because the state had a guarantee in place.

Ush1 wrote: »

Is it legal for the state to do that?

Yes

Ush1

dvpower wrote: »

Because the state had a guarantee in place.

Does this apply to all private businesses and if not why was this treated differently?

dvpower wrote: »

Yes

So the government can bail out any business that takes there whim? Seems a bit open to abuse really.

Spindle

Going to be controversial here but hold with me for a bit.

1. The banking crisis and Euro Zone crisis although related are different, our banks had a huge hole in them directly related to the Irish property bubble bursting. It just so happened that at the time it was deflating, the credit crunch happened, so our banks could not find cheap credit anymore to perform the balancing act of juggling debt around (Greece couldn't get cheap credit anymore to fund their public sector). If there was no credit crunch the Irish banking system would eventually have to be bailed out anyways.


2. Why can't people see that everyone that took part in the "good times" is to blame in this mess. Irish citizens had there hands out grabbing as much money as they could in the form of borrowed money and cheap credit. This then resulted in over inflation of property values leading to a bubble. The wealth that was in the Country was wealth on paper linked to property, we didn't do much to generate real wealth in the form of exports of goods, inventions/ideas etc etc. If people had stood back and refrained from the "property ladder" this mess would not be half as bad.


3. If the banks went bust, the economy would stop, you would not get paid, your capital and savings would have been frozen, you may even have been stopped from leaving the country, look at Argentina for an example of what could have happened. In the end we as a people would have to take on the burnt of allowing our government to create a property bubble that lots benefited from, just in this case it would be a lot harder.

4. Being in the Euro caused this mess, due to cheap credit and lack of government regulation, but nobody questioned this, those that did where told to shut up by the people, who elected time and time again a government that supported these policies. FG and Labour supported them as well by saying they would spend more etc.

5. We need to be in the Euro to survive, as being in a large currency Union it opens up more markets for us as a small island with no land link to Europe.

6. Yes in a perfect world banks should be left to hang for their mistakes, but then all your deposits would be wiped out, you would still be left with your mortgage and debts, and would then have to pick up the tab somewhere along the line again.

Now AH do your worst to my post........

Poster Boy

dvpower wrote: »

Because the state had a guarantee in place.

Yes

A.15.4.1 of BnaH explicitly states that it is unlawful for the Oireachtas to pass Acts that are "repugnant" to the BnaH.

In the absence of verifiable accounts, the elected members did not have the authority to pass an Act where there was a distinct likelihood of it severely compromising the independence of the state.

Therefore the Act - and all that follows from it - are completely illegal.

dvpower

Ush1 wrote: »

Does this apply to all private businesses and if not why was this treated differently?

No. Not all businesses, but they felt that the banks were systemic to the economy.

dvpower

Poster Boy wrote: »

A.15.4.1 of BnaH explicitly states that it is unlawful for the Oireachtas to pass Acts that are "repugnant" to the BnaH.

In the absence of verifiable accounts, the elected members did not have the authority to pass an Act where there was a distinct likelihood of it severely compromising the independence of the state.

Therefore the Act - and all that follows from it - are completely illegal.

I look forward to the outcome of the legal challenge. Not that it would change the 'facts on the ground'.

Ush1

dvpower wrote: »

No. Not all businesses, but they felt that the banks were systemic to the economy.

Systemic in what way?

If they were essential why were they privately owned rather than being controlled by the government themselves?

Banks are businesses like any other and can fold like any other, if they were controlled by the state surely the profits would go back into the state?

iMyself

I blame 9/11. An act of war happens on American soil, twin towers collapse and 3,000+ people are killed, America wages a war on "terror" and blows the ****e out of Afganistan and Iraq and what happens to the world economy? It booms. Cheap credit, money pumped into the global economy. As expected, everyone starts spending, economies start booming and disaster is averted....that is until 5/6 years later.

Edit: You could call what is happening to us and the Euro as the next phase in the "war on terror". It's gone cyber and it's gone economical and everyone's a target.

noodler

Poster Boy wrote: »

Fair enough, you may not agree with me as to the cost, but I am basing it simply on Eurostat.

However, if we are to take your assertion as to the lack of "extremely reliable figures", then let's consider it's logical conclusion which is this:

Without having reliable figures, the leaders of the Irish people are allowing them to be plundered for 10s of billions of euro in order to cover a very, very, large part of the entire non-transparent Euro zone crisis.

I am not sure this logical conclusion of argument reflects any better on the current leadership than previous criticisms arising from the analysis that there are identifiable figures.

A bloody awful job is being done, no matter what way you look at it.

Agreed.

Ush1 wrote: »

Systemic in what way?

If they were essential why were they privately owned rather than being controlled by the government themselves?

Banks are businesses like any other and can fold like any other, if they were controlled by the state surely the profits would go back into the state?

You why they are systemic - don't pretend you don't the difference between all the State's banks closing down at the same comapared to say HMV closing down.

In the States there are mechanism for closing failed banks but they do not yet exist here although we are currently working onthem at Euro Arez level (Bank Resolution schemes).

Fratton Fred

Ush1 wrote: »

Systemic in what way?

If they were essential why were they privately owned rather than being controlled by the government themselves?

Banks are businesses like any other and can fold like any other, if they were controlled by the state surely the profits would go back into the state?

As I've pointed out before, when a company goes bust, the people it owes money to come looking for it back. They do this by appointing a liquidator who sells off the company's assets and gives the money to the creditors. In the case of a bank, its assets would include any property that has a loan secured against it.

In short, if you have a mortgage with a bank that goes bust, you could be forced to repay your mortgage immediately or have your house repossessed.

Ush1

noodler wrote: »

You why they are systemic - don't pretend you don't the difference between all the State's banks closing down at the same comapared to say HMV closing down.

In the States there are mechanism for closing failed banks but they do not yet exist here although we are currently working onthem at Euro Arez level (Bank Resolution schemes).

No I really don't.

If banks close here can't new banks open in their place?

Again, why weren't they run by the government and even more importantly, why was the government bailing them out when they really couldn't offer that assurance?