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

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote: »

It was created here and abroad by people working in private businesses and also by the Irish government yet you want the Irish taxpayer to foot the total bill.



Wrong, and wrong again.

I never blamed Germany so stop making things up.

I apportioned blame to foreign banks including German banks. German banks are owned by their shareholders who may be German, Irish, or Iraqi. German bank does not equal Germany. :rolleyes:

Ireland is mainly in debt due to taking on private debt.



So if the Irish people aren't to blame why do you want them footing the bill?

aah, so German bank doesn't mean German, but Irish bank does mean Irish?

Zebra3 wrote: »

And I'm not pointing the finger at the "bogeyman foreigner" because if you actually bothered reading my posts I pointed out where certain Irish people and institutions were to blame.

you are. You are claiming that the whole thing is the fault of foreign banks.

Zebra3 wrote: »

You just don't understand that people who loan money have a responsibility and have to acknowledge that there is a risk involved in lending. You don't always get your money back.

And as stats shown in this thread indicate that over 80% of mortgages are being paid so banks were getting their money back there and of course the rest would and still are open to possible seizure of assets. But you're claim that every asset on a failed bank's book would be seized was bizarre beyond belief.


No, it can't. When a loan/mortgage is agreed there is a repayment plan and so long as that is kept to, the bank cannot seize the asset. Basic stuff. :rolleyes:

I am only talking about possible scenarios here. Besides, if 20% of mortgages are in arrears, that is 20% of the country that should be worried.

Zebra3 wrote: »

They have had assets seized and been declared bankrupt. And what was Anglo-Irish Bank have his family in court trying to recover assets hidden abroad.

Again, this has been covered by the media. You should tune into the news some time.

I do, it sickens me.

Especially when i see people demonstrating in support of the man.

Zebra3 wrote: »

Not all banks in the state were given money by the taxpayer. There were other banks for people to turn to, and new banks would have replaced the failed ones. It's what happens in a capitalist society.

People's deposits, afaik, were guaranteed by the state.

ATMs would not have run out of cash as AIB and BoI do not control the supply of money.

Yes, but the entire banking sector didn't fail. See above.

Yes it did. I can't think of any banks operating in this country that didn't receive some sort of bailout.

Ush1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes it did. I can't think of any banks operating in this country that didn't receive some sort of bailout.

Do you mean just Irish banks?

Ulster Bank and Halifax didn't recieve any bailout.

Fratton Fred

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Lenihan decided it was the best way forward under massive pressure from the ECB chief. Illegal pressure I would say. He acted far beyond his mandate and the voters showed him and his party what they thought of his unilateral move by obliterating the party at the next elections. I don't think they even have a representative in the capital, what once was the largest and oldest party in the country.

it was still made though.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

This is a fairly impressive piece of intellectual contortion from fred which as usual boils down to it's entirely Ireland's fault, and so on and so forth.

ad hominen from Doc as usual.:rolleyes:

obviously what I should be saying is that the sun shines of of Irish arses and they can do no wrong. The poor people were forced into buying four houses and a range rover by those nasty foreigners.:rolleyes:

for **** sake Doc, man up and accept that there was a problem and it was rooted in this country.

Fratton Fred

Ush1 wrote: »

Do you mean just Irish banks?

Ulster Bank and Halifax didn't recieve any bailout.

Ulsterbank is costing the UK tax payer billions as is HBOS.

I think ACC Bank has received around €1Bn in funding from it's Dutch parent company and as has already been said, Depfa has also received a bail out from it's German parent.

Spindle

Poster Boy wrote: »

Spindle, with due respect:

1. You are falling back into the trap of "the Irish did...", without factoring in the gambles made by other foreign delinquent gambling houses. This is an untruth by omission - see my earlier point regarding the Big Lie.

2. Whatever way you want to twist it, you still not escape the critical point that Irish citizens are paying per capita many many multiples more than other EU citizens. This is financial persecution for the sins of financial institutions.

3. Alas no, I'm not Joe Higgins, though I take comment as a backhanded compliment, even though I consider myself pro-business

All of Europe is paying for the financial crisis which was caused by governments not regulating financial dealings of banks in a more strict manner. Ireland put 62 billion into the banks, Germany put 294 billion into their banks.

It just so happens Ireland had a lot more troubles caused by an even more incompetent government, and an over inflated and over hyped housing market, creating a huge bubble, which everyone in this country turned a blind eye to. We were generating wealth by selling property to ourselves, all property bubbles collapse, most lead to banks having to be bailed out and paid by the tax payer. Sadly Ireland is no different here.

As a result of the housing crash our economic output collapsed, as it was all based on housing. Most other economies like Germany actually make products that the rest of the world wants, Ireland made houses, nobody wants houses anymore.

Your thoughts are not backed up with any facts, other than skewed stats created for a purpose of supporting the completely useless (and complicit) Unions of this country, who during the "good times" sat at the top of the table doing deals to over inflates wages in the public sector without any link to performance, now they are refusing to roll back these deals, and trying there best to keep the country running a deficit budget.

If you can provide evidence that, the government, the central bank, the banks, the property developers, the unions, the people of Ireland had no hand to play in the banking mess, and it was all caused by the big baddies of Europe who were forcing us with a gun to take their money. Then please do, as this is what you are suggesting.

In reality what happened is the money was sought out, everyone was happy, cheap credit, building boom, property price rising, loads of expensive cars for everyone, nice coffee, benchmarking, giveaway budgets, free cash (SSIAs).

Not once did anyway put their hand up and say wait a minute where is this money coming from? Not once did the opposition (which the people have now elected) say wait a minute we are spending too much money, we need to think about the future and pull this back in.

We need to take a view of all the tax payers of Europe are in this together.

dlouth15

dvpower wrote: »

Is the c. 100bn that Germany put into Depfa / Hypo included in that?

It is mentioned in the explanatory document explicitly:

4.1. Statistical impact on government deficit

The impact of interventions on government finance statistics depends on their specific features. Certain interventions, where losses of financial institutions have already been borne by government, require immediate recording of government expenditure. This is the case of HRE Bank, WestLB, SachsenLB and KfW in Germany, Anglo Irish Bank, Irish Nationwide Building Society and EBS Building Society in Ireland, Parex Banka in Latvia, ABN AMRO in the Netherlands, as well as Northern Rock, Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group in the United Kingdom.

Doc Ruby

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it was still made though.

Really?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

ad hominen from Doc as usual.:rolleyes:

obviously what I should be saying is that the sun shines of of Irish arses and they can do no wrong. The poor people were forced into buying four houses and a range rover by those nasty foreigners.:rolleyes:

for **** sake Doc, man up and accept that there was a problem and it was rooted in this country.

You should stop digging fred, it's as plain as the nose on your face what you're about, and no amount of strawmen is going to change that. You've been called out on it by several posters at this point, so you're really only holding the line in your own head.

Ush1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ulsterbank is costing the UK tax payer billions as is HBOS.

I think ACC Bank has received around €1Bn in funding from it's Dutch parent company and as has already been said, Depfa has also received a bail out from it's German parent.

But they still operated in this country without a bailout from the Irish government, isn't that what we're discussing?

Zebra3

Fratton Fred wrote: »

aah, so German bank doesn't mean German, but Irish bank does mean Irish?

You said "Germany". That means the country.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you are. You are claiming that the whole thing is the fault of foreign banks.

Again, stop making things up. I said foreign banks have to accept their part of the blame and accept their part of the losses. I never said they were 100% to blame. Again, read my posts and I have blamed the Irish government, Irish banks, and Irish speculators.

The foreign banks were happy enough to accept their part of the profits in the good times. Therefore they should have accepted their losses.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I am only talking about possible scenarios here. Besides, if 20% of mortgages are in arrears, that is 20% of the country that should be worried.

But the seizure of assets that are being repaid wasn't a possible scenario.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I do, it sickens me.

Especially when i see people demonstrating in support of the man.

If you do tune into the news then you will be aware that he has paid a price yet you claim differently.

And sadly parochial idiots will also be so. Fully agree with you about his supporters-many of whom are UK citizens living in the UK.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes it did. I can't think of any banks operating in this country that didn't receive some sort of bailout.

Well then you'll need to do a lot more reading up on what actually happened.

Edit-Point above with regard to banks being bailed out by the Irish taxpayer which is what we've been discussing.

Zebra3

Spindle wrote: »

As a result of the housing crash our economic output collapsed, as it was all based on housing.

Straight out lie.

Spindle

Poster Boy wrote: »

Spindle, please read my earlier posts.

At no time whatsoever have I suggested letting "the banking system fail totally", so there's little point in me answering a scenario I have not advocated. However now that were on the topic, you may not be aware as to the cost of MNC factories, but for example the recent extension of Intel in Leixlip cost €2 billion. That's not simply the kind of plant that a company can walk away with overnight.

Spindle, your posts are reasonably intelligent. Please allow yourself to think outside of the dark box that has seemingly bedeviled Irish people from being able to consider options other than the current orthodox model which people are terrified to question.

It's the new heresy - Financial Heresy.

Sure, who are we to question? We're only paying for it :rolleyes:

But the banking system would have failed totally if nothing was done. A run on the banks was on the cards. They somehow needed to stop the flight of capitol. Of course the method chosen was daft, well daft when you include Anglo, who as we all know are the basket case that left us in the biggest mess, and as we later learned were in bed with the government.

Also 2billion to Intel is nothing, they would have just restructured and moved elsewhere. Without a banking system, why would they stay they would have no Irish bank account to rest their profits in for 12% corporation tax. Conducting business in a country without a banking system is pretty hard.

How would you have stopped the banking system failing?

K-9

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Lenihan decided it was the best way forward under massive pressure from the ECB chief. Illegal pressure I would say. He acted far beyond his mandate and the voters showed him and his party what they thought of his unilateral move by obliterating the party at the next elections. I don't think they even have a representative in the capital, what once was the largest and oldest party in the country.

There was no evidence to suggest the ECB pressurised Lenihan into the guarantee, if anything there is far more evidence Lenihan went on a solo run on it, the pressure came from Irish banks the night the decision was made.

Fratton Fred

Doc Ruby wrote: »

You should stop digging fred, it's as plain as the nose on your face what you're about, and no amount of strawmen is going to change that. You've been called out on it by several posters at this point, so you're really only holding the line in your own head.

you're trying to judge me by your own standards Doc. I am capable of having a debate without turning it into some sort of pathetic "We're better than you" slanging match.

Your colours are well known Doc.

gallag

Fred makes some good logical points, and in many ways this is all to complex for myself to understand, I just still have a hard time understanding why ordinary irish people, even new born children, are getting saddled with the bill for bad investing, why do banks even need to fail, surly they know where the money being gambled came from and could just say "sorry but instead of growing your investment by 10% we screwed up and lost it all" is that not the risk the wealthy take when investing money? Would they share the profits with the common people had they won?

dlouth15

Spindle wrote: »

Your thoughts are not backed up with any facts, other than skewed stats created for a purpose of supporting the completely useless (and complicit) Unions of this country

I checked out the stats (see my earlier post). They come from Eurostat. A fairly straightforward calculation of percentages is all that was needed to come up with figure.

Eurostat's summary spreadsheet is here:

Summary table for the financial crisis

And you can read about the methodology here:

Background note on the supplementary table for the financial crisis

Spindle

Zebra3 wrote: »

Straight out lie.

All of the growth from 2000-2001 onwards was led by housing. The original boom in the mid90s was led by export growth, which is real growth as we are getting money into the country by selling something that people want aboard.

Okay it is wrong to say all the economy was housing, but when you have a large chunk of the population engaged in the construction industry and with most of the low end manufacturing jobs moving out of Ireland during the late 90s on words, these people were moving into construction, when that bubble burst all these people had no jobs to go to. As we were not developing any other decent industry to replace the manufacturing jobs that were leaving.

Of course now that the bubble is gone we hopefully will return to normal levels in the construction industry, and as can be seen our exports are leading the way in terms of growth.

Of course we are in such debt that this growth will never be enough to reduce our overall debt without drastic cut backs in government spending. At some stage there is going to be a need for debt forgiveness on a European stage.

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote: »

The foreign banks were happy enough to accept their part of the profits in the good times. Therefore they should have accepted their losses.

a lot have (see comment about Ulsterbank Acc Bank and Depfa Bank).

A lot of banks were preparing to exit the Irish market, but they were assured, in fact guaranteed, by the Irish government that the banks were fundamentally sound and the government would therefore secure their debts.

Zebra3 wrote: »

But the seizure of assets that are being repaid wasn't a possible scenario.

Zebra3 wrote: »

If you do tune into the news then you will be aware that he has paid a price yet you claim differently.

he is still walking the streets of Ballyconnell a free man. His family still own millions of assets and have money lodged all over the world. Money that belongs to the Irish tax payer.

He is but one man though. There are scores of people who owe us money and are doing their best to avoid paying it back

Zebra3 wrote: »

And sadly parochial idiots will also be so. Fully agree with you about his supporters-many of whom are UK citizens living in the UK.

and you want them back?

Zebra3 wrote: »

Well then you'll need to do a lot more reading up on what actually happened.

Edit-Point above with regard to banks being bailed out by the Irish taxpayer which is what we've been discussing.

I have read up on it. The banking sector in this country was ****ed. It the three banks I mentioned weren't owned by larger institutions then they would have failed.

Are you seriously saying that we should have let our own banks fail because we could rely on foreign ones? the very ones you are complaining about paying money back to?

K-9

dlouth15 wrote: »

Figures from that article seem to check out and we do indeed get 42%.

This is basically from a eurostat spreadsheet [url=http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/government_finance_statistics/excessive_deficit/supplementary_tables_financial_turmoil[/url]here[/url] on their website.

I added in the total column adding up the years and a percentage of total column based on total for the whole of the EU.

The PDF document explains how the figures were obtained (seems to make sense to me) and the other spreadsheets on that page show how the figures were arrived at for each of the countries in detail.

I think someone pointed out already that money from the NPRF was not included in the figures by Eurostat therefore underestimating the percentage for Ireland. We get an even higher figure if we do that. 63%.

(millions)
|2007|2008|2009|2010|2011|Total|% of Total EU27
BE| - |-27.3|-33.0|249.8|449.8|639.3|-0.66%
BG| - | - | - | - | - | - |0.00%
CZ| - | - | - | - | - | - |0.00%
DK| - |0.6|162.0|561.9|-180.5|544.1|-0.57%
DE| - |-3,156.0|-3,393.8|-33,077.0|-474.0|-40,100.8|41.70%
EE| - | - | - | - | - | - |0.00%
IE| - | - |-3,767.0|-31,544.8|-5,731.7|-41,043.5|42.69%
EL| - | - |373.0|960.0|622.0|1,955.0|-2.03%
ES| - |-12.0|696.0|772.0|-3,527.0|-2,071.0|2.15%
FR| - |48.0|1,356.0|995.0|601.0|3,000.0|-3.12%
IT| - | - |-16.5|88.0|176.9|248.4|-0.26%
CY| - | - |10.0|27.0|25.0|62.0|-0.06%
LV| - |2.1|-182.8|-385.2|-91.6|-657.4|0.68%
LT| - | - | - |-32.3|-2.6|-34.9|0.04%
LU| - |-20.4|-68.7|51.8|59.3|21.9|-0.02%
HU| - | - |4.3|7.4|9.8|21.5|-0.02%
MT| - | - | - | - | - | - |0.00%
NL| - |73.0|-2,265.0|-1,171.0|-253.0|-3,616.0|3.76%
AT| - |2.2|-39.3|-1,365.0|-340.4|-1,742.5|1.81%
PL| - | - | - | - | - | - |0.00%
PT| - |1.7|9.4|-2,224.7|-881.5|-3,095.1|3.22%
RO| - | - | - | - | - | - |0.00%
SI| - | - |7.8|20.5|-221.9|-193.6|0.20%
SK| - | - | - | - | - | - |0.00%
FI| - | - | - | - | - | - |0.00%
SE| - |-1.5|128.7|262.1|228.3|617.6|-0.64%
UK|61.8|-5,561.3|-8,085.4|1,708.1|1,167.8|-10,708.9|11.14%
Euro area (EA17)| - |-3,090.8|-7,131.2|-66,218.5|-9,495.5|-85,936.0|
EU27|61.8|-8,650.8|-15,104.3|-64,096.4|-8,364.2|-96,154.0|100.00%

The figures just don't look accurate, for example no sign of the £119 Billion cash the UK paid http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-16/u-k-bank-bailout-costs-halved-to-356-billion-watchdog-says.html.

Fratton Fred

gallag wrote: »

Fred makes some good logical points, and in many ways this is all to complex for myself to understand, I just still have a hard time understanding why ordinary irish people, even new born children, are getting saddled with the bill for bad investing, why do banks even need to fail, surly they know where the money being gambled came from and could just say "sorry but instead of growing your investment by 10% we screwed up and lost it all" is that not the risk the wealthy take when investing money? Would they share the profits with the common people had they won?

This is my basic understanding of how it works.

The banking system doesn't work that way unfortunately. when banks lend each other money, it is over a short period. So they would borrow €1bn over three months, then lend that out to their customers over anything up to 30 years.

In three months time, the bank borrows another €1bn and uses that, plus the interest from its investments, to pay off the initial €1bn. If they are not able to pay off that €1bn then the whole thing becomes very messy.

Ush1

Were the banks loaned money by the European banks(like how you or I would borrow money), or was it the European banks making an investment in them (ie. a gamble such a shares)?

dvpower

dvpower wrote: »

Didn't you tell is yesterday that we are being forced to pay 20bn to the United States?

Zebra3 wrote: »

No, I posted a link to an article which showed that our current government are a bunch of cowards who are giving over 20Bn that they don't need to.

Here you are yesterday saying that we are giving the Americans 20bn

Zebra3 wrote: »

Also don't forget folks we're giving the Americans TWENTY BILLION EURO that we don't owe them!

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/gene-kerrigan/gene-kerrigan-were-shamed-by-conspiracy-of-silence-2800010.html

What 20bn are you talking about here, because the article you linked identified the 20bn as going to Irish and German banks?
Is the American 20bn something separate or a secret 20bn that only you know about, or what?

dvpower

Ush1 wrote: »

Were the banks loaned money by the European banks(like how you or I would borrow money), or was it the European banks making an investment in them (ie. a gamble such a shares)?

Junior bonds can be thought of as an investment/gamble, but senior bonds as on a par with deposits.

An any case, the Irish Government guaranteed everything, so any perceived gamble was diluted at that point.

None of these are like shares at all - and all of the shareholders have been badly burnt.

Fratton Fred

Ush1 wrote: »

Were the banks loaned money by the European banks(like how you or I would borrow money), or was it the European banks making an investment in them (ie. a gamble such a shares)?

banks raise money in different ways, but my understanding is that it is generally done through the money markets, which are more or less loans between banks.

A bank won't offer you a €200k mortgage and then find someone to lend them that money, they will have a steady flow of cash coming in which they then invest, in businesses, mortgages or whatever. it isn't a simple case of a "European" bank underwriting the loans of Irish banks.

Irish Banks are European banks after all, they aren't a broker.

Ush1

dvpower wrote: »

Junior bonds can be thought of as an investment/gamble, but senior bonds as on a par with deposits.

An any case, the Irish Government guaranteed everything, so any perceived gamble was diluted at that point.

None of these are like shares at all - and all of the shareholders have been badly burnt.

My point is if they weren't guaranteed did the European banks have any comeback? If it was a normal loan, it would seem logical they would. If it was some form of investment gamble, well thems the breaks.

dvpower

dlouth15 wrote: »

It is mentioned in the explanatory document explicitly:

But it appears not to be in the graph.

So, the thread title is doubly inaccurate. We're not talking about the entire European banking crisis, never mind the entire Euro zone crisis.

gallag

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This is my basic understanding of how it works.

The banking system doesn't work that way unfortunately. when banks lend each other money, it is over a short period. So they would borrow €1bn over three months, then lend that out to their customers over anything up to 30 years.

In three months time, the bank borrows another €1bn and uses that, plus the interest from its investments, to pay off the initial €1bn. If they are not able to pay off that €1bn then the whole thing becomes very messy.

Still hard to swallow that billionaires probably stood to make money on these deals insured against loss by the unborn, it may be legal but its not right.

Ush1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

banks raise money in different ways, but my understanding is that it is generally done through the money markets, which are more or less loans between banks.

A bank won't offer you a €200k mortgage and then find someone to lend them that money, they will have a steady flow of cash coming in which they then invest, in businesses, mortgages or whatever. it isn't a simple case of a "European" bank underwriting the loans of Irish banks.

Irish Banks are European banks after all, they aren't a broker.

Yes I know, but we now owe somebody money correct? So that money was either loaned to us or invested or both?

That or were just giving away money as we're thoroughly nice chaps.

dvpower

Ush1 wrote: »

My point is if they weren't guaranteed did the European banks have any comeback? If it was a normal loan, it would seem logical they would. If it was some form of investment gamble, well thems the breaks.

Is Lenihan didn't introduce the blanket guarantee, then the alternative was ... who can say ... armageddon according to the banks.

But we did, and we can't just turn back the clock because it turned out to be a dumb decision - remember that it was quite broadly hailed as a brave stroke of genius at the time.

Fratton Fred

gallag wrote: »

Still hard to swallow that billionaires probably stood to make money on these deals insured against loss by the unborn, it may be legal but its not right.

people pay in to a pension fund. that fund builds up a lot of cash and lends it to a bank as a senior bond. This is relatively low yield, but senior bonds in a successful bank are low risk, so it is good for a fund owned by people in their late fifties who are only interested in keeping their money growing slowly but safe.

These pension funds are the likes of Ford Motor company, Dell or Kerry Group. They aren't faceless billionaires on a yacht in Monaco, they are the average Joe who works in a factory making cars, laptops or sandwiches. This is one of the reasons why it is important to pay senior bond holders. Less so junior ones because there would be more risk associated with that and the bondholder more likely to have hedged their risk.

Fratton Fred

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes I know, but we now owe somebody money correct? So that money was either loaned to us or invested or both?

That or were just giving away money as we're thoroughly nice chaps.

see my post above.

we are not giving money away as such, we are helping to keep the wheels turning.