Did anybody profit from the 2008 crisis in Ireland?

daveharnett

armabelle wrote: »

How do you mean? doesn't anybody have a desire to own a home? It is not an obsession is it if it is a primary need.

Accomodation is a primary need. Property ownership isn't.

Water and food are basic needs, and we all treat them as commodities. We don't all feel the need to own farms or reservoirs.

armabelle

daveharnett wrote: »

Accomodation is a primary need. Property ownership isn't.

Water and food are basic needs, and we all treat them as commodities. We don't all feel the need to own farms or reservoirs.

yes but if you don't own you are always in debt to someone and debt is not freedom. To be free we need a home and we need to own it.

armabelle

djpbarry wrote: »

So you're saying everyone from a certain country is poorly educated and culturally regressive?

There's a word for that...

is it an "r" word?

micosoft

armabelle wrote: »

yes but if you don't own you are always in debt to someone and debt is not freedom. To be free we need a home and we need to own it.

You can rent and not be in debt. You have a really odd definition of freedom not understood by any political philosophy I know of.

oscarBravo

armabelle wrote: »

...debt is not freedom. To be free we need a home and we need to own it.

So if you have a mortgage, you're not free?

0gac3yjefb5sv7

armabelle wrote: »

yes but if you don't own you are always in debt to someone and debt is not freedom. To be free we need a home and we need to own it.

110% agree. Also ownership should be a need. The very minimum IMO. Not a big mansion just a place to live.

K-9

It has to be affordable then. The Central Bank limits make sense in that respect, they were 10 years too late. No point owning a home if it means a lifetime of debt, in many cases unaffordable even at that.

walshyn93

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Refugees and immigrants are taught and required to speak German

irrelevant.

The point is that no country in their right mind would consciously uneducate a large portion of their young natives and then expect to grab them at 18-30 and all of a sudden bring them into mainstream society. That would just create a huge underclass. But instead of creating it Germany have imported it.

walshyn93

djpbarry wrote: »

So you're saying everyone from a certain country is poorly educated and culturally regressive?

There's a word for that...

I didn't say everyone.

There's a word for what you just did and it's called strawmanning.

Rather than argue the point you've just resorted to making insinuations.

walshyn93

armabelle wrote: »

is it an "r" word?

It's a buzz word used to avoid actually having to justify your position with facts.

armabelle

micosoft wrote: »

You can rent and not be in debt. You have a really odd definition of freedom not understood by any political philosophy I know of.

No you can´t, if you rent it is a form of debt. You are in debt to the landlord for using his property. If you rent you pay rent, if you own you don´t. if you don't have to pay rent you have more freedom as you don´t have a huge monthly expense on your shoulder. I´m not sure about political philosophy but I am a fan of common sense. Not sure why my point does not make sense to you.

armabelle

oscarBravo wrote: »

So if you have a mortgage, you're not free?

A mortgage is something someone has to pay for a large portion of their lives. It is a debt. Debt is slavery because it forces upon you an obligation to pay. You have to work to pay. So you tell me who is more free, the person who has to pay a mortgage for half his life or the person who can choose not to?

armabelle

K-9 wrote: »

It has to be affordable then. The Central Bank limits make sense in that respect, they were 10 years too late. No point owning a home if it means a lifetime of debt, in many cases unaffordable even at that.

what limits are these?

oscarBravo

armabelle wrote: »

A mortgage is something someone has to pay for a large portion of their lives. It is a debt. Debt is slavery because it forces upon you an obligation to pay. You have to work to pay. So you tell me who is more free, the person who has to pay a mortgage for half his life or the person who can choose not to?

I'm confused. You seem to be telling us that you're not free if you're renting, and you're not free if you have a mortgage. So in order to be free, you need to own your home without borrowing to do so.

Care to explain how?

armabelle

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm confused. You seem to be telling us that you're not free if you're renting, and you're not free if you have a mortgage. So in order to be free, you need to own your home without borrowing to do so.

Care to explain how?

The word free has different meanings to different people. I don't know what you consider free but for me freedom is having time as life is short and being able to spend it how and where you wish is true freedom. So are you "free" right now? You are free in the sense that you can walk in the street and go where you wish in your own time or choose what to eat for dinner but in the big picture, if you are like the overwhelming majority, you have to pay rent or pay a mortgage. Either way, until you own a home you have an enormous burden on your shoulders because you have to work more to sustain your lifestyle. Why is that so confusing? If you own a home that burden is lifted is it not?

micosoft

armabelle wrote: »

No you can´t, if you rent it is a form of debt. You are in debt to the landlord for using his property. If you rent you pay rent, if you own you don´t. if you don't have to pay rent you have more freedom as you don´t have a huge monthly expense on your shoulder. I´m not sure about political philosophy but I am a fan of common sense. Not sure why my point does not make sense to you.

Okey dokey. Your point does not make sense because you are changing the meaning of some pretty basic concepts and indeed words. About as far away from "common" sense as you can get because you are changing the meaning of things from what they are "commonly" understood to be e.g. Rent is a regular payment for the use of land or property to "Rent is a form of debt" (debt commonly known as a sum of money owed or due).

TBH it's meaningless to have a discussion with somebody who changes the meaning of words. Through the looking glass.

armabelle

micosoft wrote: »

Okey dokey. Your point does not make sense because you are changing the meaning of some pretty basic concepts and indeed words. About as far away from "common" sense as you can get because you are changing the meaning of things from what they are "commonly" understood to be e.g. Rent is a regular payment for the use of land or property to "Rent is a form of debt" (debt commonly known as a sum of money owed or due).

TBH it's meaningless to have a discussion with somebody who changes the meaning of words. Through the looking glass.

You don't need my permission to excuse yourself from the thread in that case.

mahoganygas

armabelle wrote: »

No you can´t, if you rent it is a form of debt. You are in debt to the landlord for using his property. If you rent you pay rent, if you own you don´t. if you don't have to pay rent you have more freedom as you don´t have a huge monthly expense on your shoulder. I´m not sure about political philosophy but I am a fan of common sense. Not sure why my point does not make sense to you.

Rent is an expense. Debt is a liability.
Unless your rent is overdue it is never a liability.

You can walk away from a rental agreement at any time.
You can't walk away from a mortgage.

K-9

Mod:

Ok, back on topic please!

armabelle

mahoganygas wrote: »

Rent is an expense. Debt is a liability.
Unless your rent is overdue it is never a liability.

You can walk away from a rental agreement at any time.
You can't walk away from a mortgage.

You can walk away from a mortgage if you really want but with consequences.

Also, you can walk away from a rental agreement but then there re consequences too like

a. enter into a new one or
b. go live in the street

The whole reason the thread took this turn is because some people keep saying that Irish people are obsessed with home ownership and that this played part of the role in the crisis but I don't understand why it is seen this way. I see home ownerships as synonymous with freedom.

walshyn93

armabelle wrote: »

I see home ownerships as synonymous with freedom.

I'm not sure about freedom. I think it's about security.

I used to be rabidly pro-capitalist but now I'm rabidly pro-capitalist with one notable exception, the government should enact policies that encourage and support homeownership.

I think part of that is being careful about who gets mortgages and who doesn't which is why I also agree with the poster above that deposit requirements are essential to a stable housing market.

I do worry though that the government is deliberately trying to change Ireland into a predominantly rental economy. I've spoken to some nihilists from Fine Gael and this is what they seem to favour. I think it's social and cultural suicide tbh.

daveharnett

armabelle wrote: »

No you can´t, if you rent it is a form of debt. You are in debt to the landlord for using his property.

Am I in "debt" to the supermarket for using their food?

Dohnjoe

armabelle wrote: »

Debt is slavery because it forces upon you an obligation to pay. You have to work to pay. So you tell me who is more free, the person who has to pay a mortgage for half his life or the person who can choose not to?

The ability to pay for things over time actually gives people more options

Few people can afford to pay for a house up front. Likewise few people can afford not to work

K-9

Mod:

Sorry, can we keep to the topic as I said a couple of posts ago, thanks.

armabelle

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The ability to pay for things over time actually gives people more options

Few people can afford to pay for a house up front. Likewise few people can afford not to work

Hope this is not off topic still but it seems that it is this mentality that caused the crisis and allowed lending institutions to become even more greedy because they know how people think. I see things differently. If you owe for 30 years on a house, you work for 10 years solely to pay the bank for loaning you that money (am guessing here it may vary). I think if people lived below their means perhaps the crisis wouldn't have happened?

Wanderer78

armabelle wrote:

Hope this is not off topic still but it seems that it is this mentality that caused the crisis and allowed lending institutions to become even more greedy because they know how people think. I see things differently. If you owe for 30 years on a house, you work for 10 years solely to pay the bank for loaning you that money (am guessing here it may vary). I think if people lived below their means perhaps the crisis wouldn't have happened?

This is a very complicated problem. The financial sector is over inflating asset prices, driving up the price of property. There's simply too much debt out there. I feel the problem doesn't lie with the people, but the fundamentally flawed economic theories and principles we 're following. Some believe the crisis was inevitable even largely orchestrated, I'd have to largely agree.

mahoganygas

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Some believe the crisis was inevitable even largely orchestrated, I'd have to largely agree.

Pull the other one.

Wanderer78

mahoganygas wrote:

Pull the other one.

Plenty of well researched people talking about this now

armabelle

Wanderer78 wrote: »

This is a very complicated problem. The financial sector is over inflating asset prices, driving up the price of property. There's simply too much debt out there. I feel the problem doesn't lie with the people, but the fundamentally flawed economic theories and principles we 're following. Some believe the crisis was inevitable even largely orchestrated, I'd have to largely agree.

This is why I posted this too. I also can't help feeling that way. How can the financial sector do this though?

djpbarry

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Some believe the crisis was inevitable...

Anyone with an ounce of sense knew some sort of "correction" was inevitable.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...even largely orchestrated...

Now you're venturing into conspiracy theory territory.

Wanderer78

armabelle wrote:

This is why I posted this too. I also can't help feeling that way. How can the financial sector do this though?

Some believe that psychopaths are operating at the very high levels of our financial sector. Even though this may be a very extreme view, I do believe socialpathic behaviour is common in the sector. My cousin worked in the sector for a very short while. He ran from it. Filled with people obsessed with making money and void of emotions. This is a very serious problem as its having a very serious negative effect on the majority of people on the planet and planet itself

Wanderer78

djpbarry wrote:

Now you're venturing into conspiracy theory territory.

Sadly it's hard not to cross into conspiracy land here as the whole financial system is shrouded in mystery but I'm trying to stick with well respected researchers for information

armabelle

djpbarry wrote: »

Anyone with an ounce of sense knew some sort of "correction" was inevitable.
Now you're venturing into conspiracy theory territory.

I think it is as much of a conspiracy theory as the mainstream theories people give for the crisis but then again I probably don't have the knowledge required to say for sure. Does anybody or are all of our theories "conspiracy" ones?

JustTheOne

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Plenty of well researched people talking about this now

You will probably quote the usual 3 names you think we should all read their opinions about it.

It's all a load of nonsense. Illuminati stuff.

mahoganygas

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Sadly it's hard not to cross into conspiracy land here as the whole financial system is shrouded in mystery but I'm trying to stick with well respected researchers for information

armabelle wrote: »

I think it is as much of a conspiracy theory as the mainstream theories people give for the crisis but then again I probably don't have the knowledge required to say for sure. Does anybody or are all of our theories "conspiracy" ones?

I'll bite.

Any specifics?

JustTheOne

armabelle wrote: »

I think it is as much of a conspiracy theory as the mainstream theories people give for the crisis but then again I probably don't have the knowledge required to say for sure. Does anybody or are all of our theories "conspiracy" ones?

There is no conspiracy.

Simple life lesson I'll give you for free.

Don't take money off someone you can't be sure you can pay back.

You stick to that you won't go wrong and start thinking there is someone conspiring against you.

Wanderer78

JustTheOne wrote:

You will probably quote the usual 3 names you think we should all read their opinions about it.

Only ones I've researched in detail so far. Feel free to recommend others. I'm afraid we 'll have to agree to disagree and move on with our lives or we 'll be going around in circles. It 'll be fun when the ttip is introduced!

Wanderer78

JustTheOne wrote:

Don't take money off someone you can't be sure you can pay back.

Easier said than done. We 're getting to the point, in order to get access to basic essentials in life, we must take on debts. This is a problem and Unsustainable

JustTheOne

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Easier said than done. We 're getting to the point, in order to get access to basic essentials in life, we must take on debts. This is a problem and Unsustainable

No its not. It's people acting irresponsibly.

Wanderer78

mahoganygas wrote:

Any specifics?

As justtheone has said, I'm a broken record at this stage. My recommendations, Michael Hudson, Bill black, ha-joon Chang and Ellen Brown

Wanderer78

JustTheOne wrote:

No its not. It's people acting irresponsibly.

Partly, but I'd say neoliberalism and neoclassical theory have a lot to do with it!

armabelle

JustTheOne wrote: »

You will probably quote the usual 3 names you think we should all read their opinions about it.

It's all a load of nonsense. Illuminati stuff.

Would you mind saying what exactly is nonsense and why it is nonsense so I can catch up to your level of understanding in the topic?

armabelle

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Easier said than done. We 're getting to the point, in order to get access to basic essentials in life, we must take on debts. This is a problem and Unsustainable

I don't know about not sustainable because it has been this way for long hasnt it? And, if the "conspiracy theories" are right, then there will just be another crisis to "stabilize" things again and the people will just move on with it as they always do. Seems like people exist to sustain it and where our breaking point is will ultimately define our future I think. But for now the system is clever in that 99% of the people can't understand it.

catbear

Probably already said many times there were many including myself who looked on the madness of the Irish property bubble and shouted WTF to anyone who'd listen. Which in my case was nobody except my wife.

We actually rented through the boom and bust, saving our cash. Now we don't have a mortgage or pay rent. We were told we were mad not to buy when the banks were giving out credit freely.

We didn't escape the bust entirely unscathed though, we'd both been in sectors heavily exposed to property and infrastructure development and when my wife lost her job in 2011 we headed off to australia to escape the gloom here. Financially that worked out brilliantly and we returned with a big wedge and have both found work.

Looking back we did profit from low rents of the bubble years and collapsing rents during the bust. Thankfully we don't need the rental market now! We're not rich but we are debt free while all around us people who told us we were missing out in the madness are all up in heap about the personal debt that was foisted on them!

mahoganygas

Wanderer78 wrote: »

As justtheone has said, I'm a broken record at this stage. My recommendations, Michael Hudson, Bill black, ha-joon Chang and Ellen Brown

Thanks. I'm open minded. I've seen you mention these before, but honestly haven't looked at their work. But I have heard criticisms of Brown.

What's the gist of their argument?

What's your take on it?

armabelle

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Some believe that psychopaths are operating at the very high levels of our financial sector. Even though this may be a very extreme view, I do believe socialpathic behaviour is common in the sector. My cousin worked in the sector for a very short while. He ran from it. Filled with people obsessed with making money and void of emotions. This is a very serious problem as its having a very serious negative effect on the majority of people on the planet and planet itself

What would you consider the financial sector?

Wanderer78

mahoganygas wrote:

Thanks. I'm open minded. I've seen you mention these before, but honestly haven't looked at their work. But I have heard criticisms of Brown.

Criticism of Brown is understandable as she's very quirky and dips her toes into conspiracy land, something of which I think annoys her colleagues at the public banking institute. Her knowledge of public banking is exceptionally though, something of which most post Keynesian economists believe is critical for a prosperous economy. I'm sold on the idea anyway, largely due to Brown's influence.

djpbarry

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Sadly it's hard not to cross into conspiracy land here as the whole financial system is shrouded in mystery...

Don't borrow more than you can afford to repay.

Where's the mystery?

Wanderer78

djpbarry wrote:

Where's the mystery?

Life is not that simple I'm afraid. Listen to peoples stories regarding debt. Pay particular attention to stories during the boom, a fine example is given above

mahoganygas

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Criticism of Brown is understandable as she's very quirky and dips her toes into conspiracy land, something of which I think annoys her colleagues at the public banking institute. Her knowledge of public banking is exceptionally though, something of which most post Keynesian economists believe is critical for a prosperous economy. I'm sold on the idea anyway, largely due to Brown's influence.

Apologies, I'm lost again. What's the idea that they are putting forward?

That the financial sector has more sociopaths than other industries?

I'm genuinely interested in what your opinion is. You've criticised the financial system a few times. But what are the nuts and bolts of your criticism?