Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Leo is the new king of Ireland.
Comments
-
We've done alright with the EU I'd say, maybe you think differently?
In general I would agree we have, although they gave us a bit of a hammering with their bailout terms on bondholders
Terms that changed when some of the bigger boys and girls in the club looked like getting themselves into a tight corner.0 -
In general I would agree we have, although they gave us a bit of a hammering with their bailout terms on bondholders
Terms that changed when some of the bigger boys and girls in the club looked like getting themselves into a tight corner.
There's always a catch 22 isn't there!
We were obliterated out of the financial market, we went begging, we got, at a price, what we needed to survive.
We have virtually no right to be where we are again, but still somebody else somewhere could have or should have done better.
That's all a hypothesis now and really until things unfolded and hindsight kicked in nobody could say what was better.
I think that govt did its best at the time and probably as much as any govt could have and it shows whether anyone like to agree or not.
One thing I know for certain, they could have done a hell of a lot worse.
You mentioned the water charges earlier, funny it was FF that signed us up for them in the agreement!
As I said, I don't like a lot of the way FG do things, the water issue and IW is one of them, but the idea of paying for water was and is still sound economics, but that's been set back for now.0 -
In rejection to the housing crisis and homeless figures. Everyone focuses on them! The situation many non homeless are in with the astronomical rents and often appalling conditions is a bigger scandal in my opinion ...0
-
oscarBravo wrote: »Yes, even so. And I don't know that tax cuts are necessarily needed - I'd rather see a broader tax base and better services, personally.
Sure. I agree with you: a holistic approach is not just a good idea, it's desperately needed. But the people won't vote for it.
Again, I've cited this example before - I was in Denmark a few years ago during a general election, when one party promised to raise taxes in order to improve services - that party got elected. When was the last time a party got elected in this country on the promise of raising taxes (apart from "other people's taxes", which Irish people are only too happy to vote for)?
Only brought up tax cuts in the context of things like having to pay for water. I'm not opposed to this per se (water charges) but the fact of the matter is that currently a portion of our taxes go toward water supply and treatment. This is unfair if you also (like me) have to provide your own water and waste water treatment. This is why a holistic approach is needed. The way water charges were introduced (at the time I believed they were necessary and still do) left a lot to be desired. Because many people (and I'm one of them) are living in the edge financially. The introduction of water charges should have been accompanied by a reduction in tax. This actually makes sense as there would be no difference in the amount you pay per annum.0 -
Only brought up tax cuts in the context of things like having to pay for water. I'm not opposed to this per se (water charges) but the fact of the matter is that currently a portion of our taxes go toward water supply and treatment. This is unfair if you also (like me) have to provide your own water and waste water treatment. This is why a holistic approach is needed. The way water charges were introduced (at the time I believed they were necessary and still do) left a lot to be desired. Because many people (and I'm one of them) are living in the edge financially. The introduction of water charges should have been accompanied by a reduction in tax. This actually makes sense as there would be no difference in the amount you pay per annum.
Without doubt, the last government's water charge regime was the most shambolic and incompetent display of a government trying to introduce a new tax, anywhere in the states history.
Billions squandered.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm honestly not going to bother responding in this forum to someone who says "its very basic economics" and the proceeds to dish out an entire post that is not only not grounded in any sense of "basic economics" but, worse, is entire fantasy nonsense.Matt Barrett wrote: »'tis indeed. A different form.
If you have a home built, it's cheaper than purchasing one privately at market rates. It's very basic economics.
So, the tax payer can pay for the growing cost of 'emergency' accommodation and subsidise rents paid to private landlords, or build our own state owned homes and rent them to people at a rate based on their income. We already supply homes to such people, except currently we rent and buy from the market place and then supply them to those in need. Social housing, state built would be cheaper for the tax payer.
Can you tell me why it wouldn't?
It's a fact that working people are living in places they can't afford and the tax payer is giving aid in rent allowances etc. which go to private pockets, not the state.
The housing market is propped up by the government. It does not operate like a business in a free market. All the schemes devised by FG thus far favour the pocket of the developers. have a read of the FG housing strategy. Look at NAMA being turned into a bank to bank roll the very developers brought the need for NAMA. the loser? Why, the tax payer of course. Every time. meanwhile the crisis gets worse.
We should build enough social housing so we are no longer in crisis. What ever amount it takes to see a cooling/lowering of prices to an affordable level. Despite all the conservative spin and PR, it would be quiet easy to ensure genuine people, working, paying tax, who can't afford a roof without the tax payer handing out money to profiteering TD's/Landlords and developers, where given consideration, based on need, for social housing. We did it in the 1930's.
Can you think of a better way to save the tax payer money while in part, tackling the crisis? You drop in and ask the same questions. I give the same answers and you never offer an alternative. Things as is are not working. Things are getting worse. To have a pop without offering any alternatives isn't helping.
I can't fathom that anyone, let alone yourself, believes what you've written is factual or realistic.0 -
I agree. It would also have meant more government debt - not saying that's a bad thing, but it would be like a red rag to the bull that is the economically illiterate mass in Ireland that believes (somehow honestly believes) that a government should be run like a household.If we had cut current spending (social benefits largely escaped and are the only place we could have cut more) more seriously, while increasing capital expenditure on public transport, education, water services etc., we may well have come through the depression an awful lot better, but that would have meant more short-term day-to-day hardship but a better outcome.0 -
There's always a catch 22 isn't there!
We were obliterated out of the financial market, we went begging, we got, at a price, what we needed to survive.
We have virtually no right to be where we are again, but still somebody else somewhere could have or should have done better.
That's all a hypothesis now and really until things unfolded and hindsight kicked in nobody could say what was better.
I think that govt did its best at the time and probably as much as any govt could have and it shows whether anyone like to agree or not.
One thing I know for certain, they could have done a hell of a lot worse.
You mentioned the water charges earlier, funny it was FF that signed us up for them in the agreement!
As I said, I don't like a lot of the way FG do things, the water issue and IW is one of them, but the idea of paying for water was and is still sound economics, but that's been set back for now.
There may have been a few points you glossed over somewhat.
The EU through the ECB in not allowing Ireland to pursue bank bondholders effectively at the stroke of a pen turned private debt into public debt and lumped on the taxpayer.
Both FG and Labour campaigned GE 2011 to change that but having won an electoral mandate to do so were quickly whipped back into line by the EU.
When it later looked as if some of the bigger boys and girls in the EU club could be facing the same problems as we had experienced then we had what Kenny called "a game changer"
A game changer for the other boys and girl if required in the future alright, but for little Ireland and other EU small fry could not be applied retrospectively.
Indeed water charges were included by FF among a range of options with the Troika. Reduced legal fee and medical bill I seem to remember also being in there. Although somehow we didn`t hear to much about them afterwards. Wonder why!
As I said there were a range of options. The Troika cared less which were applied as long as they got their pound of flesh at the end of the day.
FG set up water charges. A farce and littered with cronyism from day one and attempted to beat us over the head, as did many of their supporters on Boards.ie, with the lie that water charges were a sacred requirement of the bailout terms and we would have hail and brimstone rained down upon us by the EU if they were not complied with as established.
Yet hear we are over two years later, water charges gone and not a peep from the EU.
Water charges were nothing more than FG attempted opportunism of using the bailout to establish a pet project. Simple as that.
One that was exposed for what it was and for which they paid a heavy price.0 -
There may have been a few points you glossed over somewhat.
The EU through the ECB in not allowing Ireland to pursue bank bondholders effectively at the stroke of a pen turned private debt into public debt and lumped on the taxpayer.
Both FG and Labour campaigned GE 2011 to change that but having won an electoral mandate to do so were quickly whipped back into line by the EU.
When it later looked as if some of the bigger boys and girls in the EU club could be facing the same problems as we had experienced then we had what Kenny called "a game changer"
A game changer for the other boys and girl if required in the future alright, but for little Ireland and other EU small fry could not be applied retrospectively.
Indeed water charges were included by FF among a range of options with the Troika. Reduced legal fee and medical bill I seem to remember also being in there. Although somehow we didn`t hear to much about them afterwards. Wonder why!
As I said there were a range of options. The Troika cared less which were applied as long as they got their pound of flesh at the end of the day.
FG set up water charges. A farce and littered with cronyism from day one and attempted to beat us over the head, as did many of their supporters on Boards.ie, with the lie that water charges were a sacred requirement of the bailout terms and we would have hail and brimstone rained down upon us by the EU if they were not complied with as established.
Yet hear we are over two years later, water charges gone and not a peep from the EU.
Water charges were nothing more than FG attempted opportunism of using the bailout to establish a pet project. Simple as that.
One that was exposed for what it was and for which they paid a heavy price.
We had a choice to make back then, public debt or private loss, write off the debt, loose private money in the banks, grandad and grandmas little nesteggs wiped out.
Collapse the banks or honour their debts, I imagine there was behind the scenes rows and ripples over that, but often wonder what would have been the outcry if they went the other way?
No argument from me over FG and labours handling of the introduction of water charges, a shambles from day one, but I still think a well organised way of charging per usage is the most sensible option for that service, even yet, but its still up there taking money from health and housing etc.
Hindsight is 20/20,but we could easily be looking at a different hindsight if that govt had made different decisions, that's all I'm saying really, other countries that chose different routes than ours are still in worse conditions economically and socially than ours now, there is evidence that the 2011/16 govt did at least a fairly good job.0 -
The king now has a rival, a queen in the making, or perhaps a king maker, even how about a king and a queen together going forward?
Good news for SF and FG too, even though the king is slipping!
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/new-poll-sees-rise-in-support-for-sinn-fein-and-mary-lou-mcdonald-838577.html0 -
Advertisement
-
The king now has a rival, a queen in the making, or perhaps a king maker, even how about a king and a queen together going forward?
Good news for SF and FG too, even though the king is slipping!
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/new-poll-sees-rise-in-support-for-sinn-fein-and-mary-lou-mcdonald-838577.html
Although there are some FG supporters that would have hissy fits at the mere suggestion of a FG/SF coalition government, (some Green supporters as well), I would be off the opinion if we are going to have a government after the next general election with a workable majority then it will be a FG/SF coalition.0 -
The king now has a rival, a queen in the making, or perhaps a king maker, even how about a king and a queen together going forward?
Good news for SF and FG too, even though the king is slipping!
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/new-poll-sees-rise-in-support-for-sinn-fein-and-mary-lou-mcdonald-838577.html
But, which would be the King and which the Queen?0 -
Deleted User wrote:But, which would be the King and which the Queen?
Personally, sniping at someone's sexuality is beneath the topic of discussion.0 -
Johnny Dogs wrote: »Without doubt, the last government's water charge regime was the most shambolic and incompetent display of a government trying to introduce a new tax, anywhere in the states history.
Billions squandered.
They created a money guzzling quango, got a proven incompetent to head it up and it still is in hiding working away feverishly trying to become its own single entity without any transparency as to how it spends its money really.
No one who looks at it could say it shouldn't have been wound up when the water charges failed.
On its own for me it stands out as the biggest political failure since the crash.
Interesting now to see a FG TD actually putting the blame on IW itself, instead of admitting FG and Lab just got it wrong, he claims they were told lies and untruths instead of admitting they told them themselves at the time to try to justify IW.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/untruths-of-irish-water-setup-costs-467510.html0 -
There may have been a few points you glossed over somewhat.
The EU through the ECB in not allowing Ireland to pursue bank bondholders effectively at the stroke of a pen turned private debt into public debt and lumped on the taxpayer.
This is a complete revision of history that exonerates FF.
The truth is that in September 2008, the Irish government, on the basis of advice that Brian Lenihan said he got from David McWilliams, decided, off its own bat, without telling the EU, to promise to guarantee all the debts of the Irish banks. Later on, when we tried to welch on our promise, the EU quite rightly, pointed out that this would be a disaster as the Irish government, and by proxy other EU governments, could never be trusted again. We were held to our freely made promise.
Now, you can complain about being made to keep your promise, or you can accept that you made the mistake, that is the choice we Irish have.Both FG and Labour campaigned GE 2011 to change that but having won an electoral mandate to do so were quickly whipped back into line by the EU.
When it later looked as if some of the bigger boys and girls in the EU club could be facing the same problems as we had experienced then we had what Kenny called "a game changer"
A game changer for the other boys and girl if required in the future alright, but for little Ireland and other EU small fry could not be applied retrospectively.
Indeed water charges were included by FF among a range of options with the Troika. Reduced legal fee and medical bill I seem to remember also being in there. Although somehow we didn`t hear to much about them afterwards. Wonder why!
As I said there were a range of options. The Troika cared less which were applied as long as they got their pound of flesh at the end of the day.
FG set up water charges. A farce and littered with cronyism from day one and attempted to beat us over the head, as did many of their supporters on Boards.ie, with the lie that water charges were a sacred requirement of the bailout terms and we would have hail and brimstone rained down upon us by the EU if they were not complied with as established.
Yet hear we are over two years later, water charges gone and not a peep from the EU.
Water charges were nothing more than FG attempted opportunism of using the bailout to establish a pet project. Simple as that.
One that was exposed for what it was and for which they paid a heavy price.
Water charges were put forward by the Greens to the EU prior to the crisis. They are a sound environmental policy.
Again, we promised to introduce them, and the EU attempted to hold us to our promise. We Irish aren't so great at keeping our promises, are we?0 -
There's always a catch 22 isn't there!
We were obliterated out of the financial market, we went begging, we got, at a price, what we needed to survive.
We have virtually no right to be where we are again, but still somebody else somewhere could have or should have done better.
That's all a hypothesis now and really until things unfolded and hindsight kicked in nobody could say what was better.
I think that govt did its best at the time and probably as much as any govt could have and it shows whether anyone like to agree or not.
One thing I know for certain, they could have done a hell of a lot worse.
You mentioned the water charges earlier, funny it was FF that signed us up for them in the agreement!
As I said, I don't like a lot of the way FG do things, the water issue and IW is one of them, but the idea of paying for water was and is still sound economics, but that's been set back for now.
You were lauding FG for their work in getting us out of the crisis. It's been pointed out they followed a plan in place. You can pat them of the back for following it. I don't know who suggested someone somewhere else might have done better.
What the EU/FG/IMF/Troika et al. have shown me is the population of any given EU country take second place to the concerns of the financial cartels, (banks/bondholders). The argument that we need be in good standing has some merit, but not, as borne out by the years since of a one sided recovery, to all of society and every working tax payer.FreudianSlippers wrote: »I'm honestly not going to bother responding in this forum to someone who says "its very basic economics" and the proceeds to dish out an entire post that is not only not grounded in any sense of "basic economics" but, worse, is entire fantasy nonsense.
I can't fathom that anyone, let alone yourself, believes what you've written is factual or realistic.
If you don't understand it, just say so.
Building our own is cheaper than buying from the market. I can't break it down any further.
Once again, you offer no alternatives and disregard my questions to you.0 -
They created a money guzzling quango, got a proven incompetent to head it up and it still is in hiding working away feverishly trying to become its own single entity without any transparency as to how it spends its money really.
No one who looks at it could say it shouldn't have been wound up when the water charges failed.
On its own for me it stands out as the biggest political failure since the crash.
Interesting now to see a FG TD actually putting the blame on IW itself, instead of admitting FG and Lab just got it wrong, he claims they were told lies and untruths instead of admitting they told them themselves at the time to try to justify IW.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/untruths-of-irish-water-setup-costs-467510.html
The saddest part of the IW scandal is it goes to show that despite us 'practically eating out of bins' there's always room for cronyism and a waste of the tax payers money. It's genuinely upsetting.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »You were lauding FG for their work in getting us out of the crisis. It's been pointed out they followed a plan in place. You can pat them of the back for following it. I don't know who suggested someone somewhere else might have done better.
Solidarity (in their different previous forms), Sinn Fein and the likes of Mick Wallace suggested that we should follow the path taken by Syriza and enforce the disaster that is Greece on the people of Ireland.
It should be noted there was considerable support on these boards for that course of action.Matt Barrett wrote: »
What the EU/FG/IMF/Troika et al. have shown me is the population of any given EU country take second place to the concerns of the financial cartels, (banks/bondholders). The argument that we need be in good standing has some merit, but not, as borne out by the years since of a one sided recovery, to all of society and every working tax payer.
You are missing the point. It is the keeping of promises that the EU/IMT/Troika et al insisted upon. We (the FF government) freely made the choice, without consultation, to promise the world to the banks and the bondholders. The night of the bank guarantee, the bankers were in the Horseshoe Bar swilling champagne in celebration at what they had persuaded FF to do. All the Troika did was make us keep our foolish promise.0 -
Solidarity (in their different previous forms), Sinn Fein and the likes of Mick Wallace suggested that we should follow the path taken by Syriza and enforce the disaster that is Greece on the people of Ireland.
It should be noted there was considerable support on these boards for that course of action.
I was referring to the current line of discussion. I don't keep track of WWMWD? We should have burned the bondholders. By my understanding, you buy shares/bonds and they increase or decrease in value based on the market. It's gambling. If you lose, you lose. The idea that we as a country should cover loses is a con the financial cartels strong arm us into so they can remain on top. That's why we see nothing has changed for these people. We are owned by financial institutions. And Vardakar wants 'Republic day'?You are missing the point. It is the keeping of promises that the EU/IMT/Troika et al insisted upon. We (the FF government) freely made the choice, without consultation, to promise the world to the banks and the bondholders. The night of the bank guarantee, the bankers were in the Horseshoe Bar swilling champagne in celebration at what they had persuaded FF to do. All the Troika did was make us keep our foolish promise.
The premise put out was FG got us through. It was pointed out they followed terms set in place. That's all.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »I was referring to the current line of discussion. I don't keep track of WWMWD? We should have burned the bondholders. By my understanding, you buy shares/bonds and they increase or decrease in value based on the market. It's gambling. If you lose, you lose. The idea that we as a country should cover loses is a con the financial cartels strong arm us into so they can remain on top. That's why we see nothing has changed for these people. We are owned by financial institutions. And Vardakar wants 'Republic day'?
The premise put out was FG got us through. It was pointed out they followed terms set in place. That's all.
Certain decisions are only possible at certain points in time.
I agree fully with you that we should have burned the bondholders. However, this option was not open to us after the night of the bank guarantee in September 2008. Even so, burning the bondholders in September 2008 would have carried huge risks. Only Labour, of the main political parties supported doing so at the time.
Burning the bondholders at a later date would have turned us into Greece.
As for just following the terms set in place, it is a bit like Google maps telling you the quickest way from A to B and someone else (Solidarity) saying my friend (Syriza) knows a short-cut, and resisting their advice to take a short-cut over a cliff-edge. One should never underestimate the qualities required to keep a ship on course or to land an aeroplane, ditto running a country.0 -
Advertisement
-
Certain decisions are only possible at certain points in time.
I agree fully with you that we should have burned the bondholders. However, this option was not open to us after the night of the bank guarantee in September 2008. Even so, burning the bondholders in September 2008 would have carried huge risks. Only Labour, of the main political parties supported doing so at the time.
Burning the bondholders at a later date would have turned us into Greece.
As for just following the terms set in place, it is a bit like Google maps telling you the quickest way from A to B and someone else (Solidarity) saying my friend (Syriza) knows a short-cut, and resisting their advice to take a short-cut over a cliff-edge. One should never underestimate the qualities required to keep a ship on course or to land an aeroplane, ditto running a country.
When discussing FG's role in the loan allocation, bringing up Syriza, by way of saying we could have been left in the same situation as them, doesn't alot any more kudos to FG.
The lowest thing to me was the attitude of FG. They went from blaming FF to blaming 'paddy' for our economic ills. It will be interesting to see the brass neck when FG return to blaming FF, their political partners, come the next election.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »When discussing FG's role in the loan allocation, bringing up Syriza, by way of saying we could have been left in the same situation as them, doesn't alot any more kudos to FG.
The lowest thing to me was the attitude of FG. They went from blaming FF to blaming 'paddy' for our economic ills. It will be interesting to see the brass neck when FG return to blaming FF, their political partners, come the next election.
We will just have to agree to differ, as we clearly hold two different views on recent history. I think we have explained our positions clearly enough for those who are reading to make up their own mind on whether Ireland should have stayed on the path it chose or gone down the alternative Syriza path.
Let's just leave it there.0 -
We will just have to agree to differ, as we clearly hold two different views on recent history. I think we have explained our positions clearly enough for those who are reading to make up their own mind on whether Ireland should have stayed on the path it chose or gone down the alternative Syriza path.
Let's just leave it there.
I believe we had no option but to take the loan and FG did that. I'm not sure who's advocating not taking the loan. If the faith of the bondholders was married to us taking the loan, then it's a different matter. How FG went about 'changing the way we do business' leaves a lot to be desired. Again, this goes back to claims FG led some of us out of the dark times. I suppose they did, being in government. The one sided manner still leaves a lot to be desired.0 -
Realistically, people voted for them to act as a bulwark against the excesses of FG. They failed in that regard.
People said something rather similar about the Lib Dems in the UK as they decimated that party. Of course, it turns out they were incredibly incorrect in their assessment based on what happened since. Minority coalition partners the world over get screwed because electorates, by and large, selfish and self-serving and demand in theory what they decry in practice.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »I was referring to the current line of discussion. I don't keep track of WWMWD? We should have burned the bondholders. By my understanding, you buy shares/bonds and they increase or decrease in value based on the market. It's gambling. If you lose, you lose. The idea that we as a country should cover loses is a con the financial cartels strong arm us into so they can remain on top. That's why we see nothing has changed for these people. We are owned by financial institutions. And Vardakar wants 'Republic day'?
Bonds are not "gambling". They are loading money up-front in return for an interest rate that reflects the underlying risk and eventual return of the principal. They are really not that different to a bank loan. You're advocating defaulting on a car loan and being left wondering why you can't get a mortgage afterwards.0 -
Bonds are not "gambling". They are loading money up-front in return for an interest rate that reflects the underlying risk and eventual return of the principal. They are really not that different to a bank loan. You're advocating defaulting on a car loan and being left wondering why you can't get a mortgage afterwards.
Don't any profits depend on how well the entity fares in the market place? Aren't loses part of the game one enters into?
If the bottom falls out of the entity, wouldn't the bondholders lose their investment?0 -
-
Johnny Dogs wrote: »The bailout the state received has to be paid back.
With interest.
That's a loan is it not
See my posts after that if you're still confused0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Don't any profits depend on how well the entity fares in the market place? Aren't loses part of the game one enters into?
If the bottom falls out of the entity, wouldn't the bondholders lose their investment?
No.
They lose their principal if the government defaults. The rate of interest will increase if the viewed risk of default increases. In theory the government are issuing a bond with a guaranteed rate of return and the ultimate repayment of principal. People can trade those bonds I guess, but that is a whole other issue. However, bonds don't generally give a variable rate of return - they are bought at a fixed rate.0 -
Advertisement
-
No.
They lose their principal if the government defaults. The rate of interest will increase if the viewed risk of default increases. In theory the government are issuing a bond with a guaranteed rate of return and the ultimate repayment of principal. People can trade those bonds I guess, but that is a whole other issue. However, bonds don't generally give a variable rate of return - they are bought at a fixed rate.
Thanks.
Pre-nationalisation, the state had no responsibility to the Anglo bondholders? Or am I wrong here?
It seems more a case of being seen as a safe bet as a nation, in the eyes of the very financial cartels holding all the strings. Borrow from us to bail out bondholders, so you have good standing with us?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement