Water ownership...It hasn't gone away you know.

atticu

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Can you go a week without oil? When oil runs out, we'll adapt. Should be adapting now mind.

All you have to do is admit that you can’t explain.

Which it seems you can’t.

So, water isn’t precious, it is a resource that is supplied to you. You need to pay for your supply, to whoever supplies it to you, or you need to ensure that you have your own supply.

Simple!

Water is NOT a human right!

Edward M

atticu wrote: »

All you have to do is admit that you can’t explain.

Which it seems you can’t.

So, water isn’t precious, it is a resource that is supplied to you. You need to pay for your supply, to whoever supplies it to you, or you need to ensure that you have your own supply.

Simple!

Water is NOT a human right!

Says you and whom else?
http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/human_right_to_water.shtml

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Wording hasn't come up as an issue so far.
While safeguarding water from privatisation is pointless and all, people should be able to vote for the ambassadorial role of President while living abroad damn it...



The constitution could be on the verge of exploding.

Amending existing provisions minimally is a safe enough thing to do from a legal perspective. Anyone with a basic understanding of law would know that.

Very different from putting something completely unknown (e.g. beholden to) into the Constitution. That would be like the 8th Amendment. The fact that people are doing it for reasons similar to Brexit - happy good feelings that have no substance - makes it even worse.

FreudianSlippers

Sam Russell wrote: »

No, NAMA should have got the assets at 100% of valuation and they would then only make a 'profit' if they realised that much.

How would that have worked as a "bad bank" in terms of the bailout? NAMA bought the debt from the banks on the basis that eventually the secured asset would appreciate - this is the entire purpose of NAMA that you're criticising.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Wording hasn't come up as an issue so far.
While safeguarding water from privatisation is pointless and all, people should be able to vote for the ambassadorial role of President while living abroad damn it...



The constitution could be on the verge of exploding.

I think I must be on your ignore list, because you seem to evade every point I've made including the fact that this objection has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the Constitution.

Sam Russell

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

How would that have worked as a "bad bank" in terms of the bailout? NAMA bought the debt from the banks on the basis that eventually the secured asset would appreciate - this is the entire purpose of NAMA that you're criticising.

If say an asset is valued on the banks book at €100 million and is passed to NAMA at €30 million, and sold on to a vulture fund at €50 million, NAMA records a 'profit' of €20 million. A win for NAMA but a loss for the state of €50 million.

However if that asset passes to NAMA at €100 million, then NAMA will put every effort to get as close to €100 million as possible. The 'haircut' should have applied to the banks, not NAMA, as it gives a false benchmark as to values that NAMA might achieve. This is born out by the number of quick profits achieved by the purchasers of these assets who sold the assets on, many not paying taxes in this jurisdiction.

Perhaps not bundling all assets together in NI into a single package (Project Eagle) and selling it to a single bidder was not the wisest approach. The fact that some funny money related to this project turned up in the Isle of Man might add to this view.

Captain Obvious

Sam Russell wrote: »

If say an asset is valued on the banks book at €100 million and is passed to NAMA at €30 million, and sold on to a vulture fund at €50 million, NAMA records a 'profit' of €20 million. A win for NAMA but a loss for the state of €50 million.

However if that asset passes to NAMA at €100 million, then NAMA will put every effort to get as close to €100 million as possible. The 'haircut' should have applied to the banks, not NAMA, as it gives a false benchmark as to values that NAMA might achieve. This is born out by the number of quick profits achieved by the purchasers of these assets who sold the assets on, many not paying taxes in this jurisdiction.

Perhaps not bundling all assets together in NI into a single package (Project Eagle) and selling it to a single bidder was not the wisest approach. The fact that some funny money related to this project turned up in the Isle of Man might add to this view.

But if there was no NAMA what would have happened?

TheChizler

Sam Russell wrote: »

If say an asset is valued on the banks book at €100 million and is passed to NAMA at €30 million, and sold on to a vulture fund at €50 million, NAMA records a 'profit' of €20 million. A win for NAMA but a loss for the state of €50 million.

However if that asset passes to NAMA at €100 million, then NAMA will put every effort to get as close to €100 million as possible.

So we should have tripled the cost of the bailout?...

Sam Russell

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But if there was no NAMA what would have happened?

TheChizler wrote: »

So we should have tripled the cost of the bailout?...

No, if NAMA was purposed to get as close to full value rather than getting more than the haircut value then more money would have been recovered. Many assets were sold at fire sale prices unnecessarily.

Even now some NAMA assets are being refused to Gov agencies wanting to build homes for social housing. (I'm thinking of the St Teresa's gardens redevelopment that has stalled for want of access to NAMA sites.

James Brown

atticu wrote: »

All you have to do is admit that you can’t explain.

Which it seems you can’t.

So, water isn’t precious, it is a resource that is supplied to you. You need to pay for your supply, to whoever supplies it to you, or you need to ensure that you have your own supply.

Simple!

Water is NOT a human right!

I did. Water is needed and cannot be substituted. That makes it a precious commodity.
Agreed. My supply belongs to the state and I pay for it. You don't know all this?
If you have water and don't wish to give me any I have no right to it. Bang on.

That's the attitude requires we protect it. It shouldn't be only accessible as a commodity at market IMO.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But if there was no NAMA what would have happened?

Why is it always all or nothing? How about a better organised and run NAMA? FYI: I won't be drafting you any NAMA documents.

blanch152

Sam Russell wrote: »

No, if NAMA was purposed to get as close to full value rather than getting more than the haircut value then more money would have been recovered. Many assets were sold at fire sale prices unnecessarily.

Even now some NAMA assets are being refused to Gov agencies wanting to build homes for social housing. (I'm thinking of the St Teresa's gardens redevelopment that has stalled for want of access to NAMA sites.

Completely contradictory post.

You want NAMA to get the best price for something, yet you also want it to hand over land to Government agencies for free?

Sam Russell

blanch152 wrote: »

Completely contradictory post.

You want NAMA to get the best price for something, yet you also want it to hand over land to Government agencies for free?

Who mentioned 'free'? The problem is NAMA will not treat.

NAMA is Sate owned, so price is irrelevant anyway.

atticu

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I did. Water is needed and cannot be substituted. That makes it a precious commodity.
Agreed. My supply belongs to the state and I pay for it. You don't know all this?
If you have water and don't wish to give me any I have no right to it. Bang on.

That's the attitude requires we protect it. It shouldn't be only accessible as a commodity at market IMO.
s.

The same is true for food.

Why do you think you have any right to the fruits of someone’s labor?

You only have the right to the fruits of your labor.

FreudianSlippers

Sam Russell wrote: »

If say an asset is valued on the banks book at €100 million and is passed to NAMA at €30 million, and sold on to a vulture fund at €50 million, NAMA records a 'profit' of €20 million. A win for NAMA but a loss for the state of €50 million.

However if that asset passes to NAMA at €100 million, then NAMA will put every effort to get as close to €100 million as possible. The 'haircut' should have applied to the banks, not NAMA, as it gives a false benchmark as to values that NAMA might achieve. This is born out by the number of quick profits achieved by the purchasers of these assets who sold the assets on, many not paying taxes in this jurisdiction.

Perhaps not bundling all assets together in NI into a single package (Project Eagle) and selling it to a single bidder was not the wisest approach. The fact that some funny money related to this project turned up in the Isle of Man might add to this view.

Well let's just deal with actual figures for a second.

Loan value was €77bn on assets of €88bn and transferred to NAMA after a 30% haircut. The current book value of those assets is €47bn and NAMA is likely to end up paying approximately €54bn on the loans. They have reportedly already established a €3.5bn profit.

That's a minimal loss to the state on a bad bank no matter how you slice it and shows that NAMA has been a success.

James Brown

atticu wrote: »

The same is true for food.

Why do you think you have any right to the fruits of someone’s labor?

You only have the right to the fruits of your labor.

You're confusing water with a product. While some private concerns will sell you water, the state is a publicly owned supplier or water funded by taxation.

Theres a lot of confusion here. On the one hand it falls from the sky and we've ocean's full of it, on the other it's the fruits of someones labour? Jesus? I know some of you hadn't much of an argument to begin with but seriously.

Seth Brundle

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Theres a lot of confusion here. On the one hand it falls from the sky and we've ocean's full of it, on the other it's the fruits of someones labour? Jesus? I know some of you hadn't much of an argument to begin with but seriously.

It's funny how everyone is confused over your proposal except you!

Also the comparison of rain and sea water to clean potable water is disingenuous. They are quite different (and I'm aware that the anti-water charges folk used rain as a reason for not paying but potable water is expensive to produce and supply) .

oscarBravo

Matt Barrett wrote: »

...the state is a publicly owned supplier [of] water funded by taxation.

The state is a what now?

Theres a lot of confusion here.

That much is true.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're confusing water with a product. While some private concerns will sell you water, the state is a publicly owned supplier or water funded by taxation.

Theres a lot of confusion here. On the one hand it falls from the sky and we've ocean's full of it, on the other it's the fruits of someones labour? Jesus? I know some of you hadn't much of an argument to begin with but seriously.

You can't just decide on a whim that water isn't a commodity. It's a commodity.

Sam Russell

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Well let's just deal with actual figures for a second.

Loan value was €77bn on assets of €88bn and transferred to NAMA after a 30% haircut. The current book value of those assets is €47bn and NAMA is likely to end up paying approximately €54bn on the loans. They have reportedly already established a €3.5bn profit.

That's a minimal loss to the state on a bad bank no matter how you slice it and shows that NAMA has been a success.

The original cost of the bailout was €67 billion. How much did NAMA recover of that amount? They got the assets at a discount of 57%, so not hard to sell the best of those assets at prices that get a return on such a deep discount.

Perhaps you might consider Project Eagle. Was it an outlier, or more run of the mill? Or Project Albion?

Why did they pay bankrupt developers, who owed huge sums to NAMA, salaries of the order of €200 k?


The bail out has cost net north of €30 billion after the work of NAMA - not much to shout about a 'profit' of €3.5 billion.

Like Irish Water, NAMA was a solution but badly thought out and badly executed.

Sam Russell

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It's funny how everyone is confused over your proposal except you!

Also the comparison of rain and sea water to clean potable water is disingenuous. They are quite different (and I'm aware that the anti-water charges folk used rain as a reason for not paying but potable water is expensive to produce and supply) .

If the charges for 'supply of water' were labelled as 'treatment of waste water' the argument might have been different.

FreudianSlippers

Sam Russell wrote: »

The original cost of the bailout was €67 billion. How much did NAMA recover of that amount? They got the assets at a discount of 57%, so not hard to sell the best of those assets at prices that get a return on such a deep discount.

The cost of the bailout is irrelevant - bailouts are expensive, no surprise.

NAMA is what's at issue here and they purchased €77bn worth of debt for €54bn with a current portfolio value of €47bn. Being able to make a profit of any amount on that is a good thing; particularly when you consider the opening asset value against which the loans were provided was €88bn.

Perhaps you might consider Project Eagle.

Likely not conducted in the most transparent and appropriate manner, but I don't believe there is evidence that it was undervalued

Was it an outlier, or more run of the mill? Or Project Albion?

Albion is one of the worst performing portfolios on the balance sheet - I take it you have issue with Projects Beara and Arch?

Why did they pay bankrupt developers, who owed huge sums to NAMA, salaries of the order of €200 k?

Don't know if that is relevant or even true?

The bail out has cost net north of €30 billion after the work of NAMA - not much to shout about a 'profit' of €3.5 billion.

Are you shocked that bailing out an entire failed banking system based on predatory lending and credit-fuelled property prices was expensive?

NAMA can be successful on its own merits without being convoluted with the bailout in itself.

Like Irish Water, NAMA was a solution but badly thought out and badly executed.

Without the benefit of hindsight, I'd love to know what your alternative would be to NAMA.

McMurphy

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It's funny how everyone is confused over your proposal except you!

Also the comparison of rain and sea water to clean potable water is disingenuous. They are quite different (and I'm aware that the anti-water charges folk used rain as a reason for not paying but potable water is expensive to produce and supply) .

Oh dear..... Looks like someone wasn't following the flow of conversation, or else was just selectively quoting.

From here.

atticu wrote: »

Would you like to explain how water, that falls from the sky for free, and covers more than two thirds of the earths surface is more precious than oil?

Precious: of high price or great value, very valuable or costly, highly esteemed for some spiritual, nonmaterial or moral quality.

Mind you, this poster also introduced other such cracking posts such as...

atticu wrote: »

Simple!

Water is NOT a human right!

Um..... really?

Seth Brundle

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Oh dear..... Looks like someone wasn't following the flow of conversation, or else was just selectively quoting.

From here.

I've followed the thread just fine.
Do you think I can't have my own opinion?

McMurphy

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I've followed the thread just fine.

If you say so, but that only makes your above post look all the more bizarre.

Do you think I can't have my own opinion?

Whatever gave you that idea everyone's entitled to an opinion. Even a wrong one.

jimmycrackcorm

Johnny Dogs wrote:

Um.....

Your link states access to water is a right. That necessarily mean free piped water to your tap.

Otherwise there's a lot of rural folks who dug their own wells being violated by the lack of government provision.

McMurphy

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Your link states access to water is a right. That necessarily mean free piped water to your tap.

Piped to your home/well drawn/delivered by camel, it matters not a jot.

Poster above stated water isn't a human right.

It is.

You can go around the house for posts and posts arguing the semantics of that if you want. I don't be joining you though.

Otherwise there's a lot of rural folks who dug their own wells being violated by the lack of government provision.

See above.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Piped to your home/well drawn/delivered by camel, it matters not a jot.

Poster above stated water isn't a human right.

It is.

You can go around the house for posts and posts arguing the semantics of that if you want. I don't be joining you though.



See above.

The UN states that water is a human right.

However, that is not a universal truth.

Someone is therefore entitled to have the opinion that water is not a human right.

oscarBravo

It's irrelevant whether or not it's a human right. Food and clothing are human rights, but nobody's clamouring for a constitutional amendment to nationalise Tesco or Dunnes.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

The UN states that water is a human right.

However, that is not a universal truth.

Someone is therefore entitled to have the opinion that water is not a human right.

But it is one of the most basic necessities and the fact is that it is regarded as a human right by international agreement.

Edward M

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's irrelevant whether or not it's a human right. Food and clothing are human rights, but nobody's clamouring for a constitutional amendment to nationalise Tesco or Dunnes.

I'd agree to a point.
But water for the most part is provided by the state here.
The best way to guarantee the quality of the water and treatment of it is to keep it in national hands.
I linked earlier to the fact that privatisation hasn't worked out well in other countries, either price wise or quality of service wise.
Corporate companies don't regard quality and efficiency of service as highly as profits.
I think we should ascertain that our service doesn't go down the corporate route of big payout of dividends while the service becomes more indebted.