The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

The imf literally admitted the bailout and level of austrity applied here was a mistake?

There is a complete disconnect from reality in your posts, I'm sorry to say.

The IMF never said that the bailout and level of austerity applied were a mistake. What they said, clearly, was that an austerity-only policy applied by the EU-IMF was a mistake in that the IMF's own economic modelling of the impact of austerity failed to account for a broader global depression.

In essence, a failure of policy on the EU level to anticipate a "classic banking crisis" resulted in a fragmented approach across individual European Member State's central banks. On top of that, the EU was effectively spread so thin with even bigger problems (like Greece for example) that they failed to offer any adequate liquidity support to Ireland which would allow the government at the time to "burn" Anglo and Irish Nationwide.

A good outline of various economists can be found from the source: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/dp/2015/eur1501.pdf and in particular this very concise blurb:

Although the fatal decision to respond to the banking crisis with a blanket guarantee was taken by the Irish authorities, they did not receive wise counsel from the EU. Ireland’s policy that no bank would be allowed to fail was also the EU’s policy, de facto if not de jure. Uncertainty surrounded the provision of ELA; the Irish authorities received no assurance that if they immediately put Anglo Irish and Irish Nationwide into receivership, other banks would receive unlimited liquidity support. The absence of a mechanism for directly recapitalizing the two troubled banks allowed the sovereign-bank doom loop to come into operation. The ECB applied pressure for Ireland to request a troika program in 2010, to refrain from administering haircuts to holders of senior unsecured and unguaranteed debt, to undertake sales of bank assets more quickly than Irish officials thought best, and to sell off the long-term bonds acquired by the Central Bank of Ireland at a pace that posed risks to the government’s finances.

You seem to be blaming the government at the time for something that they had no control over. A global economic depression removed Ireland's ability to borrow at any meaningfully realistic rate on the markets, leaving us looking cap-in-hand at the EU who, frankly, lacked the ability at the time to actually manage or pay to keep 28 countries afloat. That meant we needed to borrow from the lender of absolute last resort, the IMF. The IMF has historically had an austerity-first policy as a condition of its lending - you want that money, you comply with their terms. That, combined with (as quoted above) a "de facto if not de jure" policy of keeping all banks afloat from the EU resulted in an extremely difficult position. I think that had we known then that the Anglo books were absolutely cooked into oblivion a different decision would have been taken from a policy level by the Troika, but again that's hindsight and there is no use engaging in your type of revisionist history.

Call it revisionist if yous want....looks to me the establishment here is covering up this fact....and that ultimately dispite all the sneering,in long term doherty was provern to be correct....not that facts seem to matter here

SF didn't have a plan other than "down with this sort of thing", go look back and there is zero evidence in their policies from the time (still published on their website) where they planned to borrow money or at what rate.

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, FS, speculation based on past facts.

Again, this is logical fallacy.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Again, this is logical fallacy.

As I said, I think it is a logical possibility among other possibilities, including the one favoured by those who routinely try to end debate with 'what about the 'RA.

As I said, I'll keep an open mind on it, if that's ok with you?

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

Exacrtly,the austrity only approach (or level ofaustrity how ever you want to say it) was ultimately in long term admitted to been a mistake

Ok, let's just say for a second that we're on the same page here (which we aren't even remotely) - who exactly are you suggesting is to blame for this approach?

AIB to best my knowledge failed to almost as large an extent as anglo....but anyone what points this out is screamed at,and it covered up

Completely incorrect and I note based on zero evidence but... ok.

You have to laugh,lads sneering at greeks for cooking the books,while still defending bailing out likes of anglo,i find mind boggling.......

I take it you haven't heard about the conviction of David Drumm, who I was actually talking about, not the Greeks.

call it revisionist,all yous want,brushing it under carpet and not examining past mistakez,insures they will be repeated,

Yeah, but just making up random **** based in no real sense in reality isn't exactly peak introspection.

irishpol never learns,if same happened tomorrow,can yous gaurantee the establiahment and media here,wouldnt do the exact same,sneer at those pointing out the flaws,and work to cover up their mistakes.....while poorest carry the can for the establishment fcuk up as per usual

On the contrary, the EU has put in place a wide range of economic and banking policies since the crash to attempt to prevent such a situation from arising again and, in the event that such an economic depression did occur, to ensure cohesive EU banking policy with regard to both capitalisation of banks and liquidity for Member States.
If you were even remotely interested in having an actual discussion about any of this and not simply engaging in disingenuous fantasy posting, you could start by reading this: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/186944/KIEL_FINAL-original.pdf

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not sure how many times I have told you 'I don't know whether he was or not'.

The very model of a major open mind blanch.

FG councillors caught red handed taking money for planning favours, numerous cases of planning abuses in the history of the state etc etc etc trumps unproved allegations of membership of the IRA.

What FG councillors have done time for any of that? Your hypocrisy is breath-taking.

I am happy to say that Charels Haughey, Ray Burke and Liam Lawlor were corrupt based on the large amount of available public evidence, ditto that Gerry Adams was a leader of the IRA based similarly on a large amount of available public evidence. I don't need convictions or courts of law to say any of that.

You apply certain standards to Sinn Fein representatives - completely innocent and pure white, no matter the evidence, unless convicted in a court of law. Yet, you fling around accusations about others like confetti, this post being just one more example.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

What FG councillors have done time for any of that? Your hypocrisy is breath-taking.

I am happy to say that Charels Haughey, Ray Burke and Liam Lawlor were corrupt based on the large amount of available public evidence, ditto that Gerry Adams was a leader of the IRA based similarly on a large amount of available public evidence. I don't need convictions or courts of law to say any of that.

You apply certain standards to Sinn Fein representatives - completely innocent and pure white, no matter the evidence, unless convicted in a court of law. Yet, you fling around accusations about others like confetti, this post being just one more example.

blanch...once again, I have to say...'I don't know if Gerry was in the IRA or not'. (I also don't care anymore, he is retired and gone from the stage).

I do know that a FG councillor was caught on camera asking for money for planning favours plus all the other stuff you mention and more besides.

I didn't fling accusations, I said very clearly that there are a number of possibilities here ad that one of them may be inappropriate behaviour and inappropriate development, both of which SHOULD be objected to..

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

You apply certain standards to Sinn Fein representatives - completely innocent and pure white, no matter the evidence, unless convicted in a court of law

This is a basic human right

Bubbaclaus

Given this is the Sinn Fein thread, and the discussion is on the Financial Crisis of a decade ago, it would be relevant to point out that Sinn Fein voted in support of the bank guarantee, and then subsequently were against the resulting implications of that in the following years.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/elections/latest-news/sf-defends-record-on-bank-guarantee-26685491.html

jm08

christy c wrote: »

You said i was a poor listener or that I was trying to spin .

If you are acknowledging that Pearse incorrectly said (twice) that we were bottom of the EU table then fine. He was 100% wrong in that and acknowledged it himself.

You claimed that Doherty said that Ireland was the worst in the world. He didn't say that. My point still stands that you are a poor listenener (hearing stuff you want to hear rather than what has been said) or you are telling porkies (I was being nice saying you were spinning).


You are the only one who has brought this point up. Even the Indo has not tried to spin it. You would have continued spinning this lie except you were asked to provide a link. Shame on you.

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

This is a basic human right

Yes, yes, I know, Jimmy Saville was an innocent man, according to your philosophy.

What annoys me is that Francie only extends this basic human right to Sinn Fein and other republicans. He believes he is free to say "FG councillors caught red handed taking money for planning favours, numerous cases of planning abuses in the history of the state etc etc etc" and blacken the names of loads of people as a result.

I mean if I was to say that the IRA were responsible for the sexual abuse of Mairia Cahill and Paudie McGahon and that SF turned a blind eye to it, Francie would be first to jump up and down about courts of law etc. etc.

Those are his and your standards, and when you fail to live up to them, it is breathtaking hypocrisy. I apply different realistic standards, assessing the evidence and reaching reasonable conclusions.

christy c

jm08 wrote: »

You claimed that Doherty said that Ireland was the worst in the world. He didn't say that. My point still stands that you are a poor listenener (hearing stuff you want to hear rather than what has been said) or you are telling porkies (I was being nice saying you were spinning).


You are the only one who has brought this point up. Even the Indo has not tried to spin it. You would have continued spinning this lie except you were asked to provide a link. Shame on you.

Where did I say Doherty had said we were the worst in the world? I had said bottom of the list and added some clarity when providing the link as I suspected some might make an issue of that which you have done. Anyway, saying we were bottom of the EU list was and is completely and utterly wrong.

You call me a liar but yet you blatantly lie about me being the only one to bring this up. The only reason I mentioned it last night was because it was mentioned previously on this thread. "Shame on me", laughable stuff.

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

I never said anyone is to blame,but that the sneering at doherty and co was unfounded and ultimately wrong

Again, let's engage in pretend here and imagine that you understand what you're talking about. Let me ask a simple question here: What was SF's alternative to accepting the terms of the Troika's loan, specifically the IMF's insistence that austerity was the correct economic solution.

I don't care at all about what the IMF is saying now, that's completely irrelevant; at the time, the IMF's supply of money was entirely dependent on accepting their economic requirements and specifically a policy of austerity.

It needed a bailout of 20 billion and only barely scraped through stress tests

There was a global banking crisis and I've already outlined the flaws in the EU banking policy (which despite your baseless claims are absolutely relevant).

Its not random ****e,the imf literally admitted it was a mistake,and the irish media were happy to sneer at it,but not so quick to admit mistakes,and covered it....imo this amounts to corruption on media,and not doing their jon

Ok, well I guess I didn't know you had a time machine to go back and tell the IMF that in the past.

I asked will the irish establishment and media,repeat mistakes of the past and coverup their mistakez (this applies to broad range of issues,such as direct provison today...not just banking)
,quite why yous want to label.this as fantasy posting,and pivot towards eu banking practices is your own bizness.

I'm not even sure we can see the goalposts they've been shifted so far.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, yes, I know, Jimmy Saville was an innocent man, according to your philosophy.

Were he still alive and not successfully prosecuted, YES he would be an innocent man. It is a basic tenet of of democracy, ignored if they are one of the people under your bed, though.

What annoys me is that Francie only extends this basic human right to Sinn Fein and other republicans. He believes he is free to say "FG councillors caught red handed taking money for planning favours, numerous cases of planning abuses in the history of the state etc etc etc" and blacken the names of loads of people as a result.

Whose 'name' did I blacken?

I mean if I was to say that the IRA were responsible for the sexual abuse of Mairia Cahill and Paudie McGahon and that SF turned a blind eye to it, Francie would be first to jump up and down about courts of law etc. etc.

Those are his and your standards, and when you fail to live up to them, it is breathtaking hypocrisy. I apply different realistic standards, assessing the evidence and reaching reasonable conclusions.

YOU DO say it all the time. :D Every opportunity you get, in fact.

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

There is literally video footage of fg coucillors requesting money for planning favours??
Like its blackening noones name to say this

.

Yet I cannot say that Sinn Fein and the IRA facilitated sexual abuse despite all of the evidence.

Double standards is what is at play.

grayzer75

Deleted User wrote: »

Except they didnt....like your free to say it,but much like your silly army coumcil. Conspiracy theory,it desont hold water in reality.....

.and you increasingly sound like the cohort who scream voter fraud about us elections, if you.contineue to parrot it.....like your free to say it,noone will stop you......but it noone will take you seriously




Werent yous screaming at anyone who would listen about people using victims for own agenda the other day....is that double standreds?

The biggest facilitators of sexual violence on the island of Ireland were FF, FG and their buddies in the catholic church.

jm08

christy c wrote: »

Where did I say Doherty had said we were the worst in the world? I had said bottom of the list and added some clarity when providing the link as I suspected some might make an issue of that which you have done. Anyway, saying we were bottom of the EU list was and is completely and utterly wrong.

You call me a liar but yet you blatantly lie about me being the only one to bring this up. The only reason I mentioned it last night was because it was mentioned previously on this thread. "Shame on me", laughable stuff.

You didn't provide any clarity until you were asked for a link. As for being bottom of the EU list - I do recall seeing a graphic which had Ireland in the bottom couple of the EU table. Bearing in mind that is a league of 27 countries, its nothing to be proud of.


Moving up to the middle of the league of 27 isn't something to be boasting about.

christy c

jm08 wrote: »

You didn't provide any clarity until you were asked for a link. As for being bottom of the EU list - I do recall seeing a graphic which had Ireland in the bottom couple of the EU table. Bearing in mind that is a league of 27 countries, its nothing to be proud of.


Moving up to the middle of the league of 27 isn't something to be boasting about.

Yes, I provided clarity with the link that was requested. I was referencing a discussion that already took place here.

We are or were top of the EU table recently.

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

Where did i say,they had an alternative,just that their mantra that austrity was excessive was killing country and delaying recovery.....this was sneered at by establishment,and has been proved correct

Deos it not bother yous,that the establushment sneered at someone,whom ultimately the imf said was right,and the present programme for government includes 2 years of austrity at the end

This is honestly so disingenuous (at best) that it is baffling. Anyone can shout "down with this sort of thing" and not provide a credible alternative. The fact of the matter is that you clearly don't have any actual idea of what you're talking about.

Let me make this point abundantly clear: the IMF changing their mind on austerity policy a decade after they implemented it is not a "win" for people who were "anti-austerity" but had no credible plan on how to implement a policy of "anti-austerity". The Troika, part funded by the IMF, was the only affordable source of money and the IMF required austerity as a condition of their loan.

If you cannot understand what that means or how the IMF changing their position retrospectively is irrelevant to what happened at the time, then you're not worth engaging with.

AIB needing a bailout of 20 billion and a decade later barely scrapes through stress tests,is irrelvant,catch a hold of yourself

Absolute pure and utter toss.

Childish,i can tell you have little interest in rational taight

I don't know what "rational taight" is but let's assume I'm bored explaining everything to you as if I were explaining it to a child and then you still don't get it.

Goalposts havnt been shifted,ive stayed on line with the discussion and not disppeared down yiur rabbithole

You think we're having a discussion?

James Brown

a very cool kid wrote: »

Well this is it , we have to be more careful with the public finances, we're already after loading a pile of debt onto our children.

Do people still think FF/FG are fiscally prudent? Seriously?
I know SF are untested but we know FF/FG are frivolous on vanity projects, hands off on large projects and prone to 'looking after their own' in top jobs and state contracts and the aforementioned generational debt. We should not forget, whatever ideas on what might have happened we know what did.
So TBF, we know they are not top notch by any means.
People want stone hard facts on what SF might do before they'll ditch FF/FG, with their record? I've seen enough.

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

Except they literally outlined what was happening,and were sneered at.....still are despite being proven corrext is hilarious,the arrogance of the establishment



No where did i say it was a win....just that they were proven right in what they said??
You get this,right??




Irish banks still barely scrape stress tests,this isnt toss...how many billion is put in,and lives ruined to see this

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/aib-and-bank-of-ireland-among-worst-performers-in-stress-tests-1.2739608%3fmode=amp




You havent explaimed anything,just scream austrity needed over and over,while refusing to acknowledge imf admit it was mistake




Fairly one sided as yous have resorted to hurling abuse,sneering at anyone for daring to point out the mistakes made previously.....while ive been nothing but polite,courteous and tried to find common groud with yous

This is clearly ****ing pointless.

James Brown

piplip87 wrote: »

The absolute hypocrisy by SF and their supporters is clear for all to see again. Letting ideology get in the of homes getting built time & time again. Themselves and PBP shoukd hang their heads in shame.

The number of times the majority of each party's councillors voted against a motion for housing development since June 2019.

PBP 19
Sinn Fein 16,
Social Democrats 12
Fianna Fail 2
Greens 2
Labour 2
Fine Geal 1

We have a serious crisis regarding homes getting built. The fact that they are not the right type of homes for the misery merchants is irrelevant at this stage. Its fairly clear to see the left are against home ownership and will object to any development thay will see people owning homes.

Is this regarding the council proposing builds not fit for families that will likely go to private rental companies?
I'd vote against more profiteering.

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

These lads like holding up developments and for political gain so they can go on TV and Dail and spout about the Govts housing failures.
Absolute hypocrites as the prior post said.

Or those lads are putting forward builds to line the pockets of pals?
We need know the details.
If this is regarding more builds for rental companies, I'm glad they are blocked.

James Brown

piplip87 wrote: »

Increasing supply of homes been built is the best way to lower prices. May I also add all these developments will have to compulsory social housing attached too.

We have a housing crisis which affects every person in this state who is trying to buy a home. What SF & PBP want is only for the social housing crisis to be solved. Which is a joke.

Let developers build private homes. In doing this more people will buy, which means more people will leave rental accommodation and it will free up units for those who wish to rent.

Let the state provide social houses to those in need.

SF and PBP are objecting based on ideology alone which is wrong

Not always. The state is subsidising private rents workers can't pay. So they don't need lower prices.

FreudianSlippers

Bowie wrote: »

Not always. The state is subsidising private rents workers can't pay. So they don't need lower prices.

You disagree with the basic concept of supply and demand now?

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You disagree with the basic concept of supply and demand now?

You read my comment. To simplify further; More build to rent apartments where the tax payer subsidises the rent or pays the rent will help the housing crisis/tax payer how exactly?

Why would these private rental companies lower pricing exactly?
The idea that to simply keep building regardless of the model is silly.
We all know you can buy a 2021 car for tuppence ha'ppeny, they make so many :rolleyes:

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

You read my comment. To simplify further; More build to rent apartments where the tax payer subsidises the rent or pays the rent will help the housing crisis/tax payer how exactly?

Why would these private rental companies lower pricing exactly?
The idea that to simply keep building regardless of the model is silly.
We all know you can buy a 2021 car for tuppence ha'ppeny, they make so many :rolleyes:

More build to rent apartments will lower the cost of renting apartments, thereby helping everyone who rents. Simple economics that works.

FreudianSlippers

Bowie wrote: »

You read my comment. To simplify further; More build to rent apartments where the tax payer subsidises the rent or pays the rent will help the housing crisis/tax payer how exactly?

Why would these private rental companies lower pricing exactly?

So what you're saying is not so much that you disagree with the concept of supply and demand but that you don't understand the concept of supply and demand.

Instead of approaching from the position that what you're saying is so intelligent it needs to be dumbed down for me, maybe consider formulating a coherent intellectual argument if possible. Your "simplified" comment doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it?

The idea that to simply keep building regardless of the model is silly.

Nobody is suggesting that

We all know you can buy a 2021 car for tuppence ha'ppeny, they make so many :rolleyes:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest the last time you studied economics was secondary school.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

More build to rent apartments will lower the cost of renting apartments, thereby helping everyone who rents. Simple economics that works.

Not under FF/FG it doesn't. Nearly a decade of housing crises to varying degrees.

If you looked at my questions you might glean from them that more apartments people can't afford will likely not help the situation. Especially if the tax payer subsidises tenants or pays rent for tenants. Again, why would this cause the rental company to lower rent?
Maybe if we've more apartments than people :rolleyes:

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Not under FF/FG it doesn't. Nearly a decade of housing crises to varying degrees.

If you looked at my questions you might glean from them that more apartments people can't afford will likely not help the situation. Especially if the tax payer subsidises tenants or pays rent for tenants. Again, why would this cause the rental company to lower rent?
Maybe if we've more apartments than people :rolleyes:

Increasing supply at a rate greater than increasing demand ensures that the market price drops.

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So what you're saying is not so much that you disagree with the concept of supply and demand but that you don't understand the concept of supply and demand.

Instead of approaching from the position that what you're saying is so intelligent it needs to be dumbed down for me, maybe consider formulating a coherent intellectual argument if possible. Your "simplified" comment doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it?


Nobody is suggesting that


I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest the last time you studied economics was secondary school.

I assumed you didn't understand based on your conclusion. You've not changed my view in that regard.

More housing people can't afford will not result in lower pricing. Why? Because the tax payer will either subsidise or cover the entire rent for many tenants on low/no income.

Rather than bypass my questions, attempting to answer them might be a learning process for you.

You seem unable to grasp the results of policies we've seen in action around us for a decade.