FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Sounds like he said both but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
If a bank is bailed out how would the affect any shareholders? If a bank is not charged tax on profits for 30 years how does that affect shareholders?
Seems to me he was trying to put a bow on the bail outs.

https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-irish-government-bank-guarantee-bailout-5301833-Dec2020/

"Micheál Martin said that the money given by the Irish government to the banks in 2008 was not a bailout. He also noted in his remarks that bank shareholders were not bailed out.

In doing this, he appears to conflate two different things. However, while the first part is true (shareholders were not bailed out or compensated), the second part is not."

Amazed that you don't know that shareholders were not bailed out.

Essentially, if Martin was correcting himself, then what he said was true. If he wasn't, as the Journal explains, he was wrong.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-irish-government-bank-guarantee-bailout-5301833-Dec2020/

"Micheál Martin said that the money given by the Irish government to the banks in 2008 was not a bailout. He also noted in his remarks that bank shareholders were not bailed out.

In doing this, he appears to conflate two different things. However, while the first part is true (shareholders were not bailed out or compensated), the second part is not."

Amazed that you don't know that shareholders were not bailed out.

Essentially, if Martin was correcting himself, then what he said was true. If he wasn't, as the Journal explains, he was wrong.

I directly quoted him and commented on it.
The banks were bailed out and private shareholders were saved from loses. That's as good a bail out as any.
Amazed that you don't know how shares work.

Bubbaclaus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Looks to.me,he tried to tell outright lies to one of the most educated populations in europe



Quite how ffg taught people were going to fall for this is beyond me,but screams complete lack of respect for the electorate to me anyway

He obviously thinks we're all dopes anyway.....

Is a slip of the tongue which is immediately corrected in the next sentence considered a lie these days?

Political debate in this country has gone down the ****ter.

Bubbaclaus

Bowie wrote: »

I directly quoted him and commented on it.
The banks were bailed out and private shareholders were saved from loses. That's as good a bail out as any.
Amazed that you don't know how shares work.

This is completely made up. How were shareholders saved from losses? They were absolutely gutted.

You are giving out about apparent lies, but then post that?

Bloody hell.

golfball37

The definition of a bailout is injecting money to a business that has no other way of raising finance. The banks received a bailout from the state, the shareholders are irrelevant.

FrancieBrady

Of course his defenders are leaving out Michael's last sentence there,

'that's not a popular thing to say'.

He was in my hoop correcting himself.

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

This is completely made up. How were shareholders saved from losses? They were absolutely gutted.

You are giving out about apparent lies, but then post that?

Bloody hell.

Private investors were rescued. They would have been wiped out but for the bail outs.
Where did we buy the shares from?

The con here is people talking about the need for a bailout like the problem fell from the sky and not a government MM was part of.

Bubbaclaus

Bowie wrote: »

Private investors were rescued. They would have been wiped out but for the bail outs.
Where did we buy the shares from?

The con here is people talking about the need for a bailout like the problem fell from the sky and not a government MM was part of.

It was a massive new issue of shares in the banks, they weren't "bought" from anywhere. The shareholders didn't receive anything and their shareholdings got diluted to essentially 0.

Pretty amazing really that you clearly don't know what happened and you are coming out with statements like the below.

Bowie wrote: »

Amazed that you don't know how shares work.

It's pretty clear really that there is a large amount of people that don't actually know what happened during the bailout, or have any understanding of how a new issue of shares works and where the flow of funds go in a new issue.

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

It was a massive new issue of shares in the banks, they weren't "bought" from anywhere. The shareholders didn't receive anything and their shareholdings got diluted to essentially 0.

Pretty amazing really that you clearly don't know what happened and you are coming out with statements like the below.



It's pretty clear really that there is a large amount of people that don't actually know what happened during the bailout, or have any understanding of how a new issue of shares works and where the flow of funds go in a new issue.

Did the bank shareholders walk away with nothing, yes or no?

TBF, I suspect nobody but FF and their cronies know what really went on.

Bubbaclaus

Bowie wrote: »

Did the bank shareholders walk away with nothing, yes or no?

TBF, I suspect nobody but FF and their cronies know what really went on.

Ah here we go, you literally don't have a clue of how it all works, so suddenly nobody knows and "nobody but FF and their cronies know what really went on".

You showed yourself up to be ignorant when trying to put down another poster with the comment "amazed that you don't understand how shares work", and when shown how wrong you are it suddenly tangents into a "nobody knows what happened except the cronies" retort.

The shareholders didnt receive any money in the bailout. If the State had bought the shares off the shareholders, then the bailout money would have just gone to shareholders and none would have actually flowed into the banks. Do you not see how illogical the argument is to claim the State bought the shares off the shareholders? The banks would have just collapsed then because the bank itself hadn't received any money in that scenario.

McMurphy

https://twitter.com/lukeming/status/1339255280681570309?s=19

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Ah here we go, you literally don't have a clue of how it all works, so suddenly nobody knows and "nobody but FF and their cronies know what really went on".

You showed yourself up to be ignorant when trying to put down another poster with the comment "amazed that you don't understand how shares work", and when shown how wrong you are it suddenly tangents into a "nobody knows what happened except the cronies" retort.

The shareholders didnt receive any money in the bailout. If the State had bought the shares off the shareholders, then the bailout money would have just gone to shareholders and none would have actually flowed into the banks. Do you not see how illogical the argument is to claim the State bought the shares off the shareholders? The banks would have just collapsed then because the bank itself hadn't received any money in that scenario.

I'm not 100% on how it all worked, no.
I was referring to the lies FF spun such as the IMF not being in the country. How much ministers knew about regulations being flouted. Ministers getting special loans etc. etc. Followed by Enda Kenny talking about the army at ATMs and Noonan's dodge NAMA dealings.
We'll likely never know the full story.

Nope. The 'nobody knows' does not relate to the bail outs. You are conflating the two not I. I've been quite clear on it.
Did Anglo/AIB/BofI shareholders walk away with nothing?

Bubbaclaus

Bowie wrote: »

I was referring to the lies FF spun such as the IMF not being in the country. How much ministers knew about regulations being flouted. Ministers getting special loans etc. etc. Followed by Enda Kenny talking about the army at ATMs.
We'll likely never know the full story.

Nope. The 'nobody knows' does not relate to the bail outs. You are conflating the two not I. I've been quite clear on it.
Did Anglo/AIB/BofI shareholders walk away with nothing?

Well it depends how literal you mean by "nothing". They still had their shares, now worthless and diluted into irrelevance. I recall the Church of Ireland being particularly badly hit at the time, they had a good few million worth of shares in the banks and lost it all.

The_Brood

Claiming the banks were not bailed out.....this is pretty much Kim Jong Un level lies, deceit and delusion. The corporatist EU-polished version.

smurgen

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Well it depends how literal you mean by "nothing". They still had their shares, now worthless and diluted into irrelevance. I recall the Church of Ireland being particularly badly hit at the time, they had a good few million worth of shares in the banks and lost it all.

You know nothing about this and are embarrassing yourself. The market cap of the bank was propped up by the government. The shareholders were bailed out.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Michael losing the rag and making a cod of himself.

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1339197451513847808

Gavin is wrong in his title.

MM clearly said that we didn't bail out the shareholders of the banks, which is entirely correct.

markodaly

Bowie wrote: »

How do you explain it? The man is the only employee in his company. He promotes gigs in the middles east. He got the contract to bring in medical respirators/ventilators. I'll say that sounds very odd and likely crony.

It can sound anyway you want it to sound. Its the same thing Anti-Vaxxers parrot day in day out, 'Oh its sounds bad!'... even though there is no Science to back it up.
Are you an Anti-Vaxxer?

What lie?

You keep parroting the Trumpian populist nonsense day in day out, about cronyism, yet offer no evidence of the sort.
You keep going on about optics, or that it ' sounds very odd' yet offer no evidcie of support.
Are you an Anti-Vaxxer, because your comments would lead me to belive you may be one.

If I said I knew for a fact it was a crony deal and you knew for a fact it wasn't, that would be a lie.

Ok, so you DONT know, is that what you are telling me?
You have ZERO evidence it was a crony deal, never mind that some FG, FF, Green TD is in the thick of it picking tenders.
So, basically, you have nothing to offer but some soundbites about optics.
Again, are you an Anti-Vaxxer?

walshb

markodaly wrote: »

Gavin is wrong in his title.

MM clearly said that we didn't bail out the shareholders of the banks, which is entirely correct.

He was dead right..

And more dead right calling out that chancer and his economic fantasy land nonsense!

markodaly

Bowie wrote: »

If a bank is bailed out how would the affect any shareholders? If a bank is not charged tax on profits for 30 years how does that affect shareholders?
Seems to me he was trying to put a bow on the bail outs.

The fact you have to ask these questions tells us everything about your lack of knowledge on basic finance and economics.

Then again, its not a surprise given you preached South Park economics about the building of houses that "we own" yet are magically cheaper to build.... kinda like magic beans and fairy dust.

Bubbaclaus

smurgen wrote: »

You know nothing about this and are embarrassing yourself. The market cap of the bank was propped up by the government. The shareholders were bailed out.

Load of nonsense smurgen and you know it too. Maybe you can try sticking to the facts, would serve you better.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

It can sound anyway you want it to sound. Its the same thing Anti-Vaxxers parrot day in day out, 'Oh its sounds bad!'... even though there is no Science to back it up.
Are you an Anti-Vaxxer?



You keep parroting the Trumpian populist nonsense day in day out, about cronyism, yet offer no evidence of the sort.
You keep going on about optics, or that it ' sounds very odd' yet offer no evidcie of support.
Are you an Anti-Vaxxer, because your comments would lead me to belive you may be one.



Ok, so you DONT know, is that what you are telling me?
You have ZERO evidence it was a crony deal, never mind that some FG, FF, Green TD is in the thick of it picking tenders.
So, basically, you have nothing to offer but some soundbites about optics.
Again, are you an Anti-Vaxxer?

The irony. Your post is straight out of the Rep. GOP/Trump/Varadkar/YFG playbook
Do you write for Breitbart?

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

Could you honestly expect people to trust him now saying coronavirus vaccines are safe....

... and here comes the Anti-Vaxxers.....

smurgen

markodaly wrote: »

Gavin is wrong in his title.

MM clearly said that we didn't bail out the shareholders of the banks, which is entirely correct.

They were bailed out by default. Playing with language. The fact remains the entire country has paid USC for years now. This was Trumpian.

markodaly

Bowie wrote: »

the irony. You post is straight out of the Rep. GOP/Trump/Varadkar/YFG playbook

I note you avoided the question.
Well, you are free to be Anti-Vaxx, but at least be honest about it.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

The fact you have to ask these questions tells us everything about your lack of knowledge on basic finance and economics.

Then again, its not a surprise given you preached South Park economics about the building of houses that "we own" yet are magically cheaper to build.... kinda like magic beans and fairy dust.

Calm down.

You've been schooled on housing numerous times. Here you feel the need to rant and are doing so. Party on dude.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

I note you avoided the question.
Well, you are free to be Anti-Vaxx, but at least be honest about it.

I know you are, what am I? :rolleyes:

James Brown

smurgen wrote: »

They were bailed out by default. Playing with language. The fact remains the entire country has paid USC for years now. This was Trumpian.

MM has some cheek. He was up to his neck in the reason we needed to bail out the banks and bondholders.

markodaly

Bowie wrote: »

I directly quoted him and commented on it.
The banks were bailed out and private shareholders were saved from loses. That's as good a bail out as any.
Amazed that you don't know how shares work.

What is more amazing is that when afforded the opportunity to actually double-check the facts on this you actually double down on something that was plainly incorrect.

Let me be clear on this and educate you.

Shareholders were NOT bailed out, in fact, they were totally wiped out, completely. Fortunes were lost.
That generally happens when a company is nationalised.

Bondholders are not shareholders.

This is finance/economics 101.
You are welcome.

markodaly

Bowie wrote: »

Private investors were rescued. They would have been wiped out but for the bail outs.
Where did we buy the shares from?

The con here is people talking about the need for a bailout like the problem fell from the sky and not a government MM was part of.

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Load of nonsense smurgen and you know it too. Maybe you can try sticking to the facts, would serve you better.

He lost the rag and gave away something he didn't intend.

Absolute nonsense to try and extricate him from this. He needs to go in and correct the record of the Dáil. It was an insult to all of us who paid through the teeth for something he ok'ed in government.