Fiscal Treaty Referendum.....How will you vote?

Godge · 25-05-2012 9:45am

StealthRolex wrote: »

That is neither here nor there as they are clearly intelligent and they appear to have no overt political ties though presumably they do vote for someone when they do vote.

They also make compelling arguments, write incredibly well, and in general are easily understood, and have no problem getting out there and engaging with the debate, unlike some politicians.

As for jumping on the latest populist issue what was Enda doing at the latest EU summit as regards "growth"?

By the way, are you going to answer the question - do you consider them nutters or madmen?

So you think McWilliams makes compelling arguments, so if you were Brian Lenihan and McWilliams told you to guarantee the banks, you would do that, just like Brian did in September 2008 and make the biggest policy mistake that this country has ever seen. The guy has no credibility with me since then. If you think that McWilliams is the one we should listen to, explain how the guaranteeing the banks was a good idea.

As for Constantin, he has been claiming for the last several years that Ireland will inevitably default before the end of the year (he doesn't spcify which year so he can repeat every January the same message). Well, what do you know, we are still here.

Give us a break, the two lads are entertaining television, but don't expect them to necessarily know what they are talking about.

StealthRolex · 25-05-2012 9:46am

K-9 wrote: »

McWilliams made a compelling argument for the bank blanket guarantee, so compelling Lenihan followed it.

Perhaps you enjoy dealing with libel charges

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2011/11/15/recent-inaccuracies-re-the-bank-guarantee

[MOD]Do not make legal threats. You will be banned.[/MOD]

Godge · 25-05-2012 9:50am

StealthRolex wrote: »

Perhaps you enjoy dealing with libel charges

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2011/11/15/recent-inaccuracies-re-the-bank-guarantee

OK, he admits giving his opinion to Brian Lenihan so he was an influence. Read his book for a different account.

He changed his mind by early 2009, well a lot of other people had seen through it from the start and it was way too late by then. Do some research and see how the EU and the UK opposed it, trying to save us from ourselves.

antoobrien · 25-05-2012 10:05am

StealthRolex wrote: »

Would you include Constantin Gurdgiev, David McWilliams and Caroline Simons in your list of nutters and madmen?

While they may not be openly advocating a no vote any reading would suggest that they do not see voting yes as the intelligent choice.

Mc Williams hasn't worked as an economist in 10 years. Describing him as such is a bit like describing Niall Quinn as a current premier league footballer.

antoobrien · 25-05-2012 10:15am

StealthRolex wrote: »

Perhaps you enjoy dealing with libel charges

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2011/11/15/recent-inaccuracies-re-the-bank-guarantee

He's what he said on september 28th 2008 (from his own website)

The only option is to guarantee 100 per cent of all depositors/creditors in the Irish banking system. This guarantee does not extend to shareholders who will have to live with the losses they have suffered. However, it applies to everyone else.

In saying "everybody else" he includes bondholders. In his post that you highlighted he's being revisionist about what he said, saying that he didn't support the full guarantee. If he's being honest with himself, he's done a very bad job of articulating what it is he was supporting when he wrote that article two days before the government took his advice to guarantee everything.

StealthRolex · 25-05-2012 10:32am

Godge wrote: »

So you think McWilliams makes compelling arguments, so if you were Brian Lenihan and McWilliams told you to guarantee the banks, you would do that, just like Brian did in September 2008 and make the biggest policy mistake that this country has ever seen. The guy has no credibility with me since then. If you think that McWilliams is the one we should listen to, explain how the guaranteeing the banks was a good idea.

Perhaps Mr McWilliams can provide a better answer to that

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2011/11/15/recent-inaccuracies-re-the-bank-guarantee

If you are going to attack McWilliams personally at least get the facts straight first.

Godge wrote: »

As for Constantin, he has been claiming for the last several years that Ireland will inevitably default before the end of the year (he doesn't spcify which year so he can repeat every January the same message). Well, what do you know, we are still here.

"will" is definitive. Are you sure he used that word and not "may". Clearly I don't follow his as closely as you do. As for the predictions or claims you refer to, I haven't heard them.

Godge wrote: »

Give us a break, the two lads are entertaining television, but don't expect them to necessarily know what they are talking about.

Something you should take up with whoever awarded them their degrees etc.

They certainly know more than the elected politicians and are prepared to put their reputations on the line publically unlike the faceless and nameless ones here.

Godge · 25-05-2012 10:47am

StealthRolex wrote: »

Perhaps Mr McWilliams can provide a better answer to that

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2011/11/15/recent-inaccuracies-re-the-bank-guarantee

If you are going to attack McWilliams personally at least get the facts straight first.

.

The link to his website on this issue has already been provided

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2008/09/28/state-guarantees-can-avert-depression

Read what he says:

"Therefore, it is crucial that the government take the right decision now. Events of the past few days imply that there is no model we can import from anywhere else to help us. The rest of the world is suffering the same plight. Large banks are going under by the day. Thus, if we wait, we will simply suffer more.
We need to come up with an Irish solution to our specific problem – because no one has the antidote to the contagion that is spreading through the global financial markets."

"The only option is to guarantee 100 per cent of all depositors/creditors in the Irish banking system. This guarantee does not extend to shareholders who will have to live with the losses they have suffered. However, it applies to everyone else.
If the minister does this, he will not only staunch any funds outflow, he will show leadership and be seen as someone who is coming up with a solution that can be copied all over the world."

"The beauty of guaranteeing deposits is that you use no money – not a penny. Instead, the government is using its sovereign credit as the country with Europe’s lowest debt/GDP level to restore confidence in the system. The civil service view appears to be that such a guarantee would subject Ireland to the risk that people withdraw money, disbelieving the state.
But this would not happen. Some €350 billion of the total €500 billion is held by Irish people, so we won’t move our cash. In addition, the €150 billion owned by foreigners would simply become like an Irish government paper.
The Irish bond market has never been in such demand, and so would this guarantee scheme."

You see, the bank debts become Irish government paper, like which bits of that are not bailing out the bondholders.

Then, read the comments, they fall into two camps, one is saying isn't great the government are listening to david at last, the other is saying this is a bad idea.

StealthRolex wrote: »

"will" is definitive. Are you sure he used that word and not "may". Clearly I don't follow his as closely as you do. As for the predictions or claims you refer to, I haven't heard them.

.

If you have heard him once, you have heard him a thousand times saying that Ireland will have to default. We haven't and we don't need to (bar some incredible collapse in Europe).

StealthRolex wrote: »

Something you should take up with whoever awarded them their degrees etc.

They certainly know more than the elected politicians and are prepared to put their reputations on the line publically unlike the faceless and nameless ones here.

Yes, and when the politicians followed what they said, the biggest economic disaster in the country happened.

StealthRolex · 25-05-2012 10:54am

Godge wrote: »

The link to his website on this issue has already been provided

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2008/09/28/state-guarantees-can-avert-depression

Read what he says:

"Therefore, it is crucial that the government take the right decision now. Events of the past few days imply that there is no model we can import from anywhere else to help us. The rest of the world is suffering the same plight. Large banks are going under by the day. Thus, if we wait, we will simply suffer more.
We need to come up with an Irish solution to our specific problem – because no one has the antidote to the contagion that is spreading through the global financial markets."

"The only option is to guarantee 100 per cent of all depositors/creditors in the Irish banking system. This guarantee does not extend to shareholders who will have to live with the losses they have suffered. However, it applies to everyone else.
If the minister does this, he will not only staunch any funds outflow, he will show leadership and be seen as someone who is coming up with a solution that can be copied all over the world."

"The beauty of guaranteeing deposits is that you use no money – not a penny. Instead, the government is using its sovereign credit as the country with Europe’s lowest debt/GDP level to restore confidence in the system. The civil service view appears to be that such a guarantee would subject Ireland to the risk that people withdraw money, disbelieving the state.
But this would not happen. Some €350 billion of the total €500 billion is held by Irish people, so we won’t move our cash. In addition, the €150 billion owned by foreigners would simply become like an Irish government paper.
The Irish bond market has never been in such demand, and so would this guarantee scheme."

You see, the bank debts become Irish government paper, like which bits of that are not bailing out the bondholders.

Then, read the comments, they fall into two camps, one is saying isn't great the government are listening to david at last, the other is saying this is a bad idea.

If you have heard him once, you have heard him a thousand times saying that Ireland will have to default. We haven't and we don't need to (bar some incredible collapse in Europe).

Yes, and when the politicians followed what they said, the biggest economic disaster in the country happened.

Depositors and creditors only. Was this advice followed?

And you still haven't answered the question and appear to prefer to follow a more malicious route. Do you consider them madman and nutters?

Scofflaw · 25-05-2012 10:57am

StealthRolex wrote: »

Depositors and creditors only. Was this advice followed?

Well, yes. "Creditors" = anyone to whom the banks owe money.

cordially,
Scofflaw

StealthRolex · 25-05-2012 11:31am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, yes. "Creditors" = anyone to whom the banks owe money.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Okay then, why were the bondholders included?

If the banks borrowed money on the open market they are legitimate creditors. Essential a creditor is a depositor who has a negative deposit. I see no issue with guaranteeing them. Do you?

The issue with the bank guarantee is that against the advice it went above and beyond the depositors and those with a negative deposit.

oscarBravo · 25-05-2012 11:32am

StealthRolex wrote: »

Okay then, why were the bondholders included?

Do you know what a bondholder is?

Ozymandius2011 · 25-05-2012 11:37am

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you know what a bondholder is?

They bought bonds in the banks at a rate of interest - effectively a loan to the banks. Sovereign bondholders on the other hand lend to the state.

Scofflaw · 25-05-2012 11:38am

StealthRolex wrote: »

Okay then, why were the bondholders included?

If the banks borrowed money on the open market they are legitimate creditors. Essential a creditor is a depositor who has a negative deposit. I see no issue with guaranteeing them. Do you?

The issue with the bank guarantee is that against the advice it went above and beyond the depositors and those with a negative deposit.

No, a bondholder is a creditor. A bond is essentially a loan of a specified duration - money borrowed on the open market.

What exactly did you think a bondholder was?

curious,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 25-05-2012 11:39am

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

They bought bonds in the banks at a rate of interest - effectively a loan to the banks. Sovereign bondholders on the other hand lend to the state.

Not bonds "in" the banks - just the bonds of the banks. A depositor and a bondholder are both people who lend their money to the bank. Both are creditors of the bank.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 · 25-05-2012 11:40am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not bonds "in" the banks - just the bonds of the banks. A depositor and a bondholder are both people who lend their money to the bank.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's what I meant by "in". Figure of speech.

antoobrien · 25-05-2012 11:42am

StealthRolex wrote: »

Okay then, why were the bondholders included?

The only option is to guarantee 100 per cent of all depositors/creditors in the Irish banking system. This guarantee does not extend to shareholders who will have to live with the losses they have suffered. However, it applies to everyone else.

Bonds are not shares, therefore bondholders belong to the group "everyone else".

StealthRolex · 25-05-2012 11:42am

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you know what a bondholder is?

I know what they are not!

They are not depositors nor are they negative depositors.

If the banks were lending out money that was not based on deposits held or cash borrowed but rather was based on the funds raised through bonds sold you cannot go shifting the blame for this fiasco away from the Government to private individuals.

The Governments move to guarantee bonds over deposits was their error.

StealthRolex · 25-05-2012 11:44am

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, a bondholder is a creditor. A bond is essentially a loan of a specified duration - money borrowed on the open market.

What exactly did you think a bondholder was?

curious,
Scofflaw

A bond is some thing that can be bought and sold. It is not a loan.

Scofflaw · 25-05-2012 11:45am

StealthRolex wrote: »

I know what they are not!

They are not depositors nor are they negative depositors.

If the banks were lending out money that was not based on deposits held or cash borrowed but rather was based on the funds raised through bonds sold you cannot go shifting the blame for this fiasco away from the Government to private individuals.

The Governments move to guarantee bonds over deposits was their error.

Hold up - the point here is that McWilliams said the government should guarantee all depositors and other creditors. The bondholders are creditors, and McWilliams was therefore saying the government should guarantee bondholders.

Any comment on that?

cordially,
Scofflaw

antoobrien · 25-05-2012 11:45am

StealthRolex wrote: »

The Governments move to guarantee bonds over deposits was their error.

Senior bonds are (and have been for many years) legally ranked higher than deposits. The move to guarantee the senior bonds was required if they wanted to guarantee deposits.

So now it's an error to do something that is legally required?

Scofflaw · 25-05-2012 11:46am

StealthRolex wrote: »

A bond is some thing that can be bought and sold. It is not a loan.

No, it's a loan. A mortgage is a loan, I think you'll agree, and a mortgage can also be bought and sold - indeed, whole loads of them just have been.

I'm afraid bondholders are creditors. It's really not possible to claim anything else!

cordially,
Scofflaw

dvpower · 25-05-2012 11:47am

StealthRolex wrote: »

A bond is some thing that can be bought and sold. It is not a loan.

A loan can also be bought and sold. Whole loan books are often bought and sold. In Ireland, we have this organisation, I think its called NAMA ....

Scofflaw · 25-05-2012 11:48am

antoobrien wrote: »

Senior bonds are (and have been for many years) legally ranked higher than deposits. The move to guarantee the senior bonds was required if they wanted to guarantee deposits.

So now it's an error to do something that is legally required?

I don't think that's what StealthRolex's argument is, though - he's arguing that when McWilliams said to guarantee "depositors and other creditors" he wasn't referring to bondholders, because StealthRolex doesn't consider them to be creditors.

cordially,
Scofflaw

antoobrien · 25-05-2012 12:01pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think that's what StealthRolex's argument is, though - he's arguing that when McWilliams said to guarantee "depositors and other creditors" he wasn't referring to bondholders, because StealthRolex doesn't consider them to be creditors.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Regardless of whether or not that's the point of the post, by stating that the there was an "error" in guaranteeing bondholders (which under McWilliams article should have been covered) StealthRolex is ignoring the legal position of (senior) bonds vs deposits.

An honest mistake is fine, but legal position has been discussed to death so ignorance of it is at this stage improbable, so arguments to the contrary look disingenuous.

StealthRolex · 25-05-2012 1:25pm

antoobrien wrote: »

Regardless of whether or not that's the point of the post, by stating that the there was an "error" in guaranteeing bondholders (which under McWilliams article should have been covered) StealthRolex is ignoring the legal position of (senior) bonds vs deposits.

An honest mistake is fine, but legal position has been discussed to death so ignorance of it is at this stage improbable, so arguments to the contrary look disingenuous.

The only answer to that is for McWilliams to state whether or not he meant the bondholders to be included. I have read his rebuttal as posted and I take him at his word.

A laymens reading, which is who is being address in a newspaper, would suggest the bondholders should not have been included. That is my take and my understanding as the term "bondholder" was not used. I may be wrong in that but so might you.

A reality of the situation is that the Government did not do due diligence before issuing the guarantee nor did the bondholders do due diligence to ensure their money was with reputable organisations or call them to book when it was realized what they were up to. Perhaps the bondholders didn't care and if that is the case they made bad bets and should expect to lose their money.

Anyway, the guarantee has a limited life. The government can, if it wishes, decide the guarantee is for depositors only at the next renewal.

As for disingenuity, I'm a visitor here and haven't trawled this for all arguments. My understanding is that a bondholder is a distinct legal entity from a depositor or a creditor. I take the latter terms to describe those involved in direct exchange of cash for cash in terms of deposit or loan as understood by the vast majority of the readership of mainstream media and not the nuances as understood by a select minority.

But again we are straying off the point. You may have no respect of so called "pop economists" and that's fine.

What I don't understand is why McWilliams is now the target. Was he in charge? Did he run a bank?

Or is it just another Yes campaign tactic to blacken the name of anyone on the No side?

PopeBuckfastXVI · 25-05-2012 1:28pm

Out of curiosity, who do you consider to be a Creditor, as a separate entity to depositors and bond holders?

Or were you saying that depositors are the only creditors?

Scofflaw · 25-05-2012 1:34pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

The only answer to that is for McWilliams to state whether or not he meant the bondholders to be included. I have read his rebuttal as posted and I take him at his word.

A laymens reading, which is who is being address in a newspaper, would suggest the bondholders should not have been included. That is my take and my understanding as the term "bondholder" was not used. I may be wrong in that but so might you.

A reality of the situation is that the Government did not do due diligence before issuing the guarantee nor did the bondholders do due diligence to ensure their money was with reputable organisations or call them to book when it was realized what they were up to. Perhaps the bondholders didn't care and if that is the case they made bad bets and should expect to lose their money.

Anyway, the guarantee has a limited life. The government can, if it wishes, decide the guarantee is for depositors only at the next renewal.

As for disingenuity, I'm a visitor here and haven't trawled this for all arguments. My understanding is that a bondholder is a distinct legal entity from a depositor or a creditor. I take the latter terms to describe those involved in direct exchange of cash for cash in terms of deposit or loan as understood by the vast majority of the readership of mainstream media and not the nuances as understood by a select minority.

If you owe the bank money because the bank has loaned you money, the bank is one of your creditors. I would have said that there is absolutely nobody who would dispute that or not know it.

I think you're trying to draw a very complex and unworkable distinction - bondholders give the bank money in exchange for a bond. Even using your distinctions, that makes them a "negative depositor" and thus a creditor.

StealthRolex wrote: »

But again we are straying off the point. You may have no respect of so called "pop economists" and that's fine.

What I don't understand is why McWilliams is now the target. Was he in charge? Did he run a bank?

Or is it just another Yes campaign tactic to blacken the name of anyone on the No side?

No, it came up because people were citing McWilliams as having the definitive answer to the question of how to vote on the Treaty - and his credibility in the matter is based on him being "the guy who pointed out the bubble", which is supposed to make his opinion on the Treaty valuable. Pointing out, in turn, that he was also someone who supported the bank guarantee - hailed it as a "masterstroke" the day after, even - is pointing out that his record for getting it right is not actually so rosy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9 · 25-05-2012 1:57pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

What I don't understand is why McWilliams is now the target. Was he in charge? Did he run a bank?

Or is it just another Yes campaign tactic to blacken the name of anyone on the No side?

I wouldn't hold him up as some God as some do, he gets things wrong too. I'd see him more as an opinion writer whose job is to be controversial and help sell papers and he does that very well.

StealthRolex · 25-05-2012 2:01pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, it came up because people were citing McWilliams as having the definitive answer to the question of how to vote on the Treaty - and his credibility in the matter is based on him being "the guy who pointed out the bubble", which is supposed to make his opinion on the Treaty valuable. Pointing out, in turn, that he was also someone who supported the bank guarantee - hailed it as a "masterstroke" the day after, even - is pointing out that his record for getting it right is not actually so rosy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well I didn't say he had a definitive answer I said his writing on the matter was compelling. It compelled me to reveiw other sources discussing the treaty and see if what he was saying made sense.

Nor is he the only one I am reading.

Still voting No primarily because I think the treaty is an EU solution to an EU problem and given the EU's track record it is probably not the right thing to sign in to law.

StealthRolex · 25-05-2012 2:02pm

K-9 wrote: »

I wouldn't hold him up as some God as some do, he gets things wrong too. I'd see him more as an opinion writer whose job is to be controversial and help sell papers and he does that very well.

I think you are confusing him with Vincent Browne

antoobrien · 25-05-2012 2:18pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

The only answer to that is for McWilliams to state whether or not he meant the bondholders to be included. I have read his rebuttal as posted and I take him at his word.

A laymens reading, which is who is being address in a newspaper, would suggest the bondholders should not have been included. That is my take and my understanding as the term "bondholder" was not used. I may be wrong in that but so might you.

Lets go back to what he said two days before the bank guarantee then

The only option is to guarantee 100 per cent of all depositors/creditors in the Irish banking system. This guarantee does not extend to shareholders who will have to live with the losses they have suffered. However, it applies to everyone else.

Can we agree that he is talking about not proving cover to shareholders and only shareholders?

Now a bond is not, repeat not, a share. So by singling out shareholders to the exclusion of all others, he is including bondholders under his proposal for a guarantee.

He does not give any more detail on the plan than that, so any later retractions/rebuttals smack of revisionism (i.e. he got some deserved criticism and is trying to weasel his way out, like any good journalist).

My understanding is that a bondholder is a distinct legal entity from a depositor or a creditor. I take the latter terms to describe those involved in direct exchange of cash for cash in terms of deposit or loan as understood by the vast majority of the readership of mainstream media and not the nuances as understood by a select minority.

Deposits are liabilities to banks - it's something they have to pay back, so depositors are creditors. As has been pointed out a bond is a loan to a bank, so bondholders are also creditors (i.e. the bank owes them money).

StealthRolex · 25-05-2012 2:33pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Out of curiosity, who do you consider to be a Creditor, as a separate entity to depositors and bond holders?

Or were you saying that depositors are the only creditors?

Well, a depositor is a creditor as I have already described.

Non-depositor creditors for me would be companies, businesses, contract staff etc. owed money from the bank for services rendered, and banks providing interbank loans.

The bondholders don't need a guarantee anyway. If a bank collapses they get paid first. Because of that there is a risk that depositors will not get a penny. This is why the guarantee should have covered depositors in the first interest and should have more carefully defined which creditors would have been paid after.

Perhaps bondholding should be banned and if something wants to invest in a bank by buying its bonds perhaps they would be better off opening a deposit interest account and putting their money there instead.

StealthRolex · 25-05-2012 2:35pm

antoobrien wrote: »

Lets go back to what he said two days before the bank guarantee then

Can we agree that he is talking about not proving cover to shareholders and only shareholders?

Now a bond is not, repeat not, a share. So by singling out shareholders to the exclusion of all others, he is including bondholders under his proposal for a guarantee.

He does not give any more detail on the plan than that, so any later retractions/rebuttals smack of revisionism (i.e. he got some deserved criticism and is trying to weasel his way out, like any good journalist).

Deposits are liabilities to banks - it's something they have to pay back, so depositors are creditors. As has been pointed out a bond is a loan to a bank, so bondholders are also creditors (i.e. the bank owes them money).

Let's not. I disagree and it's off topic and I'm still voting No because Merkel is an idiot and this is her idea anyway

meglome · 25-05-2012 2:42pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

Let's not. I disagree and it's off topic and I'm still voting No because Merkel is an idiot and this is her idea anyway

You should go pull her pigtails.

Godge · 25-05-2012 10:55pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

The only answer to that is for McWilliams to state whether or not he meant the bondholders to be included. I have read his rebuttal as posted and I take him at his word.

A laymens reading, which is who is being address in a newspaper, would suggest the bondholders should not have been included. That is my take and my understanding as the term "bondholder" was not used. I may be wrong in that but so might you.

A reality of the situation is that the Government did not do due diligence before issuing the guarantee nor did the bondholders do due diligence to ensure their money was with reputable organisations or call them to book when it was realized what they were up to. Perhaps the bondholders didn't care and if that is the case they made bad bets and should expect to lose their money.

Anyway, the guarantee has a limited life. The government can, if it wishes, decide the guarantee is for depositors only at the next renewal.

As for disingenuity, I'm a visitor here and haven't trawled this for all arguments. My understanding is that a bondholder is a distinct legal entity from a depositor or a creditor. I take the latter terms to describe those involved in direct exchange of cash for cash in terms of deposit or loan as understood by the vast majority of the readership of mainstream media and not the nuances as understood by a select minority.

But again we are straying off the point. You may have no respect of so called "pop economists" and that's fine.

What I don't understand is why McWilliams is now the target. Was he in charge? Did he run a bank?

Or is it just another Yes campaign tactic to blacken the name of anyone on the No side?

Of course McWilliams is saying it wasn't what he meant. It went spectacularly wrong, the biggest mistake ever, he is hardly going to admit it was exactly what he proposed. Unfortunately, his words in writing two days before the bank guarantee and the incidents outlined in his book, published before he changed his mind tell a different story to his.

McWilliams is not the target just now, his credibility has been a problem for a long time, many people have called him on this and other issues. Do you remember him and Constantin telling us our debt was heading for more than $250bn? Won't get anywhere near that and they were wrong on that as well.

Godge · 25-05-2012 10:57pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

Let's not. I disagree and it's off topic and I'm still voting No because Merkel is an idiot and this is her idea anyway

Any evidence that Merkel is an idiot or is that your professional opinion?

StealthRolex · 25-05-2012 11:48pm

Godge wrote: »

Of course McWilliams is saying it wasn't what he meant. It went spectacularly wrong, the biggest mistake ever, he is hardly going to admit it was exactly what he proposed. Unfortunately, his words in writing two days before the bank guarantee and the incidents outlined in his book, published before he changed his mind tell a different story to his.

McWilliams is not the target just now, his credibility has been a problem for a long time, many people have called him on this and other issues. Do you remember him and Constantin telling us our debt was heading for more than $250bn? Won't get anywhere near that and they were wrong on that as well.

I'm not sure if this page is correct but it suggests our external debt was 2,378,000,000,000 dollars as of Nov 2011

That is trillion, isn't it? I can't recall if we call 1,000,000,000 a billion or 1,000,000,000,000 a billion

either way it looks to be a little bit more than 250bn.

Granted it is nowhere near 250bn so they were essentially wrong but were you thinking they were underestimating it?

My reading is that anything more than 250bn is a vindication.

StealthRolex · 25-05-2012 11:49pm

Godge wrote: »

Any evidence that Merkel is an idiot or is that your professional opinion?

Her leadership of Europe and her handling of the Euro crisis speak for themselves.

dvpower · 26-05-2012 12:01am

StealthRolex wrote: »

Her leadership of Europe and her handling of the Euro crisis speak for themselves.

Her leadership of Germany on the other hand...

K-9 · 26-05-2012 12:07am

StealthRolex wrote: »

I'm not sure if this page is correct but it suggests our external debt was 2,378,000,000,000 dollars as of Nov 2011

That is trillion, isn't it? I can't recall if we call 1,000,000,000 a billion or 1,000,000,000,000 a billion

either way it looks to be a little bit more than 250bn.

Granted it is nowhere near 250bn so they were essentially wrong but were you thinking they were underestimating it?

My reading is that anything more than 250bn is a vindication.

That seems a bit like the debt graph that was going around a couple of years ago, that would include IFSC debt and debt of banks like Ulster Bank not covered by the guarantee. One of the banks in the IFSC failed a couple of years ago and the German taxpayer picked up the tab, not us.

StealthRolex · 26-05-2012 12:10am

Godge wrote: »

Of course McWilliams is saying it wasn't what he meant. It went spectacularly wrong, the biggest mistake ever, he is hardly going to admit it was exactly what he proposed. Unfortunately, his words in writing two days before the bank guarantee and the incidents outlined in his book, published before he changed his mind tell a different story to his.

I believe the salient point is that he was asked for an opinion and he gave one. I haven't read his book

Unless you can show a contract for advisory services rendered indicating that he was an official advisor to the minister at the time there is no point trying to blaming him. The reality is that the minister made the decision and the buck stops with the Taoiseach.

Perhaps you would be happier if he had gone to Bono for advice instead?

StealthRolex · 26-05-2012 12:13am

K-9 wrote: »

That seems a bit like the debt graph that was going around a couple of years ago, that would include IFSC debt and debt of banks like Ulster Bank not covered by the guarantee. One of the banks in the IFSC failed a couple of years ago and the German taxpayer picked up the tab, not us.

of course - silly me. Boards is a couple of time zones out and November 2011 was a few years ago.

If the debt has been reduced significantly from this 2.odd trillion what is it now?

StealthRolex · 26-05-2012 12:15am

dvpower wrote: »

Her leadership of Germany on the other hand...

... will be answered next year by German citizens.

Anyway, you know what Germans are like.

K-9 · 26-05-2012 12:37am

StealthRolex wrote: »

of course - silly me. Boards is a couple of time zones out and November 2011 was a few years ago.

If the debt has been reduced significantly from this 2.odd trillion what is it now?

Not sure. Why is IFSC debt and non Government guaranteed debt important?

StealthRolex · 26-05-2012 1:07am

K-9 wrote: »

Not sure. Why is IFSC debt and non Government guaranteed debt important?

Don't know what you are talking about. the link I put up details external debt

the total public and private debt (i.e. gross general government debt including both intragovernmental and sub-national public entities debts) owed to nonresidents repayable in internationally accepted currencies, goods, or services,[1] where the public debt is the money or credit owed by any level of government, from central to local, and the private debt the money or credit owed by private households or private corporations

The real debt account of the country is important because austerity budgets increase the likelihood of default.

Regardless of whether or not this treaty is passed unless we get some intelligence into the Dail and the civil service we are in for more austerity and more austerity means less money with means less growth.
And I didn't get that from any pop economist either. That's just plain ordinary common sense.

If income tax and vat are cut there will be more money to spend. If more money is spent more people will be employed. If more people are employed more money will be spent and we will have a thing called growth.
Of course that might lead to a growth bubble and if that happens the government can increase income tax and vat to control it.

But we all know that is not going to happen any time soon which means that more individual defaults will happen and continue to happen.

Ultimately the national debt is immaterial.

K-9 · 26-05-2012 1:34am

StealthRolex wrote: »

Don't know what you are talking about. the link I put up details external debt

the total public and private debt (i.e. gross general government debt including both intragovernmental and sub-national public entities debts) owed to nonresidents repayable in internationally accepted currencies, goods, or services,[1] where the public debt is the money or credit owed by any level of government, from central to local, and the private debt the money or credit owed by private households or private corporations

That would include IFSC and non guaranteed bank debt, we aren't liable if that ever became repayable. An American bank in the IFSC could owe money to a USA bank at home, Intel cold owe money to its parent company back home, Google the same etc. etc.

You brought up the figure, do you see the above as significant as regards Irish debt? It's a pretty easy question to answer, not going through semantics like with McWilliams on this thread.

The real debt account of the country is important because austerity budgets increase the likelihood of default.

How does austerity effect Google, Intel or the IFSC?

Regardless of whether or not this treaty is passed unless we get some intelligence into the Dail and the civil service we are in for more austerity and more austerity means less money with means less growth.
And I didn't get that from any pop economist either. That's just plain ordinary common sense.

If income tax and vat are cut there will be more money to spend. If more money is spent more people will be employed. If more people are employed more money will be spent and we will have a thing called growth.
Of course that might lead to a growth bubble and if that happens the government can increase income tax and vat to control it.

But we all know that is not going to happen any time soon which means that more individual defaults will happen and continue to happen.

Ultimately the national debt is immaterial.

We'd need growth far in excess of the celtic tiger and bubble years to avoid cuts in welfare and PS pay. It requires a 2 pronged approach, people need to get away from the idea of unsustainable growth, have real growth not fueled by tax cuts and government intervention and have prudent expenditure for the future.

StealthRolex · 26-05-2012 1:59am

K-9 wrote: »

That would include IFSC and non guaranteed bank debt, we aren't liable if that ever became repayable. An American bank in the IFSC could owe money to a USA bank at home, Intel cold owe money to its parent company back home, Google the same etc. etc.

You brought up the figure, do you see the above as significant as regards Irish debt? It's a pretty easy question to answer, not going through semantics like with McWilliams on this thread.

Yes

K-9 wrote: »

How does austerity effect Google, Intel or the IFSC?

If these are growth companies they will need employees of a particular calibre. If they have all the employees they will ever need now that is not a major worry, and less of a one once they have figured out how to stop employees taking pensions, leaving or dying.

The reality is that if they continue to grow they will need more employees. Ireland is an ageing nation. If they can't find the employees here they will go elsewhere.
There are factors reducing available staff apart from death and taxes. Those who do not find employment with them now will go elsewhere. Those with children who are likely to be their next generation of employees are emigrating. Of those already employed many are foreign nationals who may return home or go elsewhere as austerity bites.
Another effect of austerity is that increased income taxes will lead to increased employment costs.
As there is no law that forces the company or their foreign nationals to commit to Ireland they will relocate to better pastures.

Apologies if this is not the consummate answer you are looking for but in all honesty I do not see any ordinary person in Ireland immune from austerity other that the wealthy and the politicans.

K-9 wrote: »

We'd need growth far in excess of the celtic tiger and bubble years to avoid cuts in welfare and PS pay. It requires a 2 pronged approach, people need to get away from the idea of unsustainable growth, have real growth not fueled by tax cuts and government intervention and have prudent expenditure for the future.

Agreed, however we need stimulus. If we cannot inject vast quantities of money in to the economy - not the banks, they're awash with money but are too scared to use it besides no one trusts them any more - the ball will not get rolling. Drop the taxes now and bring them up slowly as the economy recovers to a sustainable level.

As for getting people away from the concept of unsustainable growth - that requires education. I saw the crash coming in 2005, long before I had ever heard of David McWilliams or the Russian or anyone else. I did a simple calculation on average wage against average house cost and it was obviously unsustainable. Once I heard there were sub-prime mortages available it became blindingly obvious. I heard Bertie gave himself a pay rise and was apoplectic with rage. I heard him tell people to commit suicide and I very nearly put in an application to have my Irish citizenship revoked. I'm still considering it.

I'm fortunate enough to have a job but I would love to get out of Ireland again but permanently this time.

ps - we need cuts in PS salaries, welfare and CS pay along with cuts in politicians pay. Anyone who suggests that cuts in PS\CS pay and welfare is to be avoided is not worth talking to.

K-9 · 26-05-2012 2:22am

StealthRolex wrote: »

Yes

Grand.

If these are growth companies they will need employees of a particular calibre. If they have all the employees they will ever need now that is not a major worry, and less of a one once they have figured out how to stop employees taking pensions, leaving or dying.

But anyway.

The reality is that if they continue to grow they will need more employees. Ireland is an ageing nation. If they can't find the employees here they will go elsewhere.

Ireland is not an aging nation like many other European countries, we had quite the baby boom recently. Plus Google or Intel acquire immigrants if they can't get the people here, you might have missed Intel's recent announcement as well.

There are factors reducing available staff apart from death and taxes. Those who do not find employment with them now will go elsewhere. Those with children who are likely to be their next generation of employees are emigrating. Of those already employed many are foreign nationals who may return home or go elsewhere as austerity bites.

So what happened in the late 80's and early 90's here when we had huge emigration? Where did the employees come from for Intel when we had far higher taxes than we have now? Foreign nationals are in demand for companies like Intel and Google.

Another effect of austerity is that increased income taxes will lead to increased employment costs.

Increased income taxes do not affect employment costs. Increased ER PRSI does.

As there is no law that forces the company or their foreign nationals to commit to Ireland they will relocate to better pastures.

Not if wages remain competitive.

Apologies if this is not the consummate answer you are looking for but in all honesty I do not see any ordinary person in Ireland immune from austerity other that the wealthy and the politicans.

But none of that addresses my point that Intel's debt to its American company is irrelevant to Ireland. You seem to think it is because it's included in that external debt figure you quoted.

Agreed, however we need stimulus. If we cannot inject vast quantities of money in to the economy - not the banks, they're awash with money but are too scared to use it besides no one trusts them any more - the ball will not get rolling. Drop the taxes now and bring them up slowly as the economy recovers to a sustainable level.

We need stimulus on growth areas and that is what is lacking. Giving tax cuts for people to spend in shops etc. is a waste, it's just repeating the same mistakes as the bubble.. Government will see tax revenues rise like they did during the bubble and think everything is fine and they wont increase them.

StealthRolex · 26-05-2012 2:29am

K-9 wrote: »

Grand.

But anyway.

Ireland is not an aging nation like many other European countries, we had quite the baby boom recently. Plus Google or Intel acquire immigrants if they can't get the people here, you might have missed Intel's recent announcement as well.

So what happened in the late 80's and early 90's here when we had huge emigration? Where did the employees come from for Intel when we had far higher taxes than we have now? Foreign nationals are in demand for companies like Intel and Google.

Increased income taxes do not affect employment costs. Increased ER PRSI does.

Not if wages remain competitive.

But none of that addresses my point that Intel's debt to its American company is irrelevant to Ireland. You seem to think it is because it's included in that external debt figure you quoted.

We need stimulus on growth areas and that is what is lacking. Giving tax cuts for people to spend in shops etc. is a waste, it's just repeating the same mistakes as the bubble.. Government will see tax revenues rise like they did during the bubble and think everything is fine and they wont increase them.

Hey, I'm just talking - don't take it so seriously

Still voting No and getting out of this kip as soon as I can.

Scofflaw · 26-05-2012 6:59am

StealthRolex wrote: »

McWilliams is not the target just now, his credibility has been a problem for a long time, many people have called him on this and other issues. Do you remember him and Constantin telling us our debt was heading for more than $250bn? Won't get anywhere near that and they were wrong on that as well.

I'm not sure if this page is correct but it suggests our external debt was 2,378,000,000,000 dollars as of Nov 2011

That is trillion, isn't it? I can't recall if we call 1,000,000,000 a billion or 1,000,000,000,000 a billion

either way it looks to be a little bit more than 250bn.

Granted it is nowhere near 250bn so they were essentially wrong but were you thinking they were underestimating it?

My reading is that anything more than 250bn is a vindication.

But you're reading a number that has nothing to do with what Gurdgiev and McWilliams was talking about. They were talking about "public debt", not the total of all public and private debt, which is what you're reading there.

And public debt is nowhere near their figure.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fiscal Treaty Referendum.....How will you vote?

Comments