20 developers= 1 fcuked country

They (those involved) were told time and time and time again "it won't last - there is warning signs" yet those that were in it for the money or the political gain, slapped those doing the warnings, down in many harsh ways for self-gain reasons.

I mean jesus, Bertie even got up on a political pulpit and said words to the effect that those doing the warning "...should go kill themselves!"
(...And people are thinking of making this piece of crap president! )

thebigbiffo wrote: »

devils advocate as always...

but someone out there was buying all the houses, apartments and offices that these clowns were building - thus inflating the market and giving banks and developers the momentum to keep going.

i'm only asking...how much responsibility should the public take?

There is an aspect to this that the public is not very aware of but was pointed out and explained well last night.
The bankers were giving out loans (too easy!). And on the strength of these loans (and supposedly money coming back from them afterwards), they used these short term/long term future returns to go to larger financial European and world organisations, to borrow more themselves on the strength of them.

The government brought in a system that allowed them to do this and what's more, allowed them to escape paying huge tax by using this method, to divert money from the state revenue collectors too!
The banks also bought vast amount of property themselves (again, at foreign inflated prices!).

So when the point came that no amount of wages was going to cover even applying for buying a house due to further mad raised prices of property, the building trade itself collapsed and developers loans (for building the actual structures) could not be paid.
The knock-on of this was that the banks above them, then eventually could not pay the bigger boys above them again... Falling domino's effect...

Thus the eventual bail out by the state - YOU!!!

amacachi wrote: »

The regulations aren't to blame. The fear of failure should be enough to rein in the kind of ridiculous transactions they were carrying out, regulations aren't necessary. Unfortunately these guys knew they'd be bailed out even though there was no reason for us plebs to think they would be. It's easy to twist words as well, it was the attempts at "regulation" to bail out their buddies which caused the problem.

The regulations (lack of and ineffectiveness) were VERY much to blame a great deal and this has been recognised and acknowledged by Irish banks, European banking societies and politicians the world over.

I agree that the guys somewhere knew they might be bailed out - in the meanwhile they took their massive weekly wages.
(The head of Anglo was getting over €900,000 a week at one stage!)

I would say Amacachi, that they should have interfered in some areas and not as much in others.
They got many a thing arse-ways instead.

Instead of giving the banking regulatory bodies the legal teeth to ensure the borrowing restraints were there, they allowed the regulators to slacken the financial guards in a number of way and let chaos ensue.

Your right when you say "Governments aren't going to admit that their interference is a problem"
Hell no, they always pass the buck - who wouldn't let be honest.

At the end of the day in our case, while the house buying public was to a small extent playing a role in aiding and abetting the eventual outcome, the buying public actions (which they were lead to believe was ok to do to some extent) was nothing in comparison to those above them that then took those individual loans and ran amok with them.
Using them to inflate and blow out of all proportion the bubble that would eventually burst.

Your right again when you say "Government interference also helped fuel the bubble, with basically subsidies to make property the most attractive investment around."
They promised the equivalent of the sun, the moon and the stars to the banks, developers and made sure the (badly) drawn up systems were there to advance their progress - which had the outcome we all now know of.

The whole mess has been looked at many times now and discussed many times in hundreds of places by many people across Europe - and forums/threads too - but if I may make a stab at it of simplifying it, the way I see it is as follows:

The Irish nation was brought up thinking that owning property was the way to go.
That "...young man, sooner or later you will have to move out and get a place of your own"
Fair enough, we all have been told that, I was.

HOWEVER, by a number of methods by our state government, the money that was available to borrow, was increased by de-regulation, lack of regulation and state adopted financial practises (one example: 28% of all state revenue was collected from the building industry alone! Double of what all other European countries were allowing as a maximum rate. Talk about trying to put all your eggs in one basket!).

These actions were brought in or slackened NOT to suit the borrower but to allow those doing the loaning, to be able to do so with lesser "guards" keeping an eye on things while also escaping paying their dues to the state.

The WHOLE public did not by the way jump on this property spending spree, a percentage certainly did. While some of them did so aggressively and with pure profit signs in their eyes too as like the bankers, others genuinely bought what they could because they feared that if they didn't buy when they could, within a number of weeks, months. etc... they would have been in a position to afford nothing at all! And they would have been right.

* So through many a cock-up of allowing big institutions to have more of a free reign, they themselves failed to regulate themselves (for obvious reasons).
* So through many a cock-up of allowing big institutions to do what they did with little or no state bodies and leaders saying "Just hang on a minute...!" - but instead told those actually doing some warnings "...To go kill themselves..." and go away - the state bore and still does bare the responsibility to stand up and say "we are watching and regulating" - did they?

Two final points:
1. To allow anyone to have carte-blanch/free reign/less regulation to do what they please is known more commonly by another term.
Its called "Anarchy!" - should we trust such a system?

2. This consistent saying of "the public was to blame" is a pure kop-out!
PART of the public was to blame, and that was part of those buyers, genuinely not all of them either.
Those above them (in state and bank) took their hopes, dreams and eventual money (loans) and totally used them and abused them totally out of financial proportion (to returns) and ran riot with them.
The state and its systems further aided and abetted the situation MASSIVELY - and this has been acknowledged by not one but two investigation European banking reports.