anglo irish banks the big question???

ubeonek

The big question is why would any one really want to borrow 87 million euros . Has any one any snswers????

WhaLofShi

Great question but i can't see that there's a conspiracy of any sort here. I'd say he's just a greedy bollix who liked to carry a lot of cash.

Economics forum night have an answer. (But I doubt it )

Carpenter

Milkman ,gas,phone,shopping over christmas you know the bill,s mount up

Sofa_King Good

because its insolvent.

starn

Cocaine and hookers dont come cheap

thecommander

He probably used the 87 to invest into stocks and projects. He then makes a profit, and pays back the 87 and is left with a good bit for himself.

Spursdad

I would hazard a guess that this loan is between himself and at leats 1 other director possibly of Irish nationwide, thats were the money whent when anglo were audited. hHo in there right mind would accept a transfere that big if you arent benefiting directly. I'm a big conspiracy theorist. Me and jim coor

Sofa_King Good

Lazy I know but In light of recent developments I've ripped this from the comments section in the Telegraph, it's well said in my view:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2008/09/28/nationalising_banks_wont_help

"Someone like David Rockefeller can say back on the 23rd of September 1994:
"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
Straight after September 11th 2001 the Federal Reserve in the U.S. drastically lowered interest rates in order to prevent panic in the markets - some 4% of a rate cut if my memory serves me right.
This encouraged the credit bubble that has now spectacularly exploded. François Fillon, French Prime Minister said yesterday that this was a once in a century crisis.

And who has been predicting this kind of event for the last 10 years?
Why, those crazy conspiracy theorists, those "counterknowledge" idiots that credulously swallow the latest weird idea.
And yet.
And yet.
Suddenly a New World Order with its technological surveillance of citizens, its paternalistic "benevolent" totalitarianism, its welding together of the corporate and the governmental has suddenly gotten a good deal closer.
And let's not forget - this is just the beginning.

This is so much bigger than the stupid party political Punch and Judy shows set up to distract our attention around the world...

You've grasped that for the European Union - how come you can't see if for the rest of the world. As if David Cameron or the Conservative Party can change diddley squat. It's a SPIRITUAL thing Daniel. Haven't you figured that out yet? "Wake up and strengthen what remains." "

thecommander

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

"Someone like David Rockefeller can say back on the 23rd of September 1994:
"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

Did he actually say that?

indough

perhaps invested it in gold or something ???

Sofa_King Good

thecommander wrote: »

Did he actually say that?

It would appear so and more.

From his "Memoirs"

http://files.meetup.com/555302/DRockFlyer.pdf

indough

that quote isnt from his memoirs though (on the link), and the one theyve outlined there is being taken to mean something terrible when it doesnt necessarily, hes speaking about globalization which doesnt necessarily mean tyranny

Sofa_King Good

indough wrote: »

that quote isnt from his memoirs though (on the link), and the one theyve outlined there is being taken to mean something terrible when it doesnt necessarily, hes speaking about globalization which doesnt necessarily mean tyranny

In your interpretation. And it is hardly a huge departure from other quotes attributed to him. I can't find a good source at the moment though to be honest.

But here is Kissinger on Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GThfWVCfjVo

And when if you have the time - 514 quotes http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_about/nwo

indough

indough wrote: »

when it doesnt necessarily

ive made no assumption whatsoever, on the other hand, you seem to have, as has the author of the link

you think these people you bring up are smart enough to organize a tyrannical brave new world type NWO, yet they are also dumb enough to speak about it in public and state their intent in writing? surely it cant be a conspiracy by definition if theyve publicly spoken about it

Sofa_King Good

indough wrote: »

ive made no assumption whatsoever, on the other hand, you seem to have,

Assumption?

indough wrote: »

as has the author of the link.

He put a box around a segment, nothing more. Where is the assumption?

indough wrote: »

you think these people you bring up are smart enough to organize a tyrannical brave new world type NWO, yet they are also dumb enough to speak about it in public and state their intent in writing? surely it cant be a conspiracy by definition if theyve publicly spoken about it

But you don't accept they have spoken of it. You can't have it both ways.

indough

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Assumption?

sorry but "you seem to have" is not an assumption, "you have" would have been an assumption...

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

He put a box around a segment, nothing more. Where is the assumption?

it was implied:

Meet the Enemy of America, David Rockefeller

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

But you don't accept they have spoken of it. You can't have it both ways.

no i dont, i believe he was speaking about globalization, you believe he was talking publically about being involved in something sinister, which is totally counter-intuitive (unless were playing silly beggars and you'll deny thats what you were suggesting)

Aye Matey!

indough wrote: »

you think these people you bring up are smart enough to organize a tyrannical brave new world type NWO, yet they are also dumb enough to speak about it in public and state their intent in writing? surely it cant be a conspiracy by definition if theyve publicly spoken about it (directed at SKG)

This has been queried quite recently on this forum and the rejoinder is a thing as simple as audacity.

indough wrote: »

ive made no assumption whatsoever, on the other hand, you seem to have, (directed at SKG)

To be fair the both of you are making assumptions based on the SKG's provision of quotes. Impartially the said quotations highlight a globalist agenda. This is something for both of you to reciprocally concur. While indough assumes such a comprehensive global adminstration and it associated agendas and terminus to be benevolant SKG on the other hand believes it to be malevolent. It is only the disparity of each of your assumptions that has positioned you on opposite sides of the one analogical coin.

indough wrote: »

unless were playing silly beggars and you'll deny thats what you were suggesting (directed at SKG)

Ostensibly they say that name-calling is the lowest form of wit.

Aye Matey!

On the topic of assumptions what would each of you assume that Kennedy was referring to in the following speech? Consider it an excercise of the power of assumption. The relevance of this speech to the current discussion pertains to SKG's proposition concerning the public declaration of the alleged affiliated agendas of secret societies:

I

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.
And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

Sofa_King Good

Aye Matey! wrote: »

On the topic of assumptions what would each of you assume that Kennedy was referring to in the following speech? Consider it an excercise of the power of assumption. The relevance of this speech to the current discussion pertains to SKG's proposition concerning the public declaration of the alleged affiliated agendas of secret societies:

Aye Matey, I have yet to disagree with a single point of yours although admittedly you have me reaching for the dictionary (a lot), I really feel you have contributed positively to each topic you've visited in an unpatronising and unantagonistic fashion. What you have done here is very clever. You have taken a seemingly oft misrepresented quote, prior to which I personally was unaware of its true meaning.

My assumption now of the true meaning is that JFK was not talking about secret societies but the role and responsibilities of the media during the Cold War.

You've certainly given me food for thought.

Sofa_King Good

indough wrote: »

sorry but "you seem to have" is not an assumption,

Yeah it is

indough wrote: »

it was implied:

Assumption

indough wrote: »

you'll deny thats what you were suggesting)

Assumption

My point is if you want black and white facts without supposition you should read an encylopedia, no a conspiracy theories forum.

Sofa_King Good

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Straight after September 11th 2001 the Federal Reserve in the U.S. drastically lowered interest rates in order to prevent panic in the markets - some 4% of a rate cut if my memory serves me right.
This encouraged the credit bubble that has now spectacularly exploded. François Fillon, French Prime Minister said yesterday that this was a once in a century crisis.

And who has been predicting this kind of event for the last 10 years?
Why, those crazy conspiracy theorists, those "counterknowledge" idiots that credulously swallow the latest weird idea.
And yet.
And yet.
Suddenly a New World Order with its technological surveillance of citizens, its paternalistic "benevolent" totalitarianism, its welding together of the corporate and the governmental has suddenly gotten a good deal closer.
And let's not forget - this is just the beginning.

T"

To go back to the original point, it still stands with or without the quote

indough

Aye Matey! wrote: »

This has been queried quite recently on this forum and the rejoinder is a thing as simple as audacity.

thats just a clutching at straws answer to the question, its still counter-intuitive

Aye Matey! wrote: »

To be fair the both of you are making assumptions based on the SKG's provision of quotes. Impartially the said quotations highlight a globalist agenda. This is something for both of you to reciprocally concur. While indough assumes such a comprehensive global adminstration and it associated agendas and terminus to be benevolant SKG on the other hand believes it to be malevolent. It is only the disparity of each of your assumptions that has positioned you on opposite sides of the one analogical coin.

yeah either way hes talking about globalization bad or good (NWO or any other one world government would be a form of globalization by its very nature), but its right to judge it as an innocent in nature by default, innocent until proven guilty without evidence to the contrary, thats not to say you shouldnt continue to investigate it of course

Aye Matey! wrote: »

Ostensibly they say that name-calling is the lowest form of wit.

uh? thats not name calling...

wasnt it you that was pulled up for back seat modding in another thread?

indough

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

My point is if you want black and white facts without supposition you should read an encylopedia, no a conspiracy theories forum.

so what were you posting the link for? was it not to highlight quotes referring to a possible conspiracy or did you think we all just wanted to read up on our rockerfeller quotes for fun? :rolleyes:

indough

Aye Matey! wrote: »

Ostensibly they say that name-calling is the lowest form of wit.

by the way ostensibly they say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, not name calling

Mahatma coat

Aye Matey, Sofa King Good, do you not realise what is happening here, you are allowing yerselves to get caught up in trivial details about posting style, I havent seen any posts of relevance to the actual OP on this page, and very little on the previous page.

It worries me that ye can be distracted from the biger picture so easily, there is a lot of fuel for discussion in the Anglo Irish debacle I expect to see some discussion on this in the next few posts.

Time Magazine

WhaLofShi wrote: »

Economics forum night have an answer. (But I doubt it )

Why should or how could a bunch of maths nerds know what a businessman does in his private affairs?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Straight after September 11th 2001 the Federal Reserve in the U.S. drastically lowered interest rates in order to prevent panic in the markets - some 4% of a rate cut if my memory serves me right.
This encouraged the credit bubble that has now spectacularly exploded. François Fillon, French Prime Minister said yesterday that this was a once in a century crisis.

Complete ludic fallacy, mixed in with factual inaccuracies. The Federal Funds rate in September 2001 was 3%. Post 9/11 this was lowered to 1% to boost confidence and prevent a recession. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people kept their jobs as a result of this. When recession was averted, interest rates rose. They were not low when this problem started. The word "sub-prime" (btw, a consequence of government intervention in the market to provide housing to the less well-off - not a problem with "unfettered capitalism") came into the public consciousness in the summer of 2007. By this stage interest rates had been brought to 5.25%. It was not low interest rates that caused this credit bubble. Bubbles occur anyway. Interest rates were not the reason people liked poppies. The dotcom crash (c. 2000) occurred with interest rates in excess of 6%.

Certainly, it added fuel to the fire, but it's not the cause and only one of many factors that added fuel to the fire. And if you think the rates should not have been cut post-9/11, well that's fine, but tell that to the hundreds of thousands who looked set to lose their jobs.

And who has been predicting this kind of event for the last 10 years?
Why, those crazy conspiracy theorists, those "counterknowledge" idiots that credulously swallow the latest weird idea.

I haven't read any CTers claiming interest rates were below their natural rate. I never read any CTers promoting a rise in interest rates. I heard complaints about unemployment and usury, but these are typically the opposite of complaints about high interest rates.

What I did from those crazy conspiracy theoriests were claims that people would stop holding their faith in money; that the Fed were acting in the interests of rich bankers (look at share prices - now is not a good time to be a banker); that banks should be nationalised (albeit not at the slashed prices they're being bought for now); and that this system was going to result in usury (interest rates are currently at 0%). Your conspiracy was that the market was too free.

welding together of the corporate and the governmental has suddenly gotten a good deal closer.

How much slack did I get here for suggesting independent central banks were important? Yet now you guys are complaining that banking and governance are too entwined? What's it gonna be, fellas??

You seem to be patting yourselves on the back for thinking something was wrong in the banking system. You're correct, something was. However it was completely different to what you claimed. Banks relied too heavily on construction. I said several months ago that it was possible that a decline in construction could lead to problems (I think my quote was "Don't be surprised if somebody [a bank] goes bankrupt in the next year") but that deposits were safe. I was correct in both assertions. I trusted that bankers (like Sean Fitzpatrick) were so greedy that they wouldn't let their companies become unprofitable. I was wrong to give them that much credit. That's accepted. The best outcome, as far as I'm concerned? I agree with my old pal Morgan. Buying Anglo seems stupid. However that's not the same thing as thinking interest rates are to blame for this financial crisis. And if you can't see that, well then you guys really need to learn more about economics if you want to find real economic conspiracies.

Time Magazine

Oh and just to bring some positive news.



This recession doesn't appear to be the Great Depression Part Deux or anything like that. So far it looks worse than average, but nothing spectacular. (BTW, at least part of that is due to the cuts in interest rates.)

Sofa_King Good

I appreciate you that you are some kind of expert on the subject but that does not automatically make you incapable of being wrong.

Example here:
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2006/02/15/story312527359.aspAnd Here.
Irish banks have plenty of scope to increase their mortgage lending in a housing market that looks set to remain robust, according to new research.A report by Dr Brian Lucey, a lecturer in finance at Trinity College, says that mortgage lenders will be able to grow their business activity through high-interest loans to people with poor credit records - known as "sub-prime" mortgages - loans for investment properties, 100 per cent finance for first-time buyers and equity release loans.The report, commissioned by mortgage servicing company Homeloan Management Limited (HML), predicts that the favourable economic and demographic factors driving demand for housing will continue.Dr Lucey said concerns that there may be a housing "bubble" would prove unfounded and that there was little risk of a catastrophic fall in house prices.This was because growth in house prices in recent years was not out of line with historic trends, he said.The report also argues that Irish households are coping well with servicing their debts, due to low interest rates.High levels of inward migration from both "returning Irish" and people from new EU states, combined with strong growth in the numbers of people who fall into the "prime house purchasing age" bracket of 25-44, points to continued expansion in the number of people who are willing and able to purchase properties.Strong cultural affinity to home ownership provides Irish people with a powerful incentive to buy property, Dr Lucey added.Low levels of repossession in comparison with countries such as the UK and cultural aversion to stock market investments following widespread losses incurred during the first Eircom flotation have also encouraged this trend, he said.© 2006 The Irish Times- http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2006/0214/1137626845561.html

Time Magazine

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I appreciate you that you are some kind of expert on the subject but that does not automatically make you incapable of being wrong.

I'm not an expert on the financial sector, it's really not my area at all. I know Brian Lucey, he's a good guy and even posts on this site semi-regularly. However the housing market is not his area of specialisation either and he was clearly wrong in thinking sub-prime was the way of the future. Of course people made mistakes. I'm sure there were smart guys in banks who told their bosses to invest in sub-prime. I also expect they're now joining the dole queues as they saw their investments fail. I don't quite see the problem here. People made bad investments and have now lost money. I never once claimed that the housing market boom was sustainable or that rich men should get state bail-outs. But that's an entirely different proposition to having a huge problem with the entire monetary system.

The problem with sub-prime has to do with banking but not the entire monetary system. It was a bubble, a bit like the dotcom bubble, that burst. But nobody made silly connections between the decline of Altavista and fractional reserve banking. Sub-prime was a bubble. Just like the bubble that existed for Dutch tulips 400 years ago, where a single flower was worth €20,000, long before the Fed or anything like that. Bubbles occur. It's not a monetary phenomenon. Sure, bad monetary policy can make it worse, but that's not the fundamental cause. You guys were complaining about the entire monetary system, and now have started to pat yourselves on the back because a bubble in housing has burst. Can you see the distinction?

bonkey

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

And who has been predicting this kind of event for the last 10 years?
Why, those crazy conspiracy theorists, those "counterknowledge" idiots that credulously swallow the latest weird idea.

#

Predicting....what, exactly?

For the last 10 years, those "crazy conspiracy theorists" have been predicting all sorts of things.

The market took a hammering. Its taken hammerings before. It will take hammerings again. If thats all those "cct" guys have been predicting, then, well, its not very spectacular.

If they've been predicting something else...then I'd like to know exactly what it is that's come true.

Sofa_King Good

bonkey wrote: »

#

Predicting....what, exactly?

For the last 10 years, those "crazy conspiracy theorists" have been predicting all sorts of things.

The market took a hammering. Its taken hammerings before. It will take hammerings again. If thats all those "cct" guys have been predicting, then, well, its not very spectacular.

If they've been predicting something else...then I'd like to know exactly what it is that's come true.

Here is another prediction, that of Kissinger in an International Herald Tribune interview.

"Every country will have to reassess its own contribution to the prevailing crisis. […] each will be obliged to face the reality that its dilemmas can be mastered only by common action.
Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being. It will fragment disastrously if the various priorities cannot be reconciled.
The nadir of the existing international financial system coincides with simultaneous political crises around the globe. Never have so many transformations occurred at the same time in so many different parts of the world and been made globally accessible via instantaneous communication. The alternative to a new international order is chaos."


So as a result of the international financial crisis, engineered or not (result is the same) for this purpose in Kissinger's view the only outcomes are globalism or chaos.
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=755

Sofa_King Good

The Economist wrote: »

Oh and just to bring some positive news.

This recession doesn't appear to be the Great Depression Part Deux or anything like that. So far it looks worse than average, but nothing spectacular. (BTW, at least part of that is due to the cuts in interest rates.)

In fairness it was a while back but I'd be interested to know if you still stand by this?

meglome

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

In fairness it was a while back but I'd be interested to know if you still stand by this?

Are there large numbers of people wandering the country looking for work, living in tent cities and eating from soup kitchens?

Sofa_King Good

meglome wrote: »

Are there large numbers of people wandering the country looking for work, living in tent cities and eating from soup kitchens?

So, thats a yeah from you then?

meglome

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

So, thats a yeah from you then?

Unless I'm mistaken none of those things have happened. Maybe you can show me otherwise?

Time Magazine

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

In fairness it was a while back but I'd be interested to know if you still stand by this?

Yeah. GDP fell by 30% in the US during the Great Depression. Using some rules of thumb, it looks like Ireland's might fall by about half that.

Which is terrible, but it's still only half of 30%.

Time Magazine

The Economist wrote: »

Yeah. GDP fell by 30% in the US during the Great Depression. Using some rules of thumb, it looks like Ireland's might fall by about half that.

Which is terrible, but it's still only half of 30%.

Some heavy hitters disagree with me. Link.

(BTW, please read this before bringing up the Gold Standard!)