No to Nama Protest March this saturday 2pm

skelliser

The voice of the people of Ireland will be heard at the 'No to NAMA' Street Protest on Saturday 12th September 2009. The protest will start at the Garden of Remembrance (at the top of O'Connell St) at 2pm and will march on the Dail.


NAMA involves purchasing bad loans of EUR90bn with your taxpayer's money. It is an unprecedented gamble with very bad odds, and the losses will be very real. A generation of higher taxes and severe cutbacks will inevitably result from NAMA.

We DO NOT and CANNOT trust Fianna Fail to get the crucial valuation of loans right. They have known relationships with the developers who will be transferring assets to NAMA.

There are alternatives to NAMA that will safeguard the taxpayer's funds. If Fianna Fail aren't willing to rethink NAMA, a general election is needed to replace them.

The street protest is being organised by Dave Browne who set up http://www.irishpeopleunion.com .

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.php?gid=233861925262


People in ireland constantly complain and whine about our shockingly inept government, heres your chance to protest.
Please, can come along and voice your objection to this bailout of ff/developer/banker friends.

dr.bollocko

Moved from AH.

ninty9er

skelliser wrote: »

The voice of the people of Ireland will be heard at the 'No to NAMA' Street Protest on Saturday 12th September 2009. The protest will start at the Garden of Remembrance (at the top of O'Connell St) at 2pm and will march on the Dail.

Who gave you the right to speak on behalf of the "people of Ireland?" I'm the people of Ireland as much as every other citizen and I have no issue with the NAMA concept. Also this 90bn figure is yet to be determined. It could be more or it could be less, but as long as it's rationalised I couldn't care less. NAMA allows for future revenue to the state, current lending to small business and opportunity for state ownership of important landbanks.

It has its flaws, but I'm yet to hear a better idea.

Seth Brundle

I forget the figures (and somehow can't find it on Google) but thousands protested around the country (with the biggest gathering in Dublin) against the rendition flights going through Shannon. What happened? The government ignored the people.
What's the point in going to a protest on Saturday when we already know that the government don't give a toss about what the little people think?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

So what is your alternative to nama then? Do you have one??? Scaremongering tbh... :rolleyes:

skelliser

im not involved, im only trying to raise awareness.
This was originally in AH and i hoped to reach a wider audience.

Either way i think nama is an out and out scam. Its clearly a ff developer bailout and we will pay. Anyone who thinks we the taxpayer will do well out of this is living in lalala land.

Im in favour of lucys plan to take the hit intially and nationalise the banks in the short term.

skelliser

ninty9er wrote: »

Who gave you the right to speak on behalf of the "people of Ireland?" I'm the people of Ireland as much as every other citizen and I have no issue with the NAMA concept. Also this 90bn figure is yet to be determined. It could be more or it could be less, but as long as it's rationalised I couldn't care less. NAMA allows for future revenue to the state, current lending to small business and opportunity for state ownership of important landbanks.

It has its flaws, but I'm yet to hear a better idea.

ok then "the voice of some of the people"

btw to you think this current gov. speaks for the people of ireland?
what mandate do they have to play with potentially 90billion of our money?
and what does rationalised mean? those it mean paying 2006 prices for loans that are worth half that?

iirc11% approval rating
iirc17% cowen satisfaction
iirc 24% support in local election last june

FlutterinBantam

Who do you speak for.

You sound to me like some student radical with nothing to lose.

What is your background?

Who do you work for?


The people who are against NAMA are usually those who are on state benefit and have nothing to lose anyway,

So..... you have the stage....

skelliser

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Who do you speak for.

You sound to me like some student radical with nothing to lose.

What is your background?

Who do you work for?


The people who are against NAMA are usually those who are on state benefit and have nothing to lose anyway,

So..... you have the stage....

****in hell! the gestapo has arrived!

i speak for myself, ive nothing do to with that protest, i do however support it. Is this now a crime!
Im a well educated professional who is sick and tired of cronyism and corruption lead solely by ff and there friends goin back to the day haughy first came to power.

I suggest you look at the people who are on that facebook group, do they look like there on state benefit! what a stupid and inmature statement to make.
i doubt you will see many "radical student" or "people on state benefit" on the facebook, by and large they are young professional, some homeowners some with families, basically people who didnt cause this mess and feel the mismanagement of a few are being lumped on the rest. Something that we have become all to familiar with in this country. Something im frankly sick of now.

And so what if some are on state benefit, you do realise almost 500,000 people are on the dole, are these peoples views somehow diminished or not worthy cause of there unfortunate predicament. The arrogance of such a statement is astounding!

If im radical about anything its about destroying the party that is called fianna fail. thats who i speak for.

skelliser

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Who do you speak for.

The people who are against NAMA are usually those who are on state benefit and have nothing to lose anyway,

So..... you have the stage....

how do you now the people that are opposed to nama are the above? proof please!
who do u speak for?
well you now have the stage.........

FlutterinBantam

I speak for people with common sense.

The best economic brains in Ireland have endorsed NAMA.

Some have said it's the best worst scenario but most including Dr Alan Ahearne have said that its the best option.

That's good enough for me.

skelliser

hmm
who are these most, best economic brains you speak of?
and where is your proof that most people oppsed are on state benefit?

so you taking the word of one man, alan ahern, over 46 other economists including brain lucey.

fair enough

FlutterinBantam

More than one man buddy, Brendan Keenan of the Indo plus others have endorsed NAMA.

Going a little off topic labour leader Gilmore was asked on Newstalk would he cut public service wages/jobs.

Totally fudged the issue.

All reportage I have heard on radio and tv leaned toward NAMA, the opposition generally seemed to be vested interests and those to whom the issue wouldn't affect, so they understandably went against the Govt.

My problems with nama would be:

1 - The fact that the banks have very little incentive to clean up their acts.
2 - Nobody gets fired over the whole debacle.
3 - The transfer of wealth from tax payers to PRIVATE investors (who took a risk investing - lets remember).
4 - No reason for the banks to all of a sudden start lending.
5 - Plenty of reason for them to invest a lot of their freed up money outside of Ireland.
6 - Bank fee's/rates pretty much guaranteed to rise as soon as nama is (and hopefully it wont be) implemented - screwing over the same people bailing them out.
7 - the secrecy of the whole thing. This seems to be the only option that keeps all of the dodgy deals secret, and also the only option that totally lets the developers off the hook.
8 - if ANY of this supposed good land that will rise again in price is *so* good then why aren't AIB holding onto it?


What do I think? Nationalisation with an injection of cash. We can clean up the banks then, and then sell them on in a few years for a profit. This is the only way I can see us making any money or at least coming as close as possible to breaking even in this whole scenario - and at least having control over how the money is spent. If it's our bank they'll be accountable to us - not private shareholders.
NAMA on it's own merely rips us off, for the sake of bankers and developers and private investors. It does nothing much to help anyone else (besides them lending our own money back to us at a higher rate of interest).

I really don't see what we're getting out of it, as the ones taking all the risk and putting in all the money - Can anyone explain that part to me?

skelliser

FlutterinBantam, you say vasted interests are opposed, who?

how about the vested interests who are in favour, notably frank fahey, whose being whoring nama all week on any microphone he can get!
no conflict of interest there eh!

nesf

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Moved from AH.

In future lock and bin petitions and advertisments for marches. Please don't move them here.



This thread is not being locked because it's already generating a decent amount of debate on an important topic, but normally such a thread would be deleted here. We're not a free advertising service. This thread being left open is the exception that proves the rule etc.

skelliser

there are others planed for wed, by labour, and sat next by another crowd. i dont know the details and wont be posting them here, i suggest any new threads generated for them should be merged with this.

I was only trying to raise awareness and by and large people are in agreement that nama is a bad idea so i do think they warrant a debate.

nesf

skelliser wrote: »

I was only trying to raise awareness and by and large people are in agreement that nama is a bad idea so i do think they warrant a debate.

Sure, and you're not in any trouble because your thread was moved here!


In future, if you want to advertise a march or similar on this forum simply add it to your signature.

FlutterinBantam

skelliser wrote: »

FlutterinBantam, you say vasted interests are opposed, who?

how about the vested interests who are in favour, notably frank fahey, whose being whoring nama all week on any microphone he can get!
no conflict of interest there eh!

Labour Party: Who don't want to rock any boat.

Sinn Fein who oppose everything.

I will agree with you on Fahey, whose input I would ignore as he is out for only one person, himself.

Can't say I heard him on any radio station recently?


it is a risk, but based on the reportage and discussion I have heard NAMA is the best option.

skelliser

in one day think it was monday he was on newstalk and then on the last word. Some of it was pure lies imo.
id cant link to another thread here from another forum put the site is green looking;). anyway there is a thread there discussing his misleading and incorrect opinions on the various shows he was on.

FlutterinBantam

skelliser wrote: »

in one day think it was monday he was on newstalk and then on the last word. Some of it was pure lies imo.
id cant link to another thread here from another forum put the site is green looking;). anyway there is a thread there discussing his misleading and incorrect opinions on the various shows he was on.

Right I'll have a look for that... oh shít!!! field goal blocked in Heinz Field ..ok tks for that info.

skelliser

****, did nfl start tonight!?

skelliser

bollox, it did! holmes with a touch down! woohoo good start to my fantasy league!

FlutterinBantam

Risking trouble here Sorry mods... 7-7 Titans -Steelers

back on topic.

NAMA is the best of a bad lot, thats my understanding based on what i have heard.

ninty9er

skelliser wrote: »

what mandate do they have to play with potentially 90billion of our money?

The only mandate that matters for a government is the one that it gets at a general election. That is how governance works, otherwise we would have swings and roundabouts multiple times a year.

The government has a mandate to do whatever it damn well wants if it feels that action is in the national interest.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

8 - if ANY of this supposed good land that will rise again in price is *so* good then why aren't AIB holding onto it?

Because it's not getting a choice in the matter. NAMA will decide what stays and what goes.

skelliser wrote: »

Its clearly a ff developer bailout and we will pay. Anyone who thinks we the taxpayer will do well out of this is living in lalala land.

Cop on to yourself

Pre NAMA: Developer owes €200m to AIB
NAMA stage 1: NAMA pays AIB €120m for this
NAMA stage 2: Developer owes the state €200m

Where's the scam. It's as plain as the nose on my face.

ninty9er

ninty9er wrote: »

Pre NAMA: Developer owes €200m to AIB
NAMA stage 1: NAMA pays AIB €120m for this
NAMA stage 2: Developer owes the state €200m

Where's the scam. It's as plain as the nose on my face.

The scam is the taxpayers money going to private investors. We get nothing out of it.

These people that will owe large amounts to the state, how exactly do you think they will be able to pay this back? Alot of assets are worth close to zero due to insane oversupply.

No guarantee the banks will start lending.
It's pretty much guaranteed that rates and bank fee's will rise and rise.
Property prices kept artificially high.

All we get out of it is our own money lent back to us at interest, with as I said, no guarantee the banks will even start lending again.
No guarantee that this whole fiasco wont happen again either.

Nothing changes, except we are now 60+ billion extra in debt.


If this really is such a good option, why all the secrecy around it? It's a scam. As Richard Bruton said - it's purpose seems to be bailing out 1,500 of Irelands wealthiest business men.

FG asked for a list of the people who will benefit from nama. Will they get it? Will they ****.
Why? Because the whole thing is dirty as hell.

ninty9er

It's a legislative bill. How exactly does that constitute secrecy?

MikeC101

ninty9er wrote: »

Pre NAMA: Developer owes €200m to AIB
NAMA stage 1: NAMA pays AIB €120m for this
NAMA stage 2: Developer owes the state €200m

Where's the scam. It's as plain as the nose on my face.

I wouldn't call it a scam, but I'd have my doubts as to how successful the NAMA exercise will be.

Pre NAMA: Developer owes €200m to AIB
NAMA stage 1: NAMA pays AIB €120m for this
NAMA stage 2: Developer owes the state €200m

It's fine up to that point, it's what will happen after this that worries me, or indeed if there will be political interference at the valuation stage.
Will it be:
Developer files for bankruptcy.
State seizes assets, that are now worth €80 million.

Or: Political interference leads to certain developers not being chased for their debts.

Is it going to be a case that NAMA will waste millions on external advisors, consulants and report after report.

In theory, I'd support NAMA. But in practice, I find it very hard to trust Fianna Fail in this situation. The government, and associated state bodies, public service and so on have shown no respect for taxpayers money so far, I don't see why that would change.

ninty9er

MikeC101 wrote: »

I wouldn't call it a scam, but I'd have my doubts as to how successful the NAMA exercise will be.

Pre NAMA: Developer owes €200m to AIB
NAMA stage 1: NAMA pays AIB €120m for this
NAMA stage 2: Developer owes the state €200m

It's fine up to that point, it's what will happen after this that worries me, or indeed if there will be political interference at the valuation stage.
Will it be:
Developer files for bankruptcy.
State seizes assets, that are now worth €80 million.

Or: Political interference leads to certain developers not being chased for their debts.

Is it going to be a case that NAMA will waste millions on external advisors, consulants and report after report.

In theory, I'd support NAMA. But in practice, I find it very hard to trust Fianna Fail in this situation. The government, and associated state bodies, public service and so on have shown no respect for taxpayers money so far, I don't see why that would change.

That's why we have a public accounts committee chaired by a senior member of the opposition.

Before you bother wasting too much time talking to ninty9er, he's a member of FF so is just going to tow the party line no matter what you say.

schween

What do the anti-NAMA people propose instead? Shall we let our banks collapse completely?

I think it's disgraceful that we have to set up NAMA but we are where we are so we have to deal with it.

MikeC101

ninty9er wrote: »

That's why we have a public accounts committee chaired by a senior member of the opposition.

Which as far as I can see, is very good at issuing reports condemning gross negligence and overspending, but only after they have happened, and are utterly powerless to enforce any kind of punishment to the guilty parties (a la FÁS)

They don't seem to be very effective at preventing said problems from happening in the first place.

At least, when huge amounts have been wasted, we'll know who was responsible. The party faithful will ensure their reelection, they'll still get their pensions and expenses, but at least we'll know.

MikeC101

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Before you bother wasting too much time talking to ninty9er, he's a member of FF so is just going to tow the party line no matter what you say.

I know he is, but in fairness to him he has always seemed to me to be clear and accurate in putting across his points, and I'm interested to read his take on NAMA from a FF supporters perspective.

hobochris

schween wrote: »

What do the anti-NAMA people propose instead? Shall we let our banks collapse completely?

I think it's disgraceful that we have to set up NAMA but we are where we are so we have to deal with it.

And why would that be a bad thing if our banks collapsed? the government have guaranteed deposits, so peoples money is safe, a federal bank can be started from the ashes and assets worth having can be bought up cheep by this bank. Also foreign banks many of whom are already in a position to take over day to day duties from our popular big name banks, will have more room to move into the Irish market, Bring with them a tiddle wave of investment.

a Fire Sale would mean cheap assets up for grabs, which would also spark investor interest.

As far as Nama goes the government have given no real reason why the banks shouldn't be nationalized first, Which would make more sense as they can force the banks to lend if they own them, which means that they can then guarantee lending after Nama has swooped in and taken the bad debts.

As Nama stands now, I am against it.

nesf

hobochris wrote: »

And why would that be a bad thing if our banks collapsed? the government have guaranteed deposits, so peoples money is safe, a federal bank can be started from the ashes and assets worth having can be bought up cheep by this bank.

Eh, and where exactly are the Government going to come up with the money to replace that lost when the banks collapsed? I assure you it'd be a lot bigger than the cost of NAMA.

hobochris

nesf wrote: »

Eh, and where exactly are the Government going to come up with the money to replace that lost when the banks collapsed? I assure you it'd be a lot bigger than the cost of NAMA.

They should be going with a toxic bank then I assume if they have the means to proceed with nama then they have the means to backup there promises as far as deposits go.

In any case they should be going with a toxic bank, pick the worst effected bank, nationalize it, buy all the debts off the other banks at under the odds prices(as a slap on the wrist for their sins) and let it go to the wall.

I don't understand why this option isn't being used instead of Nama. From what I can see though Nama is gonna operate in a similar manor, except instead of bankrupted the toxic bank it will break the backs of the tax payer.

Lockstep

Not a fan of Nama; seems to be creating a massive moral hazard.


Also seems to be one hell of a gamble.

hobochris

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Not a fan of Nama; seems to be creating a massive moral hazard.


Also seems to be one hell of a gamble.

You have to wonder what their real motive is behind it.

It would be nice if one these government crooks turned decent and spilled the beans, but they're all to well paid for that to happen..

Daftendirekt

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I speak for people with common sense.

The best economic brains in Ireland have endorsed NAMA.

Some have said it's the best worst scenario but most including Dr Alan Ahearne have said that its the best option.

That's good enough for me.

Personally, I'm still unsure what I think about NAMA. Do you have links to any articles written by said economists?

I've Googled it and this is all I could come up with.

ninty9er

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Before you bother wasting too much time talking to ninty9er, he's a member of FF so is just going to tow the party line no matter what you say.

Retract that please. I am a Fianna Fáil member but I have and am perfectly entitled to have my own opinions.

Daftendirekt

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Personally, I'm still unsure what I think about NAMA. Do you have links to any articles written by said economists?

I've Googled it and this is all I could come up with.

LIST OF SIGNATORIES

Prof Brian Lucey, School of Business, Trinity College Dublin.
Prof Karl Whelan, Department of Economics, University College Dublin.
Prof Bernadette Andreosso-O’Callaghan, Department of Economics, Kemmy School of Business, University of Limerick.
Prof Colm Harmon, Department of Economics, UCD.
Prof Frank Barry, professor of international business, Trinity College Dublin.
Prof Gregory Connor, Department of Economics, NUI Maynooth.
Prof John Cotter, professor of finance, Smurfit School of Business, UCD.
Prof Kevin O’Rourke, Department of Economics, Trinity College Dublin.
Prof Rodney Thom, Department of Economics, UCD.
Prof Rowena Pecchenino, head of department, Department of Economics, NUI Maynooth.
Dr Constantin Gurdgiev, lecturer in finance, School of Business, Trinity College Dublin.
Dr Alexander Sevic, lecturer in finance, School of Business, Trinity College Dublin.
Patrick McCabe, senior lecturer in accounting and finance, School of Business, Trinity College Dublin.
Dr Jenny Berrill, lecturer in finance, School of Business, Trinity College.
Dr Anthony Leddin, senior lecturer and head of department, Department of Economics, Kemmy School of Business, University of Limerick.
Dr Helena Lenihan, senior lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, Kemmy School of Business, University of Limerick.
Dr Mel Kilkenny, lecturer in finance and taxation, Department of Accounting and Finance, Kemmy School of Business, University of Limerick.
Dr Sheila Killian, senior lecturer in accounting and finance, Department of Accounting and Finance, Kemmy School of Business, University of Limerick.
Dr Stephen Kinsella, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, Kemmy School of Business, University of Limerick.
Dr Donal Palcic, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, Kemmy School of Business, University of Limerick.
Dr Eoin Reeves, senior lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, Kemmy School of Business, University of Limerick.
Eithne Murphy, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, NUI Galway.
Dr Terry McDonagh, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, NUI Galway.
Dr Ashley Piggins, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, NUI Galway.
Dr Cathal O’Donoghue, head of Rural Economy Research Centre Teagasc and Department of Economics, NUI Galway.
Dr Thomas Flavin, senior lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, NUI Maynooth.
Dr Tom O’Connor, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, NUI Maynooth.
Paul O’Sullivan, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, NUI Maynooth
Dr Fabrice Rousseau, senior lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, NUI Maynooth
Dr Cal Muckley, lecturer in finance, Smurfit School of Business, UCD
Dr Frank Walsh, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, UCD
Dr Kevin Denny, senior lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, UCD
Dr Moore McDowell, senior lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, UCD
Dr Sarah Parlane, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, UCD.
Dr Shane Whelan, senior lecturer in actuarial finance, School of Mathematics, UCD.
Dr Vincent Hogan, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, UCD.
Dr Ray Donnelly, senior lecturer in accounting and finance, Department of Accounting and Finance, UCC.
Dr John Masson, lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, UCC
Dr Declan Jordan, college lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, UCC
Eoin O’Leary, senior lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, UCC
Stephen O’Callaghan, lecturer in accounting and finance, Department of Accounting and Finance, UCC.
John Doran, lecturer in accounting and finance, Department of Accounting and Finance, UCC.
David Humphreys, lecturer in accounting and finance, Department of Accounting and Finance, UCC.
Tony Foley, senior lecturer in economics, DCU Business School.
Dr Valerio Poti, lecturer in finance, DCU Business School.
Claire Kearney, lecturer in finance, DCU Business School.

Says it all really. Whenever I hear of someone endorsing NAMA they're always either a direct/indirect beneficiary or a member of FF.

6ix

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I speak for people with common sense.

The best economic brains in Ireland have endorsed NAMA.

Some have said it's the best worst scenario but most including Dr Alan Ahearne have said that its the best option.

That's good enough for me.

I'm sorry, but that's just not true, and it's a lazy lie.

46 leading economists wrote an open letter to the Irish Times disagreeing with NAMA. These are prominent academics from all the major universities. I'm sure at least some of them are among the best economic brains in the country. They don't stand to gain anything by putting their name to such a letter, so their opinion should be at least considered IMO.

Furthermore, I've read a number of articles by David McWilliams, who disagrees with NAMA and has proposed some alternatives. I'm sure there have been a lot of others disagreeing, I just haven't read the papers as much as I'd like.

I really don't have much faith in the economists employed by the government. You'd imagine that some of the "best economic brains in Ireland" might include those at the ESRI.... who have been consistently wrong in their economic predictions over the last few years. All the while, people like McWilliams and even posters on other forums have made much more accurate predictions.


Edit: Adding a recent article link for the poster above who wanted to read some economist's views.

http://www.sbpost.ie/commentandanalysis/dissenters-may-call-it-right-again-44142.html

ninty9er

I would not read too much into that letter. 46 signatories from the major universities...hmmm, wonder if they've had to take a 5% pay cut and another one coming?? Might leave a bitterness.

5 of those signatories have taught me, but interestingly their boss' name does not appear on the list and he has also lectured me in economics, furthermore, he has been considered more suitable to appoint as a Dean.

There is no way in hell they all have the same opinion in relation to NAMA. It's a "look at us" attempt. A failed one.

Daftendirekt

ninty9er wrote: »

There is no way in hell they all have the same opinion in relation to NAMA. It's a "look at us" attempt. A failed one.

Maybe it indicates NAMA might just be a really bad idea?

6ix

ninty9er wrote: »

I would not read too much into that letter. 46 signatories from the major universities...hmmm, wonder if they've had to take a 5% pay cut and another one coming?? Might leave a bitterness.

Every worker in the country has had to take a pay cut, and we're all bitter about how the country was ran into the ground for the benefit of the few. Still, I think there's little for them to gain by signing that letter, but that's just my opinion.

Yes, you're right that there are differing opinions on NAMA among economists, but the point of my post is that I really didn't like the dismissive tone of the previous post, which flatly suggested that all the major economic brains were in support, and that anyone against it lacked common sense.

gnxx

Interesting. This is my own theory on how NAMA will operate:

a) Developer owes Bank €50 Million on property now valued at €10 Million.

b) NAMA acquires loan. Developer no longer in debt to Bank.

c) Since developer now has clean loan book with Bank - Bank lends developer more cash

d) Developer uses new loans to prevent defaulting on NAMA loans

In 10 - 20 years we will need a NAMA 2 to fix the problems of NAMA.

Four-Too

There is something definitely smelly about this NAMA. Money cannot be created out of thin air. This is pure n simple logic. These developer SCUM might not owe the banks anything after NAMA, but someone else WILL, the taxpayer/government. The billions we gave to the banks is gone forever, it was thrown away basically, but not ALL the money is gone, there still are rich people in Ireland, but it is the elites/illuminati's agenda to make everyone poor, and there more than likely won't be anyone rich in Ireland soon. Money is simply printed, everyone knows that, but the money is not backed by any precious metal. Gold is getting more and more expensive, so one concludes that our money is becoming more and more worthless. It should be that an ounce of gold is worth so much euro, and that should be steady. The people who print this money have all the power obviously. They can print more, or less, to suit themselves.

nesf

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Says it all really. Whenever I hear of someone endorsing NAMA they're always either a direct/indirect beneficiary or a member of FF.

It does, however that letter was written before the current changes to the draft legislation so it's hard to tell whether their views would be different now.

A Dub in Glasgo

Weather looks good, hopefully there will be a big turnout

cbweb

Hi,

Sorry, can't make it today. But I do try to help the anti Nama campaign, see 'Pig in a poke!' at

http://www.colmbrazel.wordpress.com

or http://www.namasayno.com

There's plenty there to help you make your mind up!

rgds


Colm

Darragh29

ninty9er wrote: »

NAMA allows for future revenue to the state, current lending to small business and opportunity for state ownership of important landbanks.

It has its flaws, but I'm yet to hear a better idea.

Isn't that exactly what we were told when they introduced the state guarantee for the banks, that it would do all of these things that you are now saying NAMA will do???

They were wrong when they said the state guarantee for the banks would result in credit flowing again to businesses and many many jobs have been lost since... Now we are expected to believe that where the guarantee has failed, NAMA will succeed???