Thoughts on a new protest against Nama

honesty101

Hi all,
I know there are many users on this site who have a huge contempt for the government at present and rightly so. Nama is likely to pass but the public need to make their voice heard. I believe we cannot sit idly by and let this happen without at least trying. I am not proposing another march and I would rather the 'headbangers' stay away.
The ordinary people of Ireland are witnessing the greatest injustice that this government have ever done and we do nothing.
The Dail is not in session next week due to campaigning for Lisbon. They return to the Dail on Tuesday week. What I am proposing is that there would be a consistent presence outside Dail Eireann for the 3 days a week that the TD's are present. I am hoping that passers by will stop and stay.
I am hoping that the media will gather and see that this is a protest that is being organised by someone who has no political affiliation and has been motivated by pure frustration and anger.
If there was only a core group of people who were there every day and the people online here were attempting to get more people to join us.
By the way I will be travelling from Cork and will have to sacrifice a lot to start this. Time is scarce.
A mantra I grew up with was 'they shall succeed who want to enough'. Big question is 'do we'?
I look forward to hearing your thoughts and hopefully seeing you Tuesday week.

Regards,

mikemac

If you do this and it's succussful, it's guranteed some political parties and fringe groups will jump in.
And it'll be their posters and banners that get seen on the news.
And noone will know why you even started it in the first place.

But good luck with your endevour

honesty101

Thanks for your words of encouragement. I am hoping all interested parties will e-mail me at namagate@gmail.com
I do hope you can support.

P. Breathnach

So what do you want instead of NAMA?

honesty101

Without sounding smart, would it really matter given that the government have not even listened to the opposition parties. However, I do believe that a combination of FG/McWilliams/Desmond would be far more in the interests of the Irish tax payer.
When risk-sharing is mentioned it angers me to the core. The tax payer should have to bear no risk here as they were not the ones who took it!
There is too much of a hope that Nama will fix all. I guarantee you that pumping money into the banks will not release credit to those who need it. The banks lending criteria will not change. Why would the banks lend to anyone that is not credit worthy? Until confidence is restored in the world economy and then into the Irish economy things will continue to get worse.
There has still been no mention by government of all those residential mortgage holders whose 12 month moratorium will start ending from now. Their ability to repay their mortgages will have not changed given that they are still unemployed. These rules will also need to be changed.
The politicians are politicians not bankers, let us keep it that way!

SLUSK

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So what do you want instead of NAMA?

letting the banks fail is an option if you believe in free market capitalism

P. Breathnach

SLUSK wrote: »

letting the banks fail is an option if you believe in free market capitalism

I believe in earthquakes, but that doesn't mean that I want one to happen here.

silverharp

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I believe in earthquakes, but that doesn't mean that I want one to happen here.

effectively the banks have failed in that their assets are less then their liabilities. Does it really matter what the header on your statement says? NAMA is just a rob Peter to pay Paul exercise. The principled approach would be that those that took the risks take the losses.

silverharp

mikemac wrote: »

If you do this and it's succussful, it's guranteed some political parties and fringe groups will jump in.
And it'll be their posters and banners that get seen on the news.
And noone will know why you even started it in the first place.

But good luck with your endevour

I was chatting about this with someone in work and to be honest the reaction would need to along the lines of the tax marches in 70's , if the looney left are front running/hijacking this then it wont gain popular support. we'll just have to wait and see how warm it gets for the frogs in the pot.

honesty101

The thing is, we don't have time on our side. More time will be wasted by the new government in dismantling this if they have the initiative even to do that. The government will automatically fall when either Nama or the budget is not passed. Nama will pass in the next 2 to 4 weeks. Surely enough people can spare some time to stand outside the Dail in support of this motion. The government are hearing us they just aren't listening!

P. Breathnach

silverharp wrote: »

effectively the banks have failed in that their assets are less then their liabilities. Does it really matter what the header on your statement says? NAMA is just a rob Peter to pay Paul exercise. The principled approach would be that those that took the risks take the losses.

I don't mind too much if shareholders are wiped out. Technically they are risk-takers, even if many of them did not appreciate that. And no, it does not matter greatly to me whose name is on the header of my bank statement. But I am very interested in the number at the bottom of the balance column. If the banks were allowed collapse, that number would change greatly to my disadvantage.

Once the deposit guarantee was introduced, that concern was addressed: the burden would fall on the taxpayer (another capacity in which I have an interest). NAMA might prove to be cheaper than the deposit guarantee.

silverharp

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't mind too much if shareholders are wiped out. Technically they are risk-takers, even if many of them did not appreciate that. And no, it does not matter greatly to me whose name is on the header of my bank statement. But I am very interested in the number at the bottom of the balance column. If the banks were allowed collapse, that number would change greatly to my disadvantage.

Once the deposit guarantee was introduced, that concern was addressed: the burden would fall on the taxpayer (another capacity in which I have an interest). NAMA might prove to be cheaper than the deposit guarantee.

if I understand your point you are saying its preferable not to liquidate today versus borrowing the banks deficits over time. I'd argue it is preferable to liquidate today. Politically the depositors would have had to be covered or if there was to be some limit it would have had to be done via a bank holiday. However the main issue I have is the bond holders being covered, this group falls into the speculative group that should take it on the chin. No doubt the gov would still have had to raise bonds but as markets are forward looking once the risks and been crystalized the market would have lent to the gov.