Don't criticise the government!

creeper1

It's easy for people to be so wise now. Yes so many of the problems of the economy were caused by a housing boom so now PS jobs must pay well, deposits at banks have to guaranteed to give reassurance etc.

Everyone rightly points to the housing boom as a source of the problems.

It is so popular to rip into the government and say it should have done domething to contain the increase in house prices. Oh a property tax should have been levied people say maybe in 2003 or 2004. What utter horsemanure! So easy to be wise now!

I remember proposals being suggested for a property tax. Shaun O'Rourke on the radio said it would be political suicide. There would be no stomach at all from the Irish people for such a tax. You see the problem is Irish people have always hated tax. Boom or no boom.

So I just want to make the point to all those anti FFs that you get the goverment that you deserve. FF have been elected again and again as the sovereign will of the Irish people. So hold your criticisms please. You must always respect the office .

starbelgrade

creeper1 wrote: »

It's easy for people to be so wise now. Yes so many of the problems of the economy were caused by a housing boom so now PS jobs must pay well, deposits at banks have to guaranteed to give reassurance etc.

Everyone rightly points to the housing boom as a source of the problems.

It is so popular to rip into the government and say it should have done domething to contain the increase in house prices. Oh a property tax should have been levied people say maybe in 2003 or 2004. What utter horsemanure! So easy to be wise now!

I remember proposals being suggested for a property tax. Shaun O'Rourke on the radio said it would be political suicide. There would be no stomach at all from the Irish people for such a tax. You see the problem is Irish people have always hated tax. Boom or no boom.

So I just want to make the point to all those anti FFs that you get the goverment that you deserve. FF have been elected again and again as the sovereign will of the Irish people. So hold your criticisms please. You must always respect the office .

Droll troll.

Amhran Nua

creeper1 wrote: »

It is so popular to rip into the government and say it should have done domething to contain the increase in house prices. Oh a property tax should have been levied people say maybe in 2003 or 2004. What utter horsemanure! So easy to be wise now!

A property tax is only dealing with the symptoms. If the financial regulator had been doing half a job we wouldn't be in nearly as much bother. Then again, I guess he did the job he was paid to do.

creeper1 wrote: »

So I just want to make the point to all those anti FFs that you get the goverment that you deserve. FF have been elected again and again as the sovereign will of the Irish people. So hold your criticisms please. You must always respect the office .

Eh no, a small percentage of the populace that wasn't worn to the bone with the leering corruption of Irish politics voted, and of those a smallish percentage actually voted FF as a first preference. So we got the government we were too sick of looking at to actually vote.

I guarantee you that is changing though.

asdasd

Everybody who bought a property caused the boom. The evidence about the bubble was published for years - like from McWilliams and others.

Sponge Bob

starbelgrade wrote: »

Droll troll.

Not even . Likely A Green Party or SF Hack rather than an FF Hack based on their widdly contribution to Boards to date

asdasd

Everybody feel free to address the points.

Pretend there is someone from outside Ireland lurking here. To blame FF ( Lurker: That is Fianna Fail the majority party inthe Government coalition) you would have to show that the people who voted for Fianna Fail were not voting for another party with a diametrically different view on the property market, and the bubble.

Produce that evidence and it is indeed FF and the people who voted for them who are responsible for the fine mess we find ourselves in.

Otherwise I blame we as a society.


i say "we" but I mean you. Since I didnt buy a house.

P. Breathnach

asdasd wrote: »

Everybody who bought a property caused the boom...

I take it you mean "bubble".

I would lay more blame on the financial sector, who offered ever-larger loans, putting more money at the disposition of purchasers, and fuelling bidding wars.

starbelgrade

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Not even . Likely A Green Party or SF Hack rather than an FF Hack based on their widdly contribution to Boards to date

Or just a wind-up merchant.. here is his views on the people of Britain, as posted recently on another forum...

"Jeremy Kyle is just like a random cross section of Britain. Ofcourse not everyone in Britain has been on Jeremy Kyle but if you were to pick randomly 20 people of the streets of Manchester or whatever hole you find most of them are typical of the guests on this show."

I love forums, I love political discussions, but wind-up merchants. Blah.

creeper1

My comments on the need for the EU to assist Ireland are not a contradiction. Ireland is in a hell of a tight spot. I am beginning to see how just how bad it is now. As for the UK, I have already established that they are finished. They are gone. Forget about them. What I dread is that Ireland will follow them into the abyss.

What gets on my nerves now is the armchair now-it-alls whining about "oh and wasn't it obvious house prices were too high" I am calling that bull manure. Hindsight is always 20-20. People just trying to escape responsibility for the things that they done.

Now on the Jeremy Kyle comment. Yes the UK is worse for chavs (I hope we can agree on that) but Dublin has it's growing population of scangers. And in the country they are becoming prevalent. Again I am concerned about Ireland imitating the UK in this dreadful culture. You can see the drug use, young girls pushing prams - it's disgusting.

However it's sort of inevitable when a counrty goes to the dogs that normal people start to become chavs (scangers, knackers, whatever). I sort of don't blame them. No work, no future why not just shoot up and have unprotected fun.

I hate this flak directed at me. I can see the big picture. I might not know every policy of every political party in Ireland but I do know that taxes that might have stopped the property bubble overheating would have been vigorously opposed by the genral population.

My point is that most of the anger directed at FF is misplaced or to quote an often used phrase "we are where we are"

gurramok

creeper1 wrote: »

I hate this flak directed at me. I can see the big picture. I might not know every policy of every political party in Ireland but I do know that taxes that might have stopped the property bubble overheating would have been vigorously opposed by the genral population.

My point is that most of the anger directed at FF is misplaced or to quote an often used phrase "we are where we are"

And your party was at the helm of the mess. 100% guilty.

By the way with regard sovereign will. I don't remember ever seeing a NAMA been on the FF manifesto in 2007, do you?

Seth Brundle

People may have boutght the houses but its somewhat unfair to blame them for the bubble when you had the likes of Bertie telling people to commit suicide.
The reality is that the government of the day all had a role in highlighting the problems and ensuring that an adequate result was achieved. However, whan the likes of the regulators office seemed to spend their entire time making adverts on busses and not ensuring that the banks followed the lending rules, it is evident that the entire government failed. We had a cabinet that allowed recklesness and we had an opposition that didn't shout loud enough.

Amhran Nua

kbannon wrote: »

we had an opposition that didn't shout loud enough.

Sure why would they, they're getting paid either way. All the perks, none of the responsiblity.

Long Onion

creeper1 wrote: »

It's easy for people to be so wise now. Yes so many of the problems of the economy were caused by a housing boom so now PS jobs must pay well, deposits at banks have to guaranteed to give reassurance etc.

Everyone rightly points to the housing boom as a source of the problems.

It is so popular to rip into the government and say it should have done domething to contain the increase in house prices. Oh a property tax should have been levied people say maybe in 2003 or 2004. What utter horsemanure! So easy to be wise now!

I remember proposals being suggested for a property tax. Shaun O'Rourke on the radio said it would be political suicide. There would be no stomach at all from the Irish people for such a tax. You see the problem is Irish people have always hated tax. Boom or no boom.

So I just want to make the point to all those anti FFs that you get the goverment that you deserve. FF have been elected again and again as the sovereign will of the Irish people. So hold your criticisms please. You must always respect the office .

This is just a pointless post - of course people objected to levies in the boom years, people always object to levies. Now that we are in the depths of a serious recession, people are still objecting to levies. The government did what they belived would keep them in power for the longest period, again, all governments do that can you stae with any certainty that the situation would be any different had Labour or FG been in power?

No-one forsaw the bust because they didn't want to (as for McWilliams and Lee, if you preach doom for the whole of your life, you will probably be right every now and then) the people amongst us who were prudent and lived sensibly are still ok now, those of us who were reckless are goosed. You reap what you sow.

Dannyboy83

creeper1 wrote: »

My comments on the need for the EU to assist Ireland are not a contradiction. Ireland is in a hell of a tight spot. I am beginning to see how just how bad it is now. As for the UK, I have already established that they are finished. They are gone. Forget about them. What I dread is that Ireland will follow them into the abyss.

What gets on my nerves now is the armchair now-it-alls whining about "oh and wasn't it obvious house prices were too high" I am calling that bull manure. Hindsight is always 20-20. People just trying to escape responsibility for the things that they done.

Now on the Jeremy Kyle comment. Yes the UK is worse for chavs (I hope we can agree on that) but Dublin has it's growing population of scangers. And in the country they are becoming prevalent. Again I am concerned about Ireland imitating the UK in this dreadful culture. You can see the drug use, young girls pushing prams - it's disgusting.

However it's sort of inevitable when a counrty goes to the dogs that normal people start to become chavs (scangers, knackers, whatever). I sort of don't blame them. No work, no future why not just shoot up and have unprotected fun.

I hate this flak directed at me. I can see the big picture. I might not know every policy of every political party in Ireland but I do know that taxes that might have stopped the property bubble overheating would have been vigorously opposed by the genral population.

My point is that most of the anger directed at FF is misplaced or to quote an often used phrase "we are where we are"

No offense but this is awful nonsense you're writing.

These regulators and people in government had a job to do (we pay them to do that job). They knew exactly 'what' was going to happen as a result of the strategies they pursued - the only uncertainty was 'when' it would happen.
I can remember back as far as late 2004/early 2005, people were talking about the housing bubble and people were talking about Dell pulling out of Limerick and how our competitiveness had been eroded etc.

gurramok

Long Onion wrote: »

No-one forsaw the bust because they didn't want to (as for McWilliams and Lee, if you preach doom for the whole of your life, you will probably be right every now and then)

Thats unfair. They preached and the majority didn't listen as they were up in their noses in the feelgood factor of credit.

Long Onion

gurramok wrote: »

Thats unfair. They preached and the majority didn't listen as they were up in their noses in the feelgood factor of credit.

The problem is that the preached constantly for about 4 years, eventually the cycle ended. Looking at recent recoveries and rallies in equities, it seem that the up-turn is beginning in many countries now it will inevitably come to an end at some point in the future. If we start warning now of another crash we will, of course, be right, but there will be 4-6 years of being wrong in between that all our fans will conveniently ignore once the 'prophecy' is proven.

Amhran Nua

Long Onion wrote: »

it seem that the up-turn is beginning in many countries now

You mean the stimulus programmes are providing a fig leaf while the politicos pray and the media spins like a top. There is no such thing as a jobless recovery.

Long Onion

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You mean the stimulus programmes are providing a fig leaf while the politicos pray and the media spins like a top. There is no such thing as a jobless recovery.

I am not jobless, nor are the 87% of workers in employment on this Island, employment tends to lag behind an economic recovery which is often driven by confidence. You can deny it if you wish.

Amhran Nua

Long Onion wrote: »

I am not jobless, nor are the 87% of workers in employment on this Island, employment tends to lag behind an economic recovery which is often driven by confidence. You can deny it if you wish.

No, stock market recoveries are driven by confidence. Economic recoveries are driven by fundamentals and reality. For example in Ireland, most of our economy was based on construction:

Construction output down almost 40%

Building and construction output fell by almost 40 per cent in the year to the end of June, according to new figures from the Central Statistics Office (CSO).

The data shows that output decreased by 39.3 per cent over the 12-month period, the second biggest decline in the European Union.

In addition, the value of production in the construction sector declined by 40.6 per cent during the second quarter.

The fall in volume was largely due to a 58 per cent decline in the number of new homes built and a 34 per cent drop in non-residential building.

So where do you imagine this "growth" is coming from? Nothing seems to be growing!

But never mind that, lets look instead at the "recovering" giants, like China, which boasts a growth in its economy this year. What they don't tell you is that this growth is based on them dumping their increasingly useless dollar reserves into their very own credit boom. The key indicator there is their exports:

China's exports continued to decline in August, down 23% from the same month last year.
Official figures show exports fell to $103.7bn, from $134.9bn in August 2008. Exports of almost all major industrial products saw double-digit drops.
The trade surplus fell 45% from August 2008 to $15.7bn, but was up from July.
Recent signs that recession has ended in some major economies, including China's major trading partner Japan, suggest that exports may pick up again.
But separately, Japan's economy grew 0.6% in the third quarter from the previous three months, less than the 0.9% originally estimated.
This was due to fewer private-sector inventories than previously estimated, Japan's finance ministry said.
Japan is the world's second-largest economy.
'Not yet steady'
The Chinese export figures were worse than expected by economists.

And if low cost (China price) export goods are collapsing, what chance is there for the rest of the higher priced goods? Its the same pattern wherever you look, and the sunny outlook media outlets everywhere are trying to sell just does not reflect the reality on the ground. Double dip or dead cat bounce, call it what you like.

Long Onion

Amhran Nua wrote: »

No, stock market recoveries are driven by confidence. Economic recoveries are driven by fundamentals and reality. For example in Ireland, most of our economy was based on construction:

So where do you imagine this "growth" is coming from? Nothing seems to be growing!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0923/breaking27.htm
Don't be so selective with your facts. Just because a large proportion of our boom was based on construction, doesn't mean that we are doomed to stagnate until we begin building again. There are other facets to our economy.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

But never mind that, lets look instead at the "recovering" giants, like China, which boasts a growth in its economy this year. What they don't tell you is that this growth is based on them dumping their increasingly useless dollar reserves into their very own credit boom. The key indicator there is their exports:

And if low cost (China price) export goods are collapsing, what chance is there for the rest of the higher priced goods? Its the same pattern wherever you look, and the sunny outlook media outlets everywhere are trying to sell just does not reflect the reality on the ground. Double dip or dead cat bounce, call it what you like.

You are argunig the other side of the same coin here, now you are assuming that China only exports and has no organic growth opportunities, just as you assumed above that Ireland only builds. We can each hold our opinions, only time will tell if we are right. My money is on a return to growth by the first quarter of next year (global overall) with Ireland lagging behind by about 6 - 9 months. If the medias sunny outlook helps drive this, so be it.

Tim Robbins

creeper1 wrote: »

So I just want to make the point to all those anti FFs that you get the goverment that you deserve. FF have been elected again and again as the sovereign will of the Irish people. So hold your criticisms please. You must always respect the office .

Don't critise the government?

Eh what other forms of critical thinking and expression are you against?

There were some appauling policies or lack of policies. Not just in terms of fueling a boom (e.g. allowing people to make huge sums of money taking out huge loans to land speculate).

But the town planning or lack have has been appauling. All over the country there are blocks and blocks of apartments and high density development in the middle of nowhere. These were the so called starter packages to get people onto "the ladder".

Now half the people who bought them are in negative equity.

FF were in cahoots with developers, bankers, land speculators the only people who these policies actually benefitted.

They failed in their duties to protect the common good and looked after their mates.

Long Onion

Tim Robbins wrote: »

FF were in cahoots with developers, bankers, land speculators the only people who these policies actually benefitted.

I am not a supporter of FF nor never have been and I will be glad to see the back of them, but this is way too generalistic. My wife is neither a land speculator, banker nor developer nor are any of her staff. She has seen average salary growth of 25-30% across the whole site over the past 3 years. Many staff have a quality of life which is vastly improved compared to where they were at previously.

The vast majority of the Irish people have benefitted from the boom years and we were happy to do so. We all have to bear some degree of collective responsibility, but most of us are too reluctant to do so, happy to hope that we'll get away with it.

Amhran Nua

Long Onion wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0923/breaking27.htm
Don't be so selective with your facts. Just because a large proportion of our boom was based on construction, doesn't mean that we are doomed to stagnate until we begin building again. There are other facets to our economy.

Thats great, but the exporting sectors are 90% FDI and thus represent around €50 billion capital flight from the country annually. In no way should we start building again, the economy needs to be turned on its head entirely, which I can't see happening with FG, FF, Labour or the Greens anywhere near power.

Long Onion wrote: »

You are argunig the other side of the same coin here, now you are assuming that China only exports and has no organic growth opportunities, just as you assumed above that Ireland only builds.

I'm assuming nothing of the sort. I'm using the China price as a key economic indicator, which it is.

Long Onion wrote: »

We can each hold our opinions, only time will tell if we are right. My money is on a return to growth by the first quarter of next year (global overall) with Ireland lagging behind by about 6 - 9 months. If the medias sunny outlook helps drive this, so be it.

Well anything is possible.

asdasd

The problem is that the preached constantly for about 4 years, eventually the cycle ended. Looking at recent recoveries and rallies in equities, it seem that the up-turn is beginning in many countries now it will inevitably come to an end at some point in the future. If we start warning now of another crash we will, of course, be right, but there will be 4-6 years of being wrong in between that all our fans will conveniently ignore once the 'prophecy' is proven.

Thats a good example of why Ireland is in difficulty and why Irish people - not their government - is responsible.

Neither Lee, nor Williams said that there would be an end to a boom and that's all. They predicted a property crash causing a severe recession. ( Most recessions, on the other hand, cause the property crashes). They piled statistics about how much private debt was increasing per annum ( 25% at peak, enough to double every 3-4 years), and how this was unsustainable. They poured scorn on the idea that immigration would continue, as immigration was bound up in property which was related to the amount of private debt increase. In other words they argued that the cause of the boom ( they said bubble) was private debt, and not anything else - like favourable demographics. All correct. All obvious to me. My first post on this is my first post here. 4 years ago.

The other side said there would be a slowdown, yes, and maybe even a small retraction, but it would be a mere blip, a soft landing.

So McWilliams and Lee were not predicting a typical cyclical recession, but what happened. A severe recession caused by property collapse. Which is where we are.

If people still think that Mc and Lee are right only because a crash is inevitable, it shows exacltly what they [ Mc and Lee] and we who agreed with them, were up against during the bubble. The "stopped clock is right twice a day" argument is one I have gotten from people who are now in severe negative equity, although to be fair, in most cases those people have come around to seeing Lee and McWilliams as being correct.

However, you still are of the opinion - like many Irish people - that Mc and Lee were merely "lucky", having not read their scary prognosis during the bubble. Since all that information was out there, the responsibility lies with the people who bought houses, having not read McWilliams, or ahving read him and dismissed him. He had two major platforms, a Sunday and a weekly, for years.

Regulation would not have worked, by the way, because the only way to regulate a bubble economy is to burst it. And there was no political desire for that.

asdasd

Well anything is possible.

Davy's are predicting 4% growth in 2011. Good luck with that one. I think that Ireland will grow pretty fast when the bust ends, but it wont happen until 2012, the economy still has 10% to drop, and we will still take 5-10 years to get back to where we were, and hopefully we will have a real economy when we do get there.

I dont think, OP, that the UK is f*cked. Long term Ireland will do better but only because their education system is bad. For now the UK is a very very cheap country in terms of wages.

Tim Robbins

Long Onion wrote: »

The vast majority of the Irish people have benefitted from the boom years and we were happy to do so. We all have to bear some degree of collective responsibility, but most of us are too reluctant to do so, happy to hope that we'll get away with it.

My salary all went into a morgage for a ridiculously overpriced one bed apartment I bought in 2003. It took me 5 years to save up the deposit for it. I would have preferred if my salary never grew and I could have bought a proper home.

I have been on pay freezes for the majority of the last ten years, just like the majority of IT people.

I bought my first car when I was 33. I have hardly been lapping it up and I was always skeptical of many government policies. All I and many other's are doing now is being consistent.Why should we be inconsistent?

Liam Byrne

Long Onion wrote: »

the people amongst us who were prudent and lived sensibly are still ok now

I beg to differ on this; I've lived prudently and sensibly, but I'm worried about my ability to make ends meet at the moment.

Tim Robbins

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I beg to differ on this; I've lived prudently and sensibly, but I'm worried about my ability to make ends meet at the moment.

+1

I put 7K of my SSIA into my morgage. The rest of the money went on a PC and a holiday. Never had any other loan beside my morgage. Never had a credit card debt of more than 200 quid which was payed off in under a month.

Been working since I left college 12 years ago. Never took a year off to go travelling find myself malarky.

My apartment and my wife's apartment between them lost 200K in the last year. If not more. Yes I'm lucky I'll probably never be hungry or have to fight in a war but I think it's ok for us to complain!

Amhran Nua

asdasd wrote: »

Davy's are predicting 4% growth in 2011.

Thats Rossa White, who has been so consistently wrong its not even funny.

Long Onion

Tim Robbins wrote: »

My salary all went into a morgage for a ridiculously overpriced one bed apartment I bought in 2003. It took me 5 years to save up the deposit for it. I would have preferred if my salary never grew and I could have bought a proper home.

I have been on pay freezes for the majority of the last ten years, just like the majority of IT people.

I bought my first car when I was 33. I have hardly been lapping it up and I was always skeptical of many government policies. All I and many other's are doing now is being consistent.Why should we be inconsistent?

Do you not think that you have some responsibility here, after all, you openly admit to paying for a ridiculously overpriced one bed apartment, despite being on regular pay freezes at the time. I am not trying to be personal here by the way, but we can't have things every which way. We can't mumble about how overpriced houses were, hand over the money anyway and then cry foul.

I know a few colleagues who refused to buy because they didn't think the prices were realistic, I bought. They were right, I was wrong - I can't blame eveyone else because I made a choice which turned out to be incorrect.

Long Onion

Tim Robbins wrote: »

+1

I put 7K of my SSIA into my morgage. The rest of the money went on a PC and a holiday. Never had any other loan beside my morgage. Never had a credit card debt of more than 200 quid which was payed off in under a month.

Been working since I left college 12 years ago. Never took a year off to go travelling find myself malarky.

My apartment and my wife's apartment between them lost 200K in the last year. If not more. Yes I'm lucky I'll probably never be hungry or have to fight in a war but I think it's ok for us to complain!

So you lived prudently but hung on to two appartments? Property investment always has risk attached.

Long Onion

asdasd wrote: »

Neither Lee, nor Williams said that there would be an end to a boom and that's all. They predicted a property crash causing a severe recession. ( Most recessions, on the other hand, cause the property crashes).

I don't think that you can say that the Irish property crash caused the current recession. It may have magnified the impact in Ireland, but it was not the cause. Had the global credit crisis not reared it's ugly head, the money markets would have continued to provide liquidity to the banks here who would have continued to lend to developers (though eventually it had to collapse, which is what I was saying in the first place.)

asdasd wrote: »

In other words they argued that the cause of the boom ( they said bubble) was private debt, and not anything else - like favourable demographics. All correct. All obvious to me. My first post on this is my first post here. 4 years ago.

The cause of the boom was partly debt (not just private, but more so the fact that the model of banking changed with the emergence of global money markets - it was this development which allowed for the private debt to increse in the first place) but also partly the fact that we lost sight of the inherent value that assets should be linked to. The seconde we decided that by the stoke of a planning officials pen we could increase the value of an acre of agricultural land by 1000% we were heading for trouble.

asdasd wrote: »

The other side said there would be a slowdown, yes, and maybe even a small retraction, but it would be a mere blip, a soft landing.

Without a shadow of a doubt the 'other side' were phenomenally wrong

asdasd wrote: »

So McWilliams and Lee were not predicting a typical cyclical recession, but what happened. A severe recession caused by property collapse. Which is where we are.

Once again, I think you are quite wrong in saying that the current recession was a result of the property bubble, in Ireland we just have a confluence of events, it is not a causative relationship.

asdasd wrote: »

However, you still are of the opinion - like many Irish people - that Mc and Lee were merely "lucky", having not read their scary prognosis during the bubble. Since all that information was out there, the responsibility lies with the people who bought houses, having not read McWilliams, or ahving read him and dismissed him. He had two major platforms, a Sunday and a weekly, for years.

Not "lucky" as a crash is inevitable. I agree that the responsibility is with those who bought - this is what I have been saying, we all have a burden to share, some deserve to take more than others, but few, if any of us are 100% innocent.

asdasd wrote: »

Regulation would not have worked, by the way, because the only way to regulate a bubble economy is to burst it. And there was no political desire for that.

No, but prudent fiscal policy could have taken much of the heat out of the system. McWilliams, Lee et al did not propose the need for de-limiting the extent of property related tax breaks pre the boom years because they did not forsee the boom. Once we were already in it it was inevitable that it would end at some point. I do grant you the fact that had more heed been paid, the landing would have been less severe, but the pop would have come eventually.

Dannyboy83

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I beg to differ on this; I've lived prudently and sensibly, but I'm worried about my ability to make ends meet at the moment.

I just had a walk around Cork last night and I was shocked to places like Matty Kielys which has been around since 1940 and Ludgatte O Keefes and a lot of old businesses, which have been in Cork since I was a child, have gone.
Cork City was deader than a Fianna Fail voter's brain stem.
You could walk around naked without feeling embarassed ffs.

My GF had her SW canceled last week (12month expiry) and isn't allowed any allowance at all, as apparently I'm paid too much (ignoring how much is clawed back off me immediately, not to mind stealth taxes and the fact that I have to pay all bills by myself etc.).

Its gotten to the stage now where paying the car tax requires me to budget at least 3 months in advance (you have to own a car out here), so I sat down on Friday night and made up budgets and spreadsheets that we'll need to stick religiously to for the next 3 months at least. I planned out various things that we'll need to do from January 2010 which will take the pressure off us considerably.
Yesterday I took the day off work and went about cancelling various things such as my gym membership (which is about the only single luxury I have, luxury is probably the wrong word as I would consider it a necessity) and these things.

This is NOT a "woe-is-me!" post.
I simply wanted to make the point that when I was walking around Cork City last night, it occurred to me, that just based on me alone, I'll be taking at least €10,000 out of the economy next year due to necessary changes in expenditure.

The money I'm paying in tax is paying for the over-inflated wages of public servants whom I have absolutely no contact with, ever. Its also paying for astronomical social welfare bills of which neither of us are recipient. Their over-inflated wages are keeping the cost of living and property over inflated, so its a two fold cannibalization.

My gym, the broadband company, the butchers, all of those private companies.............they're all going to bankrupt as a result of droves of people like me having to cut even the bare necessities.

Honestly, if this keeps up for another 12 months, this country will have passed the point of no return. I love this country and the people & I want to stick around, but I can take my skills to Canada if I want. And I will if I have to. I've been through a long third level education, I'm nearly 27, I don't have a pension or a mortgage, and we are struggling hard. I don't drink any alcohol, we gave up smoking in January this year, we don't have kids. I'm scratching my head wondering what the hell am I doing wrong here?

So for the OP, when you say don't criticize this government, if you think ahead about 12 months to whats in store for us, you will have to compare Ireland to Zimbabwe to see another country which has had the potential for so much success, but been so utterly mismanaged and corrupted, that its become a failed state.

Tim Robbins

Long Onion wrote: »

Do you not think that you have some responsibility here, after all, you openly admit to paying for a ridiculously overpriced one bed apartment, despite being on regular pay freezes at the time. I am not trying to be personal here by the way, but we can't have things every which way. We can't mumble about how overpriced houses were, hand over the money anyway and then cry foul.

My other option was to rent in which case I also be getting fleeced.
First pay freeze was 2002. 97 <-> 2001 got pay increases.

In 2002, the government had stupidly just overturned legislation which brought investors back into the market just as property was looking to reach a natural equilibrium. This meant there was a forseeable increase for the next few years.

I was correct with all this. Ther were increases for the next 7 years. Even though McWilliams was wrong for seven years in a row before he was correct. But don't forget even a broken clock tells the correct time at least once a day!

What really annoyed me was the lack of legislation on things like management agents, builders, developers. This became evident when you moved into the place when you were trying to track them down because they never finished things off.

I wanted to bring the developer to court but my neighbours didn't. We shouldn't ever had to be in that situation but we were because the government never legislated properly and just gave a carte blanche for all sorts of cr*p.

As I have said I was critical of the government legislation (or lack of) before I bought, after I moved in and I am still am now.

I again ask you why should I all of sudden be inconsistent?

I know a few colleagues who refused to buy because they didn't think the prices were realistic, I bought. They were right, I was wrong - I can't blame eveyone else because I made a choice which turned out to be incorrect.

Well hindsights is always 20 / 20 vision. You could say the same about gambling.

Good economic policy means price stability. That's why things such as low inflation are good indications of an economy under control. That means you don't get things like unsustainable property booms and subsequent crashes.

This government failed on both accounts. They created an unsustainable boom and the subsequent crash.

And if you forget about Nama, pretend that farce never happened, thousands and thousands are stuck in high density housing in the middle of nowhere in developments that never should have got planning permissions.

The developer who developed them are no broke.

Everyone has lost. A very small percentage have gained.

But you say we shouldn't be critical. Would you get real please.

Amhran Nua

Tim Robbins wrote: »

A very small percentage have gained.

The banks look to be sitting pretty though, years of profits being handed to them and they don't have to lend a penny for the pleasure.

Tim Robbins

Long Onion wrote: »

So you lived prudently but hung on to two appartments? Property investment always has risk attached.

My wife and I bought our respective apartments before we were even going out with each other.

Neither of us were investors.

This isn't really about me. It's about the country, the government and the bad policy which has made it very difficult for most of us.

Yes you can pick my personal situation apart in hindsight and come up with something we could have done better. But you are missing a major point.

Bad government policy for 15 years has meant there has been an extremly high risk associated with property. You could win big or lose big.

This shouldn't be the case for something that is a neccesity. Maybe for the stock exchange but not for something that is a requirement.

Could you imagine if you had to pick at random the correct time every week to buy milk and bread and you could win big or loose big based on whether you bought on Monday morning or Thursday afternoon?

Would you just say ah you should have known better!

Nonsense. People shouldn't have to take such huge risks with an essential part of life. Proper government policy means stability not Russian Roulette with essentials.

Long Onion

I never said we should not be critical. All I was saying is that we need to take some accountability ourselves, we can't blame everyone except ourselves for the problem.

I am not saying that I have no sympathy for those who have fallen on hard times, nor am I saying that the government are blameless - they could have done many things to slow the pace of growth, but chose to ignore these options in the chase for the populist vote.

The fact of the matter is that I didn't have to buy a house - I did, it was my choice, no-one put a gun to my head. I have come across a number of people who embelished earnings in oreder to afford the bigger house and now that they can't meet the re-payments are blaming the banks for giving them the money.

The country has been shoddily run, cronyism has been left unchecked, tax breaks were stacked high for certain people, money was heaped into the public service to avoid having to tackle the productivity issues, the Unions happily rode on the boom and used profits and inflation to improve their lot in the partnership talks - all these things were wrong, all could have been handled better.

I am not disputing these things, I am simply adding to them the fact that I have some personal culpability here as I enjoyed the good times. The sooner we all realise the extent of our personal responsibilty, the sooner we can grow a collective 'pair' and address the problems.

I thnk that this is being real, no?

Tim Robbins

Long Onion wrote: »

I never said we should not be critical. All I was saying is that we need to take some accountability ourselves, we can't blame everyone except ourselves for the problem.

I am not saying that I have no sympathy for those who have fallen on hard times, nor am I saying that the government are blameless - they could have done many things to slow the pace of growth, but chose to ignore these options in the chase for the populist vote.

The fact of the matter is that I didn't have to buy a house - I did, it was my choice, no-one put a gun to my head. I have come across a number of people who embelished earnings in oreder to afford the bigger house and now that they can't meet the re-payments are blaming the banks for giving them the money.

The country has been shoddily run, cronyism has been left unchecked, tax breaks were stacked high for certain people, money was heaped into the public service to avoid having to tackle the productivity issues, the Unions happily rode on the boom and used profits and inflation to improve their lot in the partnership talks - all these things were wrong, all could have been handled better.

I am not disputing these things, I am simply adding to them the fact that I have some personal culpability here as I enjoyed the good times. The sooner we all realise the extent of our personal responsibilty, the sooner we can grow a collective 'pair' and address the problems.

I thnk that this is being real, no?

It seems ridiculous giving out to people for not making the correct bets with their mortgages but at the same time making a gross generalisation about anyone who is critical of government.

Generalisations about people usually solve nothing.

My point which (unfortunately you seem to have missed) is that people shouldn't have to make a bet with their mortgage. They should neither win big or loose big. They economy should be stable for neccesities and get risk out of it.

Long Onion

Why are you of the opinion that people have taken a bet with their mortgage? Rates are low compared to the 80's & 90's. Negative equity only effects property investors and those who planned to sell their homes in the short term for a gain which would allow them to move up the property ladder. I both cases there is a risk involved, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

gurramok

Long Onion wrote: »

I don't think that you can say that the Irish property crash caused the current recession. It may have magnified the impact in Ireland, but it was not the cause. Had the global credit crisis not reared it's ugly head, the money markets would have continued to provide liquidity to the banks here who would have continued to lend to developers (though eventually it had to collapse, which is what I was saying in the first place.)

Trying to rewrite history here?

The global credit crunch started in August 2007.

The Irish property bubble stalled and started to burst around August to late 2006. Do you remember the vested interests trying to get stamp duty abolished and blaming McDowell's famous stamp duty blurp in Sept 2006 for the lack of house sales?

The money markets were going to squeeze the Irish banks with or without a credit crunch as they saw the whole bubble burst by then.

Tim Robbins

Long Onion wrote: »

Why are you of the opinion that people have taken a bet with their mortgage? Rates are low compared to the 80's & 90's. Negative equity only effects property investors and those who planned to sell their homes in the short term for a gain which would allow them to move up the property ladder. I both cases there is a risk involved, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

I don't think you get my point.

For quite a long time Irish property has been completly out of sink with inflation.
1. Do you think that makes good macro economic sense?
2. Do you think that creates a healthy society for people to live in? Or do you think fluctations that are more than both inflation and deflation for something so expensive creates stress for people?

As for who this effects, that's completly incorrect.
Firstly, say you never plan to move. It's just not nice knowing you wasted 150K by getting your timing wrong. You're stuck with a paying an extra 600 quid a month for 30 years.

Secondly, if you do plan to move and your property has depreciated by a greater value than what you planned to move to.

Where I live apartments have depreciated greatly because there is high supply. Houses not so much as they are in low supply. Because the muppets who run this country had development policies which meant the majority of developments in the last 15 years is 1 and 2 bed apartments.

Thirdly, and this is the point you really are missing.

If you loose your job and can't pay your morgage if you have built up a good bit of equity on your house the bank will take a more relaxed attitude to you.
However, if your house / apartment is in negative equity they'll play a very different tune.

asdasd

The Irish property bubble stalled and started to burst around August to late 2006. Do you remember the vested interests trying to get stamp duty abolished and blaming McDowell's famous stamp duty blurp in Sept 2006 for the lack of house sales?

He is both right and wrong ( I thanked his post because it was a nice articulate response to mine).

right:

There was a confluence of events

Wrong

The Irish propery market was doomed when the EU raised it's rates. In fact, although it has been flushed down the memory hole ( along with the nonsense about McDowell's famous stamp duty blurp) , the initial fall in irish property was a (lagged) reaction to the ECB raising rates - something which caused some consternation at the time from the Property-Never-Falls and Interest-Rates-Are-At-A-Historical-Low goobers.

They were spurned a bit.

And that second bite has yet to come. Most recessions are caused by the central banks taking away the punch bowl - that has yet to happen. At the moment we have caused our own hangover and they are giving us the hair(s) of the dog. Government sponsered punch.

when they remove that the second hangover begins.

asdasd

So davys dan feck off with their 4% growth nonsense. Lets hire tea leave ladies.

Long Onion

gurramok wrote: »

Trying to rewrite history here?

The global credit crunch started in August 2007.

The Irish property bubble stalled and started to burst around August to late 2006. Do you remember the vested interests trying to get stamp duty abolished and blaming McDowell's famous stamp duty blurp in Sept 2006 for the lack of house sales?

The money markets were going to squeeze the Irish banks with or without a credit crunch as they saw the whole bubble burst by then.

Not trying to re-write history at all gurramok. I was merely pointing out the fact that the collapse of the property sector here was not the cause of the recession. As I mentioned above, we suffered a confluence of events which has magnified the effects of the recession in this country. As we are in the midst of a global recession, I don't think it's accurate to say that it was all caused by the Irish property bust - unfortunate though it may be, we are not that influential.

gurramok

Long Onion wrote: »

Not trying to re-write history at all gurramok. I was merely pointing out the fact that the collapse of the property sector here was not the cause of the recession. As I mentioned above, we suffered a confluence of events which has magnified the effects of the recession in this country. As we are in the midst of a global recession, I don't think it's accurate to say that it was all caused by the Irish property bust - unfortunate though it may be, we are not that influential.

Its correct to say most of it was structural which was magnified by global events, not the other way around.

Long Onion

I would have to disagree with you here. If the credit crunch had not reared it's ugl head, it would have been possible to embark on a series of sensible fiscal policies which would have take the heat out of the sector. Introducing windfall taxes on re-zoning, capping CPO payments at agri rates +%, withdrawal of tax breaks etc. thus allowing for existing projects to be completed whilst stopping new developments.

Would this have prevented all declines on property values - no, in my opinion, but I doubt that we would have gone into a recessionary spiral. I am not saying, by the way, that this would have happened, FF would never have put in place such policies, so this aspect is largely a moot point.

My own opinion (and I am well aware that some may disagree, as is their want) is that our structural problems could have been underpinned (if the political will was there) right up to the emergence of the credit crunch. After this, the flaws of the thoroughly unsustainable 'new world' banking model really came to light and crumbled our structural defects.

gurramok

Dreamland there Long Onion. Sensible fiscal policies you suggest have still not been introduced at this stage of the crash.

Too much invested in construction related activity(accounted for nearly quarter of GNP at peak) with 286,000 employed in construction alone(double of what it should of been) was the cause of our woes. Prices went too high & they overbuilt so there you have 140,000 builders unemployed straight away without a credit crunch.

Add in the retail & banking sectors which depended on this bubble, a spiral of a collapse.

Happy reading http://www.environ.ie/en/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,15353,en.pdf

asdasd

Even though McWilliams was wrong for seven years in a row before he was correct. But don't forget even a broken clock tells the correct time at least once a day!

meh. I lose all respect ( and pity) for people who make that argument. McWilliams ( and plenty like him) correctly pointed a boom bubble from 2001/2 and pointed out that property prices would probably go back to that level. I actually wrote what he said on this thread before. He was not wrong. Nor was he guessing that a recession would come along with a soft landing. Irish property was always going to fall back to it's long term multiple of wages, if not further because of the overhang.

we are almost there in real terms, and there are more property falls to come. Even if property begins to recover next year, the reaction of the ECB will collapse the market again, if rates rise, which they will. Al predicited by McWilliams.

I personally dont think the global crisis had much a hand in the local crisis. Interest rates are still low by historical standards, the banks still lending. Demand has dried up due to the lack of confidence. The other way this was likely to happen was an increase in interests rates to historical norms - which was on the cards just before the bust - the reduction in supply, and an increased demand for desposits by the banks. Then property would have crashed and demand fallen to match supply, which itself would have fallen if proeprty prices fell ( i.e. 100% mortgages were never going to survive a fall in the market).

That is how it normally happens.

We were driving drunk and we were either going to hit the wall, or drive off the road.

Liam Byrne

Long Onion wrote: »

Property investment always has risk attached.

Apparently not, actually; the banks invested in it, and they're getting their our money back.

asdasd

Fair Point.

PeteHeat

I believe the elected government of the day take on the responsibility of managing the economy, the FF government went with the flow instead of chanelling it which in my view was their duty.

The ridiculous pay levels in both the public and private ectors are directly in proportion to the level of private borrowing that had to be serviced, the majority of which was to buy over priced houses.

If pay levels had been kept at sensible levels by that I mean in line with our international competitors the banks would not have lent at such high levels even if the borrower was using massaged income figures.

What we had was kin to the tail wagging the dog, we started off coming from a low income base in the early to mid 90's along the way we got access to cheap money based on the Euro.

There was never a better time to be a popular government, a pity they didn't try to be a responsible government.