If there was no Bailout

Hydrosylator

I've witnessed a view that suggests that if the banks can't pay their debts, and don't get bailed out, the banks disappear.

Then I heard Joseph Stiglitz say that if a bank can't pay it's debts, the stockholders lose, and the bondholders become the new stockholders. The bank still exists.

The banks would still be there, and they would no longer owe a fortune to anybody. They'd be able to start lending again, wouldn't they?

If I'm not a stockholder in BoI, so how would this affect me in a negative context?
I'd say the market might take a small hit, but I don't have shares in anything else either. Or a pension. As for people who are affected by the value of shares in BoI, well... the shares have been in the ****ter for a while anyway.

Although you'll notice that things have been improving for bank shareholders since Nama was first proposed. Funny that.

So what do you think, if we just "let the market decide" about the banks involved in NAMA, would it really just be a case of a change of shareholders, or what?

SLUSK

NAMA was never about "saving the country" or anything else, it was about bailing out the shareholders of the big banks and anyone who believes anything else is a ****ing moron.

Sand

Yes, the branches would still be there, the staff and expertise ( im talking about the lower to mid level staff here - the boards and senior management would be wiped out for incompetence) would still be there, the customers and demand would still be there, the deposits would still be there - theres the potential for a bank run if its badly handled, but a simple guarantee of the deposits would head that off at the pass.

Current shareholders would be wiped out, junior bondholders would be wiped out, senior bondholders would have to accept an equity for debt deal becoming the new shareholders. Property developers would also be wiped out as the non-performing loans are called in and collateral siezed.

Essentially NAMA is not to save the economy, its not even to save the banks, its to save the bankers, developers and the bank shareholders. Its theft, pure and simple.

andrew

Surely the bank would disappear though? It'd have no money with which to run itself.

thebman

Sand wrote: »

Yes, the branches would still be there, the staff and expertise ( im talking about the lower to mid level staff here - the boards and senior management would be wiped out for incompetence) would still be there, the customers and demand would still be there, the deposits would still be there - theres the potential for a bank run if its badly handled, but a simple guarantee of the deposits would head that off at the pass.

Current shareholders would be wiped out, junior bondholders would be wiped out, senior bondholders would have to accept an equity for debt deal becoming the new shareholders. Property developers would also be wiped out as the non-performing loans are called in and collateral siezed.

Essentially NAMA is not to save the economy, its not even to save the banks, its to save the bankers, developers and the bank shareholders. Its theft, pure and simple.

Agree, the market has a perfectly legitimate way to deal with this problem. Why are we socializing risk to save invested interests?

What is the government really afraid of and why aren't RTE giving proper coverage to the other options that aren't NAMA? Future generations will wonder why we did this to them and when they ask, we won't have an answer

silverharp

one issue of course is if the losses started to impact on the depositors cpaital (remember "I dont have your money, its in Johns house and Tom's house). The taxpayers would be on the hook for the losses here, so you would be left with with taking a haircut as a depositor or having your taxes increased to make up the difference.

Liam Byrne

silverharp wrote: »

one issue of course is if the losses started to impact on the depositors cpaital (remember "I dont have your money, its in Johns house and Tom's house). The taxpayers would be on the hook for the losses here, so you would be left with with taking a haircut as a depositor or having your taxes increased to make up the difference.

Two points on this

1) Is this ONLY after FF's "guarantee" scheme ?

2) I think I'd prefer to lose 5 or 10 grand and rebuild instead of bailing out the scum that did this and paying way more than that 5 or 10 grand over the next 50 years!

Bottom line is that the banks took commercial risks and lost; if FF believed in capitalism, they would say "tough ****", and rightly so.

If I take reasonable risks I wouldn't mind a safety net; but if I gamble like hell with other people's money and screw up badly, I'd expect to get jailed.

mukki

is their anything people can/should do to protest this bailout, don't think rants on the internet will solve anything

Amhran Nua

Sand wrote: »

Yes, the branches would still be there, the staff and expertise ( im talking about the lower to mid level staff here - the boards and senior management would be wiped out for incompetence) would still be there, the customers and demand would still be there, the deposits would still be there - theres the potential for a bank run if its badly handled, but a simple guarantee of the deposits would head that off at the pass.

Current shareholders would be wiped out, junior bondholders would be wiped out, senior bondholders would have to accept an equity for debt deal becoming the new shareholders. Property developers would also be wiped out as the non-performing loans are called in and collateral siezed.

Reading this was like looking into an alternate world for a moment, one where the government wasn't trying to ram raid the people who elected them to pay for the profits of banks. Felt like home tbh.

dvpower

SLUSK wrote: »

NAMA was never about "saving the country" or anything else, it was about bailing out the shareholders of the big banks and anyone who believes anything else is a ****ing moron.

I guess I'm a ****ing moron:(

Sand

Surely the bank would disappear though? It'd have no money with which to run itself.

The bank as a corporate entity would dissapear. The branches, staff, depositors and business relationships would not dissapear. A properly managed bank failure could see a bank closed on Friday evening, re-opened under new ownership/management on Monday. As an added bonus, the Irish government would never have to bail out an Irish bank ever again - banks would suddenly realise they cant expect the government to save them so theyd manage their own risk properly.

Obviously negotiations with the debt holders wouldnt be a walk in the park, depositors would need to be kept calm and so on, but it would be very doable, at minimal cost to the state. Instead, Fianna Fail and the Greens are enslaving generations of Irish people to pick up the tab for the bankers losses. Its completely unjust.

We have so many options when dealing with the banks, the scaremongering over NAMA that its the only option, theres nothing else to consider...its rooted in a mixture of panick ( Lenihan being woken in the middle of the night to sign a guarantee rushed upon him by a cabal of hysterical bankers and civil servants) plus ignorance ( Lenihan placing far too much weight on the views of those same hysterical bankers, property industry types).

thebman

Sand wrote: »

The bank as a corporate entity would dissapear. The branches, staff, depositors and business relationships would not dissapear. A properly managed bank failure could see a bank closed on Friday evening, re-opened under new ownership/management on Monday. As an added bonus, the Irish government would never have to bail out an Irish bank ever again - banks would suddenly realise they cant expect the government to save them so theyd manage their own risk properly.

Obviously negotiations with the debt holders wouldnt be a walk in the park, depositors would need to be kept calm and so on, but it would be very doable, at minimal cost to the state. Instead, Fianna Fail and the Greens are enslaving generations of Irish people to pick up the tab for the bankers losses. Its completely unjust.

We have so many options when dealing with the banks, the scaremongering over NAMA that its the only option, theres nothing else to consider...its rooted in a mixture of panick ( Lenihan being woken in the middle of the night to sign a guarantee rushed upon him by a cabal of hysterical bankers and civil servants) plus ignorance ( Lenihan placing far too much weight on the views of those same hysterical bankers, property industry types).

Exactly under such a system only the top management that oversaw the lapse in standards of the bank would be held responsible. You know the people who fooking caused this mess!

Our government insist we all pay and they get golden handshakes. You have to ask why? The government must have dirty laundry that these people know. We are in reality, paying to prevent FF's secrets coming out or that of their friends.

At least it really appears that way, either that or they are just stupid and given their education they don't appear to be stupid.

alfranken

Can someone explain what Sweden done differently to Ireland? Was it successful?

NewDubliner

alfranken wrote: »

Can someone explain what Sweden done differently to Ireland? Was it successful?

Their banks loaned shed loads of money to people in Latvia and helped create a housing price bubble.

Now the prices have crashed and the Latvian government is proposing a law limiting liability to the current value of the once-overpriced properties.

Happy Swedes? - they're not.

Sand

He is talking about the Swedish response to their own banking crisis back in 1994, that NAMA is allegedly based upon.

The Swedes forced their banks to accept the losses up front, and nationalised several banks ( the weakest ones), and having nationalised them, transferred the assets to an bad assets management programme. The programme was surprisingly profitable and the Swedes were able to re-privatise their banks and dispose of the bad assets with no serious loss, and indeed some gain. The above is a gross simplification - basically the Swedes dealt with their banks on a case by case basis, making it up as they went along. They werent afraid to nationalise where they had to though, whereas our government claims the Atlantic Ocean will rise up and drown Ireland should a single shareholder be inconvenienced by the recent bank crisis.

The Swedish Finanace Minister of the era came over to give his views to the government on NAMA. He left. Then he heard that Lenihan and Co were claiming he supported NAMA. He returned to clarify that he did not support NAMA, and that the main difference was the Swedes nationalised the banks so as to avoid any risk of overpayment by the taxpayer ( The taxpayer owned the bad bank, and the nationalised bank, so it didnt really matter what price was paid...just swapping money between pockets, it was still your money).

NAMA does not nationalise - indeed Fianna Fail and the Greens have sworn they will protect shareholders to the very last taxpayer - hence it is wildly different to the "Swedish model".

Also, the Swedish model was successful, but it was successful at a time of solid global economic growth - right now we are in the middle of a near unprecedented economic meltdown. The model is very different, the enviroment is different and the Swedish government probably arent are institutionally dishonest and corrupt as Fianna Fail and the Greens.

NAMA is actually a very confusingly bad policy at this point - the Greens are trumpeting that if NAMA makes a loss, then the banks will be levied to make up the loss.

This is A) Not believable or Retarded.

The idea of NAMA is to *remove* the risk of loss from the banks balance sheets and pass the risk of loss to the taxpayer. Its unfair and unjust, but it makes logical sense if the idea is to remove risk from the banks.

If you then say any loss on NAMA will be passed back to the banks, then that simply puts the risk back onto the banks balance sheet. Might not as well do it in the first place.

The claim the Greens are pointing to as a great victory has a lot of maybes, ifs and "considerations" involved in it. So its more than likely there will never be a levy even if the government says there will be. Theyre lying. If theyre not lying, theres no point to NAMA other than a few jobs for the boys in administering a great white elephant.

thebman

Well to be fair the point of the levy would be that once the banks are profitable and on their feet they can slowly pay back the taxpayer however his is silly if its going to be a levy on bank transfers or anything consumer related because we will still be paying for it.

The only way the levy could work is if when the banks are stable again they are forced to pay us back through their investment related activity and can't recoup the money from their customers directly (not even going to happen either because they will just increase charges on customers to make up the loss from their investments that had to go to goverment). If they do this they should also have to pay the interest that would have had to be payed by the government on the loans to cover the losses of NAMA.

alfranken

Thanks Sand. Can you clarify something for me, my understanding of the bank/developer/NAMA predicament is; the banks are over reliant on the loans made to (spit) the developers. The only chance the developers have of surviving is to get a price for their property at peak era prices, therefore the only way the banks can call in the loans and remain profitable is for the property to be sold at peak prices, after the burn the country had in the last couple years who wil pay these prices?

lmimmfn

Sand wrote: »

NAMA is actually a very confusingly bad policy at this point - the Greens are trumpeting that if NAMA makes a loss, then the banks will be levied to make up the loss.

This is A) Not believable or Retarded.

The idea of NAMA is to *remove* the risk of loss from the banks balance sheets and pass the risk of loss to the taxpayer. Its unfair and unjust, but it makes logical sense if the idea is to remove risk from the banks.

If you then say any loss on NAMA will be passed back to the banks, then that simply puts the risk back onto the banks balance sheet. Might not as well do it in the first place.

The claim the Greens are pointing to as a great victory has a lot of maybes, ifs and "considerations" involved in it. So its more than likely there will never be a levy even if the government says there will be. Theyre lying. If theyre not lying, theres no point to NAMA other than a few jobs for the boys in administering a great white elephant.

not only that but last i heard the greens improvement on Nama legislation was that they made the banks partially liable, but the banks total liability is only on 5% of the total 56billion based on Nama failing lol, so the banks after offloading all their junk for a higher than current market value are only liable for 5% meaning theyre still gaining in the long term( because current market value + 5% is still less than 56billion )

johnnyskeleton

andrew wrote: »

Surely the bank would disappear though? It'd have no money with which to run itself.

You know the way Thomas Reids went into liquidation yet most of the pubs in the chain (i.e. the ones that had a viable turnover) stayed open?

Same thing with banks, just a little more inconvenient.

johnnyskeleton

alfranken wrote: »

Can someone explain what Sweden done differently to Ireland? Was it successful?

Do you mean when they set up their "bad bank"? They had control of their own currency and inflated their way to freedom (at the expense of most savers).

alfranken

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Do you mean when they set up their "bad bank"? They had control of their own currency and inflated their way to freedom (at the expense of most savers).

I had two question marks for a reason, I don't know the details.

johnnyskeleton

alfranken wrote: »

I had two question marks for a reason, I don't know the details.

It depends on your definition of successful. It got the government out of a hole and was successful in working through debts. In fact, the bad bank's claim to fame is that they actually made a nominal profit (which is what our politicians are promising). However, inflation has its own problems, generally for people who have cash as opposed to assets or debts. This discourages savings and often leads to high interest rates to compensate.

Ireland simply doesn't have this as an option, but in any event it is not the miracle cure that some people pretend it to be. Instead, high inflation just robs savers to pay to debtors and destabilises the economy along the way.

alfranken

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It depends on your definition of successful. It got the government out of a hole and was successful in working through debts. In fact, the bad bank's claim to fame is that they actually made a nominal profit (which is what our politicians are promising). However, inflation has its own problems, generally for people who have cash as opposed to assets or debts. This discourages savings and often leads to high interest rates to compensate.

Ireland simply doesn't have this as an option, but in any event it is not the miracle cure that some people pretend it to be. Instead, high inflation just robs savers to pay to debtors and destabilises the economy along the way.

Haven't savers effectively suffered during the credit boom?

johnnyskeleton

alfranken wrote: »

Haven't savers effectively suffered during the credit boom?

They can suffer some more is the view of the day.

thebman

alfranken wrote: »

Haven't savers effectively suffered during the credit boom?

Its your own fault for not spending it all now why don't you have a pension

Or in other words, it makes no sense.

Brianthebard posted a list of alternatives to NAMA in another thread complete with pros and cons of each from a reasonably independant source (no obvious bias anyway) that shows that the good bank route is actually the best route to go.

It involves screwing bondholders of the bank which the government isn't willing to do. They prefer to screw the taxpayers.

Sand

@alfranken

Thanks Sand. Can you clarify something for me, my understanding of the bank/developer/NAMA predicament is; the banks are over reliant on the loans made to (spit) the developers. The only chance the developers have of surviving is to get a price for their property at peak era prices, therefore the only way the banks can call in the loans and remain profitable is for the property to be sold at peak prices, after the burn the country had in the last couple years who wil pay these prices?

Thats the question isnt it...I dont know...Lenihan is pretty sure hell find some suckers to sell them too. Actually, he doesnt care - he knows he and Fianna Fail and the Greens will be out of power for a generation, so he can enjoy his ministerial pension, banking directorships and speaking tours while some other poor schmuck has to try minimise the epic losses on NAMA for the taxpayer.

The thing is the government talks about regaining competiveness. This is good. I agree this is what we need to do - the Celtic Tiger was originally based on being competitive up to about 2003, after which it was about a domestic bubble - and we need a strategy to do it. NAMA, and the claim it can be run profitably runs directly in the face of regaining competivesness - if commerical property prices, and commercial rent start rising again, as they must for NAMA to not inflict massive losses on the taxpayer then Ireland will still be a very expensive place to purchase or rent a commercial unit to operate a business, hurting our competiveness.

This government has no vision or strategy for resolving this bank crisis and fiscal crisis. Half the time they dig holes, the other half of the time they fill them in again. The Greens and Fianna Fail are utterly, utterly inconsistent and have amazingly managed to make an utterly insane policy - a policy that is not only wholly unjust (both by the definitions of socialism and capitalism, so its a pretty special trick theyve pulled), but actually defeats its own stated purpose.

@bman

Well to be fair the point of the levy would be that once the banks are profitable and on their feet they can slowly pay back the taxpayer however his is silly if its going to be a levy on bank transfers or anything consumer related because we will still be paying for it.

The only way the levy could work is if when the banks are stable again they are forced to pay us back through their investment related activity and can't recoup the money from their customers directly (not even going to happen either because they will just increase charges on customers to make up the loss from their investments that had to go to goverment). If they do this they should also have to pay the interest that would have had to be payed by the government on the loans to cover the losses of NAMA.

Yeah, I see what youre saying but its still a bad idea - the banks owners change every day as shares move in and out. The shareholders 10-15 years from now will pick up the tab for the sins of the shareholders and their agents now. Also, the threat of such a levy will hang over future investors, discouraging investors from purchasing equity in the banks, which works against the purpose of the bailout. If were going to do a bailout, lets do a bailout. Theres a loss on the bank balance sheets, we cant prevent the loss - we can only move it around. If were going take the risk, but then put it back, might as well leave it where it is.

If we want justice from the banks, we need to punish the current owners, not the owners 15 years from now. Essentially, the current stakeholders should be wiped out, the management purged and the banks relaunched as new entities. The loss is absorped by the stakeholders, the deposits guaranteed by the government and the banks relaunched with "clean" risk free balance sheets with no contingent liabilities hanging over them. It wouldnt be easy, but its the most just option and ensures the loss and risk is absorped primarily by those who took it before the taxpayer has to intervene.

Drumpot

Just curious here . . I dont believe that NAMA is "the only show in town" and love the thought of proper debate happening on other ideas .

But in what world would FF have the motivation to fk the whole future of our country on developers and bankers ? Seriously, what will they gain if they do so ? I dont believe that they would hedge the whole country simply for "their mates" . .

Remember the only reason a politician will do something is for their own gain or genuinley if they think its for the good of the country (I dont see bailing out the bankers giving FF any particular advantage). If they believed there was a better way that could get PR points with the public (and somehow potentially get them back in office) why wouldn't they choose that over NAMA ?

Basically, its popular to hate FF (Im not a member of any party) and its enjoyable to bash them. But if this really was ONLY a "Bankers bailout" the EU would of let the Irish Public know in no uncertain terms (that they arent getting money to bail out the bankers) or are the whole EU involved in this conspiracy ! !

Noreen1

Drumpot wrote: »

Just curious here . . I dont believe that NAMA is "the only show in town" and love the thought of proper debate happening on other ideas .

But in what world would FF have the motivation to fk the whole future of our country on developers and bankers ? Seriously, what will they gain if they do so ? I dont believe that they would hedge the whole country simply for "their mates" . .

Remember the only reason a politician will do something is for their own gain or genuinley if they think its for the good of the country (I dont see bailing out the bankers giving FF any particular advantage). If they believed there was a better way that could get PR points with the public (and somehow potentially get them back in office) why wouldn't they choose that over NAMA ?

Basically, its popular to hate FF (Im not a member of any party) and its enjoyable to bash them. But if this really was ONLY a "Bankers bailout" the EU would of let the Irish Public know in no uncertain terms (that they arent getting money to bail out the bankers) or are the whole EU involved in this conspiracy ! !

I certainly wouldn't call it a conspiracy, but it is certainly American policy, and Irish policy. There are probably a few other countries involved that I am not aware of - I'm no expert.

The "Bank Bailouts" are deeply unpopular in America, I think it is reasonable to state that there is deep public anger in Ireland.

Perhaps there is an underlying need to re-examine the principles of Democracy? ie. Where the majority of the electorate are deeply unhappy/concerned about the performance of a Government, (say mid-term?), that there is a mechanism that can be used to remove them?
Fraught with difficulty, I know, but it would certainly put a whole new slant on "Accountability"

Noreen

Drumpot

Noreen1 wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't call it a conspiracy, but it is certainly American policy, and Irish policy. There are probably a few other countries involved that I am not aware of - I'm no expert.

The "Bank Bailouts" are deeply unpopular in America, I think it is reasonable to state that there is deep public anger in Ireland.

Perhaps there is an underlying need to re-examine the principles of Democracy? ie. Where the majority of the electorate are deeply unhappy/concerned about the performance of a Government, (say mid-term?), that there is a mechanism that can be used to remove them?
Fraught with difficulty, I know, but it would certainly put a whole new slant on "Accountability"

Noreen

Its interesting because Im having an ongoing arguement with a friend regarding the words "democracy" and "Capitalism" . . We are poles apart in our beliefs .

I believe :

• In capitalistic society, your democracy (or level of democracy) is based mainly on your standing in society in monetary terms.
• that democracy with capitalism are contradictory in terms. Capitalism encourages you to increase your wealth by any means necessary (open market). The wealthier you are, the more control you have over your destiny
• Capitalism encourages greed.
• Democracy implies being in control of your life. Technically its true, but what if I dont believe in capitalism ? What do I do ? Move country?
• There is "tiered" democracy in Western Civilisation.
• Capitalism is about looking after the few, at the expense of the many

I could go on, but I think you get my point . .

The lamest arguements against my beliefs are always "well communism didnt work" or "whats the alternative" ? I honestly dont know, but when society starts accepting that "this is as good as it gets", it starts to lose power, lose control of its morals and ethics. You allow yourself to be led by the few vested interest groups. Whether these vested interest groups or good or bad is irrelevant, they simply lose themselves in a differant world that we are not privy to and make decisions that they have absolutely no comprehension of the affect it has on the average working man (mainly because a capitalistic society demands it, again raising the question are we slaves to this system?).

I don't put anything beyond the realms of possibility. BUT I usually like to question conventional wisdom, aswell as what I consider sensationalist rhetoric. I do believe that most politicians have good intentions. I just believe that we, the people, have not asked enough questions of them. We have not demanded value for money. We have not demanded respect.

Noreen1

Drumpot wrote: »

Its interesting because Im having an ongoing arguement with a friend regarding the words "democracy" and "Capitalism" . . We are poles apart in our beliefs .

I believe :

• In capitalistic society, your democracy (or level of democracy) is based mainly on your standing in society in monetary terms.
• that democracy with capitalism are contradictory in terms. Capitalism encourages you to increase your wealth by any means necessary (open market). The wealthier you are, the more control you have over your destiny
• Capitalism encourages greed.
• Democracy implies being in control of your life. Technically its true, but what if I dont believe in capitalism ? What do I do ? Move country?
• There is "tiered" democracy in Western Civilisation.
• Capitalism is about looking after the few, at the expense of the many

I could go on, but I think you get my point . .

The lamest arguements against my beliefs are always "well communism didnt work" or "whats the alternative" ? I honestly dont know, but when society starts accepting that "this is as good as it gets", it starts to lose power, lose control of its morals and ethics. You allow yourself to be led by the few vested interest groups. Whether these vested interest groups or good or bad is irrelevant, they simply lose themselves in a differant world that we are not privy to and make decisions that they have absolutely no comprehension of the affect it has on the average working man (mainly because a capitalistic society demands it, again raising the question are we slaves to this system?).

I don't put anything beyond the realms of possibility. BUT I usually like to question conventional wisdom, aswell as what I consider sensationalist rhetoric. I do believe that most politicians have good intentions. I just believe that we, the people, have not asked enough questions of them. We have not demanded value for money. We have not demanded respect.

Hmm, there's a lot of food for serious thought, there. I don't have the answers, nor am I sufficiently knowledgeable to even propose possible solutions. The best I can do is offer my own opinions or concerns, and hope that there is some level of common sense there.

In capitalistic society, your democracy (or level of democracy) is based mainly on your standing in society in monetary terms.

I'm not too sure what you mean by level of Democracy, but assuming it means inequality, politically or socially, then here's my tuppence worth.

In capitalistic society, your democracy (or level of democracy) is based mainly on your standing in society in monetary terms.
that democracy with capitalism are contradictory in terms. Capitalism encourages you to increase your wealth by any means necessary (open market). The wealthier you are, the more control you have over your destiny.


Partly true, but the same (or worse) inequalities/level of Democracy can be found where there are mixed Economies or Statism. Therefore I have to conclude that the reasons for inequality, or levels of Democracy cannot be solely related to Capitalism.

that democracy with capitalism are contradictory in terms. Capitalism encourages you to increase your wealth by any means necessary (open market). The wealthier you are, the more control you have over your destiny

I don't think Democracy and Capitalism are contradictory in terms.
However, I do believe that Capitalism as employed in the Bank Bailouts, is distinctly Undemocratic. The bank bailouts are A: Clearly oppsosed to the wishes of the majority of the electorate, threfore entirely contrary to the spirit of Democracy, and B: Completely unjust.

I think the role of Democracy here should be to utilise the Legal system protect the rights of the citizen ie. Both employee and employer alike.
Where either the Political Establishment or the Legal system is biased toward either of these groups, then neither Justice nor Democracy can prevail, to the detriment of both groups, since neither can exist without the other.

Capitalism encourages greed.

It does. Unfortunately, greed is a common human trait, found in all types of Political and Economic regimes. I don't believe any Society will ever completely eradicate it. But it would be nice to try. Unfortunately, too much state interference would undoubtedly slide toward Dictatorship.......
I guess the best we can hope for there, is to try and incorporate the highest standard of ethics into our education system - and that's another potential minefield...

Democracy implies being in control of your life. Technically its true, but what if I dont believe in capitalism ? What do I do ? Move country?

I don't believe anyone is ever in complete control of their lives - there are quite simply too many external factors for that to ever be possible.

There is "tiered" democracy in Western Civilisation

Not sure what you are referring to?

Capitalism is about looking after the few, at the expense of the many

As it is currently being employed by some of the multinational Corporations then, Yes, I believe it is.
That is the issue that Employment Legislation has sought to address for many years now. Free trade has, in my opinion, negatively impacted on progress made in this area.
I remember watching a programme some months ago, called "Pig Business".
It was about intensive pig farming, by an American company, in Poland.
This "Business" impacted negatively on the livelihoods of the small/medium sized local producers. There were also serious health questions posed by the local doctor, re: respiratory illness levels in the local populalation. Animal welfare was appalling. I was so horrified that I haven't bought Pork that hasn't been produced locally since. (No, I'm not an animal rights activist. I was reared on a farm. I don't have any misplaced illusions about animals, but there is absolutely no need or excuse for deliberate cruelty or abuse)

What I found truly shocking, though, was the testimony of the elected representative of the local people. He stated that his attempts to have this Company relocate were blocked by EU policy. Apparently, some organisation in the EU (I don't know which, he ddn't say) - is convinced that mass production is the key to economic survival. There may be some truth in that, but I want no part in destroying peoples respiratory health, or abusing animals. So, what effect does this policy have on my rights as a consumer? Right now, I have a choice to buy local produce. But small local producers cannot compete with mass produced produce, from a cost effective viewpoint. So, they will eventually be squeezed out. Where does that leave my rights as a comsumer?
Even worse: Given that Small to Medium Enterprise (SMEs), are the lifeblood of the Irish economy, this policy does not bode well for Ireland.

Having given my opinion on (some of) the large Corporations - there are many decent employers in the SME sector. There are almost certainly some who could improve, as well.
So, it's impossible to tar everyone with the same brush.

Again, abuses also occur/have historically occurred in non- Capitalist or Democratic Societies.

There is no easy answer - Excessive legislation can be worse than no Legislation.
For me, the answer is for a truly Democratic government (or as close to that ideal as possible). The Capitalist system is probably also the best option, but there exists, in my opinion, a real threat of something akin to Corporate Communism emerging, unless steps are taken to protect the rights of the individual, and the interests of SMEs.

There! (Waiting to get slated )

Noreen