Nama Referendum- Why not?

pog it

Feeling defeated and literally like I can do nothing to change things except wait around for the next election.. which could be sooner than 2012 but probably not, and by then it may be too late to reverse Nama. Maybe it already is too late..

I read an article just now in Financial Times about the upcoming referendum in Iceland which gives the Icelandic people themselves the decision on whether or not they will pay back the British and Dutch people what they lost as a result of saving with Icelandic's bank in the IceSaver account. It's expected that the payback will be rejected 'overwhelmingly'. The Icelanders have this referendum because they have been so visibily angry- weekly opposition rallies in Reykjavik since the recession began.

Why did we not shout out for a referendum on NAMA? It is wrong that we did not get to vote on this deal. In a democracy and with the taxpayers money of many many years to come bailing out a minority group of bankers and developers we surely deserved to decide?

Why are we so passive a nation and so short sighted and so submissive?

Does anyone out there think the Irish people deserved a referendum on this?

Victor

Any referendum would likely be non-binding anyway.

Then there is the matter of people have the awful habit of not voting for the right thing*.


* Not that I'm necessarily convinced that NAMA is the right thing is some cases.

LionelNashe

I don't, personally. There have been several referenda over the last few years where I was mystified and disappointed with the way people voted and their stated reasons for the way they voted. I wouldn't trust the voting public to make a decision that is based on reason. I am not 100% sure that the government will make the right decisions either, but I'd rather leave it in their hands than the public. So, I say leave the referenda for constitutional changes only, and let people have their say at general elections only.

PeakOutput

this is definitely not a decision the general public can be trusted with

pog it wrote: »

In a democracy

we dont live in a democracy we live in a republic the difference is very important

we elected people to make decisions for us(over and over again) and thats what they are doing

if they are making the wrong decision(which i dont necessarily believe) then you only have the voters who voted for them to blame

Liam Byrne

PeakOutput wrote: »

this is definitely not a decision the general public can be trusted with

LMAO! And the current shower of incompetents can ?

PeakOutput

Liam Byrne wrote: »

LMAO! And the current shower of incompetents can ?

i have never voted for them and never will but the majority of the country did so its tough **** as far as im concerned this is the problem with a republic and a democracy ie it only takes 51 idiots out of 100 to control the country

they made a hash of thing completely with lax attitudes(jackie healy ray i think is all that needs to be said when you describe this goverment) but i do actually think they have handled things fairly well in the last 9 months and almost all their decisions from the bank guarantees to nama to the budget were the right things to do and would have had to be done no matter who was there

bijapos

pog it wrote: »

The Icelanders have this referendum because they have been so visibily angry- weekly opposition rallies in Reykjavik since the recession began.

And how many rallies/demos have we had here against NAMA?



















Yep. Thats how many. Says it all really.

Funny for all the mouthing off the opposition, unions etc, have done on NAMA they've done very little real work on active opposition to it.

andrew

Why not? Because this is too important to be left up to Joe 'I hate bankers and don't have the slightest notion about economics' public. You really think Iceland are doing the right thing?

pog it

bijapos wrote: »

And how many rallies/demos have we had here against NAMA?



















Yep. Thats how many. Says it all really.

Funny for all the mouthing off the opposition, unions etc, have done on NAMA they've done very little real work on active opposition to it.

That's why I started this thread.

I'm at pains to understand what is in the Irish psyche that stops us from opposing things that are taking us for a ride? Like Nama.

I don't want to get into pros and cons of Nama here, there is a lot that can be said.

I just desperately want to know what is wrong with us.

pog it

andrew wrote: »

You really think Iceland are doing the right thing?

The thread is about why Irish people are not calling for a referendum on this massive transfer of money to the banks. I don't want to be pulled into speculative talk about future of Iceland.

andrew

pog it wrote: »

The thread is about why Irish people are not calling for a referendum on this massive transfer of money to the banks. I don't want to be pulled into speculative talk about future of Iceland.

They're not calling for a referendum because they think it's the right thing to do. And/Or they recognise that they don't know enough to be able to make a valid judgement.

Cool Mo D

PeakOutput wrote: »

this is definitely not a decision the general public can be trusted with



we dont live in a democracy we live in a republic the difference is very important

we elected people to make decisions for us(over and over again) and thats what they are doing

if they are making the wrong decision(which i dont necessarily believe) then you only have the voters who voted for them to blame

We live in both.

Ireland has an elected government - we are a democracy.
Ireland has no monarchy - we are a republic.

It is as simple as that.

Liam Byrne

PeakOutput wrote: »

they made a hash of thing completely with lax attitudes(jackie healy ray i think is all that needs to be said when you describe this goverment) but i do actually think they have handled things fairly well in the last 9 months and almost all their decisions from the bank guarantees to nama to the budget were the right things to do and would have had to be done no matter who was there

All that would be fair enough if it weren't for the fact that the guys with the buckets are the same ones who blew the hole in the side of the boat in the first place.

As for the voting, I'm sickened to say that I'm partially guilty as charged; I decided to give the Greens a chance.

Day one, when they u-turned on the 3 things that were important to me, I was fuming.

They no more have a "mandate" than I do.

pog it

andrew wrote: »

They're not calling for a referendum because they think it's the right thing to do. And/Or they recognise that they don't know enough to be able to make a valid judgement.

They think Nama is the right thing to do? How would you like to back that up?

Your idea that they 'recognise' that they 'don't know enough' to be able to make a valid judgement' is also going to be hard for you to back up given how humility of that extent rarely is evident in human beings, and this is a topic which has everyone mad as hell... from bars, taxi cabs, post offices, etc. and people do not want the bailout in the form of NAMA.

What I want to get to the bottom of is what makes the Irish so apathetic and gullible? And why not more getting together to shout 'Enough'. What more could the government do to those without unions to speak for them..

Do you realise that in the US there are people that look at us pityingly- not because of the state of our economy- but because we seem to accept anything the Government says.

PeakOutput

pog it wrote: »

The thread is about why Irish people are not calling for a referendum on this massive transfer of money to the banks. I don't want to be pulled into speculative talk about future of Iceland.

id hope its because they are either smart enough to realise its the right thing or smart enough to realise they dont know enough to have an opinion

more than likely though its because the boom has made them apathetic

pog it

It doesn't say much for the Opposition either. They should have screamed at the Government for a referendum on it, and then they should have sold us their own proposals.

PeakOutput

pog it wrote: »

Do you realise that in the US there are people that look at us pityingly- not because of the state of our economy- but because we seem to accept anything the Government says.

they look at us pityingly because compared to them we are a socialist country and they are right compared to them we are.

this means obviously that we have greater govermental control in our lives on a day to day basis this has pros and cons

you know obviously that the americans bailed their banks out as well in a different way granted but they still did it

finally, who the **** cares what the americans think? they are no smarter than us i love america to bits and have lived there numerous time but holding them up as some sort of political or economic light at the end of the tunnel is a joke

bijapos

pog it wrote: »

What I want to get to the bottom of is what makes the Irish so apathetic and gullible? And why not more getting together to shout 'Enough'. What more could the government do to those without unions to speak for them...

It's a good question. I think people have become a bit cynical over the years. Look at Lisbon I. The people turned it down... instead of the government accepting it they give us Lisbon II. So much for referendums.

I think it was this time last year about 100,000 people marched in Dublin against public sector pay cuts, and this was only a few weeks after OAP's demonstrated against the withdrawal of medical cards. We were promised a long year of protests and demos. Where did it all fizz out? Unions have certainly let down their members badly on this one. So much for demos.

PeakOutput

pog it wrote: »

It doesn't say much for the Opposition either. They should have screamed at the Government for a referendum on it, and then they should have sold us their own proposals.

if you think there is another option please tell us because the goverment and the opposition obviously believe there is no other option they didnt offer an alternative because the only one was nationalisation which they realise would be disasterous

pog it

Who's holding them up on a pedestal? I'm not!

Some over there and of course other places, I'm just quoting the sources I know for a fact, and they can see the extent of the bail out and the apathy of the Irish and general acceptance and they think.. wow, the Irish government have them all nicely shut up and in their place.

And it's pity they feel. For the apathetic Irish.

PeakOutput

bijapos wrote: »

It's a good question. I think people have become a bit cynical over the years. Look at Lisbon I. The people turned it down... instead of the government accepting it they give us Lisbon II. So much for referendums.

ugh there really is no reason to rehash this again opinions change and when they do they are just as valid as the previous and have just as much right to be listened to

I think it was this time last year about 100,000 people marched in Dublin against public sector pay cuts, and this was only a few weeks after OAP's demonstrated against the withdrawal of medical cards. We were promised a long year of protests and demos. Where did it all fizz out? Unions have certainly let down their members badly on this one. So much for demos.

it all fizzed out because people realised how ****ed we were and realised THERE WAS NO CHOICE how many times does this have to be said your all bitching and whining that nothing is being done and we are being screwed well then OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE. why arent YOU doing something instead of moaning that others arent. if you hate the goverment so much protest until they call an election. then vote for the people you think can run the country better. which raises another problem obviously as there really isnt a real alternative. it seems inevitable the next goverment will be fg labour and i cant help but feel that that will be just as disastrous for the country

pog it

I for one, have had enough.

We can achieve change and we don't have to let people get away with exploiting others, just because they are defeated or feel powerless.

I along with local farmers and other people in my area were the reason a corrupt immoral politician lost his all-important position as TD. Local campaigning.. it worked. A politician who wouldn't pay his debts to small farmers.

There are ways to put manners back on them.

PeakOutput

pog it wrote: »

And it's pity they feel. For the apathetic Irish.

ye but who cares what they feel was my point? seriously?

we are apathetic,imo, because the majority of the country still has it relatively good. they remember the 80's(which i dont) and see we are still far better off and probably think rocking the boat will make things even worse. i feel sorry for the people whos lives have truly been affected by what has happened because the majority of the country is still doing ok and that means its harder for them to kick up a fuss.

what will force the rest of the country to pay attention is the failure of the banks and nama is an effort to prevent that so why would they act up and scream and shout against it?

bijapos

PeakOutput wrote: »

ugh there really is no reason to rehash this again opinions change and when they do they are just as valid as the previous and have just as much right to be listened to

I'm not rehashing anything here, it's an example of why people have become apathetic to action against what they percieve to be wrong policies.

your all bitching and whining that nothing is being done and we are being screwed well then OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE. why arent YOU doing something instead of moaning that others arent. if you hate the goverment so much protest until they call an election. [/QUOTE

]

What exactly is your problem to attack me in that tone? If you read the OP this thread is about why Irish people are so submissive. I'm not bitching or whining about the situation and neither am I moaning about the fact that others are doing nothing. I suggest you read my posts and find out where I am bithching and whining. I simply gave two examples where I concur with the OP in that we are somewhat submissive on policies that affect us and a reason why that may be so.

As regards your point on me not doing anything I DO actually get involved in petitioning in my local area against what I percieve to be wrong policies, such as wrong rezoning and the lack of funding for school renovations. If I very strongly disagree with national policy I usually drop an email to my local TD's (none of whom I have ever personally met) and wait for the next General Election. Thanks for the pathetic attack.

Incidentally pog it gives a very good example of what can be done. I think he might be referring to John Ellis, a good example of a campaign that changed the course of things.

PeakOutput

bijapos wrote: »

What exactly is your problem to attack me in that tone? If you read the OP this thread is about why Irish people are so submissive. I'm not bitching or whining about the situation and neither am I moaning about the fact that others are doing nothing. I suggest you read my posts and find out where I am bithching and whining. I simply gave two examples where I concur with the OP in that we are somewhat submissive on policies that affect us and a reason why that may be so.

As regards your point on me not doing anything I DO actually get involved in petitioning in my local area against what I percieve to be wrong policies, such as wrong rezoning and the lack of funding for school renovations. If I very strongly disagree with national policy I usually drop an email to my local TD's (none of whom I have ever personally met) and wait for the next General Election. Thanks for the pathetic attack.

Incidentally pog it gives a very good example of what can be done. I think he might be referring to John Ellis, a good example of a campaign that changed the course of things.

dont be so sensitive i wasnt personally attacking you about anything i thought it was obvious i was using you plural and not you singular obviously not

again i wasnt attacking you personally and not that you care but i commend you for taking the time to put some of your time were your mouth is but come on

If I very strongly disagree with national policy I usually drop an email to my local TD's

you email for something that you feel strongly about? isnt that a bit passive in itself? again i think the issues dont get people out protesting because they dont affect them that much the majority are doing ok and are motivated to at most send an email or a letter and assume thats going to have some sort of effect

personally i think if something came along that i actually felt seriously strongly about i would want to do alot more than send an email that id be fairly sure will be sent to junk by an assistant before it ever gets to a td

pog it

bijapos wrote: »

Incidentally pog it gives a very good example of what can be done. I think he might be referring to John Ellis, a good example of a campaign that changed the course of things.

Bijapos:Just wanted to say I'm a girl! Anyway am learning from everyone here, I really only got started into thinking about why we are lazier/more apathetic than Iceland and Greece.. the country was delighted that the students and old people marched and stood up for themselves as you mentioned, so there is some feeling out there of having been wronged.

I think it's fantastic you are doing as much campaigning and standing up for yourself and your rights as you are, it takes time, thought and balls.

PeakOutput did make a good point about people's apathy coming from their still having a good lifestyle and a good life, and if Nama will do the job to keep that going for them, then what do they care I suppose.

K-9

Jaysus, could you imagine the debate? everybody would become economists over night!

PeakOutput

for whats its worth if we were in as bad a position as iceland i think we would be protesting just as hard as they are

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

Jaysus, could you imagine the debate? everybody would become economists over night!

*shudders*

K-9

nesf wrote: »

*shudders*

Economists have a bad enough press!

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

Economists have a bad enough press!

Having a strong economic background and having to read the press at the moment is bad enough without a referendum on what is essentially a highly technical and complicated financial topic. Lisbon I & II were bad enough!

pog it

nesf wrote: »

Having a strong economic background and having to read the press at the moment is bad enough without a referendum on what is essentially a highly technical and complicated financial topic. Lisbon I & II were bad enough!

Ah sure fair play to ya nesf.. you'll make an excellent economist for the government some day with your 'strong economic background'.
You sound like you have the expertise they need.. and boy do they need it.. especially in the next election

Oíche mhaith agaibh uilig!

andrew

pog it wrote: »

They think Nama is the right thing to do? How would you like to back that up?

Obviously NAMA is an extremely complicated bit of legislation, and I can't really compare it's benefits as opposed to other potential strategies. All I know is that transferring billions of euro of debt from banks to the government is never going to be popular, but in one form or another it has to be done. So at the very least NAMA is doing something about the problem, which is a good thing. 'Crystallising' the debt etc.

Your idea that they 'recognise' that they 'don't know enough' to be able to make a valid judgement' is also going to be hard for you to back up given how humility of that extent rarely is evident in human beings, and this is a topic which has everyone mad as hell... from bars, taxi cabs, post offices, etc. and people do not want the bailout in the form of NAMA.

People might be 'mad as hell,' but I'd also like to think that, while justifiably angry at some of what has gone on, they are also pragmatic and realise that the government must take on some of the burden. Do you really think that most people know nearly enough about NAMA to be able to vote on it? As someone has already said, everyone would become an economist overnight. It'd be horrific.

What I want to get to the bottom of is what makes the Irish so apathetic and gullible? And why not more getting together to shout 'Enough'. What more could the government do to those without unions to speak for them..

Do you realise that in the US there are people that look at us pityingly- not because of the state of our economy- but because we seem to accept anything the Government says.

Or maybe it's just that Irish people are pragmatic, realise at the very least that something must be done, and while moaning a **** load don't protest because they know it won't get them anywhere. Protesting is a bit pointless if it's just general 'down with that sort of thing' protesting. Unless there's an actual tangible (and preferable) aim towards which protests could aim what's the point? Just because you don't agree with NAMA and because people aren't happy with the fact that it has to be done doesn't mean that everyone is actively against NAMA and we're all just shrinking violets who don't like protesting. And if there is a preferable aim toward which we should be aiming, and protesting about, what is it?

bijapos

PeakOutput wrote: »

you email for something that you feel strongly about? isnt that a bit passive in itself?

Yes it's a bit passive but you'd be surprised how much their opinion can be swayed if they receive a number of mails on a particular subject. I don't have the means/authority to organise or arrange a mass demo like the ones in Dublin 12 months ago. Union leaders have, they have not used this power IMO.

again i think the issues dont get people out protesting because they dont affect them that much

Very true. The "bugger you mate, I'm alright" attitude.

personally i think if something came along that i actually felt seriously strongly about i would want to do alot more than send an email that id be fairly sure will be sent to junk by an assistant before it ever gets to a td

Strangely enough virtually every mail I ever sent has been answered. Had situations where we got a lot of residents to bombard TD's and Councillors with mails and letters. Problem (sort of) solved fairly quickly. There again these tend to be very localised issues and yes, some people do something, others do nothing and expect their arses to be wiped for them.

bijapos

pog it wrote: »

bijapos wrote: »

Bijapos:Just wanted to say I'm a girl! .

Sorry! Well embarassed here.

Red_Marauder

Why would we have a debate on NAMA?

Surely the question would be whether or not to save the banks. If we want to save the banks, then NAMA or an equivalent 'bad bank' is going to be necessary. It's six of one half a dozen of another, whatever the exact name of the project shall be is irrelevant.

So then the issue becomes saving the banks or letting them go. Now do you really think that a voter is going to vote in favour of abandoning the bank in which he has deposited his own money? Come on.

A referendum like that would be a waste of paper, time, and money.

alang184

In this case a referendum would probably save the citizens and future generations (at Fianna Fail's expense). But it's much more complicated than Lisbon. An exception can't just be made on one occasion, or at least it won't anyway. The last thing Fianna Fail want is the public put into a position in which they must become informed of what is really happening to the country.

The solution is to protest. The public has to network, become informed of what is really going on, unite and make a stance.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/No2NAMA/329929836541?v=wall

K-9

alang184 wrote: »

In this case a referendum would probably save the citizens and future generations (at Fianna Fial's expense). But it's much more complicated than Lisbon. An exception can't just be made on one occasion, or at least it won't anyway. Zero chance of it happening anyway.

The solution is to protest. The public has to somehow network, become informed of what is really going on, unite and make a stance.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/No2NAMA/329929836541?v=wall

And we'll have a referendum on the alternative solution?

bijapos

bijapos wrote: »

And how many rallies/demos have we had here against NAMA?



















Yep. Thats how many. Says it all really.

Funny for all the mouthing off the opposition, unions etc, have done on NAMA they've done very little real work on active opposition to it.

We had a few actually. I went to as many as I could before they pretty much died off.

There was plenty of discussion about them here with people actually coming on and bragging about how they were staying at home to watch "the match" etc.

Where were you? They were covered in most of the mainstream papers.

Liam Byrne

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Surely the question would be whether or not to save the banks. If we want to save the banks, then NAMA or an equivalent 'bad bank' is going to be necessary. It's six of one half a dozen of another, whatever the exact name of the project shall be is irrelevant.

Then have the referendum saying do you want

a) NAMA
b) the "bad bank"

They can't be "six of one and half a dozen of the other" because FF have ridiculed FG's good bank/bad bank proposals.

And for God's sake put cast-iron conditions into either legislation that force the banks that are begging off us to reduce their CEO and board salaries to €100K maximum; also, no increasing of rates.

The banks have GOT to be taught that they cannot ride roughshod over us if they expect to us to pay them on the double.

And in addition, we cannot allow them impose further hardship on an already creaking economy by pocketing whatever disposable income is actually left out there.

PeakOutput

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And for God's sake put cast-iron conditions into either legislation that force the banks that are begging off us to reduce their CEO and board salaries to €100K maximum; also, no increasing of rates.

im a student in not so great financial situation and even i wouldnt do that job for 100K

people clearly dont get this idea of you get what you pay for

Liam Byrne

PeakOutput wrote: »

people clearly dont get this idea of you get what you pay for

That's the theory, but we've paid millions up to now and look what we got.

And we've paid half that to TDs and look what we got.

No-one needs more than 100K a year.

And if an organisation doesn't have the money (which the banks obviously don't, or they wouldn't be coming to us looking for charity) then they can't afford to pay.

As an aside, who would hire someone that helped run a bank into the ground (through negligence and crazy gambling) for more than €100K, anyways ?

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's the theory, but we've paid millions up to now and look what we got.

And we've paid half that to TDs and look what we got.

No-one needs more than 100K a year.

But people want more than 100k a year and I'm sure the 'best and brightest' would be the first to go abroad to get it.

Liam Byrne

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I'm sure the 'best and brightest' would be the first to go abroad to get it.

As I said, we paid a fortune to date and it didn't do us any good, so the argument obviously has flaws.

And if someone simply wants over-inflated wages, I don't think they're "the best" for the job in the current climate; a decent wage should be perfectly acceptable.

I've no objection to paying decent wages to capable people, but banks and companies that would be bankrupt and are relying on charity from us cannot dictate their terms.

PeakOutput

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's the theory, but we've paid millions up to now and look what we got.

no we havnt the banks have unless you were a shareholder then it had nothing to do with you

And we've paid half that to TDs and look what we got.

maybe the fact that first class college(and i mean first first class) can get the same pay as a td straight out of college tells us something about why we are getting what we do

secondly we vote them in we choose who we get nothing else

No-one needs more than 100K a year.

thats a ridicolous argument

And if an organisation doesn't have the money (which the banks obviously don't, or they wouldn't be coming to us looking for charity) then they can't afford to pay.

if you dont see the value in investing in quality personnell then there is really no point in debating this

As an aside, who would hire someone that helped run a bank into the ground (through negligence and crazy gambling) for more than €100K, anyways ?

so you want to hire the people who helped run the banks into the ground before? and you want to do it because they are now unhireable by anyone else and therefore they are cheap? the makes LOADS of sense :rolleyes:

jmayo

PeakOutput wrote: »

id hope its because they are either smart enough to realise its the right thing or smart enough to realise they dont know enough to have an opinion

From my reading of your statement you are being totally condescending to anyone that doesn't agree with NAMA by claiming they are not smart enough.
Care to take that up with the likes of Morgan Kelly, Brian Lucey, Richard Bruton, etc, etc ?

I am not an economist, but I would say I damm well smart enough to know paying over the odds for something based on some very dubious possible future value is a crock of sh** and bad business from the off.

Let me ask you this would you buy a property off me today, for a price above todays market value, in hope it may rise 5 years down the road just becuase I tell you so, even though all present indicators are showing it will be a different outcome ?

And that does not even mention the fact of Anglo and the cost this totally useless decrepit stinking so called bank will dump on the taxpayers of today and tomorrow.

K-9 wrote: »

Jaysus, could you imagine the debate? everybody would become economists over night!

Well it wouldn't be hard to reach the level of such economic luminaries as Dan McLaughlin or Austin Hughes now would it ? :rolleyes:

PeakOutput wrote: »

im a student in not so great financial situation and even i wouldnt do that job for 100K

people clearly dont get this idea of you get what you pay for

Ehhh except we had some of the best paid cheif executives (Anglo, AIB, BOI, etc) in Europe and what did we get ?
A fe**ing God awful mess that is what we got.

We pay top dollar and still got gimps who would make chimps look accomplished.
So please stop this cr** about you get what you pay for.

I don't agree with Liam about paying low salaries, but neither do I agree with you that large salaries guarantee ability.

We have some of the best paid governmnet ministers in the world and yet they can't make a decision, stand by it and resign if it is the wrong one or fails.
We have some of the top paid public servants in the world and yet we have had some of the worst services form the organisations they head up.
Do you think o'reilly, hurley, neary or molloy (to name the most infamous shyster gombeens) gave value for money or do you think they deserved their payouts.

I am all for paying top dollar, but I want bang for my buck not some fecking eejit that is only there because they are one of the inbreeds and is being rewarded for his support to someone or other in power.

dynamick

pog it wrote: »

Why are we so passive a nation and so short sighted and so submissive?

Does anyone out there think the Irish people deserved a referendum on this?

The Icelanders are having a referendum because their president refused to sign the bill passed by the Icelandic parliament. Our president could also have refused to sign the legislation and called a referendum (or an election) but she chose not to. I don't know if being a Fianna Fáil nominee affected her decision.

A poll last year showed only 40% opposed to NAMA. So there is not a clear majority against.

The situation in Iceland is not quite comparable with ours. Iceland chose to allow its banks to stiff foreign depositors but compensate domestic depositors. This may turn out to be illegal. In Ireland the bulk of depositors were domestic.

It was judged by all political parties (well maybe not SF) that it would cost more to allow the banks to fail than to save them with public money. The only difference of opinion was the exact mechanism of the bailout.

The IMF estimated that the Irish banks are down 35bn and it looks like the taxpayer is the only person left to meet this bill.

It's natural to find NAMA hard to swallow but you really have to come up with an alternative if you want to be taken seriously.

Liam Byrne

PeakOutput wrote: »

if you dont see the value in investing in quality personnell then there is really no point in debating this

I do see the value, and I do see paying them decent amounts.

Just not ridiculous amounts.

PeakOutput wrote: »

so you want to hire the people who helped run the banks into the ground before? and you want to do it because they are now unhireable by anyone else and therefore they are cheap? the makes LOADS of sense :rolleyes:

You've gotten me completely wrong.

I don't want to hire them, but the banks have already refused a lame government "request" (not backed by legislation for some reason, despite the billions in capital and the imposition of NAMA to bail them out) NOT to appoint existing head staff.

And my point is that there's no way those head staff should be earning over €600,000.

Liam Byrne

jmayo wrote: »

I don't agree with Liam about paying low salaries, but neither do I agree with you that large salaries guarantee ability.

Point of order : I'm not talking about paying low salaries.

1) If the banks refuse to change their head guys, then I'd impose a low-ish salary
2) €100,000 a year is not a low salary by any stretch of the imagination
3) Let's not forget that the banks have no money, and are paying OUR billions to the same guys. If a company has no money, they offer what they can afford and if someone doesn't want it, then they leave.

And if most of the idiots that landed us in this mess leave where they are, I can't see anyone hiring them.

Other than that, I agree with your points completely.

PeakOutput

jmayo wrote: »

From my reading of your statement you are being totally condescending to anyone that doesn't agree with NAMA by claiming they are not smart enough.
Care to take that up with the likes of Morgan Kelly, Brian Lucey, Richard Bruton, etc, etc ?

they are more than smart enough to have their opinion and they are smart enough to argue it out with the goverment.

i have no problem with economists etc having the opinion its not the right thing the general public are not economists and shouldnt have the final say

I am not an economist, but I would say I damm well smart enough to know paying over the odds for something based on some very dubious possible future value is a crock of sh** and bad business from the off.

the bolded part is the only relevant part. the idea of nama is not to make a profit although thats a possibility, the idea of nama is to save the country. we might not get back all of the money we might not get most of it back but if it saves the economy its still worth it

edit; and im not one either so im just as bad

Let me ask you this would you buy a property off me today, for a price above todays market value, in hope it may rise 5 years down the road just becuase I tell you so, even though all present indicators are showing it will be a different outcome ?

no but if me buying that property of you created jobs for my family in the long run then i would

its not a simple we buy now and hope to get a profit later thats not what we are doing

Ehhh except we had some of the best paid cheif executives (Anglo, AIB, BOI, etc) in Europe and what did we get ?
A fe**ing God awful mess that is what we got.

im not advocating paying people who came up threw the banks ranks that money either im saying we should head hunt the best talent out there and to do that we need the cheque book that will attract them

I don't agree with Liam about paying low salaries, but neither do I agree with you that large salaries guarantee ability.

sorry you are right they dont guarantee it but not being able to offer the top people attractive packages guarantees you wont get ability

We have some of the best paid governmnet ministers in the world and yet they can't make a decision, stand by it and resign if it is the wrong one or fails.

again you cant blame the salary only the electorate

We have some of the top paid public servants in the world and yet we have had some of the worst services form the organisations they head up.

clearly it has to be apart of a complete efficient structure that goes without saying

I am all for paying top dollar, but I want bang for my buck not some fecking eejit that is only there because they are one of the inbreeds and is being rewarded for his support to someone or other in power.

we pretty much agree then

PeakOutput

I don't want to hire them, but the banks have already refused a lame government "request" (not backed by legislation for some reason, despite the billions in capital and the imposition of NAMA to bail them out) NOT to appoint existing head staff.

And my point is that there's no way those head staff should be earning over €600,000.

ok i agree with that they should be forced but for the right person there should be no salary cap