Why is 70billion incomprehensible?

Daaboo

The Irish political establishment would have us believe that putting 70 billion or even 100 billion into our banks is incomprehensible as an "Amount of Money". We are not doing it to save the banks but to save the economy as a whole, which benefits every person living in this country whether they are employed or not.

However, borrowing 20 billion a year to prop up an over paid inefficient service which is the public sector is completely understandable and according to the FG (and other political parties with the same policy) is perfectly fine. Most of which goes to paying Civil Servants who are paper pushers and do not provide front line services (so they are not guards, teachers, nurses etc...), and could be replaced by a well thought our website and maybe a call centre.

So why is it an incomprehensible amount of money when saving the banks saves us all, where as keeping a few extra people in civil jobs just costs us more.

I have no political allegiances, it's just a question.

cavedave

Daaboo
The Irish political establishment would have us believe that putting 70 billion or even 100 billion into our banks is incomprehensible as an "Amount of Money".

It is incomprehensible because no one can visualise a billion. Even a million is not the sort of number people deal with in their daily lives.

1 million seconds is 11.57 days according to wolfram alpha. A Billion seconds is 31 years 8 months.


I like to think of these big number in terms of paving the croke park pitch with notes. It is a much bigger pitch than a soccer or rugby one. 54 billion in the original NAMA figure is the pitch in 20 euros 2000 deep. Or 7540 cargo containers full of 2 euro coins. Or enough 2 euro coins on their side to go round the world one and a half times.

Liam Byrne

Daaboo wrote: »

We are not doing it to save the banks but to save the economy as a whole, which benefits every person living in this country whether they are employed or not.

You lost me as soon as you came out with the above.

Daaboo wrote: »

So why is it an incomprehensible amount of money when saving the banks saves us all, where as keeping a few extra people in civil jobs just costs us more.

100% rubbish. "a few extra people" do not account for the €20 billion, and €70 billion is not "more" than €70 billion.

In addition, whatever about inefficiencies - which should indeed be sorted out - paying public service wages is not flushing the billions down a black hole; those who get paid spend that money, which goes back into the economy, maintaining other jobs.

Bailing out banks and gamblers is doing nothing for the economy or the public.

Daaboo

I do not defend the actions of the banks or any of the other gamblers who completely, nor do am I taking sides, although I would say that of all the politicians Brian Lenihan seems to be the only one able to make the right decisions.

The question I am asking is not whether any of it is right or wrong. But that we are borrowing 20 billion a year to bail out the civil service as it continues to live well beyond its means - and we're meant to just accept that and think of it as comprehensible. And yet we are meant to think that 70 billion is incomprehensible as an amount of money in order to keep our economy, because that is what is at stake here. The whole economy, if you can't see that then you need to stay out of the debate because you are not able to comprehend things at a strategic level.

If we don't do it, we won't be able to borrow the 20 billion needed for the public service and they will just have to go (if they won't do their jobs for a reduced salary, they sure as hell are not going to do them for no salary) and the private sector as a whole will grind to a halt without banks. And we will be without banks. No banks - no economy, so what then barter?

thebman

Daaboo wrote: »

The Irish political establishment would have us believe that putting 70 billion or even 100 billion into our banks is incomprehensible as an "Amount of Money". We are not doing it to save the banks but to save the economy as a whole, which benefits every person living in this country whether they are employed or not.

However, borrowing 20 billion a year to prop up an over paid inefficient service which is the public sector is completely understandable and according to the FG is perfectly fine. Most of which goes to paying Civil Servants who are paper pushers and do not provide front line services (so they are not guards, teachers, nurses etc...), and could be replaced by a well thought our website and maybe a call centre.

So why is it an incomprehensible amount of money when saving the banks saves us all, where as keeping a few extra people in civil jobs just costs us more.

I have no political allegiances, it's just a question.

Question: if you have no political allegiances why do specifically mention FG when every political party in the country has the same policy and FG aren't even in power ATM so we know FF have the policy for sure?

Labor are almost certain to have a policy similar to no public reform or cuts in pay/numbers so why did you specifically bring up FG?

Daaboo

thebman wrote: »

Question: if you have no political allegiances why do specifically mention FG when every political party in the country has the same policy and FG aren't even in power ATM so we know FF have the policy for sure?

Labor are almost certain to have a policy similar to no public reform or cuts in pay/numbers so why did you specifically bring up FG?

Point taken, I have now edited my first post to include any range of other political parties that have the same policy.

I do have very strong opinions on all political parties but that is for another place. And no I'm not a FF member or supporter, in fact I wouldn't support any of them. They're all awful!

jayboi

I think the money pored into the banks would become a lot more palatablefor most people if we have concrete proof the things would be different,
guarantees that this could never happen again that those responsible will be properly punished,
that we would now have more of a say in calling the shots but I feel we are being paid little more that lip service by the government and the banks so many of us wonder should we go along with what their saying.

Personally I feel like the politicians think people will believe anything

SLUSK

Daaboo wrote: »

The Irish political establishment would have us believe that putting 70 billion or even 100 billion into our banks is incomprehensible as an "Amount of Money". We are not doing it to save the banks but to save the economy as a whole, which benefits every person living in this country whether they are employed or not.

However, borrowing 20 billion a year to prop up an over paid inefficient service which is the public sector is completely understandable and according to the FG (and other political parties with the same policy) is perfectly fine. Most of which goes to paying Civil Servants who are paper pushers and do not provide front line services (so they are not guards, teachers, nurses etc...), and could be replaced by a well thought our website and maybe a call centre.

So why is it an incomprehensible amount of money when saving the banks saves us all, where as keeping a few extra people in civil jobs just costs us more.

I have no political allegiances, it's just a question.

You obviously don't believe in free market capitalism.

oppenheimer1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You lost me as soon as you came out with the above.



100% rubbish. "a few extra people" do not account for the €20 billion, and €70 billion is not "more" than €70 billion.

In addition, whatever about inefficiencies - which should indeed be sorted out - paying public service wages is not flushing the billions down a black hole; those who get paid spend that money, which goes back into the economy, maintaining other jobs.

Bailing out banks and gamblers is doing nothing for the economy or the public.

That simply isn't true. The rescuing of the banking system is a necessary evil in order to save the economy. We simply cannot let them go bust as the collateral damage would be too great.

No one likes it, but its a bitter medicine we must take. It isn't fair that the ordinary taxpayer will pay for the misdeeds of others, far from it, but someone has to pay otherwise we face consequences like what happened to Argentina. The taxpayer is the only one with deep enough pockets to do this.

jackcee

Daaboo wrote: »

The Irish political establishment would have us believe that putting 70 billion or even 100 billion into our banks is incomprehensible as an "Amount of Money". We are not doing it to save the banks but to save the economy as a whole, which benefits every person living in this country whether they are employed or not.

However, borrowing 20 billion a year to prop up an over paid inefficient service which is the public sector is completely understandable and according to the FG (and other political parties with the same policy) is perfectly fine. Most of which goes to paying Civil Servants who are paper pushers and do not provide front line services (so they are not guards, teachers, nurses etc...), and could be replaced by a well thought our website and maybe a call centre.

So why is it an incomprehensible amount of money when saving the banks saves us all, where as keeping a few extra people in civil jobs just costs us more.

I have no political allegiances, it's just a question.

Now the 20Bn is real, and we do have to borrow for it.

Before we get all hot and bothered, where exactly did you get the figure 70Bn. - not to mention the 100Bn figure, you so blightly threw in. (Sure what's a Billion or two between friends).

Now when you have worked out the 70Bn (or the 100Bn) question - the next question is: Do we have to borrow this 70Bn (or Heaven forbid, the 100Bn).

But before we work out if we have to borrow anything at all - are we talking 70Bn or 100Bn. Or are we talking something completely different.????

Liam Byrne

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

That simply isn't true. The rescuing of the banking system is a necessary evil in order to save the economy. We simply cannot let them go bust as the collateral damage would be too great.

It would now, given the ridiculous and apparently unending guarantee of Anglo.

Basically FF have left Anglo to come cap-in-hand and no option to say "enough is enough".

In any other walk of life, it would be called extortion.

astrofool

The guarantee of Anglo cannot end, to do so would cause a run on the bank, leaving the tax payer liable for even more. I wish people would stop thinking of ending the guarantee as a solution, it isn't.

orourkeda

Daaboo wrote: »

The Irish political establishment would have us believe that putting 70 billion or even 100 billion into our banks is incomprehensible as an "Amount of Money". We are not doing it to save the banks but to save the economy as a whole, which benefits every person living in this country whether they are employed or not.

However, borrowing 20 billion a year to prop up an over paid inefficient service which is the public sector is completely understandable and according to the FG (and other political parties with the same policy) is perfectly fine. Most of which goes to paying Civil Servants who are paper pushers and do not provide front line services (so they are not guards, teachers, nurses etc...), and could be replaced by a well thought our website and maybe a call centre.

So why is it an incomprehensible amount of money when saving the banks saves us all, where as keeping a few extra people in civil jobs just costs us more.

I have no political allegiances, it's just a question.

Having seen the chaos during the recent passport office situation how can you say that the civil service is wasteful. They are angels compared to the real culprits

Liam Byrne

astrofool wrote: »

The guarantee of Anglo cannot end, to do so would cause a run on the bank, leaving the tax payer liable for even more. I wish people would stop thinking of ending the guarantee as a solution, it isn't.

It's not strictly a question of "ending the guarantee"; it's the fact that FF cocked up spectacularly by providing the guarantee in the first place - it should NEVER have been done, at least without reading the reports on the state of the bank and setting out the limits at which stage the plug could or would be pulled.

Now that they have steered us down that road, and now that the so-called bank seems to be revealing a worse and worse scenario with every passing week, it's difficult to determine what can be done that's fair and has a chance of success.

But pouring billions of our money into a useless cesspit is not viable either, and that's what FF and Anglo want us to do.

astrofool

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's not strictly a question of "ending the guarantee"; it's the fact that FF cocked up spectacularly by providing the guarantee in the first place - it should NEVER have been done, at least without reading the reports on the state of the bank and setting out the limits at which stage the plug could or would be pulled.

Now that they have steered us down that road, and now that the so-called bank seems to be revealing a worse and worse scenario with every passing week, it's difficult to determine what can be done that's fair and has a chance of success.

But pouring billions of our money into a useless cesspit is not viable either, and that's what FF and Anglo want us to do.

In hindsight, it may have been better if there was no guarantee, if the Irish banks would have survived without it, but at the time, with Lehman collapsing, and a run being mooted for the Irish banks (which would have killed the tax payer also with the €20,000 guarantee), it was the only feasible option. I think most rational people in the world would have extended the guarantee as FF did.

Liam Byrne

astrofool wrote: »

I think most rational people in the world would have extended the guarantee as FF did.

I certainly wouldn't have extended to a bank that had already been shown to be cooking the books!

Daaboo

orourkeda wrote: »

Having seen the chaos during the recent passport office situation how can you say that the civil service is wasteful. They are angels compared to the real culprits

The actions of the civil service at the passport office does not prove the civil service to be wasteful or not. It does however prove that at least this segment of the service is willing to screw over the public whom they are meant to serve for a few extra sheckles!

astrofool

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't have extended to a bank that had already been shown to be cooking the books!

They could have had their entire portfolio tied up in reversible sedgewicks, it doesn't stop a run occurring on the bank, which would bring the other banks, and the entire economy, crashing down.

Liam Byrne

astrofool wrote: »

......which would bring the other banks, and the entire economy, crashing down.

As distinct from the ridiculous scenario that we have at the moment, where we're shovelling incomprehensible fortunes into the banks and they're not lending, are increasing interest rates, and are arrogant enough to pay bonuses and pay rises ?

thebman

astrofool wrote: »

They could have had their entire portfolio tied up in reversible sedgewicks, it doesn't stop a run occurring on the bank, which would bring the other banks, and the entire economy, crashing down.

Where is the evidence that one bank being let fail and the others given a guarantee would have lead to all the banks collapsing?

Big Mouth

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You lost me as soon as you came out with the above.



100% rubbish. "a few extra people" do not account for the €20 billion, and €70 billion is not "more" than €70 billion.

In addition, whatever about inefficiencies - which should indeed be sorted out - paying public service wages is not flushing the billions down a black hole; those who get paid spend that money, which goes back into the economy, maintaining other jobs.

Bailing out banks and gamblers is doing nothing for the economy or the public.

Just a comment on your last sentence, bailing out banks is essential to maintaining a stable economy. You quite clearly have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I have no love for the likes of Anglo but understand the need to keep them afloat. Whats done is done and we need to learn and change what needs changing but to say bailing out banks is nothing for the economy is beyond ridiculous.

You can keep spouting on forums all you like but nobody with an ounce of business / economic sense would ever take you seriously.

Also I'll take a wild guess that you work in the Public Service?

mr_happy

70 billion, to me its the grains of sand on a beach. A beach that the sun hasnt shone on in many years. A miserable pissy Irish beach.

Its just the long goodbye from FF. Greedy traitors.

oppenheimer1

astrofool wrote: »

In hindsight, it may have been better if there was no guarantee, if the Irish banks would have survived without it, but at the time, with Lehman collapsing, and a run being mooted for the Irish banks (which would have killed the tax payer also with the €20,000 guarantee), it was the only feasible option. I think most rational people in the world would have extended the guarantee as FF did.

According to Brian Lenihan, in an interrview he did for the BBC, the Irish banks were in major trouble the night before the guarantee was announced. They had three options, nationalisation, guarantee, or failure. They picked guarantee as at the time, lack of confidence was locking the banks out of the interbank lending market.

Without the guarantee, the system would have collapsed the following day. It was that close to outright chaos.

oppenheimer1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's not strictly a question of "ending the guarantee"; it's the fact that FF cocked up spectacularly by providing the guarantee in the first place - it should NEVER have been done, at least without reading the reports on the state of the bank and setting out the limits at which stage the plug could or would be pulled.

Now that they have steered us down that road, and now that the so-called bank seems to be revealing a worse and worse scenario with every passing week, it's difficult to determine what can be done that's fair and has a chance of success.

But pouring billions of our money into a useless cesspit is not viable either, and that's what FF and Anglo want us to do.

You seem to think that cutting anglo loose is a viable option. I'll give you the figures for two depositors in the bank. The central Bank has 11bn and Quinn has at least 1bn on deposit in said bank. A failure would more than likely mean a massive loss for the Central bank in addition it would take the Quinn group down with it. Looking at at least 5000 jobs gone. Thats just one company. There are many others who depend on anglo for finance and banking services. Also forgetting the contagion that it would introduce to the sector.

But returning to my original point, I get the impression you care little for Quinn, and the families that depend on the company for an income.

"Shur didn't he get us into this mess, and deserves what he gets". Nevermind the collateral damage.

Liam Byrne

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But returning to my original point, I get the impression you care little for Quinn, and the families that depend on the company for an income.

Emotive strawmanning.

If a non white-collar burglar gets jailed, do you have the same viewpoint about their families ?

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

"Shur didn't he get us into this mess, and deserves what he gets".

Nevermind the collateral damage.

I didn't say this. The collateral damage is being minimised by putting in the examiner and keeping the company running.

And did Quinn think of those staff and their families when he started this carry-on ?

Liam Byrne

Big Mouth wrote: »

You quite clearly have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Also I'll take a wild guess that you work in the Public Service?

What's that phrase again ?

"You quite clearly have absolutely no clue what you are talking about".

astrofool

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As distinct from the ridiculous scenario that we have at the moment, where we're shovelling incomprehensible fortunes into the banks and they're not lending, are increasing interest rates, and are arrogant enough to pay bonuses and pay rises ?

Is the current scenario reminiscent of Argentina when they stopped pegging the peso to the dollar? No it isn't, we'll have higher taxes and a smaller public service that gets paid a fair, rather than ridiculously high for the work that they do, wage.

Are the two scenarios comparable at all? Do you understand what would happen if a run occurred on the Irish banks? Do you understand that banks only hold a small% of their deposits (5% or less), and the rest is loaned out?, leaving all the banks unable to pay back their depositors, and the government having to bail them out even more due to the €20,000 guarantee that was already in place?

Can you understand the devastation that would cause to this country?

Do you now see why the guarantee was put in place, and can't be removed?

Liam Byrne

astrofool wrote: »

........leaving all the banks unable to pay back their depositors, and the government having to bail them out even more due to the €20,000 guarantee that was already in place?

Can you understand the devastation that would cause to this country?

Do you now see why the guarantee was put in place, and can't be removed?

That doesn't really make sense, because you're justifying the guarantee based on the guarantee being in place ????

My point is that as soon as Lenihan guaranteed the banks (and despite the suggestions to the contrary, I can almost see why it was required for the real banks - AIB and BoI) then we were down this unending road of bailing out.

Without it being costed or a limit put on it, this was foolhardy, and we're now in the resultant situation where Anglo can claim pretty much anything and still get our money.

Interestingly, Ulster Bank wasn't included in the guarantee, and there's been no panic "run" on them.

astrofool

Before the €100,000 guarantee was brought in, there was already a government guarantee of €20,000 on all bank deposits. This was a very low level by european standards (UK was £50,000 for example), but it would be enough to bankrupt the country entirely (most deposites are under this value) if a run on the banks occurred.

To head this off, the guarantee was increased to €100,000, to give people confidence that they could leave their money in the bank, and thus prevent a run occurring.

Ulster bank would be covered under the UK deposit guarantee, and being a subsidiary of RBS was already receiving a large bailout.