NAMA, but for the "little guy"

RichardAnd

I'm surprised this hasn't come up. I saw an advert this afternoon for RTE's new Aftershock programs and on it, a NAMA for the home owner was mentioned. Such a creation was also brought up on a recent frontline. The following links can be used to inform:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/0315/1224266293224.html

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/create-a-nama-for-homeowners-2042033.html


This is an idea I am absolutely opposed to for several reasons.

Firstly, the cost. I don't know how much a bail out for the average joe would cost but I can only assume it would be alot.

Secondly, an issue of responsibility. No one made anyone buy a house. In particular, no one was forced to buy a house in what is now a ghost estate. I find it distressing that people feel entitled to a bail out of a mortgage when they so willingly took out half a million from the bank without considering the long term implications. I have heard people claim that they were conned into huge mortgage. If these people are bailed out then we will be vindicating the sense of entitlement that is at the root of most of our problems.

Thirdly, what would they think in Europe? The big guys in Europe may be distracted at the moment by Greece but if things are not changed here soon, we could end up in just the same position. Can you imagine us being helped by Europe if we borrow billions simple to pay off debts of people who didn't think before they said; "mr banker, me neighbour got a new car and a wide screen TV. He have, me want!!". And of course, mr Banker was only to happy to hand over 500k to a builder on 30k a year. Though I suppose we are a knowledge economy after all, and we all know that the builder was entitled to piss that money against the wall :rolleyes:

I'm starting to rant so I'll wrap it up. Let's see what people think. As with my last thread, I would like to make the request that the well worn topic Civil servants wages and number not be brought up unless the poster has an intelligent reason to do so.

Let's debate!.

Caoimhín

I'll fight it tooth and nail (ie; i'll complain on the internet)

If you it.were dumb enough to buy an asset at the height of a bubble then you'll live with

ei.sdraob

Because its a terrible idea it is guaranteed to happen now

It simply can't happen. Sorry to all those who mortgaged themselves to the hilt but it's not the country's problem and the we simply do not have the money.

End of story.

oppenheimer1

RichardAnd wrote: »

I'm surprised this hasn't come up. I saw an advert this afternoon for RTE's new Aftershock programs and on it, a NAMA for the home owner was mentioned. Such a creation was also brought up on a recent frontline. The following links can be used to inform:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/0315/1224266293224.html

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/create-a-nama-for-homeowners-2042033.html


This is an idea I am absolutely opposed to for several reasons.

Firstly, the cost. I don't know how much a bail out for the average joe would cost but I can only assume it would be alot.

Secondly, an issue of responsibility. No one made anyone buy a house. In particular, no one was forced to buy a house in what is now a ghost estate. I find it distressing that people feel entitled to a bail out of a mortgage when they so willingly took out half a million from the bank without considering the long term implications. I have heard people claim that they were conned into huge mortgage. If these people are bailed out then we will be vindicating the sense of entitlement that is at the root of most of our problems.

Thirdly, what would they think in Europe? The big guys in Europe may be distracted at the moment by Greece but if things are not changed here soon, we could end up in just the same position. Can you imagine us being helped by Europe if we borrow billions simple to pay off debts of people who didn't think before they said; "mr banker, me neighbour got a new car and a wide screen TV. He have, me want!!". And of course, mr Banker was only to happy to hand over 500k to a builder on 30k a year. Though I suppose we are a knowledge economy after all, and we all know that the builder was entitled to piss that money against the wall :rolleyes:

I'm starting to rant so I'll wrap it up. Let's see what people think. As with my last thread, I would like to make the request that the well worn topic Civil servants wages and number not be brought up unless the poster has an intelligent reason to do so.

Let's debate!.

It has been discussed before, but the calls are getting louder so it should probably be discussed again. Personally I think its a disgusting proposal to not only subsidise the banks that over lent, but also to the people that over-borrowed.

Like Eircom shares, the value of your property can fall as well as rise. Tough ****.

Caoimhín

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Like Eircom shares, the value of your property can fall as well as rise. Tough ****.

But that's SO loike unfair, i thought i'd make a killing from that investment apartment in Ballyarsehole. It was dem banks whot done it...

Liam Byrne

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

It simply can't happen. Sorry to all those who mortgaged themselves to the hilt but it's not the country's problem and the we simply do not have the money.

End of story.

The same could easily be said for the banks.

I'm against this, but then I'm also against bailing out the gamblers in the banks.

That puts me in an awkward position, because two wrongs don't make a right, but if commercial gamblers can get off their loans by going bankrupt and having the country foot the bill, then it sets a precedent by which those who gambled on property (and the separate category of those who wanted nothing to do with the sickening "property ladder" bull**** and just wanted a home) should be treated "fairly" based on that benchmark.

Now that FF have redefined the word "fair", it's hard to tell anymore what's fair.

Flamed Diving

It's a dizgraze...

changes

Where it could be proven that the banks lent recklessly to certain people then they should get their money back but not get the interest portion of it imo.

WebGeek

I agree, you just can't bail home owners out as they took the risk and are now stuck with the consequences.

But, what about the folks who made a killing during the boom, the ones who bought properties in '97 for buttons and were lucky enough that the crash did not happen back then. I'm not talking about the developers here, I'm talking about people who probably sold their shacks to some unlucky first-time buyer pre-bust, bought their dream home and pocketed the profits. They are the ones I usually hear shouting loudest about the cutbacks now.

They made a killing and are sitting pretty now - would it be immoral to expect them to give back some of the wealth they amassed? Or is it a case of screw you, I'm alright jack.

Spudmonkey

WebGeek wrote: »

They are the ones I usually hear shouting loudest about the cutbacks now.

Why would they be the ones shouting loudest?

20Cent

I'd vote for whoever offered it.

Taxipete29

It was always going to be suggested once the original NAMA was put in place. It will never happen though. I dont think people should be too worried.

I am however of the opinion that the banks should share the responsibility for reckless lending. People should be able to hand back their keys and walk away from the debt. Obviously they could not be entitled to help from the state in being re-housed or ever borrow money again but then both sides would be losers in the deal instead of the just the clown who mortgaged to the hilt for a dog box in Co well its not that far to Dublin

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

I'd vote for whoever offered it.

Shock horror. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you but

Santa Claus doesn't exist

20Cent

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Shock horror. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you but

Santa Claus doesn't exist

Could see FF offering something in this vein in two years time.

WebGeek

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Why would they be the ones shouting loudest?

Probably because they have the bulk of the wealth in this country, and have the most to lose.

RichardAnd

20Cent wrote: »

I'd vote for whoever offered it.

And that's the danger. I could easily see FG or labour pulling this one as a way to get elected and God would it be effective .

oppenheimer1

RichardAnd wrote: »

And that's the danger. I could easily see FG or labour pulling this one as a way to get elected and God would it be effective .

The same way they wanted to compensate those that lost out on Eircom. If such a scheme is ever introduced, I will never return to live in Ireland (Probably a few here think thats a price worth paying:p).

Scarab80

What is it exactly that people think a "NAMA for the little guy" would be. I mean NAMA was just a transfer of loans from the banks to a new organisation in order to reduce uncertainty in the banks. The loans are still repayable in full with associated interest etc. If it is discovered that borrowers can not make repayments assets will be siezed and companies will be liquidated to recover as much of the loan as possible.

One of the letters linked in the OP was seeking their mortgage to be reduced to the current value of their property. Surely this isn't what people are suggesting? If it is to give people more time to make repayments or to restructure their mortgage surely this can be done through their existing mortgage provider. I don't have any figures but i haven't noticed much news about familied getting kicked out of their houses for falling into arrears.

What is "NAMA for the little guy"?

RichardAnd

Scarab80 wrote: »

What is it exactly that people think a "NAMA for the little guy" would be. I mean NAMA was just a transfer of loans from the banks to a new organisation in order to reduce uncertainty in the banks. The loans are still repayable in full with associated interest etc. If it is discovered that borrowers can not make repayments assets will be siezed and companies will be liquidated to recover as much of the loan as possible.

One of the letters linked in the OP was seeking their mortgage to be reduced to the current value of their property. Surely this isn't what people are suggesting? If it is to give people more time to make repayments or to restructure their mortgage surely this can be done through their existing mortgage provider. I don't have any figures but i haven't noticed much news about familied getting kicked out of their houses for falling into arrears.

What is "NAMA for the little guy"?

I didn't actually coin the term at all, I quoted it from frontline. I would imagine that most people would want such a scheme to be their mortgages wither reduced or paid off by the state which is, as you pointed out, not what NAMA does, true. However, most people don't even know what NAMA does other than "giving" money to banks so when things like NAMA for the homeowner, NAMA for the ordinary man on the street get tossed about, they can probably be taken to mean some sort of state aid for people with huge loans.

Drumpot

Caoimhín wrote: »

If you it.were dumb enough to buy an asset at the height of a bubble then you'll live with

Never ceases to amaze me the ignorance some people can show . . .

Sounds like its just plain dumb to ever buy anything that ends up losing you money . Since you have the gift of hindsight the rest of us mortals will have to just live with our idiocy . . He who hath never done anything "dumb" cast the first insult . . :rolleyes:

ei.sdraob

Drumpot wrote: »

Never ceases to amaze me the ignorance some people can show . . .

Sounds like its just plain dumb to ever buy anything that ends up losing you money . Since you have the gift of hindsight the rest of us mortals will have to just live with our idiocy . . He who hath never done anything "dumb" cast the first insult . . :rolleyes:

I lost 50 euro on the horses

can i haz mee bailout pleeeeze

Flamed Diving

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I lost 50 euro on the horses

can i haz mee bailout pleeeeze

The bookie forced you.

ei.sdraob

Flamed Diving wrote: »

The bookie forced you.

Yes he told me that his houses horses always go up in value and its a win win

RichardAnd

Drumpot wrote: »

Never ceases to amaze me the ignorance some people can show . . .

Sounds like its just plain dumb to ever buy anything that ends up losing you money . Since you have the gift of hindsight the rest of us mortals will have to just live with our idiocy . . He who hath never done anything "dumb" cast the first insult . . :rolleyes:

Buying a 500k shoebox apartment in Dublin's docklands when it was still only a drawing on paper was only a smart move by people who knew what they were doing. Some people saw the bubble for what it was and were smart enough to sell up before the s**t hit the fan. Well done to them.

Now, the guy who knows nothing about finance and economics doing the same thing could only be a bad idea. It's not unlike what happened before the great depression, millions of people buying shares when they had no idea how the stock market worked. Same thing.

People who don't know what they are doing before they do it is like playing with fire in a petrol station. Is that smart?

This has been touched upon but the fairest way to sort this out would be for people to go and restructure the debt with their mortgage providers. We're talking smaller payments but over 50-70 years so that whoever inherits the property may sell it and pay the rest off or continue to pay off the mortgage themselves.

Johnboymac

No No No and No again!!!.
Investments can go up or down. ya have to take the good with the bad.
(excuse me mr.banker - my 2005 car has lost its value...can i have my money back pleeeazze).
Anyone who got a mortgage knew of the risks so tough s*!t..

Drumpot

Hold on ladies . . Were did I say people should get NAMA style bailouts ? . .

I am saying , calling people who bought at the peak of the bubble dumb is simply ignorant of the highest order.


I love the attitudes on boards.ie . . I assume that most of the people who had the foresight not to buy prob couldnt (and take the moral high-ground) or didnt have to (and take the moral high-ground). . Of course you all knew exactly when the bubble was going to burst . . Cough cough . . :rolleyes:

Drumpot

RichardAnd wrote: »

People who don't know what they are doing before they do it is like playing with fire in a petrol station. Is that smart?

There is only so much preparation you can do in making huge decisions in your life. . Getting married, having children and buying a house are all huge decisions and none are guaranteed to work out. . People should take responsibility for their own decisions, but if things go wrong for them , they shouldn't be called dumb!

Please enlighten me, when exactly should one buy a house ? Before you answer, remember we are talking about it in the context of house prices going up or down because you assume that people buying a house during the bubble didn't know what they were doing . What they got wrong was timing, but you seem to have the solution to that . . I'm all ears . .

ei.sdraob

Drumpot wrote: »

Hold on ladies . . Were did I say people should get NAMA style bailouts ? . .

There is a determined lobby group who want to saddle the taxpayer with more debt in order to bailout their group, bad enough we have the banks now they want to go of the cliff altogether

Drumpot wrote: »

I am saying , calling people who bought at the peak of the bubble dumb is simply ignorant of the highest order.


I love the attitudes on boards.ie . . I assume that most of the people who had the foresight not to buy prob couldnt (and take the moral highground) or didnt have to . . Of course you all knew exactly when the bubble was going to burst . . Cough cough . . :rolleyes:

I saved right thru the bubble, lived in Dublin city right thru the peak of the "rat race", yes people were making very dumb decisions out of fear and/or ignorance, i seen it every day in the office
right now i am building a home for half the cost it would have cost only 2-3 years ago, and dont have to go to bank for "credit"

no one knew when it was going to burst, but alot of people knew that it will burst

right now the same is being repeated on a larger scale in China, a huge property bubble repeating the same mistakes that where made here in Ireland, i don't know when it will burst, but when it does it will be spectacular, hence why its not a good idea to invest there now especially in property

ei.sdraob

Actually further thinking of China and their bubble

anyone else finds it amusing that David McWilliams was all praise for them in his last documentary/book

he claims to have spotted the bubble in Ireland, but is he ignoring the obvious property bubble in China?

Drumpot

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I saved right thru the bubble, lived in Dublin city right thru the peak of the "rat race", yes people were making very dumb decisions out of fear and/or ignorance, i seen it every day in the office
right now i am building a home for half the cost it would have cost only 2-3 years ago, and dont have to go to bank for "credit"

no one knew when it was going to burst, but alot of people knew that it will burst

So if you build your house and property prices completely collapse even further you will classify yourself as dumb?

Heres a simple example . .

Average person who Has a wife and child (or planning a family). Its mid 2007. For the first time ever, they actually have enough money to buy a modest family home. They worry if they dont, they may never be able to afford one (we arent all financial wizards). . So these people are dumb for not assuming the property prices would crash ?

Flamed Diving

ei.sdraob wrote: »

no one knew when it was going to burst, but alot of people knew that it will burst

right now the same is being repeated on a larger scale in China, a huge property bubble repeating the same mistakes that where made here in Ireland, i don't know when it will burst, but when it does it will be spectacular, hence why its not a good idea to invest there now especially in property

Exactly. It doesn't take a genius to work out that bubbles burst, simply by basing your assertion on past observation. I remember being presented with a simple graph of historical US asset prices around 2006/07 my lecturer asked us to look at it and make our own minds up, when I was a lowly undergrad. The line of the graph grew at a fairly steady and reasonable pace for around 95% of it's range, except for two points. One was a large spike in the late 1920's which went back down dramatically, and then continued on it's path eventually. The other spike was where the graph ended (2007), which began around the early 00's.

I remember looking at it and thinking: "well, if that 1920's spike collapsed, surely this one will too?"

A year later it collapsed. Of course, I didn't know when it would, but I did realise that it was very likely to.


Now, with a bit more knowledge under my belt, I can say this. When asset prices go through a sustained period of growing faster than productivity (by whatever measure), then that's a bubble, and it's gonna burst, honey.

Just don't ask me when.

ei.sdraob

Drumpot wrote: »

So if you build your house and property prices completely collapse even further you will classify yourself as dumb?

1. i have no debt, i dont need to worry about repayments + INTEREST, and the bank taking over the keys and evicting me

2. for me to feel "dumb" the cost of materials and labour (that's all i am paying) have to come down quite a bit, i don't see either falling much, unless there's a serious downward movement in the minimum wage, labour costs dont have much room to fall, many of the builders are happy to get any job to keep themselves occupied, cost of materials haven't fallen much

3. I would fell very "dumb" if the banks collapsed, good luck getting the savings back then

4. im not going anywhere any time soon no need to sell, I work from home

if there is another large collapse caused by something like Ireland defaulting/leaving euro, then that I would make the most of my land, in meantime im investing into insulation, solar heating and (planning permitting ) hopefully a windmill, also putting all my savings into expanding business outside of Ireland, if it gets really bad (like the SF commies getting in power :eek: or 90s Russia style crime controlled feudalism) then get out here, i only need electricity and internet to work

Drumpot

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Exactly. It doesn't take a genius to work out that bubbles burst, simply by basing your assertion on past observation.

Just don't ask me when.

As a genius, you can tell us all when we should or shouldn't buy then ? Oh wait, you told us you cant tell us when, but you knew it would happen . . Sort of like saying, I know you are going to die, just cant predict when . .

Hmm, so how does the average person know when to buy ? People in 2000 could of taken the same stance (that house prices had spiked to an unsustainable pace) or in 2001 (when dotcom bubble bursted), or when Iraq war started . . Ah so many instances where people could of had a decent reason to believe that he bubble might burst but no, people should of known it was gonna happen by 2000 - 2007 . . . Come on, surely the smugometer has already flown off the chart on this thread . . :cool:

RichardAnd

Drumpot wrote: »

There is only so much preparation you can do in making huge decisions in your life. . Getting married, having children and buying a house are all huge decisions and none are guaranteed to work out. . People should take responsibility for their own decisions, but if things go wrong for them , they shouldn't be called dumb!

Please enlighten me, when exactly should one buy a house ? Before you answer, remember we are talking about it in the context of house prices going up or down because you assume that people buying a house during the bubble didn't know what they were doing . What they got wrong was timing, but you seem to have the solution to that . . I'm all ears . .

Personally, I'm ambivalent about ever buying a house at all. Just because I have a job now doesn't mean I will in two years and that is why I rent. And for the record, I am not taking a moral high ground simply because I do not have the money for a house, I do have it but not having the money for a house was not a hindrance during the Celtic Tiger.

When I was a humble Clerical Officer right out of school (I don't work in the PS anymore) I could have taken out a 300k mortgage when I got pay about 20k a year. If I did buy the house, and I know people who did just that, then slice the cake any way you wish but such a decision is only a bad one.

I do honestly feel sorry for the hard working man with two kids who took out a modest mortgage but who now finds himself out of work. But I've no sympathy for people who got out of college with an honours degree in some superfluous load of Celtic Tiger rubbish, got a 50k a year job which they didn't deserve and who p!ssed their money away. Should these people get a bail out? Absolutely not.

Drumpot

ei.sdraob wrote: »

1. i have no debt, i dont need to worry about repayments + INTEREST, and the bank taking over the keys and evicting me

2. for me to feel "dumb" the cost of materials and labour (that's all i am paying) have to come down quite a bit, i don't see either falling much, unless there's a serious downward movement in the minimum wage, labour costs dont have much room to fall, many of the builders are happy to get any job to keep themselves occupied, cost of materials haven't fallen much

3. I would fell very "dumb" if the banks collapsed, good luck getting the savings back then

4. im not going anywhere any time soon no need to sell, I work from home

if there is another large collapse caused by something like Ireland defaulting/leaving euro, then that I would make the most of my land, in meantime im investing into insulation, solar heating and (planning permitting ) hopefully a windmill

I meant would you not feel dumb wasting years of assumed hard earned money, on something thats pretty much worthless after being built ? Surely somebody as clued in as you could see a potential property bubble and invest in something more assured ? You dont have to leave your money in Irish Banks (but Im sure you already know that!).

Whether you purchase a house with credit or with your own money, you are still ploughing money into it. . You are obviously in an enviable position to be able to save for 3 years (and be able to afford to build a house, wow!) and take a smug view that everybody should of done the same thing (as if everybody could afford to do it) . .

Drumpot

RichardAnd wrote: »

I do honestly feel sorry for the hard working man with two kids who took out a modest mortgage but who now finds himself out of work. But I've no sympathy for people who got out of college with an honours degree in some superfluous load of Celtic Tiger rubbish, got a 50k a year job which they didn't deserve and who p!ssed their money away. Should these people get a bail out? Absolutely not.

Again, Im not suggesting anybody should be bailed out . .

Im just shocked at the complete lack of empathy and pure anger some show to the average person stuck in negative equity (whose only sin was wanting a house for personal reasons) . . Its no wonder our country is in such a state and people accuse our government of being out of touch with reality , looks like its mirrored by many of its people . .

ei.sdraob

Drumpot wrote: »

I meant would you not feel dumb wasting years of assumed hard earned money, on something thats pretty much worthless after being built ? Surely somebody as clued in as you could see a potential property bubble and invest in something more assured ? You dont have to leave your money in Irish Banks (but Im sure you already know that!).

Whether you purchase a house with credit or with your own money, you are still ploughing money into it. . You are obviously in an enviable position to be able to save for 3 years (and be able to afford to build a house, wow!) and take a smug view that everybody should of done the same thing (as if everybody could afford to do it) . .

Im paying for labour and materials and cut out the middlemen who cream large profits, I view it as an investment for myself, family and business to bring some stability and reduce running costs such as fuels an electric and of course rent

I saved for alot longer than 3 years, as anyone who has any savings would tell you its nerve-wrecking knowing that all your life savings could be wiped out in a day, even "safe" banks like Rabo would tell you (if you ask) that in case of Ireland leaving euro they would have to convert your balance to punt or whatever

since early 00s there was something wrong with the system, seeing houses/land being 10x+ earnings, that's when i got really worried, if the bubble haven't popped in 2008 i would have most likely emigrated

Actually I am more worried about high inflation (yes i know were deflating now) in the medium to long term, seems like that's what all the governments will end up doing. US, UK & Japan already doing it with inflation getting out of control, there's only so long the Eurozone can hold out before they turn to the printing presses unfortunately, and of course more defaults

Caoimhín

Drumpot wrote: »

Never ceases to amaze me the ignorance some people can show . . .

Sounds like its just plain dumb to ever buy anything that ends up losing you money . Since you have the gift of hindsight the rest of us mortals will have to just live with our idiocy . . He who hath never done anything "dumb" cast the first insult . . :rolleyes:

Far from hindsight buddy. I called a bubble in 2002 and im on record doing so.

Just because you got sucked in by the propaganda and hubris shouldn't mean the prudent people should pay for your idiocy.

Flamed Diving

Drumpot wrote: »

As a genius, you can tell us all when we should or shouldn't buy then?

I never said I was one. You appear to be confused...

Drumpot wrote: »

Oh wait, you told us you cant tell us when, but you knew it would happen . . Sort of like saying, I know you are going to die, just cant predict when.

No, again, you appear to be confused. Let me help you understand.

It's like observing two people. One is a healthy eater, who exercises regularly and lives a balanced lifestyle.

The other is a drug addict and alcoholic. Shoots a dangerous amount of heroin, and huffs on aerosols when they can't get proper drugs. They also have a penchant for drinking full bottles of Aldi vodka.

Both are the same age. Now, I can't predict when either will die, because no one can tell the future. The healthy person could get it by a bus. But I can tell you which is more likely to die. Anyone can do that, right? You don't have to be a genius.

In fact, I can go further, thanks to my education, I can give you a probability and a likely age of termination. But again, these are just estimations, no one can tell the future. However, ei.stroioiirib, looked at the evidence around him, and saw Ireland for the smack addict that it was. All he had to do was wait for it to die. Fair play to him, I say.

RichardAnd

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I saved for alot longer than 3 years, as anyone who has any savings would tell you its nerve-wrecking knowing that all your life savings could be wiped out in a day, even "safe" banks like Rabo would tell you (if you ask) that in case of Ireland leaving euro they would have to convert your balance to punt or whatever

This is something I have experienced. I know it's off topic but ei.sdroad, you seem to be very well clued into these things and I'd like to ask you what you think of buying gold and other metals as a means of "securing" savings?

Drumpot

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Im paying for labour and materials and cut out the middlemen who cream large profits, I view it as an investment for myself, family and business to bring some stability and reduce running costs such as fuels an electric and of course rent

But thats what many people consider the purchase of a house (an investment for their family) . .

For some people, they were just unlucky. If you were in a position to buy a house on or before 2000, you were lucky, if you weren't in a position to buy a house from 2006 onwards, you were lucky.

Nobody can predict when prices will go up or down (just make assumptions based on available financial information).

General rule of thumb is buy when the crowds are panicking/selling and sell when everybody's buying (of course its more then just this, but you made a similar point), but for most, buying a family home is not that simple . . Its like saying you should only have children when you can afford them . . Its a practical sentence that ignores basic human nature . .

Drumpot

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I never said I was one. You appear to be confused...



No, again, you appear to be confused. Let me help you understand.

It's like observing two people. One is a healthy eater, who exercises regularly and lives a balanced lifestyle.

The other is a drug addict and alcoholic. Shoots a dangerous amount of heroin, and huffs on aerosols when they can't get proper drugs. They also have a penchant for drinking full bottles of Aldi vodka.

Both are the same age. Now, I can't predict when either will die, because no one can tell the future. The healthy person could get it by a bus. But I can tell you which is more likely to die. Anyone can do that, right? You don't have to be a genius.

In fact, I can go further, thanks to my education, I can give you a probability and a likely age of termination. But again, these are just estimations, no one can tell the future. However, ei.stroioiirib, looked at the evidence around him, and saw Ireland for the smack addict that it was. All he had to do was wait for it to die. Fair play to him, I say.

Are you for fk'ing real ? I have to assume you are only just out of college, surely anybody with experience in life couldn't be so ignorant to the ways of the world . . Your example is ridiculous . . Is it "being a junkey" when you still buy the goods just because they are cheaper ? By that reckoning EI is junkey!

In fact, you assume that everything EI says is true . .And if it is true (and he saw this coming), why did he leave his money in the banks . Surely it would of made more sense to bet against the Irish Banks (who were always going to be crippled with a property collapse) . .

Actually, I was going to write more, but I just realised . . Im being punked or something . . I will leave you guys to it . . Smug is in the air . .

P. Breathnach

Drumpot wrote: »

Again, Im not suggesting anybody should be bailed out . .

Im just shocked at the complete lack of empathy and pure anger some show to the average person stuck in negative equity (whose only sin was wanting a house for personal reasons) ...

The shortage of empathy is very disappointing. Like you, I am not in favour of giving money to those who are in negative equity. I would be sympathetic to any arrangement that might be made to help people ride things out.

Caoimhín wrote: »

Far from hindsight buddy. I called a bubble in 2002 and im on record doing so.

2002? Anybody who bailed out that far back would have missed a chance to make a fortune before the burst.

Just because you got sucked in by the propaganda and hubris shouldn't mean the prudent people should pay for your idiocy.

There is some hubris in judging that everybody who got trapped by the property market collapse is an idiot.

Flamed Diving

Drumpot wrote: »

Are you for fk'ing real ? I have to assume you are only just out of college, surely anybody with experience in life couldn't be so ignorant to the ways of the world . . Your example is ridiculous . . Is it "being a junkey" when you still buy the goods just because they are cheaper ? By that reckoning EI is junkey!

In fact, you assume that everything EI says is true . .And if it is true (and he saw this coming), why did he leave his money in the banks . Surely it would of made more sense to bet against the Irish Banks (who were always going to be crippled with a property collapse) . .

Actually, I was going to write more, but I just realised . . Im being punked or something . . I will leave you guys to it . . Smug is in the air . .

Does... does anyone know what he is talking about?

Drumpot

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Does... does anyone know what he is talking about?

Im glad to say , I think we just dont see things the same way . . Lets leave it at that . .

ei.sdraob

RichardAnd wrote: »

This is something I have experienced. I know it's off topic but ei.sdroad, you seem to be very well clued into these things and I'd like to ask you what you think of buying gold and other metals as a means of "securing" savings?

I just go by my gut and past travel experiences

I dont know anything about gold, you cant eat it, live in it, grow it, hard to sell
If anything i think its in a bubble now and the fact that this guy is pimping it sends alarm bells ringing

The best thing you can invest is your own health and education so if things get bad you can outdo the next guy and move about, and if things get really really bad then maybe land / energy are good bets, i seen people survive the Russian "troubles" on few acres being self-sufficient for most part and being far away from crime ridden cities, it wasn't a great life but at least they were healthy (i dont think HOPE it will get THAT bad)

ei.sdraob

Drumpot wrote: »

But thats what many people consider the purchase of a house (an investment for their family) . .

For some people, they were just unlucky. If you were in a position to buy a house on or before 2000, you were lucky, if you weren't in a position to buy a house from 2006 onwards, you were lucky.

I agree with you there, yes people do need places for their families to live, but remember alot of the madness during the bubble was from people buying second/investment homes in places like Bulgaria or investing in BTL even tho the yields were/are less than deposit account


there's a difference between using cash and having a 100% mortgage + INTEREST spread over many decades and hoping you don't loose your job or go into a neg equity trap in that time
i never took that plunge because i cant predict the future and the days of being employed for life are gone (Well unless your in PS)
going back to my earlier post it was my investment in education that paid of the most, not having to live/work in a city and pay the "location location" premium saves quite a bit

to get back to subject at hand, just because someone did take a risk and now find themselves in a bad position, that doesnt make it right that the rest of us have to bail them out
we already have a generous welfare system, people wont endup on streets (lets not forget the repossession ban), worst case scenario your rent is paid for

this "Nama for negative equiter's" is wrong on so many levels its not funny, there's the whole smell of "entitlement" about it, the banks are already doing everything they can to discuss terms, they don't want to see people walking away either...

Caoimhín

2002? Anybody who bailed out that far back would have missed a chance to make a fortune before the burst.

I came back from university in the UK in 2001, studied the market in a cold cynical manner and decided that it was a credit and property bubble due to low interest rates and a collective madness of crowds.

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence could have seen that, however people bought because they followed their heart rather than their mind.

I believe the notion of the "property ladder" and getting on to it soon or else you will never own a house was the greatest con ever pulled off. This was aided and abetted by our elective Representatives and media.

There is some hubris in judging that everybody who got trapped by the property market collapse is an idiot.

Fair point but i would suggest that someone who bought property without critically examining the economics and cold financial facts should not be bailed out through my and others hard earned money. I do however, have sympathy with people (friends included) who were taken in by the property pyramid con.

Flamed Diving

Drumpot wrote: »

Im glad to say , I think we just dont see things the same way . . Lets leave it at that . .

Ok, but let me close by saying that I am older than you think, and hence more experienced. People can begin 3rd level whenever they like, you know. Secondly, I don't agree with a lot of what ei says. Quite often, actually. Thirdly, based on what you wrote, you simply don't get the analogy I made, despite my best efforts to make it as simple as possible.

Perhaps that is my fault.

Anyway, you wish to drop it, so I will.