Why arent people angry with the banks ?

Drumpot

Just an observation . . .

FF rightly getting it both barrel's for the last 2 years but I find it shocking that people haven't gotten as angry (in general) about the banks.

Lets put FF's part in the crisis aside as its been beaten to death and everybody knows their faults. .

People should take another view on this . . Whatever we think of our current government, part of the reason the bailout was done the way it was , was because they have been lied to constantly by the banks of our country . .

Had our government the correct information at the time (wouldn't of mattered who was in charge,the same lies would of been spewed), other decisions may of been made to protect the taxpayers . .

Whatever about banks loaning each other money to massage the books (which is a criminal offence itself), what about criminal charges against the banks that lied when the countries government asked them how much trouble they were in ? . .

Retrospectively I would like the laws changed to arrest bank people for crimes against the economy . . Maybe Im asking alot, but a huge part of the problem in this country is that there are no criminal ramifications for people playing the system (politicians, public service, banks etc). .

RichardAnd

People are angry with banks. In fact, I have heard the phrase "the bankers" being touted in anger almost as much as FF.

However, FF seem to be getting the lions share of the blame because to most people, NAMA seems to be just FF looking after their mates. Thus, when the local school is being shut or the regional hospital has less beds, people will see the banks getting billions and will look to the ones who are giving them that money; FF.

Of course, it's not as simple as that but you must understand, most people don't even know what NAMA is. This is attested to by the "NAMA for the little guy" phrase which shows ignorance of what NAMA does.

To sum it up. The irish people are a fat, spoilt child in a cresh. The cresh owners are the bankers and FF are the matrons. The matrons take the child's ice-cream away, the child sees the matron as their enemy.

Liam Byrne

It's a valid question.

However the biggest issue at the moment is that FF panicked and unconditionally guaranteed the banks.

There was absolutely no caveat or safeguard that said "if you've been behaving, and aren't lying to us".....

As I've posted in every thread, this is the astonishing part.

If you claim social welfare or lone parent allowance, and are found to have lied, you're automatically denied access to your "dig out".

How the same doesn't apply (or, more specifically, how the government refuse to apply the same principle) is completely and utterly beyond me.

The banks can do whatever they damn-well like......they're private businesses. If they want to run themselves into the ground, then fine by me.

So the problem is that the government has no interest in serving the interests of the people.

who what when

I reckon people are every bit as angry with the banks as the government but the problem is that banks are pretty much faceless organisations.

The government and Taoiseach in particular get all the flack because its part of their job to be in the media constantly. And people are able to vent their anger through the media.

When it comes to the head people in the banks, firstly people dont know who they are and secondly ordinary people dont have access to them!

20goto10

I'm not mad at the banks. They did what they are supposed to do - make money. Yes it went horribly wrong, but as long as people were borrowing and investing in property then who can blame them? They were giving people what they wanted, it wasn't up to them to say if it was right or wrong. All they cared about was the bottom line.

What makes me mad is the sheep mentality of Irish society. There's always some sort of band wagon with idiots swinging out of it. Even now in the recession, instead of getting on with earning a living and building some sort of stable economy, people are just sitting around waiting for the next band wagon to come along. ALL ABOARD!

As for the government, well its their job to govern and they failed on a catastrophic scale. They were the bellows for the bubble and its simply unforgiveable that our elected politicians could do that to this country and still stay in government.

Drumpot

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's a valid question.

However the biggest issue at the moment is that FF panicked and unconditionally guaranteed the banks.

There was absolutely no caveat or safeguard that said "if you've been behaving, and aren't lying to us".....

As I've posted in every thread, this is the astonishing part.

If you claim social welfare or lone parent allowance, and are found to have lied, you're automatically denied access to your "dig out".

How the same doesn't apply (or, more specifically, how the government refuse to apply the same principle) is completely and utterly beyond me.

The banks can do whatever they damn-well like......they're private businesses. If they want to run themselves into the ground, then fine by me.

So the problem is that the government has no interest in serving the interests of the people.

I always found it remarkable that there were no "safety devices" installed in the bank guarantees . .

I am a cynic at the best of times but would presume that it was more negligence then government actually wanting to look after the banks (but will stand corrected on that) . .

I am physically sick at the thought of banks lieing to our elected officials, getting away with it and us having to foot the bill . . This in no way deflects attention away from FF, but electing in a TD who makes mistakes is as much our fault, but at least we gave them the power to make incorrect decisions. Banks actually lied and its costs us billions . . Nobody elected them to screw our country . .

I still think we can bring out retrospective laws to chase these criminals but the political/public will is just not there . .

Drumpot

20goto10 wrote: »

I'm not mad at the banks. They did what they are supposed to do - make money. Yes it went horribly wrong, but as long as people were borrowing and investing in property then who can blame them? They were giving people what they wanted, it wasn't up to them to say if it was right or wrong. All they cared about was the bottom line.

What makes me mad is the sheep mentality of Irish society. There's always some sort of band wagon with idiots swinging out of it. Even now in the recession, instead of getting on with earning a living and building some sort of stable economy, people are just sitting around waiting for the next band wagon to come along. ALL ABOARD!

As for the government, well its their job to govern and they failed on a catastrophic scale. They were the bellows for the bubble and its simply unforgiveable that our elected politicians could do that to this country and still stay in government.

I have no problem with banks earning money, investing, mortgages , loans etc . .

But they didnt just do what they were supposed to do . .

They took advantage (not only that lobbied for it) of weak legislation . . As a professional outfit they over extended their books and the reason they bailout happened was because of negligence on their part . .

Not only that they lied about the state of their finances during national crisis discussions with our government. .

Is that really what banks just doing what they are supposed to do ?

As stated, if the average Joe lie's to revenue or the state about certain things we will be penalised . . Hanging the CEO of a bank will not make the bank collapse and will not make the banking sector collapse . . Afterall, why shouldnt the next CEO lie when it suits if there will be no repercussions for his actions ?

20goto10

Drumpot wrote: »

I have no problem with banks earning money, investing, mortgages , loans etc . .

But they didnt just do what they were supposed to do . .

They took advantage (not only that lobbied for it) of weak legislation . . As a professional outfit they over extended their books and the reason they bailout happened was because of negligence on their part . .

Not only that they lied about the state of their finances during national crisis discussions with our government. .

Is that really what banks just doing what they are supposed to do ?

As stated, if the average Joe lie's to revenue or the state about certain things we will be penalised . . Hanging the CEO of a bank will not make the bank collapse and will not make the banking sector collapse . .

Yes and they did it all to make money. They did nothing illegal and it was born out of demand from the sheep herd property investors. The cover up afterwords was a collusion with the government to avoid a run on the banks and the collapse of the country.

Drumpot

20goto10 wrote: »

The cover up afterwords was a collusion with the government to avoid a run on the banks and the collapse of the country.

You think the government were part of the bank cover up in Sep 08? I am not saying this is impossible, I feel it is certainly improbable . .

It reminds me of Sep 11 and many people thought that Bush may of orchestrated the attack so he could invade Iraq.

People were angry and afraid and to many it made perfect sense. . The thought that the government may of just simply been incompetent never really surfaced until the hysteria died down .

But, I dont see how it was in the governments interest to protect the banks in the "cover up" manner you suggest once the banks required the guarantee. . The whole point of the guarantee was to prevent the run on them . .

20goto10

Drumpot wrote: »

You think the government were part of the bank cover up in Sep 08? I am not saying this is impossible, I feel it is certainly improbable . .

It reminds me of Sep 11 and many people thought that Bush may of orchestrated the attack so he could invade Iraq.

People were angry and afraid and to many it made perfect sense. . The thought that the government may of just simply been incompetent never really surfaced until the hysteria died down .

But, I dont see how it was in the governments interest to protect the banks in the "cover up" manner you suggest once the banks required the guarantee. . The whole point of the guarantee was to prevent the run on them . .

Well the only fact I'm aware of is that they knew about the IL&P loan to Anglo. My opinion is they were involved in a cover up to detract negativity on the markets and from the ratings agencies. But I suppose that belongs in the conspiracy forum :-)

Drumpot

20goto10 wrote: »

Well the only fact I'm aware of is that they knew about the IL&P loan to Anglo. My opinion is they were involved in a cover up to detract negativity on the markets and from the ratings agencies. But I suppose that belongs in the conspiracy forum :-)

Ok, that wasnt meant to be a slag (using 9-11 example), but admittedly I do tend to annoy people (unintentionally) with the examples I use . .

If you are aware of them being involved in the IL loan to Anglo, I would love to hear your evidence, you can pm me . . Im not being sarcastic, its a common assumption made by many and I wouldnt say its impossible, but its a strong statement to make without evidence. .

Even if that is true about the loans between banks , that was at the start of the year that the whole bank loan to each other happened ?! I am saying when the government finally realised they couldnt actually paste over this crack, they had to make big decisions based on purposefully misleading information provided to them by the banks in Sep 2008 . .

I am talking about decisions made in Sep 2008 . .

20goto10

Well they're politicians. It's a simple case of tell us what we want to hear and we won't ask any questions.

Banned Account

Drumpot wrote: »

Ok, that wasnt meant to be a slag (using 9-11 example), but admittedly I do tend to annoy people (unintentionally) with the examples I use . .

Secondly, if you are aware of them being involved in the IL loan to Anglo, I would love to hear your evidence, you can pm me . . Im not being sarcastic, its a common assumption made by many and I wouldnt say its impossible, but its a strong statement to make without evidence. .

Even if that is true about the loans between banks , that was at the start of the year that the whole bank loan to each other happened ?! I am saying when the government finally realised they couldnt actually paste over this crack, they had to make big decisions based on information provided to them by the banks in Sep 2008 . .

I am talking about decisions made in Sep 2008 . .

Drumpot, I see where you're coming from and whilst I think that the conduct of the country's senior bankers has been nothing short of apalling, I believe that the real problem is a systematic one.

We have a situation where the heads of the banks have a duty to their shareholders - up until very recently, it was accepted by practically all and sundry that this duty began and ended with making money. It is only since the volcanoe erupted that pepole have realised there is also a duty to safeguard the sharholders from loss.

The structural model we have encourages banks to act in the pursuit of short term profits - they onle ever thought ahead to the next set of quarterly results - if they were higher than the last ones, they were alright.

Analysts and institutional investors looked at these figures and those who invested in the banks on behalf of pension funds were not the ones who felt the actual pain when the share price dropped, so there was no direct accountability.

This is where the regulatory system should have stepped in. The regulators job was to ensure that this constant desire for short term profits was kerbed before the whole thing imploded and it was on this front that the most spectacular failure occurred. So whilst I get the fact that people are annoyed with the banking system, I also realsie that the banks were only guilty of that which the system encouraged them to do.

My anger is more directed at the regulatory system (or lack thereof) and those who failed to ensure that it did the job for which it was created.

Liam Byrne

Drumpot wrote: »

If you are aware of them being involved in the IL loan to Anglo....

That's not what he said.

He said they were aware of it (public knowledge since last week), and subsequently acted to "cover this up".

dan_d

Drumpot you've taken the words out of my mouth.

Dress it up any way you will, the banks bear MASSIVE responsibility in all this.

Banks are operated by people who are trained in the handling and understanding of money and markets. There are certain tried and tested rules out there, that if they are broken or bent, the inevitable conclusion is financial consequences that ripple out and affect everybody. There are risk factors, there are regulatory laws and there are ways of doing things to safeguard the money of the people who have trusted the bank.

Our banks abandoned those rules. They ignored regulations and in turn, were ignored by the regulator. They carried out risky practices, lent to each other, financed people who had no backing and guarantees. They broke some of the most fundamental rules of economy and finance, stuff you learn in junior cert business. Anglo's percentage as a player in the market went from something crazy like 8% to 32% over the space of about a year (won't be able to find the link to that). They all know each other, they ALL knew what each other was at. They shared board directors and members - conflicts of interest everywhere.They loaned money to buy land that cost more than the businesses that were built and operated on the land (Sean Doyle, Jury's in Ballsbridge). They didn't cover anything up intentionally or illegally, but they sure as hell didn't operate in a transparent manner where every party knew what was going on, and where everything complied with regulations.

I'm an engineer...there are built in rules in engineering. What our banks did is akin to me designing a bridge, and saying "well I want to save money, and the best way to do that is to use the least amount of material possible. So I won't use safety factors when I'm calculating loads, which will make the size of my beams and trusses smaller (less material) and I'll leave out the smaller pieces of structure. Sure it'll be fine...it might fall down but it'll probably never happen. These things never do.". We wouldn't do it when we're building a bridge, yet it's okay to do it with the numbers on a computer screen that indicate money?? Crazy.

At the end of the day politicians are just puppets for the Depts they are elected to. Do you honestly think in the couple of years that Brian Cowen was Minister for Finance that he gained an in-depth understanding of the intricacies of finance? No. He acted on the advise and information supplied to him by the accountants/economists etc in the Dept of Finance. But he had a responsibility to ensure that the Financial regulator and central bank were doing their jobs. And they weren't. Equally they had a responsibility to ensure the country's banks were doing their jobs. And they weren't. Any regulator worth his salt would have shot down 100% mortgages and 40 year terms the minute they reared their heads (just as an example). It's not in the interest of the consumers. But no, ours sat back and said "ah sure it's grand".

Bottom line? Every single one is equally to blame - banks, politicians, regulators etc. The frequent argument out there is "nobody held a gun to people's head". No they didn't. But banks have a responsibility to their customers and they completely and totally ignored this and acted in their own interests only. My own experience of getting a mortgage was ME telling the broker that I didn't want a 40 year term, that I didn't want a 100% mortgage and that anything more than half my salary a month or half my salary a month itself was too much in a mortgage payment, and didn't she know that my job in construction was not exactly the safest job, things could go at some stage in the future? She would have given me anything I wanted as a sum to buy a home - even though I went to her and said "I don't know the first thing about mortgages, explain them to me". I had good advice from my parents, but not everybody has that.

Anyway, yes I am angry at the banks. Very angry.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dogbert27

Adding to that the government plan to put a levy on the banks to make them "feel the pain" is another slap in the face to the taxpayer as the banks will just cover this levy by raising their interest rates. :mad:

George Orwell 1982

I'm more angry with the govt. for not regulating the banks. The banks will always behave in their own self-interest and underestimate risk. Its the governments job to keep them under control. The lesson is we need better regulation.

Anger is not a policy. We can't go around angry forever.

Drumpot

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Drumpot, I see where you're coming from and whilst I think that the conduct of the country's senior bankers has been nothing short of apalling, I believe that the real problem is a systematic one.

We have a situation where the heads of the banks have a duty to their shareholders - up until very recently, it was accepted by practically all and sundry that this duty began and ended with making money. It is only since the volcanoe erupted that pepole have realised there is also a duty to safeguard the sharholders from loss.

The structural model we have encourages banks to act in the pursuit of short term profits - they onle ever thought ahead to the next set of quarterly results - if they were higher than the last ones, they were alright.

Analysts and institutional investors looked at these figures and those who invested in the banks on behalf of pension funds were not the ones who felt the actual pain when the share price dropped, so there was no direct accountability.

This is where the regulatory system should have stepped in. The regulators job was to ensure that this constant desire for short term profits was kerbed before the whole thing imploded and it was on this front that the most spectacular failure occurred. So whilst I get the fact that people are annoyed with the banking system, I also realsie that the banks were only guilty of that which the system encouraged them to do.

My anger is more directed at the regulatory system (or lack thereof) and those who failed to ensure that it did the job for which it was created.

I understand what you are saying but I see things differently -

Regulation is a completely different ballgame. . I agree wholeheartedly that prevention is better then cure and this is where it started, however its one thing having lax legislation, its another taking advantage of it .

We are not simply talking about a simple overcharging of customers accounts, we are talking about recklessly lending money in a manner that has cost the state billions and then lie-ing about it when the government has to publicly intervene in the interests of the state . .

If I leave my door unlocked and get robbed, people will say the criminal took advantage of my own stupidity. . This does not mean that the criminal should be let off the hook. . Its a similar concept . . The whole point of regulation is to make sure that things are done professionaly and in the interest of the greater good.

This isnt even an if, buts or maybe situation, the banks publically lied to us all and it could be proven that this had a major role in the decision made by our government on what course of action to take . . The regulator had nothing to do with the banks lieing to the government in Sep 08'. .

Liam Byrne

Drumpot wrote: »

If I leave my door unlocked and get robbed, people will say the criminal took advantage of my own stupidity. . This does not mean that the criminal should be let off the hook. .

I agree. And yes, the banks deserve a lot of anger. But the fact remains that - contrary to what those who want us to lie down and take the crap suggest - many, many people borrowed within their means, and so weren't affected until the Government stepped in.

What has happened is that the above door unlocked scenario happened next door to you, and then the local FF TD arrived and made you open your doors and took all of your cash too, to give to the criminal.

NOGMaxpower

Simple answer really:

However i think the question should be "Why aren't more peopel...."

The country is split down the middle as there are those who made massive profits off the property boom. We're talking about overnight millionaires, who bought house for 20k and sold it for a 1m. If you look at it at a 10 year cycle of property purchases, there are 10's of 1000's of people who made truck loads of profit. It was vicious cycle those who sold for profit were able to reinvest their money into even more property (overnight developers).

As a knock on jobs were created and our economy bolstered by the boom.. In short the reason why the streets aren't packed with people protesting on a daily basis over the likes of Anglo as an example is becauses "THEY" were part of the problem. Only those who came in on the back of the boom are those who are left reeling. And everyone else is now saying "oh you should've seen it coming". Yeh right...

So in part the main reason is the mass majority of Irish citizens are guilty of profiteering, which is why we dont see a big uproar for society. The latter are the devious banks/developers/government/voters who let it all happen.

ei.sdraob

@OP

people are not angry because most are to stupid (or busy while being deep in own ****) too realize that them and their children will be paying for them directly AND indirectly
even if you are outside the taxnet you and your children will pay for this (taxes and reduced services and reduced opportunities due to "Malinvestment")

take the 22billion lost to Anglo already (parallel thread)

how would the people of this country feel if every man,woman and child received a bill for €4,888

thats about 20K for average sized family FFS!

and thats only Anglo :mad:


people blank out when you say "billion" alot dont even know that a billion is 1000 million they think on different scale

danbohan

NOGMaxpower wrote: »

Simple answer really:

However i think the question should be "Why aren't more peopel...."

The country is split down the middle as there are those who made massive profits off the property boom. We're talking about overnight millionaires, who bought house for 20k and sold it for a 1m. If you look at it at a 10 year cycle of property purchases, there are 10's of 1000's of people who made truck loads of profit. It was vicious cycle those who sold for profit were able to reinvest their money into even more property (overnight developers).

As a knock on jobs were created and our economy bolstered by the boom.. In short the reason why the streets aren't packed with people protesting on a daily basis over the likes of Anglo as an example is becauses "THEY" were part of the problem. Only those who came in on the back of the boom are those who are left reeling. And everyone else is now saying "oh you should've seen it coming". Yeh right...

So in part the main reason is the mass majority of Irish citizens are guilty of profiteering, which is why we dont see a big uproar for society. The latter are the devious banks/developers/government/voters who let it all happen.

so to make money is a nasty dirty old thing is it ?

ardmacha

The banks, the cause of the present economic predicament, get off light because people prefer to rant about the public sector which has had a marginal impact on the situation. As noted on another forum, this is a process akin to witch burning.

ei.sdraob

ardmacha wrote: »

The banks, the cause of the present economic predicament, get off light because people prefer to rant about the public sector which has had a marginal impact on the situation. As noted on another forum, this is a process akin to witch burning.

now now

Anglo costs 22 billion in last 2 years

our deficit due to PS and Welfare is 20billion this year and 25 billion last year, and will be quite sizeable for many many years to come

last I checked 45 is a larger number than 22

ardmacha

last I checked 45 is a larger number than 22

This is a simple accounting identity, it says nothing about causation.
The deficit is caused because people are paying less taxes, this is mainly because they are unemployed or are working, this is directly or indirectly because of the end of the building and property bubble (the fault of banks of developers) or because businesses in Ireland or elsewhere have problems getting credit (the fault of the banks).

Liam Byrne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

now now

Anglo costs 22 billion in last 2 years

our deficit due to PS and Welfare is 20billion this year and 25 billion last year, and will be quite sizeable for many many years to come

last I checked 45 is a larger number than 22

OK - let's look at this logically.

Which would you object more to :

a) spending €200 too much
b) someone robbing €100 from you

The first needs to be dealt with, no argument there, but the second is even more sickening and unfair. And they're not mutually exclusive, so there's no point in raising them as if they are.

We can object to Anglo and still acknowledge that the spending needs to be brought under control.

But let's stick with your accounting for a second.

We might need more efficiency, but at least we get something for that €45 billion.

Anglo - straight from the horse's mouth - is money down the drain. 100% wasted; pointless; sickening

Even in terms of accounting identity, Anglo is the bigger liability.

ei.sdraob

ardmacha wrote: »

This is a simple accounting identity, it says nothing about causation.
The deficit is caused because people are paying less taxes, this is mainly because they are unemployed or are working, this is directly or indirectly because of the end of the building and property bubble (the fault of banks of developers) or because businesses in Ireland or elsewhere have problems getting credit (the fault of the banks).

Has it occurred to you that without us entering another asset bubble the income will not reach the same levels

the unsustainable growth in PS and welfare was based on once off property receipts

its not like that the private sector suddenly stopped contributing 20 billion a year, more like the construction sector hit a wall and everyone woke up to an asset bubble

im sorry but the happy days for your PS gravy train are over

ei.sdraob

@Liam
you know well i don't agree with the banking ****e

but its obvious were being raped in every hole here

one does not excuse the other, but one stick is twice the size of other and will continue to grow

Liam Byrne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@Liam
you know well i don't agree with the banking ****e

but its obvious were being raped in every hole here

one does not excuse the other, but one stick is twice the size of other and will continue to grow

That's not a fair comparision because - as I said - we're getting something in return for one of them.

Not enough, admittedly, but at least something.

ardmacha

its not like that the private sector suddenly stopped contributing 20 billion a year, more like the construction sector hit a wall and everyone woke up to an asset bubble

I think you mean that construction sector hit a wall and everyone woke up to an asset bubble and the private sector suddenly stopped contributing 20 billion a year. As I said the banks and developers caused this.

windsurfer99ie

Drumpot wrote: »

You think the government were part of the bank cover up in Sep 08? I am not saying this is impossible, I feel it is certainly improbable . .

It reminds me of Sep 11 and many people thought that Bush may of orchestrated the attack so he could invade Iraq.

People were angry and afraid and to many it made perfect sense. . The thought that the government may of just simply been incompetent never really surfaced until the hysteria died down .

But, I dont see how it was in the governments interest to protect the banks in the "cover up" manner you suggest once the banks required the guarantee. . The whole point of the guarantee was to prevent the run on them . .

In percentage or proportional terms, very few people believe that George Bush planned and executed the September 11th attack. It is quite wrong to use the words "many people" in this context.

ei.sdraob

ardmacha wrote: »

I think you mean that construction sector hit a wall and everyone woke up to an asset bubble and the private sector suddenly stopped contributing 20 billion a year. As I said the banks and developers caused this.

your not seriously telling us that the income we got in 2006-2007 was in any way sustainable and not based on an asset bubble and misallocation of capital

CamperMan

why blame the banks, the people of Ireland went mental buying overpriced property, then the 2 new cars to go with it, the biggest TV's, the fancy holidays... you could have said no, the banks didn't force people to take on debts!!!

Liam Byrne

CamperMan wrote: »

why blame the banks, the people of Ireland went mental buying overpriced property, then the 2 new cars to go with it, the biggest TV's, the fancy holidays... you could have said no, the banks didn't force people to take on debts!!!

Not everyone.

I told a bank my limits and refused a loan (readily available on-the-spot) that they offered.

So why should I be punished ?

ardmacha

your not seriously telling us that the income we got in 2006-2007 was in any way sustainable and not based on an asset bubble and misallocation of capital

Correct. I am not. I am not a banker or FF miniister.

CamperMan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Not everyone.

I told a bank my limits and refused a loan (readily available on-the-spot) that they offered.

So why should I be punished ?

same here, I took no loans or mortgages, but the vast majority did and that was the problem

kuntboy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

We might need more efficiency, but at least we get something for that €45 billion.

When you say "we" do you mean the recipients as individuals or "the country" as an entity? Because unless that 45 billion is invested in industries creating exports, "we" (the country) aren't really getting much.

SkepticOne

CamperMan wrote: »

why blame the banks, the people of Ireland went mental buying overpriced property, then the 2 new cars to go with it, the biggest TV's, the fancy holidays... you could have said no, the banks didn't force people to take on debts!!!

There is a misconception out there that those who are angry at the banks are those who took out loans to invest in property when they shouldn't have and now realise it was a mistake but instead of blaming themselves blame the banks.

The reason people blame the banks is not because some people are in debt over their heads but because the banks failed to run their businesses properly to the extent that the country's finances and economy are ****ed.

No matter how much an individual borrows, it is not their responsibility to check the bank's balances sheets and the quality of the bank's assets to make sure the bank will be in a healthy position after lending. That is the job of extremely well paid senior executives; the same ones that came running to the government looking for help because they screwed up.

If it were simply a case that those who over-borrowed now have to live with paying back debt possibly for the rest of their lives then, while some might blame the banks, there would certainly be a case to be made that those people brought it on themselves. However, we've gone way beyond that in Ireland. How is it the fault of someone who borrowed that, for example, a bank lent to some developer for some dodgy scheme of shoebox apartments that nobody ended up buying?

This is why there is anger at the banks. Sure, if you unwisely borrowed to invest in rubbish properties you are now screwed (and deservedly so) but in the normal course of events that would be your problem and it would end there. When it becomes someone else's problem then that is the fault of the banks, their regulator and the government.

Liam Byrne

kuntboy wrote: »

When you say "we" do you mean the recipients as individuals or "the country" as an entity? Because unless that 45 billion is invested in industries creating exports, "we" (the country) aren't really getting much.

Regardless of how you view the public service, the fact is that services are required, and the public service provides that.

Does it do so efficiently, or do we get the full value ? No.

But we do get SOMETHING for the money.

We get NOTHING from Anglo.

That was my point.

And unless you're claiming that absolutely none of the public service is of any benefit whatsoever to the country (Gardai, nurses, ambulances, schools, teachers, roads, etc) the your post is completely facetious.

We don't get €45 billion worth; I accept that.

But I didn't claim that. I said we get something for it. Maybe it's 75% of what we pay for it, I don't know. Maybe if it was efficient we could cut 25% off the cost. But we certainly couldn't possibly cut that cost to zero and maintain services.....we do get SOMETHING back.

We get nothing for the €22 billion flushed down the Anglo toilet. Nada. It's gone. And that is direct quote from their CEO.

If I pay someone €200 for something that's worth €150, then it's a poor call.
If I pay someone €200 knowing that they'll just walk off into the sunset with it, then it's a worse call.

And if it's not my money and I don't give a damn, and don't give the owner of the money a say in the matter (as is the case with FF wasting our cash) it's a sickening call.