FF Myths Lies and Spin

Laminations

After catching the end of a heated discussion on this thread where a poster was being accused of regular and unsubstantiated outrage, bouts of which are apparently turning other posters off, I thought I'd post a list of points which can be debated. Many of the points include NAMA and the financial crisis as that is what I was talking about on the other thread.

Posted originally by Bostonorberlin source, this list is as old as I am lazy (i.e. slightly) so some points may need updating. Apologies for so many talking points in the one thread but there is just so much misinformation out there.

We are all to blame, we are all to responsible, we all had our heads in the trough
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
2,000 individual loans make up the 77billion in toxic bad loans the tax payer is taking on.
150 individuals are responsible for 50 billion of the toxic bad loans the tax payer is taking on.
32 Billion of the bank bailout is belonging to just two banks , chaired by two individuals who have since retired Michael Fingleton and Sean Fitzpatrick
There are just over 160 Members of Dail Eireann
There are 84 TDs in Government FF,Green,Independents
There are 81 TDs in Opposition

We have reached the Bottom (I) - Brian Lenihan
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
He provides no report, countrywide analysis or figures to prove this, it is simply a soundbyte.
If we have hit the bottom then where are the buyers flooding the market.
Just as you cant call the top until after the fact, one cant call the bottom either
He is basing this on the rental yields on commercial property in Dublin, which is a small part, of one market in one city in Ireland, Theres no evidence we have reached bottom in Waterford, Cork, Limerick, Nenagh, Thurles, Cahir Borrisonossory, Clifden, etc.
Theres no evidence we have reached bottom in residential property, no evidence we have reached bottom in development land.
Some estate agent commentators still feel we have another 20% to fall.
And by all international standard house prices in Ireland are still over priced.

We have reached the bottom. (II)
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
The governments own adviser contradicts this
ALAN AHEARNE (Economist )Tuesday, September 16, 2008 Irish Times
Two conditions are necessary for a revival in exports: a rebound in economic activity abroad and a substantial improvement in cost competitiveness at home AA Income tax rates will need to rise.
This projected path for economic activity looks implausible. Weak incoming data, a deteriorating outlook for growth abroad and the scale of adjustment in the housing market that has still to take place point to significant contractions in GDP both this year and next. The economy may stabilise in 2010 as the drag from new homebuilding fades, but we will probably have to wait until 2011 for a rebound to strong growth

House Prices have reached Bottom (III)
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Again the governments own adviser contradicts this and says we wont hit bottom until 2011
ALAN AHEARNE (Economist )
The international experience of housing booms and busts shows that real (that is, inflation-adjusted) house prices typically decline for nearly five years following the peak. Real house prices peaked in Ireland in the fourth quarter of 2006. Typically, house prices give up almost all of the gains recorded in the five years before the peak. That translates into a drop in real house prices here of about one third by 2011.


4-5 Years for Recessions and property crashes to run their course.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
The government is spinning that the property crash and recession has bottomed out as they only run 4-5 years.
The average length of recent recessions has been 6 years as per a recent Goldman Sachs report.
As this is an average who is to say the length of the recession in Ireland will not be at the extreme of this range.
If peak of the boom was late 2006. we have until late 2011 minimum, best case , late 2012 according to Goldman Sachs and sometime past late 2013 if we are on the wrong side of the average. Again BL still claims we have hit bottom.
If the recession has not run its course and could have legs fro a few more years how can the property market have already bottomed out.


If NAMA hasn’t turned a profit or broke even in 10 years, it means the country/economy hasn’t recovered and so NAMA is the least of our worries.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
If the country hasn’t recoverd NAMA and the bonds issued will still be an issue and have to be paid off.
And most likely NAMA, and the massive debt it has put on the country will be part of the reason why the country hasn’t recovered.


No cost to the tax payer
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
All government bonds are paid for by the Tax payer.
The tax payer is already hit with levies and increased taxes to fund current borrowing which is set to increase.
The tax payer is already hit with levies and increased taxes to fund the extra borrowing required to pay for the 7 billion already given to the banks.
The tax payer is already hit with levies and increased taxes to fund the extra interest rate on our current borrowing we are being charged on the international markets because the country is in such turmoil.
Outside of NAMA our borrowing is still increasing, all of which will cost the taxpayer.
Bank of Ireland has already received 3Billion Anglo 4 Billion.


Interest on bonds issued is only 1.5%.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
This is a variable Interest rate. The interest rate will be reset every 6 months and is based on ECB rates. So if ECB rates rise so too will the NAMA bond rates.
If ECB interest rates were to hit 4%, that would mean an extra 2 Billion in interest payments we would have to make to the BANKS who we gave the bonds to for their bad loans .
Experts have said long term ECB interest rates are forecast to increase and could be 3% in the medium to long term


We already own Anglo so the purchase of its loans can be ignored as its one hand of the Govt. paying another hand of the Govt.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
We have nationalized Anglo but we also pumped 4 Billion euro into it. 4 Billion Euro diverted from other parts of the state, 4 billion we ultimately had to borrow, 4 Billion we still have to pay back, 4 Billion we are paying interest on.


The 7 Billion Premium paid on the current market value was required to get the banks on board.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
There is no evidence to suggest the banks would not have taken a smaller premium or even none at all.
The market has responded, 30% jump in bank shares , it was the steal of the century and the banks and the markets know that.


All we need is a 10% jump in property prices for NAMA to work.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Its more like a 15% jump that would be required for NAMA to break even.
We are still in a falling market, if we fall for another year or two, then we may require a 18,20,25+% jump from that point to get us back to breaking even.
Plus its all pre-supposses we are at the bottom, but what if we are not and lots of international experts say we are not.


House Prices will increase and bring NAMA with it.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
The ESRI and IMF have already forecast negative growth for next year. How are we going to get rising house prices in a falling contracting economy.

The NAMA model will recapitalize the bank
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Because the government have not released figures its not apparent this will in fact work.
This will not solve all banks issues they still hav to raise funding on the international markets. ‘The Economist’
In fact AIB have already said they will need to go to International markets for further funding of 2 Billion.

We have reached bottom, the economy will turn around and grow, house prices will increase (10%) all to the benefit of NAMA
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
To improve our competitiveness in a tougher global market we need prices in Ireland to fall more.
To improve Irelands competitiveness we needs costs, salarys, Govt spending , all to go down.
To keep the jobs we have we needs costs, salarys, Govt spending , all to go down.
All this will produce the opposite of rising house prices, it produces falling house prices, people have less money for a house.
Irelands economic recovery and NAMA breaking even are diametrically opposed.

The Long Term Economic Value of the bad loans NAMA is taking represents a good investment
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
The govt seems to have based this statement on the rental yields in Dublin which is a just one commercial segment of the market, worth approx €8bn.
NAMA’s entire estimation of long-term value hinges on rents holding constant in this subset (Dublin) of a subset (commercial projects) of a subset (projects underway) of a subset (Ireland) of the total loan book.


The ECB is backing this plan and giving the Government or banks this money to buy the NAMA bonds
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
The ECB does not buy Government bonds. The banks are using the bonds as collateral to go to the ECB and say we have Govt bonds therefore the ECB will lend to them.
The extent of the ECB guarantee only goes so far as it sets interest rates but the ECB has given no indication it will not raise ECB rates in he medium term, thereby making NAMA a much more expensive solution.
But at no time does the ECB take the bonds, the banks are left with the and could in fact sell them on the open market therby competing with our own NTMA bonds.

Government NAMA 54Billion versus Regular NTMA Govt Bonds
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
The government has given no analysis of what the impact the NAMA bonds will have on the regular NTMA bonds that the government will also be issuing in the coming years to fund our day to day expenses.
There is nothing in NAMA legislation to say what the banks have todo with the NAMA bonds.
There is nothing in the NAMA legislation to stop the banks from selling NAMA bonds on the open market and therefore competing with NTMA bonds .

Fianna Fail will take the hard decisions.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
FF has a proven track record of letting the bankers and civil servants get off very lightly, golden parachutes etc…
FF has a track record during the boom of not taking the hard decisions.
FF has a proven record of giving every tax break possible to developers, stock market speculators, and builders
FF has a proven record of making very very bad regulatory decisions which got us into this mess.


Dublin Yields at an all time high and this suggests property values are bottoming out Brian Lenihan
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
There is a law in this country that says commercial rents cannot be marked down. Many rents/yields are high only because the current tenant is not allowed by law to renegotiate the rent and get it lower. A new law allows for future leases not existing leases to have downward revisions.
The State is also propping up rental yields, paying 60m per year.
The Govt looking for lower rents and saving tax payers money is diametrically opposed to NAMA keeping rent high.
40% of commercial property is currently empty in some parts of Dublin.
Look around the city the place is awash with offices for rent

The IMF backs the NAMA model
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
IMF 2008 report has stated government backed asset management agencys do not work due to political and legal entanglements

NAMA will get credit flowing
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
There is nothing in the NAMA legislation to FORCE Banks to start lending to ordinary people and SMEs
There is no evidence credit has started flowing yet in the UK and the US after their massive bailouts , in fact credit indexes are showing that credit is actually contracting .

Current Market Value is 47Billion
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Based on the opinions of many vested interests who have advised the Govt.
Based on the assumption theres is a market for these properties, but there is no evidence a market exists , if no market exists much of this property and land is actually worthless.
Also based on the assumption we have hit bottom.
This figure is pulled from the air. The Govt provides no figures or reports to back this claim up.
Market value assumptions seem to be just based on rent and yields in just the Dublin, which is a very vague amount.
If current market value is 47 Billion then why don’t the banks just sell the stuff for 47 Billion and they wouldn’t need any tax payer money.

GOVT open to other parties contributions
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Bank chiefs have worn out the rug going in and out to government building meeting with their friends in the Govt.
Bank chiefs were summoned to Leinster house in the days before NAMA at a time when other Govt parties were not allowed access to any of the details even though those parties promised non-disclosure of any info they were allowed to see.


We do not have time to debate this further its time to implement this plan to save the country.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
The government just spent the last 6 weeks on holidays , there is plenty time to debate and amend this legislation.

FF Spin, all the other alternatives would not work and would cost more
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Many commentators , including Nobel laureates have stated other alternatives proposed by the opposition parties including temporary nationalization would not only be cheaper, less risky and also implement faster to get credit flowing.
Many economists have said other alternatives are better.


The Government is not doing any favours for its banking buddies.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Prior to the nationalization of Anglo, civil servants in the Dept. Of Finance had prepared a proposal to nationalize Anglo and wind it down.
The minister went against this and instead issued a blanket guarantee for Anglo.
Anglo Irish Bank was kept alive for 3 months after the Govt guarantee during which time significant bonuses were paid before it was nationalized.
The two chairmen of the Anglo and Irish Nationawide have been allowed walk away with massive payouts and pensions even though the tax payer is now buying bad loans from their banks for more than 30 Billion Suro.

Government is extracting retribution from the banks
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
The Government didn’t enforce pay restraint on the banks when they had them over a barrel before writing the guarantee, nor
has they taken this opportunity now when we have a chance regarding the premium and is actually paying over the odds
There is nothing in the NAMA legislation to control the executive pay or bonus culture at the banks which we are bailing out.

This is not a bank bailout
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Not worthy of a rebuttal, complete utter BS

The Government will pursue Developers for full repayment of loans & Govt does not believe developers assets are being hidden
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
The is lots of documentary evidence, historical incidents to indicate most developers have already pocketed large reserves of cash and holdings off shore or transferred assetss to other family members or entities to evade Government acquisition.
For gods sake they do this during the boom time , of course they would be doing this during a downturn.
The government have not costed how much it will cost to pursue these assests.

The Government has been open and transparent
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Dated subordinated debt was guaranteed by the govt, in its blanket bank guarantee, with no explanation .
Why was this done, this type of debt is taken on with a risk, the investor knows theres a risk, yet the govt gave a guarantee .

The FF Government has already implemented overhaul of the banking industry
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Over 80% of Irish Banks board members have been in place since before 2008 .
There has been NO clearout of Irish Banks

There will be transpareny and legislation to prevent non-political interference
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Multiple sections of the NAMA legislation is to be at the direct discretion and exclusively by The Minister of Finance.


NAMA will not need much staffing as the banks will continue to manage the loans
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Huge legal issues exist here here as well as conflict of interest for bank employees in managing loans belonging to another institution ie. NAMA
Govt has admiteted recently it gave Rody Molloy 1.4 million so that he would not drag the state down the Four courts.
Think what 2000 Developers who are not happy with a valuation could cost the state in legal fees and time.
Rememebr the tribunals some of which are still stuck in legalese.

FF says other proposals involve TOTAL banking nationalisation
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Many proposals inclunding Labours proposes temporary nationalization of the two main high street banks.


FF Says wholesale nationalisation of banks should be prevented at all costs as international markets will not lend to state owned banks
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
There is no evidence of this , and in fact lots of state owned banks do borrow on the international markets

We must avoid further Nationalisation at all costs
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Many coutries have already nationalized large financial entities. Or taken much larger shareholding in the banks it did bailout. We have taken a paltry 25% in the banks we have bailed out.

NAMA is akin to the much vaunted Swedish model.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
NAMA is not like the Swedish Model. In the Swedish model there was much more temporary nationalisation
There was much more punitive measures in the legislation
There was a wholesale clearout of its banking executives.

The Govt, FF and Green Party says Irelands woes were caused by the collapse of Lehman brothers.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
If you need this explained as to why it is totally bull**** bogus spin then you shouldn’t be reading this .

Green Party party claim they have a proud record of standing up to vested interests.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
see item above

FF says it is taking every measure to prevent this form of financial corruption and financial irresponsibility from happening again.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
They and other politicians have said this many times before , remember Ansbacher , off shore accounts, DIRT retention, bank over-charging etc…
There is no evidence to support this in fact the evidence indicates the oppossite

There is no method to stop NAMA from going through.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
The president has an alternative. Let the people decide for themselves, the constitution provides for the President referring the NAMA bill to a referendum, it being an issue of National importance

Current trading in Irish bank shares is small scale investors and purely speculative
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Ireland’s Finance Minister Brian Lenihan said trading in Irish banking shares is akin to a “bookie’s office operation” at the moment.
“The value of trading of these shares at this level is highly speculative,” Lenihan said in an interview with RTE radio today. “There has been very little institutional dealing in Irish bank shares.”
Lots of Bloc trades have been issued in recent days, some massive volumes including trades of 1.5m shares in one lot, and the vast majority were trades of blocs of 10k and over. Sure Lenny loads of grannies and day trading students.

This is a good deal for the TaxPayer
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
AIB and BOI have skyrocketed recently because the markets, stock brokers and investors know this is a great deal for the banks.

The NAMA haircut is between 35-40%
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
This may be the average but the bulk of the haircut is on Anglos loan book, the state already owns Anglo. Therefor its onw state body paying another state body. The real focus is what he other non-nationalised banks are gtting.
The haircut the other banks have had to take is very small given how toxic their loans were, in fact for AIB and BOI its 20% or lower.

The NAMA Haircut of 35-40% (20% for BOI and AIB) was a good deal
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Recently in the high court case involving Zoe and ACC/Rabobank it was accepted by both parties that the haircut on some property loans was in the region of 70-75%.
Recent receiver fire sales of properties have documented falls of over 60% as shown on a Primetime Special
20% haircut for AIB and BOI is not a good deal,

NAMA will Redevelop some Hotel properties
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Estimates are huge amounts of finished and unfinished hotel projects will come into NAMAs
Currently the Irish hotel industry is in its worst state ever. There is no need for one more hotel room in Ireland
The return on hotel investment is very low, we have over capacity in hotels.

25% Value of loans been taken over by NAMA were covered.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Its an acknowledged fact many developers used other properties as collateral for loans. This collateral is now worthless.
Many developers used other loans to finance larger loans… ie Borrow 1 million from one bank to get 10 million from another.
Many solicitors and developers have been found to have multiple mortgages taken out on the same properties, again worthless loans.

NAMA will Redevelop housing projects over the long term
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
There is no evidence to suggest we have ashortage of housing or will have a shortage of housing in the coming years.
In fact we will have net Emigration next year.
Waterford has 4,000 houses for sale
The Midlands is plagued with over supply and overzoning

International commentators are stating NAMA is the best model.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
The main people saying NAMA is a good deal are DAVY, Bloxham, stockbrokers, AIB,BOI, and also the ex heads of these banks.
These are the main voices saying NAMA is a good deal. The same voices who got us into this mess.

The taxpayer is protected if NAMA does not work out
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
There is no specific levy in this legislation should there be a downside for the taxpayer. There is only a provision for the Minister to ask for one if he decides at a future date we require one. That’s not protection for the taxpayer.
Real protection for the taxpayer would involve explicitly placing a levy in the legislation

We have to do our patriotic duty and swallow this biter pill
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Why did the government not ask the banks chiefs and FAS chairman who retired to do their patirotic duty and walk away from their pension pots and golden parachutes.


The ECONOMIST Magazine Thinks the NAMA plan is a good plan
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
“The Econmist has welcomed it in the sense that its finally doing something but they have also clearly stated who they see as benefiting best from NAMA and it isn’t the Tax payer. “
The government seems to have erred on the side of favouring shareholders, largely to minimise the amount of capital it would have to inject into the banks.
“The trouble is that the banks have run up such large losses that it will be lucky to achieve even two of its three objectives”


The Financial Timess Thinks the NAMA plan is a good plan
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
They have given a guarded welcome to the plan and only in the sense that the banks and markets have responded in a positive manner to the plan. The FT has not stated this is a good deal for the country or the tax payer.
"Property loans are only one problem facing Ireland’s recession-bound lenders"


NAMA will get development value out of the properties it is taking on
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
(The full breakdown is: land (36%), development (28%) and associated loans (36%), we have €21bn, or more than half accounted for, by land
This is the very same land that we have heard has been devalued by anything up to 95% from the peak, due to the probability of a good deal of land being rezoned to agricultural. It’s reasonable to assume that this land splits down in some way between that which probably will be developed (and which has presumably fallen in value by 50%), and that which probably won’t (likely down 90%).

NAMA Legislation will protect the NAMA agency form political interference.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Much of the NAMA legislation is very vague and allows for lots of decisions to be made at the exclusive whim of the Minister for Finance .
NAMA is akin to the all empowering PATRIOT Act that Bush pushed thru in the US

The government has driven a hard bargain with the Banks
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Interim director of NAMA Brendan McDonagh, said the number of loans the banks had earmarked for NAMA had increased significantly since the draft bill was published because banks had reassessed their books.
In two weeks, after the draft legislation the number of loans the banks wished to pass to the tax payer rose from 18,000 to 21,500.

Popular Media are behind NAMA
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
The popular Irish Media, broadsheets and television got it drastically wrong during the boom equally these same entities and same persons in many cases will get it drastically wrong on this matter.

AIB BOI Bank Shares are up …we should celebrate
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
A few years back when bank shares were hitting 18 euro the media thought that was good for the country too, long term it has been PROVEN to be a false economy and of no long term benefit to the nation as a whole.

Trust FF and the government on NAMA
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
FF and the governemtn have gotten so many decisions, agencys , policys wrong they have a proven track record of ineptitude, incompetence and corruption over and over again.. This is another example
PPARS, e-Voting, FAS, Thornton hall, Section 23 hotel breaks, ministers expenses, rezoning, tribunals…etc etc

Not a gamble..
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Yes it is a gamble

The ECB have not had historical high interest rates
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Yes the ECB has had high interest rates and is forecast to have so in the medium to long term future
The government has given no analysis of the impact rising ECB interest rates will have on the cost of NAMA

NAMA will Manage property prices without political interference
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
The state will become the largest property developer in the state and possibly the world. It will want prices to rise not fall and we all know that rising prices are not good .
The IMF recommends Governments do not artificially prop up house process, which is exactly what NAMA will have todo for it to work.


The NAMA Model is the cheapest bailout guarantee in the world
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Taken on a per head of population basis NAMA and the billions we have already put into the banks means NAMA is not the cheapest bailout , in fact its working out more expenseive than the US and UK Model.
And in the US and the UK they have taken larger (75-100%) ownership of some of the financial institutions they have bailed out.

ART6

Excellent and informative post.

Perhaps the main issue is that for NAMA to achieve what the government claims it will, inflation will be necessary. This will not simply be property price inflation, since that will likely go together with general price and wage inflation. One of the ECB's most important functions is to control inflation by the use of interest rates, so if Europe adopts the Irish government approach (requiring inflation to allow NAMA and NAMA look alikes to break even of make a profit) then the ECB will be forced to increase interest rates to control the inflation. Government bond interest repayments will rise and could do so to the point where they become unaffordable given the government income available to service debt.

If the European states don't adopt the Irish model inflation in Ireland alone rather in Europe as a whole will further reduce Irish competitiveness. We would have rising wages and prices with dropping exports and the loss of inward investment. So, another property boom and bust cycle started and sovereign debt default a real risk.

Ireland plc doesn't earn an income by building property that it sells to itself. It does it by selling goods and services to UK plc, Europe plc etc.

I don't pretend to understand all of the issues, so I take a possibly simplistic view. I am being asked to buy from another something that is currently worthless because no-one wants it and I do so to prevent his becoming insolvent as a result of his own bad decisions in the past, upon the principle that at some undefined time in the future someone may want to buy it from me at a greater price, then I either have too much money for my own good or I am a fool. A shrewd investor I certainly ain't!

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote:

After catching the end of a heated discussion on this thread where a poster was being accused of regular and unsubstantiated outrage, bouts of which are apparently turning other posters off, I thought I'd post a list of points which can be debated. Many of the points include NAMA and the financial crisis as that is what I was talking about on the other thread.

To be fair, the points were that people believed unsubstantiated and inaccurate things about the Green Party, that many people believe unsubstantiated and inaccurate things about NAMA, and that the bitter outrage of some posters seems bizarre and out of all proportion to the actual facts.

Absolutely everything about NAMA could be false - it could wind up costing us €20 billion over the next decade - and it still wouldn't be worth a fraction of the outrage that ought to be directed at the doings of the last decade.

It may not be the best way of adjusting to the condition of the Irish economy, but the condition of the Irish economy requires some adjustment, voluntary or involuntary - and it was never going to be a comfortable adjustment whatever was done. To direct the outrage at what is being done now rather than what was done to make it necessary in the first place frankly just seems bizarre to me - and worse, it suggests to me that the right lessons may not be being learned.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dan_d

An excellent post OP, with some very valid points.
However equally Scofflaw hits the nail bang on the head.Hard!

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be fair, the points were that people believed unsubstantiated and inaccurate things about the Green Party, that many people believe unsubstantiated and inaccurate things about NAMA, and that the bitter outrage of some posters seems bizarre and out of all proportion to the actual facts.

Absolutely everything about NAMA could be false - it could wind up costing us €20 billion over the next decade - and it still wouldn't be worth a fraction of the outrage that ought to be directed at the doings of the last decade.

It may not be the best way of adjusting to the condition of the Irish economy, but the condition of the Irish economy requires some adjustment, voluntary or involuntary - and it was never going to be a comfortable adjustment whatever was done. To direct the outrage at what is being done now rather than what was done to make it necessary in the first place frankly just seems bizarre to me - and worse, it suggests to me that the right lessons may not be being learned.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I disagree, I think you underestimate how much €20billion is, what alternatives it could have funded from education to infrastructure and how much outrage €20billion could buy. I'm sure I could pay a small country to start a war for that amount. And as for misdirecting outrage at the current supposed solutions, the bulk of any posters outrage goes towards what was done by this government and the banks. That doesn't mean there is no outrage left to go towards NAMA. Learning the right lessons would mean scrutinising current decisions before we get lumbered with the consequences rather than just rehashing the past (although rehashing the past is extremely important). NAMA is a current government plan.

And people who are against NAMA and the general approach of this government are not advocating that we could have done nothing. Of course something needed to be done, but you saying this while pointing out NAMA may not be the best way is an obfuscation - we should be aiming to adopt the best way. Yes there would be pain regardless of approach but they took an approach without reliable information and now we see the forecasts were unrealistic - they used these forecasts to sell us the medicine, medicine that would not have been needed if it were not for their policies (even though they prefer to blame international factors). NAMA and its inception was founded on lies and mistruths

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be fair, the points were that people believed unsubstantiated and inaccurate things about the Green Party, that many people believe unsubstantiated and inaccurate things about NAMA, and that the bitter outrage of some posters seems bizarre and out of all proportion to the actual facts.

Saying all that, I agree with you that some people believe unsubstantiated drivel about the Greens.

I think in terms of NAMA its a worse case to support NAMA based on unsubstantiated and inaccurate things (which have been the basis for its support) than to ridicule NAMA on unsubstantiated grounds.

One doctor says - I'll cut your leg off and you'll be fine

A second says if he cuts your leg off you'll die.

If the outcome is worse than the first prediction but better than the latter you will be mighty angry with the optimist. This is whats happening with NAMA, we were sold a pup. In times like this we need to err on the side of caution and realism, how many times have the bloody DoF had to revise estimates down?

skelliser

Great post. Should be stickied imo.

Biggins

skelliser wrote: »

Great post. Should be stickied imo.

I agree and whats more every poster should print off a copy of it and shove it in front of every TD that comes around the doors and ask them "...well what are you going to do!"

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

I disagree, I think you underestimate how much €20billion is, what alternatives it could have funded from education to infrastructure and how much outrage €20billion could buy. I'm sure I could pay a small country to start a war for that amount.

Except that we're not talking about €20 billion. Instead we're talking about - according to the revised business plan - a downside risk of €0.8 bn over a decade (that is, €80m a year). For that to grow by much the amount of performing loans in NAMA would have to drop by a substantial amount (and from 20-25% there's not much further to fall), and prices to drop more than 10% over the next decade.

I don't see any way to conjure up outrage-worthy figures here except to completely ignore absolutely everything that is offered by NAMA and make up one's own figures. Working on the basis of figures presented by the people actually sitting on the information (the term is deliberate), you need to multiply the downside 5-6 times before the annual downside in NAMA is equal to the government's weekly deficit. Seriously, WTF?

Laminations wrote: »

And as for misdirecting outrage at the current supposed solutions, the bulk of any posters outrage goes towards what was done by this government and the banks. That doesn't mean there is no outrage left to go towards NAMA. Learning the right lessons would mean scrutinising current decisions before we get lumbered with the consequences rather than just rehashing the past (although rehashing the past is extremely important). NAMA is a current government plan.

And people who are against NAMA and the general approach of this government are not advocating that we could have done nothing. Of course something needed to be done, but you saying this while pointing out NAMA may not be the best way is an obfuscation - we should be aiming to adopt the best way. Yes there would be pain regardless of approach but they took an approach without reliable information and now we see the forecasts were unrealistic - they used these forecasts to sell us the medicine, medicine that would not have been needed if it were not for their policies (even though they prefer to blame international factors). NAMA and its inception was founded on lies and mistruths

The forecasts were unrealistic, but the criticisms seem more unrealistic still. That's my problem - neither the government nor its critics appear to be operating on the basis of reality.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

The forecasts were unrealistic, but the criticisms seem more unrealistic still. That's my problem - neither the government nor its critics appear to be operating on the basis of reality.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Respond to some inaccuracies in the points listed in the OP - points that highlight the inaccuracies in the government peddled NAMA plan

Riskymove

Scofflaw wrote: »

Except that we're not talking about €20 billion. Instead we're talking about - according to the revised business plan - a downside risk of €0.8 bn over a decade (that is, €80m a year).

the €20bn reference may be about the monies put into Anglo as oppossed to NAMA

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

Except that we're not talking about €20 billion. Instead we're talking about - according to the revised business plan - a downside risk of €0.8 bn over a decade (that is, €80m a year). For that to grow by much the amount of performing loans in NAMA would have to drop by a substantial amount (and from 20-25% there's not much further to fall), and prices to drop more than 10% over the next decade.

I don't see any way to conjure up outrage-worthy figures here except to completely ignore absolutely everything that is offered by NAMA and make up one's own figures. Working on the basis of figures presented by the people actually sitting on the information (the term is deliberate), you need to multiply the downside 5-6 times before the annual downside in NAMA is equal to the government's weekly deficit. Seriously, WTF?


cordially,
Scofflaw

There is a huge opportunity cost in spending this money buying bad debts from banks. What would be the return in ten years if this was spent on infrastructure or education? There is also Anglo and the blackhole there sucking in billions, how does that not outrage you? And outrage seems the wrong word, can any of us claim outrage when we just post on an internet forum? True outrage would be satiated by street protests and minister whippings. The Greeks do true outrage, we dont want that type of thing. True outrage makes you blind or at best myopic. This is my problem with you chastising people for being outraged. People are rightly annoyed but are for the most part rationally debating these issues. We all recognise something needed to be done, that pain needed to be dealt and felt. I think you'd have a point if posts just looked like

Aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!! F*** FF!!!!!!!!

but most posts contain legitimate criticism.

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

Absolutely everything about NAMA could be false - it could wind up costing us €20 billion over the next decade - and it still wouldn't be worth a fraction of the outrage that ought to be directed at the doings of the last decade.

Laminations wrote: »

I disagree, I think you underestimate how much €20billion is, what alternatives it could have funded from education to infrastructure and how much outrage €20billion could buy.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Except that we're not talking about €20 billion. Instead we're talking about - according to the revised business plan - a downside risk of €0.8 bn over a decade (that is, €80m a year).

I think thats called moving the goal posts

Eliot Rosewater

Scofflaw wrote: »

To direct the outrage at what is being done now rather than what was done to make it necessary in the first place frankly just seems bizarre to me...

It's annoying that it's happening, for sure, but I don't think I'd call it bizarre because it's possible to see why it's happening. Analysing the economic policies of Fianna Fail during the boom, or even engaging with someone who is trying to explain them to you, is significantly more difficult than reading a headline entitled "Govt. Cuts Social Welfare". It's far easier, from a mental perspective, to perceive an injustice in the harsh measures than in the policies that necessitated them.

This carries through to the political classes. If a party is trying to engage with voters they will find it much easier to attack the harsh measures than the boom year policies, as per above. The party won't need to supply an alternative to the harsh measures either. They're not constrained by things like balancing the budget because most voters, it would seem, don't apply those constraints when judging manifestos and policy.

Additionally, if Labour and Fine Gael were to attack Fianna Fail on the basis of the boom years they might find themselves under scrutiny, too. I wasn't "politically aware" back then, but from reading posts here and reading election literature it would seem that the opposition parties weren't exactly calling a halt to the party. Labour promised tax cuts in 2007, for example.

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

I think thats called moving the goal posts

Actually, it's kind of the point - that people are discussing NAMA on the basis of made-up figures! It's not as if the €20 bn was anything other than a figure I plucked out of the air for illustrative purposes - but if you believe you have a good case that it's the right figure (however accidentally, given it's made up), work away.

After all, I'd object pretty strenuously to NAMA if it was going to cost a trillion euro - but it isn't, so there's no particular point in discussing it on that basis.

amused,
Scofflaw

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It's annoying that it's happening, for sure, but I don't think I'd call it bizarre because it's possible to see why it's happening. Analysing the economic policies of Fianna Fail during the boom, or even engaging with someone who is trying to explain them to you, is significantly more difficult than reading a headline entitled "Govt. Cuts Social Welfare". It's far easier, from a mental perspective, to perceive an injustice in the harsh measures than in the policies that necessitated them.

This carries through to the political classes. If a party is trying to engage with voters they will find it much easier to attack the harsh measures than the boom year policies, as per above. The party won't need to supply an alternative to the harsh measures either. They're not constrained by things like balancing the budget because most voters, it would seem, don't apply those constraints when judging manifestos and policy.

Additionally, if Labour and Fine Gael were to attack Fianna Fail on the basis of the boom years they might find themselves under scrutiny, too. I wasn't "politically aware" back then, but from reading posts here and reading election literature it would seem that the opposition parties weren't exactly calling a halt to the party. Labour promised tax cuts in 2007, for example.

I think you are missing the point in my OP.
I've always said that stating 'we are where we are' is not good enough. An analysis of past policy decisions and regulatory affairs is indeed necessay. But we need to examine and scrutinise the medicine we are being fed now to supposedly make us better. No one would debate that we dont need medicine but what we are being told about NAMA - namely the points in the OP - are all in some way mistruths.

Going back to the doctor analogy, yes its important to look at the symptoms and investigate the underlying causes but do not let that investigation inhibit you from questioning the medicine you are being given for the symptoms. Medicine you are being assured will make you better by the people who likely made you sick in the first place. Plain and simple I do not trust this government. All of these things about NAMA and the financial crisis (in OP) have been peddled by government, do you want to argue that they were correct on any of the issues?

Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It's annoying that it's happening, for sure, but I don't think I'd call it bizarre because it's possible to see why it's happening. Analysing the economic policies of Fianna Fail during the boom, or even engaging with someone who is trying to explain them to you, is significantly more difficult than reading a headline entitled "Govt. Cuts Social Welfare". It's far easier, from a mental perspective, to perceive an injustice in the harsh measures than in the policies that necessitated them.

This carries through to the political classes. If a party is trying to engage with voters they will find it much easier to attack the harsh measures than the boom year policies, as per above. The party won't need to supply an alternative to the harsh measures either. They're not constrained by things like balancing the budget because most voters, it would seem, don't apply those constraints when judging manifestos and policy.

Additionally, if Labour and Fine Gael were to attack Fianna Fail on the basis of the boom years they might find themselves under scrutiny, too. I wasn't "politically aware" back then, but from reading posts here and reading election literature it would seem that the opposition parties weren't exactly calling a halt to the party. Labour promised tax cuts in 2007, for example.

That's exactly it, though, isn't it? Headline thinking - and now more headline thinking. And tabloid headline thinking, at that. As they say "you won't get out of a situation by applying exactly the same thinking that got you into it" - bit that's exactly what we seem to be doing.

To be fair to the opposition, while they certainly made exactly the same promises as Fianna Fáil during the boom, they might have done something different if they'd actually been elected.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, it's kind of the point - that people are discussing NAMA on the basis of made-up figures! It's not as if the €20 bn was anything other than a figure I plucked out of the air for illustrative purposes - but if you believe you have a good case that it's the right figure (however accidentally, given it's made up), work away.

After all, I'd object pretty strenuously to NAMA if it was going to cost a trillion euro - but it isn't, so there's no particular point in discussing it on that basis.

amused,
Scofflaw

I was arguing against your point that outrage would not be justified at the cost of €20billion. The main bullet point of my presentation is that when NAMA was fed to us it was done so with lies, and it looks like it was founded on the basis of unreliable information from banks

Would it be outragous (to use your word) if our banking solution was amongst the most expensive in the world? We've already had the worst single banking losses in the world with Anglo. But my point isnt really how much NAMA will cost, it is the spin and lies that we were told. I'm still waiting for you to support the government lines and criticise a point from the OP

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, it's kind of the point - that people are discussing NAMA on the basis of made-up figures!

Thats kind of my point, the people implementing NAMA have done so on the basis of made up figures. You yourself said

Scofflaw wrote: »

Absolutely everything about NAMA could be false - it could wind up costing us €20 billion over the next decade

You think there'd be more concrete figures on the possible gains and losses involved with all this. Are are you saying the riskiness of NAMA is acceptable and that there was no other less risky way to proceed?

In that case see points below

FF Spin, all the other alternatives would not work and would cost more
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Many commentators , including Nobel laureates have stated other alternatives proposed by the opposition parties including temporary nationalization would not only be cheaper, less risky and also implement faster to get credit flowing.
Many economists have said other alternatives are better.

The NAMA Model is the cheapest bailout guarantee in the world
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Taken on a per head of population basis NAMA and the billions we have already put into the banks means NAMA is not the cheapest bailout , in fact its working out more expenseive than the US and UK Model.
And in the US and the UK they have taken larger (75-100%) ownership of some of the financial institutions they have bailed out.



EDIT: It sounds like what you are saying is that the government have rolled the dice and that there is no point in criticising them for possible losses because all that is as yet unknown. I'm saying they should never have taken a 'roll the dice' strategy with NAMA and sold it to us with headlines like

NAMA Business Plan: Government forecasts Irish “bad bank” profit of €4.8bn by 2020

Credit flows again when we take the distressed assets off the books of the banks

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

I was arguing against your point that outrage would not be justified at the cost of €20billion. The main bullet point of my presentation is that when NAMA was fed to us it was done so with lies, and it looks like it was founded on the basis of unreliable information from banks

Information that was known to be unreliable - the point of the toxic loans wasn't that they were known to be bad debts, but that the level of bad debt in them was not known.

Laminations wrote: »

Would it be outragous (to use your word) if our banking solution was amongst the most expensive in the world? We've already had the worst single banking losses in the world with Anglo. But my point isnt really how much NAMA will cost, it is the spin and lies that we were told. I'm still waiting for you to support the government lines and criticise a point from the OP

Alas, you will have to continue waiting, then, since I don't see any particular reason to support the government lines.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sulmac

Excellent post, OP.

Just one teeny-tiny issue (mainly due to me being so pedantic ):

Laminations wrote: »

There is no method to stop NAMA from going through.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
The president has an alternative. Let the people decide for themselves, the constitution provides for the President referring the NAMA bill to a referendum, it being an issue of National importance

She can only do this when half of the Seanad and one-third of the Dáil sign a petition asking her to do so.

So in reality there really is no method to stop NAMA now, since no government Senator will grow a backbone and sign such a petition (although we could gather one-third of TDs relatively easily, I would imagine).

edit: Also, hasn't the bill passed already anyway?

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

Thats kind of my point, the people implementing NAMA have done so on the basis of made up figures. You yourself said

Absolutely everything about NAMA could be false - it could wind up costing us €20 billion over the next decade

Oh come now, that's a dreadful piece of partial quotation. The full quote is this:

Absolutely everything about NAMA could be false - it could wind up costing us €20 billion over the next decade - and it still wouldn't be worth a fraction of the outrage that ought to be directed at the doings of the last decade.

For shame, really.

Laminations wrote: »

You think there'd be more concrete figures on the possible gains and losses involved with all this.

Again, no, not really - that's the whole point of NAMA. It was designed as a special purpose vehicle to absorb the toxic debt in the Irish banking system without putting it on the government's tab, in order to avoid driving further articulated lorries through our Stability and Growth Pact limits. An accounting trick, certainly, but an accounting trick with a point - and a point that would not have been covered by nationalisation.

"Toxic" debt doesn't mean debt that's known to be bad - it means debt whose risks are unquantifiable. It's not exactly rocket science to point out that a body whose sole purpose is to absorb unquantifiably risky debt finds it hard to quantify exactly the risks it's running.

Laminations wrote: »

Are are you saying the riskiness of NAMA is acceptable and that there was no other less risky way to proceed?

In that case see points below

FF Spin, all the other alternatives would not work and would cost more
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Many commentators , including Nobel laureates have stated other alternatives proposed by the opposition parties including temporary nationalization would not only be cheaper, less risky and also implement faster to get credit flowing.
Many economists have said other alternatives are better.

The NAMA Model is the cheapest bailout guarantee in the world
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
Taken on a per head of population basis NAMA and the billions we have already put into the banks means NAMA is not the cheapest bailout , in fact its working out more expenseive than the US and UK Model.
And in the US and the UK they have taken larger (75-100%) ownership of some of the financial institutions they have bailed out.

I'm saying, as you can see, that we don't know. Moreover, I'm stating that nobody is using the difference between NAMA and the possible alternatives as the headline figure to beat NAMA with - what is the quantified risk of the alternatives compared to NAMA?

The classic opposition response to that question, by the way, is "we don't have the resources to do such a comparison", but that sort of begs the question of how those alternatives are known to be better, doesn't it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater

Laminations wrote: »

I think you are missing the point in my OP.

Nah, I'm not. I accept your criticisms of NAMA, it's just that I am far more outraged by the policies that necessitated NAMA than NAMA itself.

And I'd be less inclined to focus on it. If it does cost €20 billion, say, that's €2 billion a year over the next decade. The combined public sector pay and social welfare bill is €40 billion per year, or €400 billion over said decade.

If one is truly worried about the budget it's clear which items of spending one should focus on. However NAMA has taken all this focus. That's kind of inevitable though: if unions and pressure groups really wanted a balanced budget and economic security then it'd be their payouts that would have to be cut. So their alternative is to deflect away from their payouts and towards NAMA. It's become a red herring, a kind of "Get Out of Cuts Free" card. "Why is my allowance cut if we're giving bankers money"? etc.

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be fair to the opposition, while they certainly made exactly the same promises as Fianna Fáil during the boom, they might have done something different if they'd actually been elected.

Absolutely.

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote:

EDIT: It sounds like what you are saying is that the government have rolled the dice and that there is no point in criticising them for possible losses because all that is as yet unknown. I'm saying they should never have taken a 'roll the dice' strategy with NAMA and sold it to us with headlines like

NAMA Business Plan: Government forecasts Irish “bad bank” profit of €4.8bn by 2020

Credit flows again when we take the distressed assets off the books of the banks

The first of those is based on the first business plan issued by NAMA - the second was indeed the hope. Why should the government not have tried to sell their idea with such statements? They didn't simply make up some numbers and pretend NAMA had issued them, and they didn't create NAMA for fun either. They were setting up NAMA, and part of setting up something like NAMA in a democracy is attempting to persuade the electorate that it's a good idea.

Are you saying that the electorate simply swallow whatever the government says as 100% true? Clearly that's very far from the case - I presume most voters will try to inform themselves to the limits of their interest and make up their own minds. To be honest, I think the best the government achieves these days is a sort of "well, we'll see" attitude - certainly that's my attitude to NAMA. The off-hand and outraged dismissal, on the other hand, is perhaps even less persuasive than the government claim - if you had a better and worked out plan (after all, the devil's often in the details) why is that not front and centre with everyone standing behind it saying "look, this is much better - risk reduced by 25%, possible profits up 10%, possible losses down 40% compared to NAMA"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Nah, I'm not. I accept your criticisms of NAMA, it's just that I am far more outraged by the policies that necessitated NAMA than NAMA itself.

And I'd be less inclined to focus on it. If it does cost €20 billion, say, that's €2 billion a year over the next decade. The combined public sector pay and social welfare bill is €40 billion per year, or €400 billion over said decade.

If one is truly worried about the budget it's clear which items of spending one should focus on. However NAMA has taken all this focus. That's kind of inevitable though: if unions and pressure groups really wanted a balanced budget and economic security then it'd be their payouts that would have to be cut. So their alternative is to deflect away from their payouts and towards NAMA. It's become a red herring, a kind of "Get Out of Cuts Free" card. "Why is my allowance cut if we're giving bankers money"? etc.

And absolutely back.

absolutely,
Scofflaw

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Nah, I'm not. I accept your criticisms of NAMA, it's just that I am far more outraged by the policies that necessitated NAMA than NAMA itself.

And I'd be less inclined to focus on it. If it does cost €20 billion, say, that's €2 billion a year over the next decade. The combined public sector pay and social welfare bill is €40 billion per year, or €400 billion over said decade.

If one is truly worried about the budget it's clear which items of spending one should focus on. However NAMA has taken all this focus. That's kind of inevitable though: if unions and pressure groups really wanted a balanced budget and economic security then it'd be their payouts that would have to be cut. So their alternative is to deflect away from their payouts and towards NAMA. It's become a red herring, a kind of "Get Out of Cuts Free" card. "Why is my allowance cut if we're giving bankers money"? etc.

No I think you are missing my point. Nowhere did I say NAMA is the most pressing issue. In fact if you look at threads concerning budget deficit I agree this is far more worrying. The existence of a barely manageable budget deficit should not consume all concerns leaving no debate for other economic issues, the same way pressing economic issues shouldn't restrict debate on social or green issues (as you or Scofflaw wisely pointed out in another thread). This thread is about what we were told unsubstantiated by government vs. the reality based on facts

oppenheimer1

Laminations wrote: »

4-5 Years for Recessions and property crashes to run their course.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
The government is spinning that the property crash and recession has bottomed out as they only run 4-5 years.
The average length of recent recessions has been 6 years as per a recent Goldman Sachs report.
As this is an average who is to say the length of the recession in Ireland will not be at the extreme of this range.
If peak of the boom was late 2006. we have until late 2011 minimum, best case , late 2012 according to Goldman Sachs and sometime past late 2013 if we are on the wrong side of the average. Again BL still claims we have hit bottom.
If the recession has not run its course and could have legs fro a few more years how can the property market have already bottomed out.


There is no method to stop NAMA from going through.
MYTH/LIE/SPIN
The president has an alternative. Let the people decide for themselves, the constitution provides for the President referring the NAMA bill to a referendum, it being an issue of National importance

Well the recession has ended so your first point there is wrong. The president cannot decline to sign a bill to refer to the people on her own bat. Even if she could do you really think the ordinary people of Ireland, who by and large are not educated in macro economics would be well enough informed to make a sound decision?

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

No I think you are missing my point. Nowhere did I say NAMA is the most pressing issue. In fact if you look at threads concerning budget deficit I agree this is far more worrying. The existence of a barely manageable budget deficit should not consume all concerns leaving no debate for other economic issues, the same way pressing economic issues shouldn't restrict debate on social or green issues (as you or Scofflaw wisely pointed out in another thread). This thread is about what we were told unsubstantiated by government vs. the reality based on facts

Ah - I'd say there's two parts to it, though. There's the fact that what the government said has not corresponded with what has happened, and there's the outrage about that fact. The first is hardly surprising, so the second is.

Also, I think you're missing Eliot's point - which is that the outrage really is being directed at NAMA, or the bank rescue, and that the reason that's probably the case is that we feel it could have been not spent without affecting the rest of us. As it happens, that's probably not the case, and I think most people know that, so it's interesting that those examples where we're most nearly sure it could have not been spent without affecting us - Anglo and NAMA - are the ones we choose to spend our wrath on.

However, the possible NAMA loss, and all the money pumped into Anglo, still between them come to less than a year's deficit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

The forecasts were unrealistic, but the criticisms seem more unrealistic still. That's my problem - neither the government nor its critics appear to be operating on the basis of reality.

And yet you still support the government, while dismissing those who complain about NAMA.

If they're as equal as you seem to suggest above, why don't you also dismiss the government ?

And that's not even acknowledging the fact that those who complain about NAMA aren't costing you a cent, while those supporting and pushing NAMA are costing you a fortune.

Strange.

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah - I'd say there's two parts to it, though. There's the fact that what the government said has not corresponded with what has happened, and there's the outrage about that fact. The first is hardly surprising, so the second is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think the fact you expect the government to lie to the electorate and are unsurprised and unmoved when they do is in itself outrageous. This thread is about the government selling NAMA to us based on x,y,z. Bringing up the budget deficit in this thread is just as inappropriate and illegitimate a response as bringing it up in a thread on an environmental or social issue. It's like saying we shouldn't be concerned with relatively minor issues during a time of crisis and while this may be somewhat true it's use in this case is akin to overlooking a civilian murder during a time of war when masses are dying on a battlefield

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And yet you still support the government, while dismissing those who complain about NAMA.

If they're as equal as you seem to suggest above, why don't you also dismiss the government ?

I defend the Green Party and the Green Party's role in government where I think they warrant it, but I don't have any brief for Fianna Fáil.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And that's not even acknowledging the fact that those who complain about NAMA aren't costing you a cent, while those supporting and pushing NAMA are costing you a fortune.

Strange.

Not that strange, Liam, considering that NAMA isn't costing me a fortune, whereas some of those attacking it are costing us as a country the opportunity to learn from our mistakes.

Laminations wrote:

I think the fact you expect the government to lie to the electorate and are unsurprised and unmoved when they do is in itself outrageous.

I just don't recall there ever having been a government that didn't, so I don't expect a government not to do it. I'm not sure why I should be any more outraged that a government lies than that rain is wet.

Laminations wrote:

This thread is about the government selling NAMA to us based on x,y,z. Bringing up the budget deficit in this thread is just as inappropriate and illegitimate a response as bringing it up in a thread on an environmental or social issue. It's like saying we shouldn't be concerned with relatively minor issues during a time of crisis and while this may be somewhat true it's use in this case is akin to overlooking a civilian murder during a time of war when masses are dying on a battlefield

Hmm - no, not really comparable. I don't expect everybody to concentrate solely on the deficit to the exclusion of NAMA and the banks, but there's no denying that what's at stake in both cases is a fungible substance (that is, money), and that the concern in both cases is that the money comes out of our pockets - therefore, the amount of outrage ought properly to be proportional to the amount of money involved.

Also, serious public indignation can only be focused on a limited number of issues - whereas expecting the government not to pass environmental legislation because it also has to pass economic legislation, when they can clearly do both, is just silly.

Mind you, either way, the proper - and short of revolution, the only - thing to do is not to vote for Fianna Fáil, so the point is probably moot.

cordially,
Scofflaw