20 developers= 1 fcuked country

skipz

Was watching 'freefall' on rte lastnight a was well pissed of with some of the stuff i learnt from it.
The +50 billion euro in debt that nama (the irish people) is taking over was racked up by only 20 developers! Some of these clowns were paying nearly 15 million euro a acre for land in Dublin which makes it the most expensive land on earth:eek: and now we havent got a pot to piss in!
Talk about making hay when the sun doesnt shine, jesus:D

Zebra3

20 developers + x bankers + y politicans = fvcked up country.

orourkeda

Which begs the question how did these people ever get into a position to bankrupt this nation through their stupidity?

_feedback_

Let's be done with it and merge AH with Sunshine, Lollipops & Rainbows. It is so darn happy around here today.

Biggins

I watched that. I loved the way Bertie glossed over all the stuff he/FF/they failed to do.
Aaaa... it was all the bankers fault!
Yet when it came to the sections mentioning the bank regulations (or lack of them), Bertie quickly dismissed that - but it was repeatedly pointed out afterwards by the narrator of the broadcast that the government were in fact responsible for the regulations, creating them, failed to implement some of the pre-existing ones, give them strength and see them through.

Sanjuro

Yeah, it's really a ludicrous situation. But until the Irish people get up off their arses and actually demand something change by showing their outrage en masse, nothing will be done. We get fucked, then turn around and say 'well, that really sucked' and then bend over again.

skipz

Zebra3 wrote: »

20 developers + x bankers + y politicans = fvcked up country.

Yep, you cant forget X and Y;)

Biggins

They (those involved) were told time and time and time again "it won't last - there is warning signs" yet those that were in it for the money or the political gain, slapped those doing the warnings, down in many harsh ways for self-gain reasons.

I mean jesus, Bertie even got up on a political pulpit and said words to the effect that those doing the warning "...should go kill themselves!"
(...And people are thinking of making this piece of crap president! )

ILA

orourkeda wrote: »

Which begs the question how did these people ever get into a position to bankrupt this nation through their stupidity?

This is perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions promoted in the media and now among the public.

They were not stupid. This was intentional, they clearly benefitted during the boom time and many continue to do so, with there wealth safely stowed away offshore.

Will anything change or anyone be held to account? No. That's the nature of the system, those who were morally culpable are well out of the firing line now and only the few eejits who were following the pack are now left to be cursed.

This was as institutional as the Church child abuse scandal. Solicitors didn't triple mortgage properties using bad title by accident. The Financial Regulator didn't turn a blind eye for nothing, County Council's didn't award blanket development zoning out of the goodness of their hearts or because they hadn't anything better to do.

Wagon

Sanjuro wrote: »

Yeah, it's really a ludicrous situation. But until the Irish people get up off their arses and actually demand something change by showing their outrage en masse, nothing will be done. We get fucked, then turn around and say 'well, that really sucked' and then bend over again.

Coundn't agree more. It's the kind of place where people would protest and then get slagged off for it. Nothing wrong with a bit of slagging but where the fook do you draw the line?

stovelid

You don't leave a child unattended in a sweet shop.

You don't allow sweet shops to have Free Unattended Children days.

We're talking about regulatory failure.

And more to the point: regulatory failure that was endorsed by a large amount of the population (now suffering from amnesia and pitchfork-branding syndrome) as long as it put a few extra quid in their pay packets back in those halcyon days.

thebigbiffo

devils advocate as always...

but someone out there was buying all the houses, apartments and offices that these clowns were building - thus inflating the market and giving banks and developers the momentum to keep going.

i'm only asking...how much responsibility should the public take?

R0ot

orourkeda wrote: »

Which begs the question how did these people ever get into a position to bankrupt this nation through their stupidity?

Short Answer: FF
Long Answer: Fianna Fáil

:pac:

Dyr

Funny thing is do ye reckon any of them are having to go through the coin jar to see if they've the price of a packet of fags? Are they f**k

Riamfada

Anyone with half a brain would have seen this crash down the line but times were good and everyone kept their mouths shut.

amacachi

Biggins wrote: »

I watched that. I loved the way Bertie glossed over all the stuff he/FF/they failed to do.
Aaaa... it was all the bankers fault!
Yet when it came to the sections mentioning the bank regulations (or lack of them), Bertie quickly dismissed that - but it was repeatedly pointed out afterwards by the narrator of the broadcast that the government were in fact responsible for the regulations, creating them, failed to implement some of the pre-existing ones, give them strength and see them through.

The regulations aren't to blame. The fear of failure should be enough to rein in the kind of ridiculous transactions they were carrying out, regulations aren't necessary. Unfortunately these guys knew they'd be bailed out even though there was no reason for us plebs to think they would be. It's easy to twist words as well, it was the attempts at "regulation" to bail out their buddies which caused the problem.

amacachi

Grimes wrote: »

Anyone with half a brain would have seen this crash down the line but times were good and everyone kept their mouths shut.

No they didn't. Look through the posts 3+ years old on the politics forum to see that people aren't blind. People from the left and right could see that it was unsustainable and no-one could work out why they were still fueling the bubble that would soon burst and bring them down as well. Once it happened and their party buddies looked after them we saw why the people involved didn't rein things in.

Biggins

thebigbiffo wrote: »

devils advocate as always...

but someone out there was buying all the houses, apartments and offices that these clowns were building - thus inflating the market and giving banks and developers the momentum to keep going.

i'm only asking...how much responsibility should the public take?

There is an aspect to this that the public is not very aware of but was pointed out and explained well last night.
The bankers were giving out loans (too easy!). And on the strength of these loans (and supposedly money coming back from them afterwards), they used these short term/long term future returns to go to larger financial European and world organisations, to borrow more themselves on the strength of them.

The government brought in a system that allowed them to do this and what's more, allowed them to escape paying huge tax by using this method, to divert money from the state revenue collectors too!
The banks also bought vast amount of property themselves (again, at foreign inflated prices!).

So when the point came that no amount of wages was going to cover even applying for buying a house due to further mad raised prices of property, the building trade itself collapsed and developers loans (for building the actual structures) could not be paid.
The knock-on of this was that the banks above them, then eventually could not pay the bigger boys above them again... Falling domino's effect...

Thus the eventual bail out by the state - YOU!!!

skipz

As it was said, X Y and Z were using the country as one big casino playing roulette. It got to a point when it was just that good of a game you could not lose, never!
The bank put the money on the developer, they won.
The developer put money on the FF, they won.
The goverment made money, they won.
As this money was being made more money was being fcuked around the table and then more profit was made, but the money wasnt real was it?

Biggins

amacachi wrote: »

The regulations aren't to blame. The fear of failure should be enough to rein in the kind of ridiculous transactions they were carrying out, regulations aren't necessary. Unfortunately these guys knew they'd be bailed out even though there was no reason for us plebs to think they would be. It's easy to twist words as well, it was the attempts at "regulation" to bail out their buddies which caused the problem.

The regulations (lack of and ineffectiveness) were VERY much to blame a great deal and this has been recognised and acknowledged by Irish banks, European banking societies and politicians the world over.

I agree that the guys somewhere knew they might be bailed out - in the meanwhile they took their massive weekly wages.
(The head of Anglo was getting over €900,000 a week at one stage!)

amacachi

Biggins wrote: »

The regulations (lack of and ineffectiveness) were VERY much to blame a great deal and this has been recognised and acknowledged by Irish banks, European banking societies and politicians the world over.

I agree that the guys somewhere knew they might be bailed out - in the meanwhile they took their massive weekly wages.
(The head of Anglo was getting over €900,000 a week at one stage!)

Governments aren't going to admit that their interference is a problem and that they should keep out of people's way, it doesn't really help them.

There's no way that the bankers did what they did without knowing they'd been bailed out. It's government interference in a company which failed that's the problem. Companies (banks, developers) should allowed to take risks etc., but when a country is going to get raped to cover any losses then it's not a risk for the bank.

Government interference also helped fuel the bubble, with basically subsidies to make property the most attractive investment around.

BostonB

thebigbiffo wrote: »

devils advocate as always...

but someone out there was buying all the houses, apartments and offices that these clowns were building - thus inflating the market and giving banks and developers the momentum to keep going.

i'm only asking...how much responsibility should the public take?

All roads lead to the same place.

Public - Lender/Bank - Regulator - Govt
Public - Developers - Lender/Bank - Regulator - Govt

stovelid

BostonB wrote: »

All roads lead to the same place.

Public - Lender/Bank - Regulator - Govt - Public
Public - Developers - Lender/Bank - Regulator - Govt - Public

Fyp :pac:

Biggins

I would say Amacachi, that they should have interfered in some areas and not as much in others.
They got many a thing arse-ways instead.

Instead of giving the banking regulatory bodies the legal teeth to ensure the borrowing restraints were there, they allowed the regulators to slacken the financial guards in a number of way and let chaos ensue.

Your right when you say "Governments aren't going to admit that their interference is a problem"
Hell no, they always pass the buck - who wouldn't let be honest.

At the end of the day in our case, while the house buying public was to a small extent playing a role in aiding and abetting the eventual outcome, the buying public actions (which they were lead to believe was ok to do to some extent) was nothing in comparison to those above them that then took those individual loans and ran amok with them.
Using them to inflate and blow out of all proportion the bubble that would eventually burst.

Your right again when you say "Government interference also helped fuel the bubble, with basically subsidies to make property the most attractive investment around."
They promised the equivalent of the sun, the moon and the stars to the banks, developers and made sure the (badly) drawn up systems were there to advance their progress - which had the outcome we all now know of.

charlemont

a bit of pain should be directed to those twenty assholes and their immediate families and i dont mean a few slaps or some abuse but im talking about violence and lots of it.......

amacachi

Biggins wrote: »

I would say Amacachi, that they should have interfered in some areas and not as much in others.
They got many a thing arse-ways instead.

I'm just against regulation and interference in general. Without government interference and cronyism I could see an equilibrium being reached pretty quickly.

Instead of giving the banking regulatory bodies the legal teeth to ensure the borrowing restraints were there, they allowed the regulators to slacken the financial guards in a number of way and let chaos ensue.

Again the knowledge that failure would be failure would likely have been enough. Regulation could have worked but I disagree with it on principle and it also seems to me to be making things more complicated than they need to be in the hope to get the same result which could be achieved more simply.

Your right when you say "Governments aren't going to admit that their interference is a problem"
Hell no, they always pas the buck - who wouldn't let be honest.
At the end of the day in our case, while the house buying public was to a small extent playing a role in aiding and abetting the eventual outcome, the buying public actions (which they were lead to believe was ok to do to some extent) was nothing in comparison to those above them that then took those individual loans and ran amok with them.
Using them to inflate and blow out of all proportion the bubble that would eventually burst.

Your right again when you say "Government interference also helped fuel the bubble, with basically subsidies to make property the most attractive investment around."
They promised the equivalent of the sun, the moon and the stars to the banks, developers and made sure the (badly) drawn up systems were there to advance their progress - which had the outcome we all now know of.

And all this is why I believe the public is massively to blame for what happened. While I don't feel that governments should protect people from themselves, it's obviously worse when the government actively cheats the people. Unfortunately the way they did this was down to the voting public both in National and Local elections. The reason why Dublin wasn't developed properly was to please everyone by letting them make money off land. No other country would have the kind of ridiculous strung-out development we have. Look at the places planning permission have been given, one-off houses on busy, twisty roads, and on floodplains.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=54.016595,-6.400931&spn=0.006468,0.01929&t=h&z=16 See the kinda gap in the fork between the Armagh Road and the Newry Road? There's a couple of hundred houses there now, and further upriver there's another few hundred. The area I liked to is basically bog and there was **** all drainage work done, already there've been loads of problems with sewerage and water. Why's this relevant? Because it's symptomatic of everything I was saying. There's half a dozen reasons houses shouldn't been built there but they were because landowners made money, lads could leave school and hit 800 quid a week cash in hand before they were 18, the developers made money and I highly doubt that the councilors who allowed it to happen didn't get anything out of it. Everyone saw money upfront and went for it, and now we're all paying the price for it.

In my naivete when I was 15 I thought "I don't see how this is working, but sure the people involved know the risks." Of course now I know what they did, that for them there was no risk at all.

starbelgrade

Grimes wrote: »

Anyone with half a brain would have seen this crash down the line but times were good and everyone kept their mouths shut.

I don't think that's strictly true. During the "boom", most people were too busy working to pay much attention to what was going on & while it may have appeared that we were going through "good times", only the elite few really benefited from it.

With hindsight, it's easy to see that with every rise, comes a fall & with such an expidential rise in our economy, it was bound to crash hard at some stage. But as I said, hindsight is a great thing & a lot of people simply didn't see it coming - especially when those in power (those who you would expect to have some control over the reigns) were such an integral part of the machine.

At one time, both the banks & the government were institutions that were trusted by a lot of people - foolishly so, but nonetheless, trusted.

If one good thing comes from this - it's that we, as a nation, will be a lot more wary & a lot more cynical when it comes to these matters. A good dose of cynicism after all, is a healthy thing.

bullpost

Unfortunately I don't think it was that simple.
A lot of ordinary people bought into this boom in a big way.
A large number of people bought second and third houses during the boom . These were not wealthy people but were seduced by the endless spiralling of property values. I personally know quite a few people who are now struggling with the consequences of investment properties which they can't sell/rent for love nor money.
Those of us who thought the country had gone mad and were not prepared to take on additional mortgages were made to feel like we were missing out for a long period.
However the bottom line is we elect our leaders to guide us through the ups and downs with as little pain as possible and in this case they have failed an awful lot of people who are now living with the legacy of this disaster.

starbelgrade wrote: »

I don't think that's strictly true. During the "boom", most people were too busy working to pay much attention to what was going on & while it may have appeared that we were going through "good times", only the elite few really benefited from it.

With hindsight, it's easy to see that with every rise, comes a fall & with such an expidential rise in our economy, it was bound to crash hard at some stage. But as I said, hindsight is a great thing & a lot of people simply didn't see it coming - especially when those in power (those who you would expect to have some control over the reigns) were such an integral part of the machine.

At one time, both the banks & the government were institutions that were trusted by a lot of people - foolishly so, but nonetheless, trusted.

If one good thing comes from this - it's that we, as a nation, will be a lot more wary & a lot more cynical when it comes to these matters. A good dose of cynicism after all, is a healthy thing.

Chairman Meow

Biggins wrote: »

They (those involved) were told time and time and time again "it won't last - there is warning signs" yet those that were in it for the money or the political gain, slapped those doing the warnings, down in many harsh ways for self-gain reasons.

I mean jesus, Bertie even got up on a political pulpit and said words to the effect that those doing the warning "...should go kill themselves!"
(...And people are thinking of making this piece of crap president! )

Lets not forget it was those people who were "talking us into a recession" :rolleyes:
Bertie should be in jail, not running for ****ing president. Hes a damn disgrace who alongside his cronies enjoyed the good times right up til it was obvious we were ****ed, then bailed out and let Cowen take the heat

Biggins

The whole mess has been looked at many times now and discussed many times in hundreds of places by many people across Europe - and forums/threads too - but if I may make a stab at it of simplifying it, the way I see it is as follows:

The Irish nation was brought up thinking that owning property was the way to go.
That "...young man, sooner or later you will have to move out and get a place of your own"
Fair enough, we all have been told that, I was.

HOWEVER, by a number of methods by our state government, the money that was available to borrow, was increased by de-regulation, lack of regulation and state adopted financial practises (one example: 28% of all state revenue was collected from the building industry alone! Double of what all other European countries were allowing as a maximum rate. Talk about trying to put all your eggs in one basket!).

These actions were brought in or slackened NOT to suit the borrower but to allow those doing the loaning, to be able to do so with lesser "guards" keeping an eye on things while also escaping paying their dues to the state.

The WHOLE public did not by the way jump on this property spending spree, a percentage certainly did. While some of them did so aggressively and with pure profit signs in their eyes too as like the bankers, others genuinely bought what they could because they feared that if they didn't buy when they could, within a number of weeks, months. etc... they would have been in a position to afford nothing at all! And they would have been right.

* So through many a cock-up of allowing big institutions to have more of a free reign, they themselves failed to regulate themselves (for obvious reasons).
* So through many a cock-up of allowing big institutions to do what they did with little or no state bodies and leaders saying "Just hang on a minute...!" - but instead told those actually doing some warnings "...To go kill themselves..." and go away - the state bore and still does bare the responsibility to stand up and say "we are watching and regulating" - did they?

Two final points:
1. To allow anyone to have carte-blanch/free reign/less regulation to do what they please is known more commonly by another term.
Its called "Anarchy!" - should we trust such a system?

2. This consistent saying of "the public was to blame" is a pure kop-out!
PART of the public was to blame, and that was part of those buyers, genuinely not all of them either.
Those above them (in state and bank) took their hopes, dreams and eventual money (loans) and totally used them and abused them totally out of financial proportion (to returns) and ran riot with them.
The state and its systems further aided and abetted the situation MASSIVELY - and this has been acknowledged by not one but two investigation European banking reports.

Sea Sharp

I think it's amazing that they're trying to pull that off on a population where an unhealthy amount of people were formerly members of a terrorist organisation.

Sanjuro

Chairman Meow wrote: »

Lets not forget it was those people who were "talking us into a recession" :rolleyes:
Bertie should be in jail, not running for ****ing president. Hes a damn disgrace who alongside his cronies enjoyed the good times right up til it was obvious we were ****ed, then bailed out and let Cowen take the heat

In an ideal world, yes. But if you think Bertie, Cowen, Sean Fitzpatrick, Paddy Kelly, or any of the many bankers and property developers in this country are going to be held accountable for what they largely created, you're living in a fantasy world. Not to sound like a Communist revolutionary or anything, but those in the 'elite' all look after each other. Cronyism is a terrible blight on this country, and these people just see themselves and their friends as the aristocracy. You only have to look at Alan Dukes as an example. He was made chairman of Anglo after that debacle. And when pressed to reveal the names of those involved in that sinking ship, he flat out refused. Cronyism. Those people should be exposed, yet Dukes sees himself as above morality and just gave the fingers to the people of Ireland. Nothing is going to change in this country until people actually start smashing shit up.

Mr Benevolent

Why are we only blaming the developers and banks? It's not as if they bought the houses themselves. Everyone who bought an overpriced house must take some blame for it as well. But oh no, no-one wants to believe that. We're all innocence, sweetness and light here.

Cop on to yourselves.

Sanjuro

Most of the blame is levelled at the bankers and politicians because they're the ones who told the masses it's all right to go buy second houses. In fact, they encouraged it. Was there greed on the part of those who did buy beyond their means, yes. Of course there was. Nobody needs a second home. But there are people who are in negative equity on their only home, because they were advised to get 110, 120% mortgages. The banks knew these people were buying beyond their means, but as long as they were making their money, the couldn't have cared less.

So yeah, almost all of the blame does belong to the bankers and politicians. They're here to help us. Not fuck us up. (bonus points for spotting the film quote).

Biggins

Confab wrote: »

...We're all innocence, sweetness and light here.

Cop on to yourselves.

No one is innocent in the mess but if the public helped create the start of the mess, one environment helped and somewhat created by they supposed betters (McCrevy and his "spend, spend, spend" ethos), the public were at the small point of an upside-down pyramid, where afterwards as those above then increased in antics, buying and further larger spending, the problem got worse and larger!

The public might have started SOME of the fires but the state and banks consistently threw petrol on them, enlarging them as well as making fires of their own!

homerjay2005

are those 20 people named anywhere?

skipz

Confab wrote: »

Why are we only blaming the developers and banks? It's not as if they bought the houses themselves. Everyone who bought an overpriced house must take some blame for it as well. But oh no, no-one wants to believe that. We're all innocence, sweetness and light here.

Cop on to yourselves.

Oh look out! We either have a banker, or a member of FF here.
You cant just say that without thinking who actualy made the houses that price high. If the price of milk rise's you still go and buy it because you need it:pac:

Biggins

homerjay2005 wrote: »

are those 20 people named anywhere?

A number of them have been referred to in relationship to the "Golden Circle" or the "Drumcondra Mafia" but the main political parties are suspiciously staying silent in regards to saying actual names!

Mr Benevolent

skipz wrote: »

Oh look out! We either have a banker, or a member of FF here.

I'm neither. I'm unemployed too. The whole thing was ridiculous, and we're all to blame in some way. I racked up loans and credit cards that I never needed, although I didn't buy a house. But when you think about the whole thing, it's simple economics. Selling and buying that spiraled out of control. The media had a huge input into it too, and I don't see any media regulation on the horizon.

Let's face it, we all screwed up.

BostonB

Sorry but thats not correct.

Not everyone racked up loans or bought property, or investments.

Biggins

Confab wrote: »

...Let's face it, we all screwed up.

To varying degrees, yes. Some.
And our children will be paying for it, thats an even bigger shame.

Mr Benevolent

BostonB wrote: »

Sorry but thats not correct.

Not everyone racked up loans or bought property, or investments.

A large % of the population did. Hell, the banks are still giving out stupid mortgages. A couple I know have one income (about 40K) and have just bought a house for 225k.

ILA

BostonB wrote: »

Sorry but thats not correct.

Not everyone racked up loans or bought property, or investments.

Bought bad property and bad investments. I know people who put their money into clever property and clever investments who are now retiring on them in reasonable comfort.

Fighting Irish

Biggins wrote: »

They (those involved) were told time and time and time again "it won't last - there is warning signs" yet those that were in it for the money or the political gain, slapped those doing the warnings, down in many harsh ways for self-gain reasons.

I mean jesus, Bertie even got up on a political pulpit and said words to the effect that those doing the warning "...should go kill themselves!"
(...And people are thinking of making this piece of crap president! )

Lets say it's 2003 again and bertie brings in some regulation about bank loans, the ordinary people of this country would go nuts

LarrytheLantern

many of these 20 idiots are still living the high-life while the rest of us pick up the tab for their reckless idiocy!

some law needs to be introduced, and these cowboys need to be charged and thrown in prison.

i mean if i drive like an idiot i (quite rightly) will be charged with RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT, yet these fools can cripple a whole country, ruin/destroy countless people's livelihoods and walk away scot free!

i suspect the real reason FF will not do anything about it, is 'cos they are all buddies and the politicians fear they themselves could fall foul of any such legislation.

this country is 1 big (not funny) joke!:mad:

Biggins

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Lets say it's 2003 again and bertie brings in some regulation about bank loans, the ordinary people of this country would go nuts

True, a certain percentage will always try to but at least there might have been be a better system to slow them down, make them kop themselves on and in some cases stop them.

Sadly we can't turn back the clock however and what's done, is done.

BostonB

Confab wrote: »

A large % of the population did. Hell, the banks are still giving out stupid mortgages. A couple I know have one income (about 40K) and have just bought a house for 225k.

Thats still not everyone. Theres a large % who didn't.

flutered

Grimes wrote: »

Anyone with half a brain would have seen this crash down the line but times were good and everyone kept their mouths shut.

i did not keep my mouth shut, but the t-shock of the day told me to feck off and commit sucide.

Ash.J.Williams

Zebra3 wrote: »

20 developers + x bankers + y politicans = fvcked up country.

To be accurate we should also include a gullable public more than eager to get into debt.

BostonB

A few years previous you couldn't get mortgages and loans without stringent conditions. 2.5 one salary and 1 the other. Etc. How did it become ok to have 100% mortgages etc.

Fighting Irish

BostonB wrote: »

A few years previous you couldn't get mortgages and loans without stringent conditions. 2.5 one salary and 1 the other. Etc. How did it become ok to have 100% mortgages etc.

because the general public wanted them