Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

20 developers= 1 fcuked country

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Sanjuro
    Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    Mr Benevolent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,456 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    Sanjuro
    Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭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).


  • Options
    #35
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #36
    homerjay2005
    Registered Users Posts: 29,346 ✭✭✭✭homerjay2005


    are those 20 people named anywhere?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    skipz
    Registered Users Posts: 671 ✭✭✭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:


  • Options
    #38
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #39
    Mr Benevolent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,456 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Sorry but thats not correct.

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


  • Options
    #41
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Mr Benevolent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,456 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    ILA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 542 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    Fighting Irish
    Registered Users Posts: 7,065 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #45
    LarrytheLantern
    Closed Accounts Posts: 176 ✭✭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:


  • Options
    #46
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    flutered
    Registered Users Posts: 6,675 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    Fighting Irish
    Registered Users Posts: 7,065 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Kimono-Girl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,160 ✭✭✭Kimono-Girl


    Fighting Irish wrote: »
    because the general public wanted them


    the general public will always want more than they can afford, it doesn't mean you should give it to them...

    i have to say *most* of us live within our means and for those who didn't then yes they made a mistake, but those living above their means now have NO excuse!


  • Options
    #53
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    20 developers + x bankers + y politicans = fvcked up country.
    20 developers + x bankers + y politicans = celtic tiger. 20 developers get into trouble, the boom ends, and suddenly we wonder wtf were we paying so much for so little?

    Oh, and look at Canada. They actually had financial regulation.


  • Options
    #54
    LarrytheLantern
    Closed Accounts Posts: 176 ✭✭LarrytheLantern


    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.

    boston i worked as a mortgage broker so i have some knowledge of this.
    brokers were paid % commission based on the size of the mortgage advanced, so like the auctioneers, bankers, solicitors they too had a vested interest in seeing large, very large mortgages. the bigger the better.

    that combined with the arrival of Bank of Scotland and their aggressive pursuit of market share, helped "push" our domestic banks into this madness. (although in truth they needed little pushing).
    income multiples went out the window. I remember a colleague of mine boast how income multiples were for wimps, after securing a ridiculous loan for a client.
    when i first started working for a Building Society 20 year term was the norm. 25 was exceptional & 30/35 was unheard of. that soon became history.

    some of these poor suckers will be paying for these mortgages for the rest of their working lives, and then some.

    i've had clients scream at me down the phone 'cos i couldn't get them the size loan they wanted. in fact i bumped into one such ex-client the other day, and i laughed in her face. she got her £350,000 mortgage, but sadly for her she lost her job. she didn't look best pleased.

    clients would regularily ask me "what's the best type of mortgage for me/us?"
    my standard answer was, and still is "the one you don't have!":P


  • Options
    #55
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,856 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Can we have the addresses of these twenty developers for, oh say, "information purposes only"?



    ;)


  • Options
    #56
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    How much was borrowed approximately by the public, people buying houses to live in/family homes. I ask because Im sick of people like myself being blamed for causing all of this because we baught over priced houses! I bet the total borrowed by all the average Joe's out there is only a tiny fraction of that of the banks/developers...


  • Options
    #57
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Fighting Irish wrote: »
    because the general public wanted them

    I assume they wanted them before then when the rules were different. No?


  • Options
    #58
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    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 banks wanted the loosening of the regulations that allowed how much could be borrowed.
    The state complied and the instead of 4 times your salary you were allowed to borrow, the banks and state allowed up to 11 times that amount!
    All they saw was profit.

    The banks then advertised the 100% mortgages and some people fooled (by banks and state) into thinking that everything was fine, then on those conditions, opted to take the mortgages.


  • Options
    #59
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Biggins wrote: »
    Because the banks wanted the loosening of the regulations that allowed how much could be borrowed.
    The state complied and the instead of 4 times your salary you were allowed to borrow, the banks and state allowed up to 11 times that amount!
    All they saw was profit.

    Again, what they saw was profit and a bailout. Had they been told there'd be no bailout then they wouldn't have gone much past 4-5 times the main salary for loans.


  • Options
    #60
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    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.
    amacachi wrote: »
    Again, what they saw was profit and a bailout. Had they been told there'd be no bailout then they wouldn't have gone much past 4-5 times the main salary for loans.
    There is merit in what you say and as I mentioned above, some banks loaned as much as 11 times the salary sum.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Biggins wrote: »
    There is merit in what you say and as I mentioned above, some banks loaned as much as 11 times the salary sum.

    But they only did that because they'd be bailed out, not because of a lack of regulation. I'm not defending them or the politicians, just pointing out that the politicians are hinting that the problem was something it wasn't so that we'll all be happy when they start interfering more in future.
    I forget now and then just how ****ed things are.:(


Advertisement