Good point by Gilmore this Morning

Zynks

He was asking why is the largest bill to ever be presented to the Dail being given only until 3.30 today to be discussed. He suggests that this should be discussed for as long as it takes until 'every single member of the house had a chance to talk about it'.
Cowen responded that he will extend to to 6 or 6.30.... I can't believe that 10 years of pain for this country don't deserve more from our representatives consideration in the view of our '''''leader''''' (double inverted commas was not enough)

amacachi

I don't see the need for debate, we know the FF TDs will do as they're told as will a couple of independents.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Zynks wrote: »

He was asking why is the largest bill to ever be presented to the Dail being given only until 3.30 today to be discussed. He suggests that this should be discussed for as long as it takes until 'every single member of the house had a chance to talk about it'.
Cowen responded that he will extend to to 6 or 6.30.... I can't believe that 10 years of pain for this country don't deserve more from our representatives consideration in the view of our '''''leader''''' (double inverted commas was not enough)

Given the original decision making "process" over the bank guarantee, perhaps we should count ourselves lucky that the government deigns to discuss the public's finances IN PUBLIC, even if only during daylight hours. :rolleyes:

johnnyskeleton

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They don't refuse to cut.

They just, rather sensibly, keep their cards close to their chest because if they say where they will make their cuts FF will just take those ideas, claim them as their own and then leave Labour a hollow shell (as FF always do)..

So I don't blame Labour for not saying where the cuts will come from just yet. They have alluded to general cuts in public sector pay etc.

Manach

Could we not then persaude Labour to share their plan to balance the country's finances at some stage if at all possible whilst we still have an economy?

dvpower

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They don't refuse to cut.

They just, rather sensibly, keep their cards close to their chest because if they say where they will make their cuts FF will just take those ideas, claim them as their own and then leave Labour a hollow shell (as FF always do)..

So I don't blame Labour for not saying where the cuts will come from just yet. They have alluded to general cuts in public sector pay etc.

Let me get this straight.
Labour have some fantastic solutions, so good that they are keeping them under wraps because FF, if they got wind of them, would implement them and claim credit for the inevitable improvement in our fortunes. Labour are so selfish that they would put their own narrow interests above the interests of the country.

You must really hate the Labour party to make such a damning allegation.

thebaldsoprano

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They just, rather sensibly, keep their cards close to their chest because if they say where they will make their cuts FF will just take those ideas, claim them as their own and then leave Labour a hollow shell (as FF always do)..

Is it that sensible though?

I'm a centre-right voter and would seriously consider voting for Labour if they were clearer about their policies. For example in this policy document they seem to recognise that the PS wage bill needs to be addressed, but a few months later delegates voted for the savings in the wage bill to be reversed. If they cleared up their position a bit they may well get more centre-right voters on side. We've already had more than enough of this type of obfuscation from the current Government.

whatawaster

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well Pat Rabbitte let slip on Vincent Brown last night that there will have to be public sector redundancies. A start, i suppose

Eliot Rosewater

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They just, rather sensibly, keep their cards close to their chest because if they say where they will make their cuts FF will just take those ideas, claim them as their own and then leave Labour a hollow shell (as FF always do)..

Hardly. They're keeping their cards close to their chest so as to win as many votes as possible. They didn't take a stance on Croke Park because they want votes from both sides, and to take a side would have resulted in lost votes. Simple.

It's simply populism.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They have alluded to general cuts in public sector pay etc.

As another poster pointed out, a Labour convention voted to restore public sector pay. How do you explain that?

Denerick

If Labour got into power they will cut and cut hard, just as FF have done. The economics and logistics of it all point to only one solution, and that is layoffs in the public sector. Gilmore is deceitful, he refuses to say what he stands for. This idea that FF will 'steal' their oh-so-wonderful ideas is laughable.

Rubik.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Eamon Gilmore - "we have committed for some time to the necessity for a 3 billion euro adjustment in the public finances for 2011"

Tipp Man

Rubik. wrote: »

Eamon Gilmore - "we have committed for some time to the necessity for a 3 billion euro adjustment in the public finances for 2011"

Its easy say it but HOW is he going to do it?

Rubik.

Tipp Man wrote: »

Its easy say it but HOW is he going to do it?

Brian Lenihan is refusing to say how he is going to do it.

ressem

Vincent Brown got a 'public sector numbers will need to fall' from Pat Rabbit yesterday. But would only commit to trying to get to this through voluntary redundancy.
He was pressed as to where the money for payouts and what people would leave in this climate, but failed to answer.

Zynks

Talking about public sector cuts is a bit empty when the banking crisis alone is costing us three full year's entire government (PS, CS) payroll.

Or, if you prefer, the budget deficit excluding banking waste by itself is larger than a full year payroll.

So, even if they fire everyone, incl garda, teachers, health service, admins, etc, there is still a deficit - even BEFORE putting any money into the banks and NAMA.

Discussing public service wages is minor compared to the big picture. I have no idea how we can get out of this one, and wish we stop spending time supporting the divide and conquer BS...

Denerick

The banking thing is spread out over a number of years. In some ways we might potentially recoup some of the losses should we rebound (Yes, I'm bracing myself for a backlash here ) However our structural deficit is arguably the bigger issue in terms of our public spending. So long as we take in 30 pounds but spend 50 pounds we're going to have a problem, banks or no banks.

Eliot Rosewater

^^Indeed.

Over the next 10 years pubic service pay and social welfare will cost €400 billion (at current rates).

The bank bailout will cost, what, €50 billion?

Thinking long term (and if the Celtic tiger has thought us one thing it's that we should think long term) the cost of public services will dwarf the bank bailouts.

Liam Byrne

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

^^Indeed.

Over the next 10 years pubic service pay and social welfare will cost €400 billion (at current rates).

The bank bailout will cost, what, €50 billion?

Thinking long term (and if the Celtic tiger has thought us one thing it's that we should think long term) the cost of public services will dwarf the bank bailouts.

Fair point, but at least we get SOMETHING in return for the public service pay.

Zynks

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

^^Indeed.

Over the next 10 years pubic service pay and social welfare will cost €400 billion (at current rates).

The bank bailout will cost, what, €50 billion?

Thinking long term (and if the Celtic tiger has thought us one thing it's that we should think long term) the cost of public services will dwarf the bank bailouts.

When (if) you give money to a beggar or a child, or charity, do you think 'ah well, I make €x,000, I might as well give him/her €x00'? Or, more likely, do you keep things separate because they are totally unrelated?

Last time I checked, we were paying taxes to fund services, infrastructure and social welfare, not to subsidise stupid gambles by third parties that went horribly wrong.

And be careful with attacking things and people that could be 'you tomorrow'.

I lost my job of 10 years last week, after paying over 200k in taxes over that period. I know there are cuts coming on my 'entitlements', and I can deal with that, but to compare what will be paid to me with what is being done for the banks is at the very least offensive.

And as for your €50 bn, add to that 35 bn in interest @ 7% p.a.

Citizen_Cutback

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

^^Indeed.

Over the next 10 years pubic service pay and social welfare will cost €400 billion (at current rates).

The bank bailout will cost, what, €50 billion?

Thinking long term (and if the Celtic tiger has thought us one thing it's that we should think long term) the cost of public services will dwarf the bank bailouts.

Perhaps you could also tell us the Opportunity Cost of this €50 billion "rescue" of our Banking system.

I notice you don't bother to allow for interest payments while we "slow burn" the €50 billion over 10 years.

The money paid on Social Welfare is circulated within the economy as are the salaries paid to Public Servants.

The Bank Bailout is just destroying money.

Denerick

'The bank bailout is burning money' - that may be the case, at least superficially, but I think a lot more money would be burnt if the banking system simply collapsed. If you have a credible alternative that would be recognised by any major economist and/or international institution I'd love to hear it! (As would Brian Lenihen...)

Zynks

Denerick wrote: »

'The bank bailout is burning money' - that may be the case, at least superficially, but I think a lot more money would be burnt if the banking system simply collapsed. If you have a credible alternative that would be recognised by any major economist and/or international institution I'd love to hear it! (As would Brian Lenihen...)

and how exactly do you suggest that 'a lot more money would be burnt if the banking system simply collapsed'? Please, I really need to hear that explanation!

Denerick

Zynks wrote: »

and how exactly do you suggest that 'a lot more money would be burnt if the banking system simply collapsed'? Please, I really need to hear that explanation!

A load of people with PHDs are always telling me crazy shít is going to happen if the banking system collapses. I'm more inclined to side with them than an anonymous boardsie

Zynks

Denerick wrote: »

A load of people with PHDs are always telling me crazy shít is going to happen if the banking system collapses. I'm more inclined to side with them than an anonymous boardsie

And who are these PHDs? What is the crazy stuff they say? Do you have any reference to back this up? Does letting Anglo Irish die equate to banking system collapse?

Common Denerick, substantiate your comment. We have been getting far too much scaremongering like what you are saying, and very little substance in the last two years. Can you substantiate?

Citizen_Cutback

Denerick wrote: »

'The bank bailout is burning money' - that may be the case, at least superficially, but I think a lot more money would be burnt if the banking system simply collapsed. If you have a credible alternative that would be recognised by any major economist and/or international institution I'd love to hear it! (As would Brian Lenihen...)

Typical Fianna Fail attitude...

I have just stated a fact the the Bank Bailout is effectively burning money.

I do not need to give you an alternative to this course of action being undertaken by the current Fianna Fail administration.

Lenihan has been found out for the "spoofer" he is.

Maybe you should address your questions to the Government advisor Alan Ahearne...

but he doesn't seem to be available to his explain how his ecomomic stupidity is destroying our economy!

Ahearne is now making McWilliams look good!

Denerick

If the banking system collapses, what happens to the deposits? the credit system? Our borrowing rates? I suppose we should just 'let it fall'. Great. There is a reason why none of you are in politics or academia.

Citizen_Cutback

Denerick wrote: »

If the banking system collapses, what happens to the deposits? the credit system? Our borrowing rates? I suppose we should just 'let it fall'. Great. There is a reason why none of you are in politics or academia.

You presume too much!

Zynks

Denerick wrote: »

If the banking system collapses, what happens to the deposits? the credit system? Our borrowing rates? I suppose we should just 'let it fall'. Great. There is a reason why none of you are in politics or academia.

So that is how you intend to SUBSTANTIATE your BS? Sorry, but no time for scaremongering crap. Is that your best shot???

Denerick

Zynks wrote: »

So that is how you intend to SUBSTANTIATE your BS? Sorry, but no time for scaremongering crap. Is that your best shot???

OK. Explain to me what happens if the Irish banking system collapses. No obfuscation, straight up. If you were taoiseach tomorrow, would you really pull the plug on the Irish bank bailout?

Draw for us a picture of the likely scenario to follow on from that.

Think it through. 'No to bailouts' is a lovely mass slogan, but its irrelevant in reality unless your willing to outline your alternative strategy.

Liam Byrne

Denerick wrote: »

There is a reason why none of you are in politics or academia.

Care to explain that ?

Or is it even more FF-style bull as in "we know best, ye peasants" ?

I know the reason I'm not in politics - it's because I couldn't bear the bull**** that goes on and I'd end up doing a George Lee.

However you didn't know that, so you obviously have your own preconceived notions why.

Liam Byrne

Denerick wrote: »

OK. Explain to me what happens if the Irish banking system collapses.

If we were to take Lenihan's approach, we'd do it with our fingers crossed and pray that no-one saw through the lies and bull****.

I mean, could he see in advance what the effects of his bank guarantee would be ?

I'd hope not, and he went ahead with that.

And it's cost us billions.

Zynks

Denerick wrote: »

OK. Explain to me what happens if the Irish banking system collapses. No obfuscation, straight up. If you were taoiseach tomorrow, would you really pull the plug on the Irish bank bailout?

Draw for us a picture of the likely scenario to follow on from that.

Think it through. 'No to bailouts' is a lovely mass slogan, but its irrelevant in reality unless your willing to outline your alternative strategy.

Can't you see that all the economy of this country is being seriously mutilated for the sake of protecting us for the same unqualified and mysterious "dangers" that your "PHDs" and you are referring to? I really want to know what they are. are there precedents? Can anyone out there explain what are these risks?

If I wanted to be the Taoiseach I would be in politics, which I am not.... but yes, in my non-PHD, anonymous boardsie humbleness, yes, I would let some of those banks die and let foreign competent banks take the leftovers. We obviously don't have many people capable of running a decent bank in this country.

Now, back to you. You made a serious statement (or was it) that "a lot more money would be burnt if the banking system simply collapsed". And you said you had received information from PHDs superior to "anonymous boardsies". Can you substantiate, or do we just leave it here agreeing it is scaremongering BS?

Denerick

@Liam: Thanks for not answering the question. Thanks for the gratuitous rant. Thanks for once again accusing me of being a Fianna Fáiler. Keep this up and I might actually vote for them just to spite you.

Its a sign of the poisonous nature of this body politic that these questions cannot be raised without hysterical accusations of partisanship.

Please tell me what you would do if you were Taoiseach, how you would go about not engaging in some sort of bailout, what the ramifications of that decision would be, and how you would sell the collapse of the Irish banking system to the EU and to the IMF, who would inevitably have to come in to save whatever remained of what would presumably become a failed state.

Please, explain it to me. I want to know.

Denerick

Zynks wrote: »

If I wanted to be the Taoiseach I would be in politics, which I am not.... but yes, in my non-PHD, anonymous boardsie humbleness, yes, I would let some of those banks die and let foreign competent banks take the leftovers. We obviously don't have many people capable of running a decent bank in this country.

Ok. You would have allowed them to fail. Explain to me why foreign investors would want to take over toxic Irish banks? What incentive is there to do so? When a bank fails, it has huge ramifications on the rest of the economy. Do you understand the level of personal debt in this country? Do you understand how currency systems work? How interest rates are set? Thank God you are nowhere near the levers of power.

Now, back to you. You made a serious statement (or was it) that "a lot more money would be burnt if the banking system simply collapsed". And you said you had received information from PHDs superior to "anonymous boardsies". Can you substantiate, or do we just leave it here agreeing it is scaremongering BS?

If the Irish banking system collapsed, the ramifications would be enormous. Foreign investors would have no interest in investing in this banking system because it is riddled with debt. Lest you forget, our entire economic boom was built on massive levels of personal debt - in others words, an economic illusion.

Now you have suggested that the banking system should just collapse and hopefully foreign banks will take over the remnants. Do you have ANY idea of what an entire banking system collapse - and we're talking about a macroeconomic meltdown unprecedented in western economies - would have on the average joe in the average street? Do you?

Liam Byrne

Denerick wrote: »

Thanks for not answering the question. Thanks for the gratuitous rant.

The question was cross-posted, which is why it wasn't answered. Of course, far be it from me to let facts and objectivity get in the way of you accusing me of avoiding the question.

Denerick wrote: »

Thanks for once again accusing me of being a Fianna Fáiler.

I didn't, actually. I said that the quote was in FF's style. But again, let's not let facts get in the way of your defensiveness.

Denerick wrote: »

Keep this up and I might actually vote for them just to spite you.

Hopefully you'll be in a minority of one. And as I've said if FF get back in I'm emigrating because I wouldn't trust them with a cent in tax and I've no interest in the type of country they're trying to create; a country which would represent everything that you claim that you hate - cronyism, incompetence, waste, etc.

What was that you were saying earlier about letting bias get in the way of objective voting ?

Denerick wrote: »

Please tell me what you would do if you were Taoiseach, how you would go about not engaging in some sort of bailour, what the ramifications of that decision would be, and how you would sell the collapse of the Irish banking system to the EU and to the IMF, who would inevitably have to come in to save whatever remained of what would presumably become a failed state.

I'm not qualified to be Taoiseach, but I've already answered this a number of times; as I said the VERY LEAST I would have done is put basic legal caveats in any guarantee AND I would have let Anglo rot because its demise was down to mismanagement.......that would have sent a clear signal that there would be no risks involved in investing in DECENT Irish companies because they were regulated and dealt with properly when dodgy goings-on were discovered.

Would it have worked ? We'll never know.

Would it have caused us to flush €35 billion down the sewer for a bank that was bankrupt ? No.

So that €35 billion could have been used productively to counteract any crisis.

Denerick

Liam, I don't know what I would do were I in power. I can't imagine the decision was an easy one. I agree with you, the bank guarantee was handled horribly and there seems to have been terrible mistakes made with regards to Anglo Irish. We're paying the price now, at any rate. Either way, some here are suggesting that we should allow the banking system to collapse - to which I say, the only reason the taxpayer is stepping in is because no private institution in its right mind would invest in these toxic groups. So we're talking about a Zimbabwe style banking system if the whole system collapses. It just isn't feasible. No government minister anywhere in the world is going to allow a general banking crash of this nature to happen if it can be avoided.

Zynks

Denerick wrote: »

Ok. You would have allowed them to fail. Explain to me why foreign investors would want to take over toxic Irish banks? What incentive is there to do so? When a bank fails, it has huge ramifications on the rest of the economy. Do you understand the level of personal debt in this country? Do you understand how currency systems work? How interest rates are set? Thank God you are nowhere near the levers of power.

For the bit in bold, a bank folding does not mean that the commitments debtor -> bank disappear. So, a new bank can come in, renegotiate with the bondholders a restructure and, provided the deal becomes interesting, take over the bank and the restructured commitments.

For the bits in normal text, they are not really relevant to this discussion.

As for the bits in red, try not to get personal. It may sound like you are running out of intelligent arguments.

Denerick wrote: »

Now you have suggested that the banking system should just collapse and hopefully foreign banks will take over the remnants. Do you have ANY idea of what an entire banking system collapse - and we're talking about a macroeconomic meltdown unprecedented in western economies - would have on the average joe in the average street? Do you?

Failure of insolvent and incompetent banks is not the same as a "banking system collapse". Maybe you should go back to your PHDs and get some help to understand the issue better.

Mr.Micro

Originally Posted by Denerick
OK. Explain to me what happens if the Irish banking system collapses. No obfuscation, straight up. If you were taoiseach tomorrow, would you really pull the plug on the Irish bank bailout?

Draw for us a picture of the likely scenario to follow on from that.

Think it through. 'No to bailouts' is a lovely mass slogan, but its irrelevant in reality unless your willing to outline your alternative strategy.

I would have either bailed out AIB and BoI or nationalized them, effectively they are now nationalized all but in name only, and let Anglo go to the wall and I would have had the balls to do it. We would then have two banks that most people use, the other was a corrupt bank for corrupt users and not part of the mainstream of the normal banking system so saving it was not in the public interest IMO but for some ulterior motives and for the benefit of a few dozen individuals...a scandal that will be revealed in the future?

The AIB and BoI failed as businesses and deserve to be shamed and the whole structure of management should be stripped out over time and only top people employed and the banks themselves be rigorously regulated.

Shea O'Meara

Firstly dismissing Gilmore by claiming he'll leave the public service as is, is like wanting to keep things the same because Gilmore will only keep things the same. Nonsense.
If the big Labour fear is they will not cut the PS, lets move on to other issues. It can't be proved and it already is as we fear it may be under Labour as regards the PS.
To be honest I feel nit picking, (and I use nit picking as regards to factual issues, that being Labour are not in government), is a desperate attempt to scaremonger the electorate from moving too far away from the likes of the doom bringers FFail who are in government by the way.

As regards the bailouts....I'll bite;

Let Anglo go to the wall. Of all the banks, assess which is the strongest and most likely to turn profit, nationalise it and let all the rest fall if the market so wishes. This is the game they play and they are not and should not be given anymore exemptions than you or I. That's business. Tough.

Like when any business goes into liquidation, any assets or monies to be gleaned should be divvied out to shareholders and those with savings. When the money runs out so too does the payments to vested interests. It's harsh, but again that's business.
What about the poor guy or girl/families etc.? Well things are pretty ****ed up for those people which ever route we take so this way the country may need to spend more on welfare, but that money will go to people who will spend it on food and bills and which will in turn bring elements of it into the economy as oppose to giving it to keep failed businesses afloat and screw them via tax anyway. Now I’ve no PhD. But it seems to me these people are already losing jobs & homes.
I don't believe bank bailouts make other countries think Ireland is financially savvy. If a bank needs bailing out it's already failed in every way except locking the doors. We as a country need pay our debts regardless of banks going to the wall so keeping them on life support in of no use in my view other than to paint the house as it crumbles from damp so it looks good to the neighbours, who know about the damp anyway.

That's my view on it.

Tipp Man

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

Perhaps you could also tell us the Opportunity Cost of this €50 billion "rescue" of our Banking system.

I notice you don't bother to allow for interest payments while we "slow burn" the €50 billion over 10 years.

The money paid on Social Welfare is circulated within the economy as are the salaries paid to Public Servants.

The Bank Bailout is just destroying money.

Ha ha this post is funny

What about the interest payments on the 200bn that we will borrow over 10 years to fund the ridiculously high public sector pay packets and social welfare that pays more than professional jobs in some countries

Secondly your opportunity cost little arguement can also be applied to the huge amounts we are borrowing to fund the public sector and welfare bills. Imagine if we had 20 bn annually to pump into creating productive jobs and developing home grown industries

Eliot Rosewater

Zynks wrote: »

When (if) you give money to a beggar or a child, or charity, do you think 'ah well, I make €x,000, I might as well give him/her €x00'? Or, more likely, do you keep things separate because they are totally unrelated?

Given that the high cost of public services in this country is largely due to politicians pandering to unions and special interest groups, and also given that this attitude has resulted in bloat and lack of cost-effectiveness, trying to argue that they should be kept on their own merit is risky. It's also based on the presumption that every item of spending is justified. It isn't.

Zynks wrote: »

Last time I checked, we were paying taxes to fund services, infrastructure and social welfare, not to subsidise stupid gambles by third parties that went horribly wrong.

Your frustration is something I feel myself, and while I think the means of helping the banks in this country is flawed, I do not think you can dismiss the necessity of some kind of aid out of hand. Do you think the government could get away with pumping €50 billion into bailouts if bailouts were of absolutely no use? Of course not.

As Denerick said, many people "in the know" have argued that bailouts are necessary for lots of reasons. These kind of people are to be trusted above the vested interest groups like ICTU and the far-left groups.

Zynks wrote: »

And as for your €50 bn, add to that 35 bn in interest @ 7% p.a.

Out of curiosity, do we only pay interest on the bank bailout? Is the money we borrow to spend on social programs interest free?

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

I do not need to give you an alternative to this course of action being undertaken by the current Fianna Fail administration.

Eamon Gilmore? Is that you?

(joke, by the way.)

Shea O'Meara

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Given that the high cost of public services in this country is largely due to politicians pandering to unions and special interest groups, and also given that this attitude has resulted in bloat and lack of cost-effectiveness, trying to argue that they should be kept on their own merit is risky. It's also based on the presumption that every item of spending is justified. It isn't.

Switch 'public services' to 'banks', 'unions' to 'pals', throw in a few more billion on the cost and I'll tag a 'thanks' on the end of the post.

Eliot Rosewater

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Switch 'public services' to 'banks', 'unions' to 'pals', throw in a few more billion on the cost and I'll tag a 'thanks' on the end of the post.

That would also be true. But just because the banks are inefficient does not mean public services aren't. That appears to be your logic. I can see why people want to create this banks vs public services visage, because it suits their ideological point of view, but it's completely wrong.

Also "a few more billion on the cost" is fallacious: in the long term public services will cost a lot more than the banks long term. Or is this country going to keep on thinking short term, despite the recession being party caused by that viewpoint?

kippy

Now its public versus banks as opposed to private versus public.
What a load of nonsense,
everyone is still missing the people that need to be blamed for this.

Solutions arent that hard to find once you get rid of the cowboys that led us down this path.

SeanW

Denerick wrote: »

If the banking system collapses, what happens to the deposits? the credit system? Our borrowing rates? I suppose we should just 'let it fall'. Great. There is a reason why none of you are in politics or academia.

A far more reasonable option, in my opinion, would have been to bail out the small banks as well as AIB and BOI while letting Anglo fall.

1. Anglo is the "bank" that required the most recapitalisation. The bill for it (the recapitalisation portion alone, excluding transfers to NAMA) stands at €29.3 billion - so far, it will probably need that extra €5bn because it seems to be an unending black hole.
2. Anglo's transfers to NAMA are the largest and most worthless of all banks AFAIK.
3. Anglo was more of an investment house - no-one here has chequebooks or ATM cards with Anglo's name on them because they're not a retail bank.
4. Anglo was peripheral to the banking system. It borrowed money internationally, and it lent money to property developers, and as I understand it, that was about all.

Denerick wrote: »

A load of people with PHDs are always telling me crazy shít is going to happen if the banking system collapses. I'm more inclined to side with them than an anonymous boardsie

Would these be the same people that lead us into this mess, didn't see it coming, and seem not to have the foggiest idea what do besides "throw the taxpayer under the bus?"

kippy

SeanW wrote: »

A far more reasonable option, in my opinion, would have been to bail out the small banks as well as AIB and BOI while letting Anglo fall.

1. Anglo is the "bank" that required the most recapitalisation. The bill for it (the recapitalisation portion alone, excluding transfers to NAMA) stands at €29.3 billion - so far, it will probably need that extra €5bn because it seems to be an unending black hole.
2. Anglo's transfers to NAMA are the largest and most worthless of all banks AFAIK.
3. Anglo was more of an investment house - no-one here has chequebooks or ATM cards with Anglo's name on them because they're not a retail bank.
4. Anglo was peripheral to the banking system. It borrowed money internationally, and it lent money to property developers, and as I understand it, that was about all.

Would these be the same people that lead us into this mess, didn't see it coming, and seem not to have the foggiest idea what do besides "throw the taxpayer under the bus?"

Well said.

southsiderosie

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Your frustration is something I feel myself, and while I think the means of helping the banks in this country is flawed, I do not think you can dismiss the necessity of some kind of aid out of hand. Do you think the government could get away with pumping €50 billion into bailouts if bailouts were of absolutely no use? Of course not.

Banks have use, but I agree with Sean W - Anglo should have gone to the wall. The fallout from its collapse would have been limited to one sector of the economy (which was sick anyway), rather than infecting the entire economy.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

As Denerick said, many people "in the know" have argued that bailouts are necessary for lots of reasons. These kind of people are to be trusted above the vested interest groups like ICTU and the far-left groups.

If you think that people "in the know" do not have their own set of vested interests - whether financial or theoretical - there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. ICTU, despite its many, many flaws, has the virtue of at least being up front about where and with whom its interests lie.

Eliot Rosewater

southsiderosie wrote: »

Banks have use, but I agree with Sean W - Anglo should have gone to the wall. The fallout from its collapse would have been limited to one sector of the economy (which was sick anyway), rather than infecting the entire economy.

Agreed.

southsiderosie wrote: »

If you think that people "in the know" do not have their own set of vested interests - whether financial or theoretical - there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

That's a fair point. However it's being argued by some on this thread that all bailouts are bad; that bailouts have no merit at all. In the context of an economic situation where so many governments have bailed out banks, I find this hard to fully believe.

RATM

Im unsure about where all this stuff about Labour having no policies comes from.

When asked for their policies on the bank bailout they said they'd let Anglo go to the wall and nationalise the rest. They said that 2 years ago and 2 years on that's effectively what's happened, with billions wasted in the interim.

It just took Lenihan a further 730 days to come to that conclusion than what it took Gilmore. The contrast is stark, our Minister for Finance is at sixes and sevens whilst Gilmore called it spot on.

Of course Lenihan wouldn't have liked to upset his FF buddies in Anglo so 'we are where we are' because of him and his gutless non-decision making.

Johnny Murphy FF

Zynks wrote: »

He was asking why is the largest bill to ever be presented to the Dail being given only until 3.30 today to be discussed. He suggests that this should be discussed for as long as it takes until 'every single member of the house had a chance to talk about it'.
Cowen responded that he will extend to to 6 or 6.30.... I can't believe that 10 years of pain for this country don't deserve more from our representatives consideration in the view of our '''''leader''''' (double inverted commas was not enough)

What is this bill that you speak of?