McWilliams on Kaiser Report

gflood

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBbgVZz7_YM

See link, from about 13 minutes onwards.

Video content:
The video is an interview with David McWilliams about the KilKilenomics festival. The intersting stuff is when they discuss the Irish enconmy and the banking issues.

I posted this link as it offers an outside view of what others (Kaiser in this case) thinks of the bank bailout. He asks the simple question as to why the Irish taxpayer should pay for what was private debt.

sollar

Yeah just watched it there. I find it very revealing when i hear outside comment on our predicament. The reference to bobby sands and that struggle was funny.

There is something very fishy about the whole thing. Something is being covered up or kept from the irish people. Why have we not got a few journalists or a paper going after the money trail with every fibre in their body. 50 Billion going where and to who????

Superlativeman

sollar wrote: »

Yeah just watched it there. I find it very revealing when i hear outside comment on our predicament. The reference to bobby sands and that struggle was funny.

There is something very fishy about the whole thing. Something is being covered up or kept from the irish people. Why have we not got a few journalists or a paper going after the money trail with every fibre in their body. 50 Billion going where and to who????

Good point.

Imagine the Trilateral Commission meets in Dublin with Henry Kissenger, David Rockefeller, IMF, AIG, AND Goldman Sach heads, and it isn't reported on, even by the tax payer funded RTE?

It's a shame we have no alternative media here.

Zynks

Powerful stuff. Only thing is that I would suggest checking the whole video out. There are some powerful parts: "They don't have the authority to impose austerity on you Irish people, don't you understand that? " "Irish banking terrorists" "it is back to the potatoes for you Irish!"

These views are not very different to my long held views, but my wife just got infuriated when she saw this video in full. She thinks every Irish person should see it. So do I.

southsiderosie

gflood wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBbgVZz7_YM

See link, from about 13 minutes onwards

Can you please summarize for us what is in the video, and the main point McWilliams is trying to make?

sollar

southsiderosie wrote: »

Can you please summarize for us what is in the video, and the main point McWilliams is trying to make?

Please, take the time to watch it its worth seeing.

I agree with zynks everyone in the country should watch it, it might get people starting to ask the right questions and not just follow the government and media slant on this crisis. Because to me the media are not asking the right questions at all.

Nobody seems to know where the money is going and has already gone, what important people/elite/politicians etc know and are either covering up or keeping bird mouthed about.

southsiderosie

sollar wrote: »

Please, take the time to watch it its worth seeing.

I agree with zynks everyone in the country should watch it, it might get people starting to ask the right questions and not just follow the government and media slant on this crisis. Because to me the media are not asking the right questions at all.

Nobody seems to know where the money is going and has already gone, what important people know and are either covering up of keeping bird mouthed about.

Depending on where they are, not everyone can link to videos.

Zynks

southsiderosie wrote: »

Depending on where they are, not everyone can link to videos.

There is so many angles to this video that it would be very hard to summarize, except for saying that the whole bank bailout is a grand robbery.

The whole scam is described in a way I hadn't seen before in the media.

Keep the link and try to see it when you have a chance.

sceptre

gflood, as OP, the forum charter requires you to include a brief summary of the linked video in a thread you start with a youtube video, as well as including your own views. If you could add those as soon as possible, it would be appreciated.

/mod

ei.sdraob

wow his pimping gold hard {as usual}, caveat emptor

RonMexico

I'm so confused after watching that video. Is this some sort of piss-take?

digme

No your just used to watching corporate sh!te.

he's one of the very few brave and truthful economists around
http://maxkeiser.com


.

MayoForSam

Interesting piece, I know some people are skeptical of McWilliams but you can't argue with most of what he says. Keiser does look a bit shifty but I suppose he does present the alternative view of what capitalism and consumerism has cooked up for us all. The mainstream media and the powers-that-be would prefer if us the public remain unaware of these alternative viewpoints anyway.

I do reckon that with the upcoming budget, the Irish public will finally decide to get off their a$$es, march on the Dail and force this government out. I only hope that the next government with a new mandate will have the guts to reconvene that meeting between the bondholders, the bankers and the developers in that locked room and force through a deal that is transparent and fair to us the taxpayers (some hope of that happening).

No mention in that video of the slight issue we have with the public finances, which could be a lot more difficult to solve.

RichardAnd

My opinion of McWilliams has honestly come round in the last few months. Before, I thought he was just playing the populist card with his documentaries and his famous line "my god...we were conned".

However, he seems to have left that behind him as in that video, he just stating the facts of the matter. But, as the saying goes...

"those that mind don't matter and those that matter don't mind"

Sticky_Fingers

MayoForSam wrote: »

I do reckon that with the upcoming budget, the Irish public will finally decide to get off their a$$es, march on the Dail and force this government out. I only hope that the next government with a new mandate will have the guts to reconvene that meeting between the bondholders, the bankers and the developers in that locked room and force through a deal that is transparent and fair to us the taxpayers (some hope of that happening).

As for public protests, to be honest I won't hold my breath, the Irish response to this calamity reminds me of the quote from a priest during the WW2, " first the came for the Jews and I said nothing because I was a not a Jew, then they came for.... etc etc(replace groups as required). The government has been very adept at creating division and strife amongst the population, public versus private workers, workers against welfare claimants, everyone against the bankers, so adept that I (any I would presume many others) don't know what to do, who to blame or how are we going to drag ourselves out of this quagmire. While all this white noise has been saturating the airwaves and the internet we (myself included) lost sight of the root cause of all our misfortune, the IMO criminal transfer of this nations wealth into the blackhole that is NAMA, Anglo and god knows how many quangos set up to provide jobs for the boys.

The sad fact is that while I currently do not live in the country I seem to have more interest in the goings on and state of the nation then many many people resident in Ireland. Many people haven't a clue what is going on or where we are heading and while they have their internet, DVD's and Xfactor many won't care unless they are personally affected in a very substantial way. Sure they may piss and moan about the situation but very few will bother to get off their arses and do something about it. The Irish people hate change and uncertainty so while many around them are suffocating under debt and poverty they will do nothing but tut tut and thank their lucky stars that at least its not them because they could never be one of "those" people.

PanchoVilla

Superlativeman wrote: »

Good point.

Imagine the Trilateral Commission meets in Dublin with Henry Kissenger, David Rockefeller, IMF, AIG, AND Goldman Sach heads, and it isn't reported on, even by the tax payer funded RTE?

It's a shame we have no alternative media here.

And imagine that the Garda Síochána were informed that Henry Kissinger was wanted for questioning in France and Spain for war crimes pertaining to the 1970 military coup in Chile but the Gardaí failed to act on this request.

We do have alternative media in this country, you just have to look for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T63S-KNLEpg

rumour

RichardAnd wrote: »

My opinion of McWilliams has honestly come round in the last few months. Before, I thought he was just playing the populist card with his documentaries and his famous line "my god...we were conned".

However, he seems to have left that behind him as in that video, he just stating the facts of the matter. But, as the saying goes...

"those that mind don't matter and those that matter don't mind"

Mc Williams even though he has a good track record is playing a populist card. He advocates everything that would in effect lead to a short sharp shock to the economy.

If we adopted his approach of instigating moral outrage at the bankers to stir enough popular sentiment to actually motivate people to encourage our government to tell the bond holders to piss off, where would we be then?

We have enough money until february or march. If we advocate his approach we better not need money after those dates The only way we can realistically do that is by managing our current account, which please correct me if i'm wrong I have yet to see him advocate in any realistic manner. Is he worried about his popularity?

Why is he always so coy in avoiding this issue?

Rabble Rabble

rumour wrote: »

Mc Williams even though he has a good track record is playing a populist card. He advocates everything that would in effect lead to a short sharp shock to the economy.

If we adopted his approach of instigating moral outrage at the bankers to stir enough popular sentiment to actually motivate people to encourage our government to tell the bond holders to piss off, where would we be then?

We have enough money until february or march. If we advocate his approach we better not need money after those dates The only way we can realistically do that is by managing our current account, which please correct me if i'm wrong I have yet to see him advocate in any realistic manner. Is he worried about his popularity?

Why is he always so coy in avoiding this issue?

he's not. He thinks that if we default on the non-sovereign debt of the banks which we foolishly guarantee, the sovereign bond-holders will applaud, not be shocked. The cuts we are making, without the guarantee, would historically be enough to placate the markets.

Tipp Man

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

he's not. He thinks that if we default on the non-sovereign debt of the banks which we foolishly guarantee, the sovereign bond-holders will applaud, not be shocked. The cuts we are making, without the guarantee, would historically be enough to placate the markets.

Who (i.e which institutions) are on our non- soverign debt and which institutions are on our soverign debt? Are both lists remarkably different??

Rabble Rabble

Tipp Man wrote: »

Who (i.e which institutions) are on our non- soverign debt and which institutions are on our soverign debt? Are both lists remarkably different??

The sovereign bond market is different to the cross-European banks, who lent to our banks, as far as I know. What's crippling Ireland is the bank guarantee. Without that interest rates would be falling in response to the government measures.

SoulTrader

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

he's not. He thinks that if we default on the non-sovereign debt of the banks which we foolishly guarantee, the sovereign bond-holders will applaud, not be shocked. The cuts we are making, without the guarantee, would historically be enough to placate the markets.

Agreed. It's absolutely insane to think that the Irish Government / taxpayer is contemplating bailing out corporate bondholders. The counter argument that some make to this is that, if we don't bail out these INBS and Anglo bondholders, then these same bondholders will never invest in the country again.

Do you care?

I certainly don't. If these bondholders think they can obtain risk free (because the Irish government will bail them out) investment returns in this climate, and hold us to ransom to demand that they are bailed out, then I don't care for their future investment in this country. You can't simply turn around after getting generous returns for years on end and demand that the principal you invested is returned to you without ever having been at risk.

Tipp Man

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

The sovereign bond market is different to the cross-European banks, who lent to our banks, as far as I know. What's crippling Ireland is the bank guarantee. Without that interest rates would be falling in response to the government measures.

That wasn't the question, the question was, which institutions are on which list and, by extension, which are on both lists??

Rabble Rabble

Tipp Man wrote: »

That wasn't the question, the question was, which institutions are on which list and, by extension, which are on both lists??

Nobody knows the debtors in Anglo , as far as I know. It doesnt matter. Sovereign debt is not the same a investing in a bank which is a capitalist entity.

SoulTrader

Tipp Man wrote: »

That wasn't the question, the question was, which institutions are on which list and, by extension, which are on both lists??

To be honest, I don't think it matters which institutions are on both lists (i.e. which institutions bought our sovereign bonds, and which bought the corporate bonds of Irish companies). The debt that Ireland issues as a nation, being our sovereign debt, is the only debt that the Government should stand over.

I don't care who has bought the bonds that were issued by the likes of Anglo, it could be a mix of investment banks, other countries, individuals and other corporate entities. The Government, in my opinion, has no business bailing out these bondholders, whoever they may be.

Lists are available online, but I don't have time to look for them at the moment. It may have been on this forum they were linked recently.

SoulTrader

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Nobody knows the debtors in Anglo , as far as I know. It doesnt matter. Sovereign debt is not the same a investing in a bank which is a capitalist entity.

Pretty sure the list is out there, but I'm not sure if anyone can vouch for its accuracy.

Rabble Rabble

SoulTrader wrote: »

To be honest, I don't think it matters which institutions are on both lists (i.e. which institutions bought our sovereign bonds, and which bought the corporate bonds of Irish companies). The debt that Ireland issues as a nation, being our sovereign debt, is the only debt that the Government should stand over.

I don't care who has bought the bonds that were issued by the likes of Anglo, it could be a mix of investment banks, other countries, individuals and other corporate entities. The Government, in my opinion, has no business bailing out these bondholders, whoever they may be.

Lists are available online, but I don't have time to look for them at the moment. It may have been on this forum they were linked recently.

right. In fact small investors can invest in sovereign bonds, or in shares, or even loan to businesses if you had enough capital. If you had such a portfolio you would expect the first one to be safe, the other two not to be safe. You take your chances.

To stop obstufacting the issue I am going to use the term "loans" with regards to the bank guarantees in future.

Tipp Man

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Nobody knows the debtors in Anglo , as far as I know. It doesnt matter. Sovereign debt is not the same a investing in a bank which is a capitalist entity.

its the creditors i'm asking about not the debtors

The banks are no longer capitalist entities, what with the state guarantee and them being near nationalised

Tipp Man

SoulTrader wrote: »

To be honest, I don't think it matters which institutions are on both lists (i.e. which institutions bought our sovereign bonds, and which bought the corporate bonds of Irish companies). The debt that Ireland issues as a nation, being our sovereign debt, is the only debt that the Government should stand over.

I don't care who has bought the bonds that were issued by the likes of Anglo, it could be a mix of investment banks, other countries, individuals and other corporate entities. The Government, in my opinion, has no business bailing out these bondholders, whoever they may be.

Lists are available online, but I don't have time to look for them at the moment. It may have been on this forum they were linked recently.

Well I would agree with you if the guarantee had never happened or if the state hadn't become the majority shareholder in the banks, and lets face it if neither of these had happened the banks would have gone to the wall

But in the current situation I don't think the state can allow the banks to default as the association between the state and the banks is too strong and a bank default will be seen (and rightly so) as a state default

The point being that if the government says f##k you to the bank bondholders then it is probably fair to say these same bondholders will say f##k you back to the state when we go to borrow our vast sums in the spring of next year

Rabble Rabble

Tipp Man wrote: »

its the creditors i'm asking about not the debtors

The banks are no longer capitalist entities, what with the state guarantee and them being near nationalised

Yah, creditors. They aren't nationalised yet - the opt out we have is that the banks lied to the Irish government, and under law, that means we can renege.

Although Morgan Kelly said that boat had sailed, for some reason.

Rabble Rabble

Tipp Man wrote: »

Well I would agree with you if the guarantee had never happened or if the state hadn't become the majority shareholder in the banks, and lets face it if neither of these had happened the banks would have gone to the wall

But in the current situation I don't think the state can allow the banks to default as the association between the state and the banks is too strong and a bank default will be seen (and rightly so) as a state default

The point being that if the government says f##k you to the bank bondholders then it is probably fair to say these same bondholders will say f##k you back to the state when we go to borrow our vast sums in the spring of next year

No, what would happen if there was no bank guarantee is the bond market will reduce the spread on Irish debt. What's spooking them is not the deficit, or even the over-all non-bank guarantee debt, all of which is manageable and being managed.

What is spooking them is the bank guarantee.

rumour

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

he's not. He thinks that if we default on the non-sovereign debt of the banks which we foolishly guarantee, the sovereign bond-holders will applaud, not be shocked. The cuts we are making, without the guarantee, would historically be enough to placate the markets.

I don't get it here...please explain if i am missing the point. So we default, big shots. What are the consequences? He gives the long term impression that'll be fine, I agree with him, its the short term he avoids like the plague and I think he does it deliberately, that way he doesn't have to answer any of those horrible public sector questions, how would he be invited to RTE if he did that?.
Mc Williams is not saying that suddenly the 20bn we want to blow on our current account this year and the next and the next and the next, won't be a problem far from it. He simply is not talking about that issue. Why?

Rabble Rabble

rumour wrote: »

I don't get it here...please explain if i am missing the point. So we default, big shots. What are the consequences? He gives the long term impression that'll be fine, I agree with him, its the short term he avoids like the plague and I think he does it deliberately, that way he doesn't have to answer any of those horrible public sector questions, how would he be invited to RTE if he did that?.
Mc Williams is not saying that suddenly the 20bn we want to blow on our current account this year and the next and the next and the next, won't be a problem far from it. He simply is not talking about that issue. Why?

I dont know. How much of that is interest on the loans we took off the banks?

What I do know is this. Absent the bank guarantee and with the buget cuts.

1) The deficit would be coming under control. It seems to be close to the UK levels.
2) The ratio of debt to GDP would start to stabilise.

What should then happen is the bond markets say - hey, these guys are trying, haven't ever defaulted, we can start loaning again. And the spread reduces. This is what happened in response to Ray McSharry's cuts. And Unlike Greece we dont riot.

What is spooking them is the bank guarantee.

Tipp Man

rumour wrote: »

I don't get it here...please explain if i am missing the point. So we default, big shots. What are the consequences? He gives the long term impression that'll be fine, I agree with him, its the short term he avoids like the plague and I think he does it deliberately, that way he doesn't have to answer any of those horrible public sector questions, how would he be invited to RTE if he did that?.
Mc Williams is not saying that suddenly the 20bn we want to blow on our current account this year and the next and the next and the next, won't be a problem far from it. He simply is not talking about that issue. Why?

Far too many people focusing on the bank bailout when the current account is the major major problem.

Tipp Man

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

No, what would happen if there was no bank guarantee is the bond market will reduce the spread on Irish debt. What's spooking them is not the deficit, or even the over-all non-bank guarantee debt, all of which is manageable and being managed.

What is spooking them is the bank guarantee.

In your opinion??

My point is that if you have a large section of bondholders common to both the banks and the soverign debt then if we default on the bank debt they will penalise us even further on our soverign debt

Rabble Rabble

Tipp Man wrote: »

Far too many people focusing on the bank bailout when the current account is the major major problem.

The problem is the bond market. The current account is being deal with. The Bank Bailout is the issue. As I am a bit tired of saying now, when Ray McSharry introduced cuts back in the day ( when the current account deficit was as high or higher, and the debt to GDP ratio was as high, or higher) the bond markets reacted by reducing the cost of Irish debt. That is not happening now because they are spooked by the size of the bank bailout. Not the deficit.

SoulTrader

Tipp Man wrote: »

Well I would agree with you if the guarantee had never happened or if the state hadn't become the majority shareholder in the banks, and lets face it if neither of these had happened the banks would have gone to the wall

But in the current situation I don't think the state can allow the banks to default as the association between the state and the banks is too strong and a bank default will be seen (and rightly so) as a state default

The point being that if the government says f##k you to the bank bondholders then it is probably fair to say these same bondholders will say f##k you back to the state when we go to borrow our vast sums in the spring of next year

The Government becoming a majority shareholder doesn't compel them to bail out bondholders. Equity investments are limited to the amount of equity put in. So while it's true that the Government is the majority shareholder in the banks, that is no reason for them to bail out bondholders. For example, if you invest $1,000 in ordinary shares of a publicly traded bank, and the share price collapses so your $1,000 is now worth $1, it wouldn't be fair if the bondholders of that bank turn around and say to you, "well, you were the main shareholder so now you have to dip into your pocket again and bail me out too". Equity investors and debt investors are just two different types of investors.

I take your point about there being a close association between the Irish Government and the bailed-out banks, but I just don't think that that calls for a bailout of bondholders.

Tipp Man

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

The problem is the bond market. The current account is being deal with. The Bank Bailout is the issue. As I am a bit tired of saying now, when Ray McSharry introduced cuts back in the day ( when the current account deficit was as high or higher, and the debt to GDP ratio was as high, or higher) the bond markets reacted by reducing the cost of Irish debt. That is not happening now because they are spooked by the size of the bank bailout. Not the deficit.

Are you part of the bond market that you can say this so definitively? i find it strange that we have been ploughing money into the banks for a couple of years now and that hasn't had a(major) affect on our rate but when our current account becomes the focus of attention by both the bond holders and the government then the rate shoots through the roof. That tells me the bond holders don't feel that the government has the power or the willingness needed to implement the current account cuts that you say are being dealt with

The bank bailout is supposed to be a one off cost, we will have borrowed as much to cover the current account deficit in the period 2008-2011 as the bank bailout will cost

don't underestimate the huge mess the current account is in

Tipp Man

SoulTrader wrote: »

I take your point about there being a close association between the Irish Government and the bailed-out banks, but I just don't think that that calls for a bailout of bondholders.

IMO there is room for negotiation with the bank bondholders however I don't think a full on default is a possibility - a state owned bank defaulting - that would certainly cause concern in the markets and IMO would defo lead to even higher rates. would we even be able to access the markets to fund our current account deficit?

SoulTrader

Tipp Man wrote: »

IMO there is room for negotiation with the bank bondholders however I don't think a full on default is a possibility - a state owned bank defaulting - that would certainly cause concern in the markets and IMO would defo lead to even higher rates. would we even be able to access the markets to fund our current account deficit?

That's a good question. My chief concern is that we are being held to ransom by bondholders who think that their investments should be risk-free, which brings me back to a point I made earlier that we could do without bondholders who are only willing to invest in our banks' debts if the Irish Government guarantees they will bail them out.

But yeah, maybe there is a potential for negotiation on the issue between the Government and bondholders. As a matter of principle I still think it's wrong that the Government should be expected by the bondholders to bail them out, but there is a wider reputation issue here beyond the actual Anglo mess itself. I haven't heard from much from the bondholders but my suspicion is they would probably be unwilling to take much, if any, of a haircut on their bonds.

rumour

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

The current account is being deal with. The Bank Bailout is the issue.

I disagree here. I am totally pissed about the bailout but having done that and taken the money we now need 20bn a year for the current account. Its been running for two years and the deficit is far from being dealt with its barely under control.

The markets will lend for the banks as ultimately there is some tangible potential for recovery but the current account it's off any reasonable scale. The more people cite % of GDP and GNP, exclude this and exclude that, it all just sounds like nonsense when quite simply the message is internationally; we earn 30 and spend 50. Therefore we need 20 a year. Thats 40bn up to the end of this year and they are looking for how many bn next year? The real answer is nobody knows.

greendom

So can anyone provide a summary of the video ?