History may look at Mr Cowen differently

Voltex

I listened to Brian Cowen this morning on Newstalk where he was interviewed by Ivan Yeats and again there this evening on Prime Time and what struck me most was that this guy is no bumbeling fool like alot of the media would have us believe. He was allowed to speak candidly and unscripted away from his CS puppet masters and what he said showed some of the real elements of a class leader.

He explained what the situation was up to the time he accepted that Ireland needed the bailout and tbh it sounds more and more like he was forced to by his peers at international level (comments from the G20 and Merkle & co) rather than anything else.

I just feel that when we get past the current crisis and we have a few years of this past..and when all the information is there and available, we will see that history has another view of Mr Cowen.

melekalikimaka

Voltex wrote: »

I listened to Brian Cowen this morning on Newstalk where he was interviewed by Ivan Yeats and again there this evening on Prime Time and what struck me most was that this guy is no bumbeling fool like alot of the media would have us believe. He was allowed to speak candidly and unscripted away from his CS puppet masters and what he said showed some of the real elements of a class leader.

He explained what the situation was up to the time he accepted that Ireland needed the bailout and tbh it sounds more and more like he was forced to by his peers at international level (comments from the G20 and Merkle & co) rather than anything else.

I just feel that when we get past the current crisis and we have a few years of this past..and when all the information is there and available, we will see that history has another view of Mr Cowen.

possibly. I'd lean to agree with you, but the backlash would be immense, prepare for the sh1tstorm and illinformed insults directed to him and the party

zig

Voltex wrote: »

he said showed some of the real elements of a class leader.

He explained what the situation was up to the time he accepted that Ireland needed the bailout and tbh it sounds more and more like he was forced to by his peers at international level (comments from the G20 and Merkle & co) rather than anything else.

A true leader would be more interested in standing up for his own country rather than be forced into a terrible deal by these people.

Robbed this analogy from a commentator on newstalk recently, but if he was a true leader he should be the one standing at the top of the building with the grenade in his hand ready to pull the pin. Not necessarily pulling it, but just threatening to pull it.
A sort of "If im going down, your all coming down with me here, so you lot better work with me here."
He should have showed strength in the face of pressure. Today he was on a bit of a heater but it won't be enough to put him down in the history books as a great leader.

melekalikimaka

zig wrote: »

A true leader would be more interested in standing up for his own country rather than be forced into a terrible deal by these people.

I havent looked into the details of the deal other than what we got?

unit 1

Voltex wrote: »

I listened to Brian Cowen this morning on Newstalk where he was interviewed by Ivan Yeats and again there this evening on Prime Time and what struck me most was that this guy is no bumbeling fool like alot of the media would have us believe. He was allowed to speak candidly and unscripted away from his CS puppet masters and what he said showed some of the real elements of a class leader.

He explained what the situation was up to the time he accepted that Ireland needed the bailout and tbh it sounds more and more like he was forced to by his peers at international level (comments from the G20 and Merkle & co) rather than anything else.

I just feel that when we get past the current crisis and we have a few years of this past..and when all the information is there and available, we will see that history has another view of Mr Cowen.

But isnt that the whole point. They thought, and were right that by his previous mismanagement he was'nt fit for purpose, and had to step in. They showed leadership and guile whereas we were left carrying the can. Knowing, but not admitting you part, how bad things are is not leadership, it's just stating the bleeding obvious.

eigrod

He certainly showed leadership. He lead us straight into the arms of the IMF.

Inverse to the power of one!

In light of history, the odds are we will see more on his use of poor advice and emerging corruption then a leader cornered in by events beyond his control.

If the actions taken by this Govt turn out to have been right, you can count the best part of a few millions citizens who will be surprised by the shift in reality......But I doubt that will ever happen.

gandalf

If he wasn't part of the previous Governments then I might agree with you. If he wasn't a key member of Bertie Aherns Cabinet then you could have a point. Brian Cowen did not enter the Political Sphere in 2008 he had been a key member of the Cabinet for the two previous Governments and had participated actively in the decisions that laid the foundation for the surrendering of our economic sovereignty.

When he took over from Bertie Ahern I had high hopes for him because of his supposed fearsome reputation which unfortunately turned out to be a falsehood. He was like a lamb in wolves clothing.

He will go down in history as the leader who handed the keys of the economy to the IMF and European Banks.

melekalikimaka

gandalf wrote: »

He will go down in history as the leader who handed the keys of the economy to the IMF and European Banks.

we lost is a long time before now if you want to get technical

BostonB

Voltex wrote: »

...
I just feel that when we get past the current crisis and we have a few years of this past..and when all the information is there and available, we will see that history has another view of Mr Cowen.

This is nothing. Taken in the context of the last 10~12 yrs it will be a whole new metric of bad.

Amhran Nua

Voltex wrote: »

I just feel that when we get past the current crisis and we have a few years of this past..and when all the information is there and available, we will see that history has another view of Mr Cowen.

Well you know what they say about history being written by the victors; the odds of history ever holding Cowen's performance and indeed FF in a favourable light are pretty poor. The fools that brought the IMF to our doors and into our homes is more like it.

population

Voltex wrote: »

what struck me most was that this guy is no bumbeling fool like alot of the media would have us believe.
I just feel that when we get past the current crisis and we have a few years of this past..and when all the information is there and available, we will see that history has another view of Mr Cowen.

The media have kissed the arse of Cowen from the minute it was even mooted that he might be taking over as leader from Bertie No Bank Account. Only when it became so painfully obvious we were looking at feasibly the worst leader in Irish political history did they begin to sheepishly change their tune and start to engineer a push to put the other incompetent Lenihan in charge. In terms of history judging Cowen, unless the Sindo gets the exclusive rights on writing his legacy and nobody else is allowed to offer a counter opinion then he will never come out of this well because he just could not possibly have done a worse job.

raymon

I agree , historians will have a difficulty with Cowen alright. Some will see him as a bungling idiot whose incompetence in the role of finance minister and later as taoiseach was the single biggest factor in the bankrupting of Ireland. Others will see him as a traitor who knew what he was doing.

ardmacha

Others will see him as a traitor who knew what he was doing.

And still others will see him as a traitor that hadn't a clue what he was doing.

Drumpot

gandalf wrote: »

If he wasn't part of the previous Governments then I might agree with you. If he wasn't a key member of Bertie Aherns Cabinet then you could have a point. Brian Cowen did not enter the Political Sphere in 2008 he had been a key member of the Cabinet for the two previous Governments and had participated actively in the decisions that laid the foundation for the surrendering of our economic sovereignty.

When he took over from Bertie Ahern I had high hopes for him because of his supposed fearsome reputation which unfortunately turned out to be a falsehood. He was like a lamb in wolves clothing.

He will go down in history as the leader who handed the keys of the economy to the IMF and European Banks.

We are not actually in this dire financial situation because of the decisions made by our minister for finance. It was because our banks were not regulated properly. Dont get me wrong (most of the mob will), they made shockingly poor judgement, but we would actually be ok if the banks hadnt of thrown a spanner in the works.

Im not defending the mistakes Cowen has clearly made, but we would only be going through a mini recession if the bank bailout was not required. In truth it would of been but a blip in comparison to what we are facing. Because there is so much anger towards FF, people dont want to hear that the single worst thing of this whole crisis was the smashed credibility and over exposure our banks allowed themselves to get into. You can blame Bertie for that.

I personally think history will be alot kinder to Cowen as usually people can be more objective/rational in their line of thought about certain decisions and things that happen when looking back without anger.

BostonB

Drumpot wrote: »

We are not actually in this dire financial situation because of the decisions made by our minister for finance. It was because our banks were not regulated properly.....

..The Minister for Finance (Irish: Aire Airgeadais) is the title held by the Irish government minister responsible for all financial and monetary matters....

This whole, the minister/govt is not responsible for anything just isn't credible. The signs were all there, and they did nothing. Worse than that they made it worse, by their inaction and policies. Worse still they rewarded themselves in gross excess while doing this.

Thats how history will remember Cowen and FF.

Drumpot

BostonB wrote: »

This whole, the minister/govt is not responsible for anything just isn't credible. The signs were all there, and they did nothing. Worse than that they made it worse, by their inaction and policies. Worse still they rewarded themselves in gross excess while doing this.

Thats how history will remember Cowen and FF.

Policing/Regulating the banks is neither a monetary or financial matter.

If the minister for Finance's job is also to regulate the banks I will stand corrected on that.

jimmycrackcorm

ardmacha wrote: »

And still others will see him as a traitor that hadn't a clue what he was doing.

I'm reminded of the recent Independent newspaper poll where well over 60% of those polled thought we should default. I doubt if any of those asked could have answered if they were also asked to qualify what defaulting would actually do to us.

Liam Byrne

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I'm reminded of the recent Independent newspaper poll where well over 60% of those polled thought we should default. I doubt if any of those asked could have answered if they were also asked to qualify what defaulting would actually do to us.

We should not default on our obligations. That certainly needs to be sorted, and in an honourable manner.

We should, however, put the cost of the bank bailout back where it belongs - let the banks and the speculators sort it out between them.

Bundling the two together is simplifying the argument in order to fuel an agenda.

BostonB

Drumpot wrote: »

Policing/Regulating the banks is neither a monetary or financial matter.

If the minister for Finance's job is also to regulate the banks I will stand corrected on that.

How is not monetary or financial matter? What else do banks do?

Hes responsible for ALL financial and monetary issues.

daveyboy_1ie

raymon wrote: »

I agree , historians will have a difficulty with Cowen alright. Some will see him as a bungling idiot whose incompetence in the role of finance minister and later as taoiseach was the single biggest factor in the bankrupting of Ireland. Others will see him as a traitor who knew what he was doing.

They will all agree he is a liar, and he and his cronies treated the Irish public as if we had no right to know what was going on. Its this attitude which annoys me the most, I do have a right to know whats going on and I don't want to listen to him or Lenihan coming on and treating us as if are just minor inconveniences that pop up every few weeks and need to be pampered/ wiped off their shoes.

How people will vote FF when their last three leaders have been shown to not care a jot about the Irish public and look after their own interests is beyond me. Are we that lacking in choices?

Drumpot

BostonB wrote: »

How is not monetary or financial matter? What else do banks do?

Hes responsible for ALL financial and monetary issues.

Whats that got to do with the banks ?

They were privately owned entities, what exactly are you saying the Minister for Finance could of done to stop them lending ?

The tax breaks and incentives brought in, were certainly within the remit of the minister for finance and would of decentivised people from taking out loans but as far as I know he didnt flood the marketplace with cheap money, nor did he allow banks to give out loans in the willy nilly way they did.

It was part of the party strategy , headed by Galway tent Ahern. Doesnt excuse these actions and it doesnt take away from the fact that Cowen was a part of the problem, but I dont see how you can actually blame Cowen for the banks giving hundreds of Millions/Billions to developers/investors in the manner that has caused this mess, if it wasnt his job to regulate the banks.

If people really want somebody to be angry with for this mess, look no further then Bertie "cutest Hooer in the world" Ahern. Helps cause most of this mess, gets out just before the crash and now everybodys blaming Cowen for everything. Cowen played his part, but history will have Bertie down as the single biggest contributor (certainly in the FF party) to this mess.

melekalikimaka

Liam Byrne wrote: »

We should, however, put the cost of the bank bailout back where it belongs - let the banks and the speculators sort it out between them.

do you think that that is really a possibility... explain this point, where would they get the money? how would the government get out of the guarantee? What happens when there is no money left in the atms?

loldog

History will record its verdict at the upcoming general election. It's a pity that the seeds of this disaster were sown in the era of Haughey, Ahern and MacCreevy, but Cowen will take the fall.

.

theroad

My guess is that history will regard him as a perfect example of the Peter Principle in action: "in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to the level of their incompetence".

The same can be said for his Minister of Finance. They both are clearly out of their depth, and are unequal to the circumstances that their ambition has driven them into. God help us all!

thebman

History will not look favorably on Cowen although I don't hate the man as many here seem to.

I think he is probably one of the most honest FF politicians and one of the best in the party but he compromised his ethics to get to this position in far too many ways when under Bertie when he was Minister for Finance.

What you are seeing now is Bertie's timely escape and Cowen been thrown to the media to take all the blame for Bertie's time as Taoiseach.

Cowen is still to blame too however as he went along with it. Its not that he wasn't up to the job, its that he never wanted to be Minister of Finance. I get the impression his time there, he considered to be doing time until he got the job he really thought he deserved from the start (his current one :P).

I think Cowen will be viewed in popular Irish history as our Nixon. Bad with the media and lots of cloudy decisions made during his time as leader.

In the history books, I think he'll be properly held accountable for the mistakes he made during his time in office and the Irish people of the future will wonder how the hell we were all such idiots to let these people rule our country as they read those history books and continue paying for the debts of today.

BostonB

Drumpot wrote: »

Whats that got to do with the banks ?

They were privately owned entities, what exactly are you saying the Minister for Finance could of done to stop them lending ?...

Keep tabs on the regulator, see if it was doing its job. The job that the Govt set it up to do. They had enough warnings that it wasn't.

TAOISEACH Brian Cowen had just two meetings with former Financial Regulator Patrick Neary during his tenure as Minister for Finance

Mr Cowen's appointments diaries reveal he seldom met regulatory officials during his four years in charge of the Department of Finance as reckless lending spiralled out of control.

It now seems that it is possible for a minister to keep taps on the regulator...

current Finance Minister Brian Lenihan speaks with new regulator Matthew Elderfield at least once a month because of present circumstances.

In contrast, Mr Cowen's diaries record meetings with representatives of more than a dozen Irish and foreign banks in the same period. Several meetings with the construction sector and other business interests were also noted.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cowen-met-with-regulator-twice-in-four-years-2173983.html

Its not like Cowen ignored the regulator completely, and claim he knew nothing. He obviously influenced it through the department...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0623/1224273108050.htm

Regulatory failure was a well known issue...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Regulator

And how could the regulator control the banks...

http://www.thepost.ie/story/text/mhideyojkf/

In 1997, less than 5 per cent of money lent by Irish banks came from funds other than Irish deposits. In 2003,that figure breached 30 per cent. In 2006, it was the highest in the eurozone at 46 per cent. The percentage of all bank lending going to property was increasing rapidly. In 2003, it breached 50 per cent for the first time.

The Financial Regulator was not in a position to just put a cap on how much the banks could lend.

It could not introduce rules that didn’t apply to foreign banks operating in the Irish market. That would have put domestic banks at a disadvantage.

However, what it could do was alter its guidelines on lending criteria and stress testing. It could also change the rules on the level of capital that banks had to set aside for various types of lending.

Changing capital ratios would have been a very effective instrument in slowing lending and controlling the property boom if applied sooner. However, it would also have been politically very unpopular.

The Financial Regulator did change the capital ratios mix on residential lending in May 2006 where the loan was for more than 80 per cent of the value of the house. Interestingly, the property market peaked just three months later.

Also in 2006, it introduced new restrictions on banks lending to developers to purchase greenfield sites. These measures were aimed at controlling the potential problem of massive loans being given out to fund sites, where the site was the only security on the loan.

However, even though the regulator made detailed proposals on changes to these rules in early 2006,when it came to implementing them, it introduced a watered-down version of the plan that was not as restrictive.

In July 2005, Patrick Neary the then prudential director of IFSRA, said he would not rule out raising capital ratios if credit risk was reaching unacceptable levels.

He did act on it a year later, as chief executive, but it was too late.

BostonB

Theres no doubt Ahern left Cowen holding the baby, and Cowen then held it at arms length for as long as possible.

Anonymous1987

My thoughts on Cowen are that he is intelligent and understands the issues but has not shown adequate leadership in defending Ireland's interests internationally and caves to the electorate when he should show leadership.

Consider his role as minister for finance where he introduced property tax incentives. Many people forget the mad rush for young couples to get on the infamous "property ladder". The electorate were demanding more property and this brought us to today's glut of excess housing stock and the evaporation of the construction industry. The major parties at the time were all calling for more property development from what I remember. Leadership in this instance would have been an effort to explain to the public the risks of such policies and to communicate it was not in the long term interests of the country. It is probably too much to ask a politician whose position depends on the demands of the electorate to refuse them something they want especially when there was a multitude of other people and groups willing to to give the electorate what they want, even TD's within Fianna Fail. Nevertheless refusal here would have been in the electorate's interests would have displayed strong leadership.

Even with today's issues, now that the crisis has occurred Cowen and Co have buckled under international pressure to defend Ireland's interests in their negotiations with the IMF/EU/ECB. It seems accepted that an interest rate of 6% was not likely to be sustainable for Ireland, Cowen achieved 5.83%, near unsustainable and failed to obtain a deal sharing the loss of senior bondholders. The Irish taxpayer will bail out the bondholders. The bondholders made poor investments which failed, they should face a loss however Cowen's deal ensures that the Irish government will pay the bill of maintaining the stability of the financial markets. Again this shows a failure to defend Irish interests (this time for no electoral benefit) and is remarkable given the support Merkel has shown (at least publicly) for letting bondholders go. It is all the more remarkable because earlier in the crisis Cowen showed a disregard for the effects on the European financial system with the bank deposit guarantee. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Cowen and Co initially defended Ireland's interests vigorously but then pulled back after mounting pressure particularly from our dependence on ECB lending to the banks (approximately 25% of all bank lending in the Eurozone from the latest figures I remember). Ultimately accountability rests with Cowen and I'm not convinced he showed leadership.

eigrod

BostonB wrote: »

This whole, the minister/govt is not responsible for anything just isn't credible. The signs were all there, and they did nothing. Worse than that they made it worse, by their inaction and policies. Worse still they rewarded themselves in gross excess while doing this.

Worst of all, they fuelled it. The electorate may need to be reminded of who was invited to the Galway tent every year.

thebman

To rush to get "on the ladder" was artifically created by banks, estate agents, media and the government.

The government could easily through the regulator advertised the warnings to people but failed massively to do anything in the area of creating a balanced debate on property ownership.

Considering we have a state broadcaster for almost exactly the reason of having balanced debate, it is even more damning IMO.

ardmacha

Considering we have a state broadcaster for almost exactly the reason of having balanced debate,

RTE did run the "Future Shock" programme. This was labelled as irresponsible, partly inaccurate and wholly sensationalist.

its a pity Cowen et al didn't watch it before giving the bank guarantee.

gollem_1975

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Well you know what they say about history being written by the victors; the odds of history ever holding Cowen's performance and indeed FF in a favourable light are pretty poor. The fools that brought the IMF to our doors and into our homes is more like it.

well the IMF were brought into the UK in 1976 and I doubt if many people in recent years knew that (or cared) about it very much.

how Cowen(or any of the current actors on the political stage) will be viewed by history is impossible to tell at this point.

reminds me of a comment attributed to Mao. when he was asked for his opinion on the effects of the french revolution , he said it was too early to tell!

It will depend really on what happens to ireland as a result of this crisis.

If our economy recovers in time Cowan will probably be forgotten.

If we don't recover then he will be remembered(villified?) .

In general people are much more likely to remember the negative then the positive imo.

Liam Byrne

gollem_1975 wrote: »

If our economy recovers in time Cowan will probably be forgotten.

Why ?

If our economy recovers from this level then we will always be left wondering what heights we could have reached if Ahern, Cowen & Lenihan hadn't blown the boom.

gollem_1975

ardmacha wrote: »

RTE did run the "Future Shock" programme. This was labelled as irresponsible, partly inaccurate and wholly sensationalist.

its a pity Cowen et al didn't watch it before giving the bank guarantee.

meh, considering when RTE did eventually broadcast "future shock" to say it was overdue is an understatement.

Don't forget about all the property pr0n programs, househunters, place in the sun etc. that they were showing.

bamboozle

Voltex wrote: »

I listened to Brian Cowen this morning on Newstalk where he was interviewed by Ivan Yeats and again there this evening on Prime Time and what struck me most was that this guy is no bumbeling fool like alot of the media would have us believe. He was allowed to speak candidly and unscripted away from his CS puppet masters and what he said showed some of the real elements of a class leader.

He explained what the situation was up to the time he accepted that Ireland needed the bailout and tbh it sounds more and more like he was forced to by his peers at international level (comments from the G20 and Merkle & co) rather than anything else.

I just feel that when we get past the current crisis and we have a few years of this past..and when all the information is there and available, we will see that history has another view of Mr Cowen.

i doubt it, bad decision after bad decision as Taoiseach, shocking tenure as Minister for Finance, has never stood out in any ministerial role, arguably his finest performance as a TD was in winning the '07 election for FF when Bertie showed little interest in the election.

our grand children will be asking us in 30 years time why we did nothing while FF & their cronys ran the country into the gutter.

gollem_1975

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why ?

If our economy recovers from this level then we will always be left wondering what heights we could have reached if Ahern, Cowen & Lenihan hadn't blown the boom.

possibly you will Liam, though tbh if Ahern,Cowen and Lenihan found a cure for cancer you'd still criticise them for not finding it sooner.

if we manage to recover within the next 10 years the main thing I will be thinking/feeling is gratitude/relief that we recovered and not thinking "what if?"

Which of the following do you imagine a german 10 years after ww11 would be thinking.

"can you imagine where we'd be now if we hadn't invaded poland."
or
"thank feck I am alive"

jmayo

gollem_1975 wrote: »

meh, considering when RTE did eventually broadcast "future shock" to say it was overdue is an understatement.

Don't forget about all the property pr0n programs, househunters, place in the sun etc. that they were showing.

They released that program in spring 2007 AFAIK and the bubble was in decline at that stage.
I am surprised they let out to air at all.

I can't believe we are discussing biffo clowens legacy.

It just shows how effing deluded some people are if they think that someone who played a major part in destroying a vibrant thriving economy (he was major player in government from 1997 and second in command from 2004) will somehow be viewed more kindly by this and the next generation in 20 odd years. :rolleyes:

Euroland

zig wrote: »

A true leader would be more interested in standing up for his own country rather than be forced into a terrible deal by these people.

+1

gollem_1975

thebman wrote: »

To rush to get "on the ladder" was artifically created by banks, estate agents, media and the government.

what you have listed there bman is a who's who of the least trusted professionals (excluding used car salesmen)

the sad reality is that people would not have rushed to get on the ladder unless they were convinced by people they trusted i.e. their friends and family. then once these people were on the ladder they encouraged a new wave of people paying ever higher prices to get on the ladder.

and it wasn't just the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse that you mention that had an interest in the rush to get on the ladder/construction boom.

architects, builders, developers, landowners, lawyers, accountants....all the way down to people in the service station serving breakfast rolls.

Lots of people did very well for themselves during this period.

many people say that the government got addicted to the proceeds from stamp duty.
Stamp duty was perhaps the only device we saw used during the boom to deflate the bubble as it was an amount that needed to be paid upfront.

we are talking about relatively small percentages when we consider stamp duty ( i mean they were nowhere near VAT rates ) but because they were a small % on astronomical house prices it meant the coffers were being swollen. thus reducing restraint in terms of public sector salaries and welfare rates (realistically we wouldn't have been able to afford these rates had stamp duty not been there..and if we needed any more petrol to throw on the fire..as PS salaries went up housing prices/stamp duty also went up ! )

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that the people giving out the money. the ECB, Central Bank and the banks themselves would themselves have exercised restraint in terms of the amounts of money they were lending out...did they think the supply was never going to end!?

what was my point again.. oh yeah ..its #simoncoveneysfault

MonkieSocks

Knock knock.

Who's there?

IMF.:(

IMF who?:o

IMF'in going to take all your Money.:eek:

Monty Burnz

Voltex wrote: »

He explained what the situation was up to the time he accepted that Ireland needed the bailout and tbh it sounds more and more like he was forced to by his peers at international level (comments from the G20 and Merkle & co) rather than anything else.

Well I bet they are glad they voted Fianna Failure and Cowen into government to look after their interests...

Monty Burnz

Drumpot wrote: »

Policing/Regulating the banks is neither a monetary or financial matter.

If the minister for Finance's job is also to regulate the banks I will stand corrected on that.

You stand corrected. Who is in charge of the regulator?

Laminations

gollem_1975 wrote: »

possibly you will Liam, though tbh if Ahern,Cowen and Lenihan found a cure for cancer you'd still criticise them for not finding it sooner.

Well to make that comparable, they'd have to have played a large part in creating and spreading the cancer and then yes, after doing that, they wouldn't be able to find a cure soon enough because the damage has been done.

How abouts I amputate your arms but then I'll (after much botching) stop you from bleeding out thus saving your life. Would you be likely to forget my name or judge me any kinder after the passing of time?

kmick

They said the same about Haughey but to date he is still reviled as a self serving crook. Bertie's legacy was destroyed by his financial irregularities. Cowen will be forever remembered as Nero who fiddled while Rome burned.

melekalikimaka

kmick wrote: »

They said the same about Haughey but to date he is still reviled as a self serving crook. Bertie's legacy was destroyed by his financial irregularities. Cowen will be forever remembered as Nero who fiddled while Rome burned.

i think our nation will be looked poorly on, the attitudes of the people will go down down in history as very spoilt imo

BostonB

gollem_1975 wrote: »

...the sad reality is that people would not have rushed to get on the ladder unless they were convinced by people they trusted i.e. their friends and family. then once these people were on the ladder they encouraged a new wave of people paying ever higher prices to get on the ladder....

No one could have done anything without cheap cheap credit/loans/mortgages.

That could have been controlled by the Govt. Instead it was encouraged.

gollem_1975

Laminations wrote: »

Well to make that comparable, they'd have to have played a large part in creating and spreading the cancer and then yes, after doing that, they wouldn't be able to find a cure soon enough because the damage has been done.

meh.. there are some people that no matter what the gov did they would hate them anyway and would go as far as saying that the gov "deliberately" spread the cancer !

Laminations wrote:

How abouts I amputate your arms but then I'll (after much botching) stop you from bleeding out thus saving your life. Would you be likely to forget my name or judge me any kinder after the passing of time?

man I thought my german after ww11 analogy was dodgy but yours are woeful

but if you want me to take your analogy seriously then I ask you to consider the victims of the troubles up north and then the subsequent peace process...

besides to compare everyone in the state to an amputee is laughable.

many people in this country are still doing ok.

In our "most draconian budget ever" we saw welfare rates cut by ...drumroll...4%...peoples average tax rate increase by..drumroll 2%

I'll conclude with a tweet I read earlier "there's no sign of joan burtons recession on grafton street!"

gollem_1975

BostonB wrote: »

No one could have done anything without cheap cheap credit/loans/mortgages.

That could have been controlled by the Govt. Instead it was encouraged.

I agree with you 100% on the control part but not sure if I see too much evidence that they actively encouraged "reckless" lending.

When I was in the thick of making the biggest financial decision in my life i.e. to buy a house,I don't recall anyone in the political arena screaming for lending to be restricted whereas there was demand among the public for this cheap credit loans etc. and the increase in the salary multiples and 100% mortgages were seen as a good thing by those who took them out.

ultimately if more people had put more thought into their financial decisions during the boom then we wouldn't be where we are today either... but then again is so much easier to blame the Big.Ignorant.Fecker...etc.


ps: I didn't buy that house..mainly thanks to folk on Boards

BostonB

gollem_1975 wrote: »

...I'll conclude with a tweet I read earlier "there's no sign of joan burtons recession on grafton street!"

The most expensive shopping street in Dublin wouldn't be where I'd look for it tbh. Thats like going into Steak house looking for vegetarians.

gollem_1975

kmick wrote: »

They said the same about Haughey but to date he is still reviled as a self serving crook. Bertie's legacy was destroyed by his financial irregularities. Cowen will be forever remembered as Nero who fiddled while Rome burned.

good point re. Haughey.

think that fits into the idea the amount of good you need to do far outweighs the amount of bad you have to do to be remembered.

i.e. you do 4 good things and 1 bad thing.. you'll be most remembered for the bad thing.

e.g. I remember Boris Yeltsin for being too drunk to come off the plane at Shannon.. I don't remember anything else he did(nt) do tbh