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

Who Predicted This? Who Do We Blame?

Options
245678

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    danbohan wrote: »
    depends on your definition of excessive , every country has stealth taxes . fictional deflection is exactly what the majority of the Irish population is indulging in

    Well considering my idea of excessive is over €100,000 and I've never asked for, wanted or received even half that, you don't have a leg to stand on.

    Also, other countries may have stealth taxes but this country has ridiculous ones - no option to pay for waste disposal on once-a-month collection basis, €850 a year in tolls for a simple bypass, and 95c of the current €1.40 for a litre of petrol, not to mention the illegal VRT.

    So I'm not the one who's making up lies that we all rolled in it and were greedy and took out crazy loans - that's an FF lie.


  • Options
    #33
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    GoldenEarring wrote: »
    Why are you defending him?

    Typical. Anybody suggests that *shock, horror*, Bertie could be right on something and suddenly, despite saying that they're not defending him, they're defending him.

    I am not defending him. I am saying that on the issue of warnings re the banking crisis, he is probably right. Not the property crash. The banking crisis. Banking.

    Is he wrong? Who was warning?


  • Options
    #34
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    later10 wrote: »
    No serious economist, banker or businessman (indeed I wonder if any regular individual at all) would have seriously suggested that we had an appropriate financial regulatory system in Ireland, it was well known in the financial industry to be extremely lax. Does 'Wild west of European Finance' ring any bells? That less than complimentary tag came at us from the NYT around 2005. Nobody assumed the regulator was doing his job and if they did they were kidding themselves.

    And who appointed the so-called "regulator" "because he was his friend"?

    Are you suggesting that Ahern way lying about that, too? Because friends talk, especially when one of them is meant to be the other's boss.


  • Options
    #35
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    And who appointed the so-called "regulator" "because he was his friend"?

    Are you suggesting that Ahern way lying about that, too? Because friends talk, especially when one of them is meant to be the other's boss.
    I'm sorry did you forget the bit where I just said I'm not, nor have I any interest in, defending Bertie Ahern. Some people read what they want to read and ignore what they want to ignore.


    Who would answer the question?


  • Options
    #36
    GoldenEarring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭GoldenEarring


    Of course you're defending him. Stop kidding yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    No, i'm not. See where this is going yet?


  • Options
    #38
    GoldenEarring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭GoldenEarring


    Well, what is the point of your question? It is to make a case that poor old Bertie was not well advised and therefore can be absolved of all blame and responsibility for our economic meltdown and retire in comfort with his hefty pensions intact.
    Whereas in my book he should be behind bars.


  • Options
    #39
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    GoldenEarring wrote: »
    Well, what is the point of your question? It is to make a case that poor old Bertie was not well advised and therefore can be absolved of all blame and responsibility for our economic meltdown and retire in comfort with his hefty pensions intact.
    Whereas in my book he should be behind bars.
    Where on Earth did you get that from in anything I have posted. I have frequently been saying on boards how little time I have for the man. You can keep up with this line if you want, but you are completely making it up.

    Pointing out that nobody was really predicting a banking crisis does not mean that one is suggesting that Bertie Ahern is guilt free or anything like it. It's pretty basic.


  • Options
    #40
    GoldenEarring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭GoldenEarring


    It was Ahern's responsibility to ASK, regardless of anyone telling him uninvited. He is a supposed accountant by profession. But then that was a bit of an exaggeration apparently.
    Everyone would say McWilliams, Kelly and even George Lee were pointing out how unsustainable the bubble was. Also Peter Bacon. The ESRI always seemed to get it wrong.

    I will ask you: Who was not telling him?


    I clearly remember David McWilliams saying at the end of a programme about the building industry collapse that the next big disaster coming down the tracks would be a banking one.

    When Northern Rock was in trouble, the first thing any financial person should have done is closely examine our fiscal situation at home.


  • Options
    #41
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    later10 wrote: »
    I'm sorry did you forget the bit where I just said I'm not, nor have I any interest in, defending Bertie Ahern. Some people read what they want to read and ignore what they want to ignore.


    Who would answer the question?

    I just asked straight questions. Not my fault that they undermine your "neutral" stance.

    If you're suggesting that Ahern was lying about why he appointed the regulator then your stance makes sense.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    GoldenEarring wrote: »
    It was Ahern's responsibility to ASK, regardless of anyone telling him uninvited. He is a supposed accountant by profession. But then that was a bit of an exaggeration apparently.
    Everyone would say McWilliams, Kelly and even George Lee were pointing out how unsustainable the bubble was. Also Peter Bacon. The ESRI always seemed to get it wrong.
    This is a myth, the ESRI printed articles on the property bubble, not least Morgan Kelly's famous article back in April 2007.

    I am talking about the banking crisis, the above were not warning about a banking crisis. Property crashes and banking crises are two different things with the latter rarely following on from the former, and I have already indicated all of that, read the posts.

    By the way if Ahern did ask, what reply would he have gotten? I already mentioned an article by Morgan Kelly whereby he suggested that the property crash was not a threat to banks. Where was the evidence to suppose otherwise? Who predicted it? Nobody has answered that simple question yet.
    Liam Byrne wrote:
    I just asked straight questions. Not my fault that they undermine your "neutral" stance.

    If you're suggesting that Ahern was lying about why he appointed the regulator then your stance makes sense.
    I have no reason nor evidence to suggest that Patrick Neary (or Liam O'Reilly for that matter) were not appropriately qualified for the roles to which they were appointed. I have no sympathy for Bertie Ahern or any of the previous regulators who failed in their duties, I'm not defending them. I'm merely pointing out that of all of the people saying 'I told you so' now, none actually saw the banking crisis coming.


  • Options
    #43
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    GoldenEarring wrote: »

    When Northern Rock was in trouble, the first thing any financial person should have done is closely examine our fiscal situation at home.
    Northern Rock was in trouble in 2007. By then the game was up in Ireland. That only proves the point.


  • Options
    #44
    zozimus
    Registered Users Posts: 42 ✭zozimus


    Liam - you're so right that 'we' didn't cause this. I didn't see the celtic tiger because I was too busy working, but the boom has meant that I live a long way from work in a horrible house and I get NOTHING for my tax. No usable health service, no good route to work without tolls, no useful police service, no useful services of any kind.

    I'm comparing David McWilliams' article to Brian Lenihan's in today's Indo - and it vindicates my opinion.

    The Minister's is devoid of imagination and bravery and long term thinking, whereas McWilliams seems to have the ability to think outside the silo that is FF.

    We need some strong, intelligent and brave leadership. Unfortunately I'm not seeing any high wattage coming from any of the political parties. Sinn Fein just want a united Ireland so they can shag off, Fine Gael are just another bunch of dribbling inbreds who want to look after their own constituencies and Fianna Fail don't seem to think ahead, ever.


  • Options
    #45
    theroad
    Registered Users Posts: 167 ✭✭theroad


    I think the answer to your question "Who was warning?" lies in what you said about the state of financial regulation in Ireland:
    later10 wrote: »
    No serious economist, banker or businessman (indeed I wonder if any regular individual at all)...

    As the person charged with running the country it was part of Bertie's job to set up the necessary checks, balances, management controls and so on to ensure the stability of the economy. His government manifestly failed to do that, for reasons that are obvious to most people now.

    So who was warning? I don't know, probably no one in the right quarters. However I believe strongly that it was his responsibility as Taoiseach to find out the truth and make his decisions accordingly, and he failed to do that. It is always bad news when they start believing their own PR.

    That's what astonishes me when I hear him say "No one warned me." Saying that kind-of misses the point. He should have been asking.


  • Options
    #46
    GoldenEarring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭GoldenEarring


    later10 wrote: »
    This is a myth, the ESRI printed articles on the property bubble,

    Which ones?

    Fitzgerald even admitted he got it wrong on Marian Finucane's show.


  • Options
    #47
    GoldenEarring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭GoldenEarring


    later10 wrote: »
    I am talking about the banking crisis, the above were not warning about a banking crisis. Property crashes and banking crises are two different things with the latter rarely following on from the former,

    .

    In our case they were not separate. They were intricately connected.


  • Options
    #48
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    GoldenEarring wrote: »
    In our case they were not separate. They were intricately connected.
    Who was saying that in 2006? that is the point of this thread.

    /Brick wall.


  • Options
    #49
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    GoldenEarring wrote: »
    Which ones?
    I told you, Morgan Kelly's famous article on the likely event of an Irish property collapse in Apr 2007 was printed on ESRI paper in the ESRI by the ESRI with a cheque written to the author by the ESRI


  • Options
    #50
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    theroad wrote: »
    That's what astonishes me when I hear him say "No one warned me." Saying that kind-of misses the point. He should have been asking.
    Surely if there were people around then who were telling him they could come forward now? nothing? Surely if you know something like that you don't keep it to yourself or wait to be asked. Certainly nothing in the public domain. Nothing from any of the pundits who are now giving advice 7 days a week on radio and tv when it appears that they didn't know this was happening either.


  • Options
    #51
    GoldenEarring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭GoldenEarring


    later10 wrote: »
    Who was saying that in 2006? that is the point of this thread.

    /Brick wall.

    I have no interest in continuing a discussion with an ignorant person like you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Before you go don't forget to finally let us know who was predicting the banking crisis


  • Options
    #53
    theroad
    Registered Users Posts: 167 ✭✭theroad


    later10 wrote: »
    Surely if there were people around then who were telling him they could come forward now?

    Nah, what I'm saying is this: I believe it must have been possible to understand the direction the banks were going in by the early noughties, if not earlier. The crash did not fall out of the sky. By deciding not to learn the true state of the economy, the government failed in its primary duty to run the country prudently.

    So I do not know if there were people then telling them it was going off the rails, but that does not excuse their failure to ascertain the facts. Or, having the facts in front of them, to ignore them.


  • Options
    #54
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    theroad wrote: »
    Nah, what I'm saying is this: I believe it must have been possible to understand the direction the banks were going in by the early noughties, if not earlier. The crash did not fall out of the sky. By deciding not to learn the true state of the economy, the government failed in its primary duty to run the country prudently.

    So I do not know if there were people then telling them it was going off the rails, but that does not excuse their failure to ascertain the facts. Or, having the facts in front of them, to ignore them.
    So the Government ought to have presumed, just presumed, that the banks would be in trouble without any reason based on other property busts? They were told (and actually it is true) that the banks were not engaging in sub prime lending. What were they supposed to do, go in and demand to see the accounts of banks (which they did not own nor control) that both bank and independent economists and auditors were saying were healthy and prove that what nobody at all was saying was false? Come on. There were never any suggestions by anyone that the banks were in trouble. In fact, most people agreed that the banks were able to deal with the oncoming construction bust.


  • Options
    #55
    theroad
    Registered Users Posts: 167 ✭✭theroad


    I said nothing about presumption. The truth is (was) that the banks were in sh*te, regardless of what their spinmasters were saying. That's just a fact. I do not believe that it was impossible for the government to have found out that fact. Now that's just an opinion and maybe we have to agree to differ there.

    It is the government's job to operate in the realm of reality, not spin, the reason being that if the government does not take account of reality then reality will bite us in the face. Rather a lot of people were depending on the government to do its job.

    That is (was) the government's responsibility. That they were being deceived, or that they were deceiving themselves does not absolve them from the responsibilities that they took on. Nor does the excuse of insufficient information. For example, the government could have designed a financial system based on prudence, but they chose not to do that; they built the Wild West instead.


  • Options
    #56
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    theroad wrote: »
    I said nothing about presumption. The truth is (was) that the banks were in sh*te, regardless of what their spinmasters were saying. That's just a fact.
    But everybody was saying otherwise, economists, auditors and the Regulator as well as the banks themselves. Why should the Government have been so paranoid as to go in and look for what nobody was suggesting was there?

    It doesn't make sense, it's like suggesting that swine flu could have been prevented by people going searching for it to begin with. But of course, it's very easy to have hindsight.


  • Options
    #57
    Fighting Irish
    Registered Users Posts: 7,065 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish


    I blame bertie and the banks for all my mistakes


  • Options
    #58
    theroad
    Registered Users Posts: 167 ✭✭theroad


    later10 wrote: »
    But everybody was saying otherwise, economists, auditors and the Regulator as well as the banks themselves.

    But you want it both ways now. You've already said the Regulator was not credible and now you want to absolve the government from responsibility because the Regulator didn't warn them. Well of course he didn't. The government set the system up in such a way that he had no credibility anyway. And the banks. AIB. Would you believe AIB if it told you the time of day? With its track record?

    What do you believe? Do you believe it was impossible before the crash for anyone to know what was really going on in Irish banking?

    Or another approach: what if the government saw its chance to buy itself power by stoking up the economy and then choosing not to look out for signs that it was going wrong? It really comes down to respect for the truth. I think, and as I said earlier it's only my opinion, they chose to either to ignore the truth or not to seek it out.


  • Options
    #59
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    theroad wrote: »
    The government set the system up in such a way that he had no credibility anyway.
    The financial regulator had no credibility because of the financial regulator, why do you suggest it was the Government who made his office that way when they set it up?
    And the banks. AIB. Would you believe AIB if it told you the time of day? With its track record?
    Actually in 2006 I would not really have had legitimate reason to doubt what they were saying, besides they were a private organisation and basically none of our business. Those were the days.
    What do you believe? Do you believe it was impossible before the crash for anyone to know what was really going on in Irish banking?
    Not impossible for anyone, I think that the banking officials saw it coming around 2005 and 2006. That's probably the earliest. It's very ambiguous as to who exactly knew what and when. That's the thing, I genuinely don't think the government saw this coming, nor independent economists nor many in the banking and construction industries, no matter how much people would like to believe otherwise. I don't think it was realistic that they could have seen it given that supposedly independent auditors didn't say anything.


  • Options
    #60
    theroad
    Registered Users Posts: 167 ✭✭theroad


    later10 wrote: »
    I genuinely don't think the government saw this coming, nor independent economists nor many in the banking and construction industries, no matter how much people would like to believe otherwise.

    While accepting the posibility that the government didn't see it coming, that demonstrates to me that they were asleep on the job. At least, that's what I've been saying so far.

    So who is responsible? Ultimately it's us, the people living here, that will have to sort this mess out. By electing honest and competent politicians and by holding them to account. And by demanding higher standards in public life. Is this likely to happen? Not on your nelly.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    theroad wrote: »
    While accepting the posibility that the government didn't see it coming, that demonstrates to me that they were asleep on the job. At least, that's what I've been saying so far.

    The point is that they couldn't realistically have seen it coming if nobody advising them, not to mention independent economists, did not see any of this happening.


Advertisement