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
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 13639
Can I reiterate that the property crash was well signalled?
I'm talking about the banking crisis that resulted.
Names? Irish names? Is Bertie right?
http://www.centralbank.ie/data/FinStaRepFiles/SUMMARY2005.pdf
Just one of several warnings, from the Central Bank no less:
Overall AssessmentThe Bank’s 2004 Financial Stability Report identified theleague.
risk of an unanticipated and sudden fall in residential
property prices, combined with an increase in the default
rate among mortgage holders, as the risk that posed the
greatest threat to the health of the banking system. A
moderation in house price growth in the meantime
suggests that, while the risk identified in last year’s report
of a sudden fall in prices cannot be dismissed, this risk
may have receded somewhat. However, tentative
evidence suggests that this moderation may not have
persisted. If house price growth were to reaccelerate,
this would increase the risk of a sharp correction in
house prices in the future.
At present, the primary risk is considered to be credit
growth and indebtedness levels. Last year’s report
singled out the speed with which private-sector debt was
accumulating as an especially worrying development.
Since then, the rate of debt accumulation has
accelerated, with virtually all categories of bank debt
increasing at rapid rates. As a result, Ireland’s debt-toincome
ratios are now close to the top of the European0 -
It might be worth providing some examples where it has been used in that way. Are you wondering why people might be angry at specific business failures that helped undeminlne the banks (and unfortunately the country) or is it that you think they unfairly generalise to all property developers regardless of whether or not they contributed to the current situation?By the way, on that point, I would like to explore the second part of my question: why property developer is a veritable swear word?0 -
-
...So my question is two-fold
1. Who predicted the mess in its current form (not just the property crash) and
2. Why are we so quick to demonise property developers?
1. Karl Marx.
2. Because they knew ahead of time and transferred their properties and holdings to their wives, and companies registered in the isle of man.0 -
Developers are really a different issue worthy of a separate topic than include that in a thread trying to Defend Bertie.
Greed and irresponsibility put the developers where they are. They are also the face that most people dealt with, rather than faceless bankers or bondholders or regulators. They've also shown ostentatiousness and arrogance about their wealth, even as their empire collapsed and left people in dire straits. So I'm baffled why anyone would be even ask why people demonise developers.0 -
Advertisement
-
the way i see it, its everyones fault bar me, because i never do anything wrong, i am irish.0
-
LostinKildare wrote: »If he had listened to Kelly in Sept 2007 he would have had a whole year to deal with the banks and mitigate or even head off the collapse. There were others warning too, but I leave it to you to search for the dark mutterings re the banks from, for example, David McWilliams, and Alan Ahearne (aww, can’t resist – start here: http://www.nuigalway.ie/staff-sites/alan_ahearne/media.html).
When Bertie was Taoiseach, Morgan Kelly wrote on 7 April 2008, “it is vital regulators introduce measures to handle impaired loans to builders; overhaul our inadequate system of deposit insurance; and monitor the real solvency of those banks that lent aggressively for speculative land purchases and building, and may now be finding themselves dangerously out of their depth.” Specific measures suggested 5 months in advance of disaster.
So, in answer to your question, no Bertie is not right. He is a liar. I'm amazed that you ask.
Ok, if you think I am talking about 2007 and 2008, then I am happy to clarify. I thought it was obvious but again, if not, I'm happy to say that now. Even if Bertie is talking about that time period, I'm actually more interested in the time period when the banking collapse had not started to emerge in the public conscience, which I would say was about 2007. ok?
If anything, it is the Time magazine article that Sand linked to shows that it was possible for those outside of the realm of the Government to make themselves aware of the impending banking crisis pre 2007, but apparently nobody did to any real or significant degree. It was not a big issue.
Did you read this part?jonnyskeleton wrote:http://www.centralbank.ie/data/FinSt...UMMARY2005.pdf
Just one of several warnings, from the Central Bank no less:The stability and health of the Irish banking system appears generally sound, according to the standard indicators of financial health such as asset quality, profitability, solvency, liquidity and credit ratings. The central expectation, based on an assessment of the risks facing both the household and corporate sectors, as well as the current shock absorption capacity of the banking system, is that the current health of the banking system leaves it reasonably well placed to withstand pressures from potential adverse developments in the short to medium term. However, there are a number of vulnerabilities, in the medium term, particularly from the very high rate of credit growth.
Wow. Very appealing argument you have there. No. No I'm not.IrishSpeedtraps wrote:Oh yes you are!0 -
Personally I would consider developers to be (usually) failed businessmen. They didn't come up with NAMA, they probably don't tend to support the bailout of the banks (they certainly have no influence) and they didn't ask for state interference... so I'm just wondering why they are treated any differently to other failed businessmen.SkepticOne wrote: »It might be worth providing some examples where it has been used in that way. Are you wondering why people might be angry at specific business failures that helped undeminlne the banks (and unfortunately the country) or is it that you think they unfairly generalise to all property developers regardless of whether or not they contributed to the current situation?0 -
Personally I would consider developers to be (usually) failed businessmen. They didn't come up with NAMA, they probably don't tend to support the bailout of the banks (they certainly have no influence) and they didn't ask for state interference... so I'm just wondering why they are treated any differently to other failed businessmen.
How do you know they didn't ask? Were you at every golf outing ?
They're treated differently because they're costing us billions due to their Galway Tent association.0 -
Why on Earth would a property developer prefer NAMA? It makes far more sense to deal with his ailing bank. Why would you suggest otherwise?Liam Byrne wrote: »How do you know they didn't ask? Were you at every golf outing ?0 -
Advertisement
-
Why on Earth would a property developer prefer NAMA? It makes far more sense to deal with his ailing bank. Why would you suggest otherwise?
I guess one reason developers might in theory prefer NAMA is because their assets were assigned a LTEV by NAMA. NAMA operating on this logic was never going to immediately liquidate those assets. In some cases NAMA is providing funding in order to complete unfinished developments.
This contrasts sharply to what I think would have happened if the banks had gone under. With hindsight and the passage of time we can now safely say the banks would have gone under. If this had happened Irish banks would have been forced to act as Rabobank did, in other words immediate liquidation of those failed businesses. Isn't that how it works normally when businesses can't make loan repayments and the banks themselves are going under?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13639
-
Sesshoumaru wrote: »I guess one reason developers might in theory prefer NAMA is because their assets were assigned a LTEV by NAMA. NAMA operating on this logic was never going to immediately liquidate those assets. In some cases NAMA is providing funding in order to complete unfinished developments.
This contrasts sharply to what I think would have happened if the banks had gone under. With hindsight and the passage of time we can now safely say the banks would have gone under. If this had happened Irish banks would have been forced to act as Rabobank did, in other words immediate liquidation of those failed businesses. Isn't that how it works normally when businesses can't make loan repayments and the banks themselves are going under?
Which is to say that NAMA is a mechanism to provide a slow deflation of some of the property development sector rather than an immediate and rapid crash which takes any remaining bits of the banking and construction-dependent sectors with it.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Seriously who the **ck needed a "warning". It was plain obvious for anyone that had any sort of objectivity and perpective! Come on now!
Oh right, "we're different".0 -
Which is to say that NAMA is a mechanism to provide a slow deflation of some of the property development sector rather than an immediate and rapid crash which takes any remaining bits of the banking and construction-dependent sectors with it.
cordially,
Scofflaw
It was very noticable how developers favoured limping along long enough to get into NAMA rather than face their creditors.
Just remember the whole Zoe Developments case where ACC/Rabobank wanted to get some of their money back, whilst the other NAMA bound banks actually signed up to the fairy story plans of Carroll.
Hell they were going to back his fairy story plans with further money, which of course they did not have. :rolleyes:
The whole bank guarantee and dragged out NAMA creation offered these same developers time to fix up their finances, probably more correctly termed as transferring their assets.
Thus when the day came for someone to look for them to honour their personal guaranteed loans, they could quiet easily take the bankruptcy route.
Who really loses in all this ?
Well why the smucks who pay taxes, but did not make wads of cash as developers or other connected types are the ones who lose big time in all this.
I confidently predict that the families of all these now bankrupt ruined developers will be in well established businesses, possibly in construction development, in 10 to 20 years time.
And to add salt to our wounds they will probably own some of the sites that daddy left NAMA.
I have to say this whole thread is an excercise in ff trying to find yet someone else to hang the blame on.
According to ff it is always someone elses fault, never really their own.
They appear to be reaching the bottom of barrel for excuses that this stage.0 -
Its very clear that Bertie is talking crap when he claims he was never warned about the banks.
However this has been underlined by Brian Cowens claims that all through 2008, despite several meetings with Seanie, he too was never warned about Anglos difficulties.
Or does anyone seriously credit Brian Cowens story?0 -
No, it's not. The only place mortgage and development money was coming from was the banks, it could come from nowhere else. Irish banks were leveraged to their back teeth in the property boom from day one, clearly a property price collapse would adversely affect them in turn, as night follows day.The banking crisis is seperate.
As for the bould Bertie.
That's from...TAOISEACH Bertie Ahern has rejected the latest call to curb mortgage relief and halt planned tax cuts and says he ``won't panic just because the economy is performing so well.''
He will do nothing to dampen down growth in the economy in spite of fears about overheating, he added.
Although he had ``a lot of regard'' for ESRI economist Dr John FitzGerald who warned of a looming property bust on this occasion he disagreed with his conclusions, declared Mr Ahern.
``I'm not going to put my hand in the dyke and stop it,'' insisted Mr Ahern.
``We didn't panic during those bad times there's no reason we should do so now.''
Mr Ahern dismissed European warnings about overheating and rising inflation and referred to a Wall Street Journal analysis of the economy pointing out taxes had been cut from nearly 70pc to 44pc.
In the ESRI report Dr Fitzgerald said the Government should halt its planned programme of attracting skilled labour from overseas but Mr Ahern rejects this and ``fully backs'' the FAS programme to attract Irish and European overseas workers spearheaded by Tanaiste Mary Harney.
The ESRI said tax cuts should be delayed two to three years until after the economy slowed down.
Later a statement from the Tanaiste said she wanted to ``take issue'' with the ESRI claim that tax cuts were fuelling inflation. Cuts in personal taxes were a key element of the anti-inflationary strategy being pursued by the Government, she added.
March 25th, 2000.
There's your hero in all his glory.0 -
There's some good postings here with specifics of who knew what, when and who warned. Credit to those who have researched it. Still for me it comes back to a simple enough 'gut-feeling'. Fianna Fail are not to be trusted AND NEVER WERE. That's not an unbalanced view cos I recognise they've done some good stuff over the years and, even now, I respect certain of their senior people.
But they have always been about short-term wins and working the political system. The Celtic Tiger years gave them a chance to disperse largesse and try to 'buy' votes with all the transaction tax revenues at their disposal. Long-term sustainable economic and social development was not their key focus. Sure some good infrastructure etc got sorted - it was sort of inevitable - but planning beyond the next election was not (with some exceptions) their priority the way it would have been, imo, with the alternative Govt.
As it happens, a couple of the qualities FG have over FF are: not beholden to the construction sector and better in general on governance and rules compliance. If ever there was a time when those 2 qualities could have made a considerable difference to this country, it was the last several years. I'm not particularly gone on FG, but they were so what we needed for the last few years; they certainly wouldn't have got it all right or have stopped the recession, but their fundamental values (versus FF) were suited to our situation.
Who do we blame? well who voted in FF?0 -
Wow, thanks for taking that line way out of context there. Just to remind people here is the rest of that post, which makes the line you quote much clearer.Amhran Nua wrote: »Originally Posted by later10
The banking crisis is seperate.
No, it's not.There have probably been about 30 property crashes in the OECD in the last forty years. Property crashes do not automatically mean banking collapse, even in Ireland. Most economists spoke about a macroeconomic dislocation occuring in Ireland, not a banking collapse, as I said earlier one well known commentator (Morgan Kelly) suggested that the banks would deal with the problem just fine in 2007 and that they were adequately capitalised.
So again - who was warning about a banking crisis?
Predicting a property crash is not the same thing as predicting a banking collapse. There are no two ways about it.
What is this, 8 pages on, and the only reference to a possible banking crisis that anyone has produced has been one sentence from Time magazine? Forget Fianna fail and Bertie, all i'm asking for is names and relevant articles. Is that so much to ask?
The question asked in the original post is a very simple question: who predicted the banking crisis before it began to emerge?0 -
Predicting a property crash is not the same thing as predicting a banking collapse. There are no two ways about it.
This is something you appear to have difficulty grasping - the property bubble was fueled by the banks ramping up credit in the economy massively.
Irish banks went from being almost entirely domestic deposit funded in 1997 to taking up to half their funding from the interbank market in 2008. Irish banks lending went from 60% of the economy to over 200% of the economy between 1997 and 2008 and this was at a time when GDP was rising all the time too. Irish banks were lending 40% more to property developers in 2008 than they had to the entire Irish economy in 2000. They were lending 75% more to mortgage holders in 2008 than they had to the entire Irish economy in 2000. National personal debt alone went from 39 billion in 2000 to 134 billion in 2006. The Irish property bubble from 2003 onwards was built on a tripling of credit washing around the Irish economy that was so heavily invested in building, selling and buying houses that it composed 25% of the entire economy.
There is no way the property bubble can be seen seperately from the credit bubble/banking crisis. One fed the other.
In what credible scenario would banks lending so much money to property developers and mortgage holders, so eagerly chasing market share, with such poor lending standards, so dependant on cheap easily available credit for funding not have been crushed by a property crash worthy of the name? Predicting a property crash was predicting a banking crisis by default.
You are on your own if you think that a competent and cautious government would not, or should not have seen a property crash as being a huge risk to the banks so heavily exposed to it. Its the job of the DoF/CB/FR to be cautious. To investigate risks. Thats what they are empowered and paid to do. No one else is paid or legally empowered to regulate the banks or the economy. They wilfully failed to do that for short term political expediency. Bertie is already on the record as ignoring and dismissing warnings as far back as 2000.
I dont know why youre persisting with this nonsense.0 -
Advertisement
-
He appointed friends, lackeys and yesmen at the highest rates of pay in the OECD. He did nothing to develop government, yet was happy to dispense the fruits of political power.I would like to begin by saying that I am not an apologist for Fianna Fáil economic policy (or lack thereof) from about 2001 onwards, nor for property developers. Nor am I an apologist for Bertie Ahern. However, one thing he said during his recent interview struck me, when he said that nobody warned himk of the banking crisis.
I take you at face value if you say you are not an apologist. But the buck for our failed economy stops with him as Taoiseach and his key appointees. Apart from the electorate, there is no need to look any further.
To answer your question directly, I personally blame:
- Those who voted in three Ahern-led administrations;
- Ahern;
- McCreevy; and
- Cowen.0 -
But they have always been about short-term wins and working the political system. The Celtic Tiger years gave them a chance to disperse largesse and try to 'buy' votes with all the transaction tax revenues at their disposal. Long-term sustainable economic and social development was not their key focus. Sure some good infrastructure etc got sorted - it was sort of inevitable - but planning beyond the next election was not (with some exceptions) their priority
100% agree.the way it would have been, imo, with the alternative Govt.
No so sure about this. We'll never know for sure of course. However FG was the party that advocated in their 2007 election campaign the abolition/reform of stamp duty, in an effort to make houses more "affordable". If everyone is saying the writing was on the wall, certainly by 2007, what the hell was FG doing proposing further inflating the property bubble? Of course we can all answer that... they were doing what they considered necessary to get elected, despite the fact that their economic experts must have known it was the wrong thing.
So then who to blame? FF/FG for not being good enough leaders to convince the public that sometimes decisions should be taken with negative short term consequences in order to prevent disaster in the medium/long term. Or the public for being too stupid or too unwilling to accept that?As it happens, a couple of the qualities FG have over FF are: not beholden to the construction sector and better in general on governance and rules compliance. If ever there was a time when those 2 qualities could have made a considerable difference to this country, it was the last several years. I'm not particularly gone on FG, but they were so what we needed for the last few years; they certainly wouldn't have got it all right or have stopped the recession, but their fundamental values (versus FF) were suited to our situation.
Who do we blame? well who voted in FF?
Maybe, as I said we will never really know. You could be right. I too suspect that things would not have been quite so bad. Maybe we would have avoided the IMF. However what the public seems to miss is that FF's close links to the construction sector were strengthened by the fact that it was generating billions in tax revenue and 10's of thousands of jobs both of which were being used to appease the electorate.
The question is what government would have taken decisions in 2003/4/5/6 which would have resulted in significant job losses and reductions in state income possibly requiring service cuts? The job losses would have been nothing compared to what we see now, but would it have been accepted by the public? Say you are a minister... a developer asks for a meeting to get support for a project that will employ 500 people for 3 years and generate say 100 million in tax... The correct decision is NO, mr developer... there's been too much development in this area, too much reliance on construction, it's not sustainable in the long term, I'd love the jobs and tax revenue, but I have to say no. Are we as a nation "raising" politicians with that kind of foresight? Are we as a nation smart enough to recognise and re-elect such politicians? It seems not.
Getting back to the OPs original question, he has a sort of point but in some ways it's not too relevant. If I might summarise his thinking... everyone knew we had a housing bubble, and most experts expected a crash, but not a total bank wipeout. It's true that many bubbles collapse without a bank crisis, but I guess it depends on the size. Clearly we were heading for a major economic slowdown and housing price crash with big unemployment. That's pretty bad in itself. Whether politicians should have expected it to be much worse than that is something of a moot point. Even without the bank collapse things would be bad. Not as bad as now, but still bad. The deficit would still be there.
Ix.0 -
We the people all knew some sort of big crash was coming....it was obvious...no economy ever had a boom that kept booming...what irks me was the arrogant government made us all feel like plebes for thinking that way. Even the likes of McWilliams were accused of "talking down the ecomomy."
It's all the Governments fault. They should have taken measures to ensure that "if" a crash came....we were ready for it....
What sort of dail idiots thought those construction jobs were real longterm jobs...that large scale construction could not have been anything other than temporary, and they let our economy depend on it...0 -
Ash.J.Williams wrote: »It's all the Governments fault. They should have taken measures to ensure that "if" a crash came....we were ready for it....
This is true, but really we are the government. They came from us, as a nation, and we elected them, 3 times in a row. In particular we elected them in 2007 to continue the policies they had been pursuing. The opposition generally promoted the same policies for that election campaign. Spend more, reduce taxes, don't do anything to contract the economy.
We need to move a bit past this "them and us" view that most people have. We seem to understand (correctly) that the government failed to lead us correctly. We are not learning about/discussing why the public failed in electing that government.
Ix.0 -
Ah, this old chestnut again. The issue of "fault". A much loved debate that will continue until the country gets back to prosperity and people care little for accountability or prudence (until the next crisis arises).
I think there are more variables to the blame game and will as usual post a very unpopular post that most people know is true, even if they don’t want to openly admit it.
1. The government - They didn’t just prop up the bubble they poured gas, dynamite and anything else they could to inflate it. While the going was good they got lost in a mire of their own greatness. Their arrogance was matched only by their ignorance and sheer ridiculous lack of prudency with the taxpayer’s money. The wastage alone may have significantly reduced the severe cutbacks we are seeing today. In truth, they showed no foresight and never had any incentive to, but they ultimately led us down the path we find ourselves.
2. The opposition. Whether or not the opposition would or would not have done things differently is open to debate. Given what they promised at election time, there was little to suggest that they would have done things much differently. That aside, they were not strong enough and didn’t offer us alternatives that they can credibly stand over, even now. Their sins were not doing enough to show us the ills of our ways and few if any can state otherwise.
3. The banks and the regulator. This covers the EU banks swell that flushed Ireland with cheap credit. Moral hazard comes to mind but that’s another debate. The regulator was pretty much a token body for years while the banks did whatever they wanted. To a degree it’s still the case (I know for a fact) because banks are still exploiting ways of tapping into business by underhand tactics. That aside, I would put more blame on the regulator then the banks in that the banks were greedy and the regulator just didn’t even do his own job.
4. Developers to a lessor degree in my opinion. Im not saying they didnt actually morally appropriate or they didnt have a factor in the crisis. If the laws were better they wouldn’t be able to walk away from the kinds of debts they have burdened the state with but I think councellors zoning of land and banks throwing money at them was a bigger problem. Again, not excusing their role, but I think they have a smaller role then some of the other perpetrators mentioned.
5. Councellors. How they have gotten away with rezoning everything is beyond me. These guys were as much facilitators as banks, yet none of them have ever been held accountable in anyway.
6 The people of Ireland. This is usually the least popular section of society to attach blame to. Those who didnt vote for FF think they are faultless. Those who didnt/couldn’t buy a house think that they are faultless. Those who made nothing in the Celtic Tiger (me included) think that they are faultless etc etc etc. Is it any wonder our government thinks it had little to blame for what has happened when the entire nation is still ignorant to the inherent culture of “passing the book” that this country enjoys to revert to in times of crisis.
Like the other sections of society I have highlighted, there are different levels of blame for practically each and every person old enough to do something about what has happened this country. There are plenty of PC warriors on Boards.ie who protest their innocence vigorously with lame excuses and hide behind “well I didnt vote for him” or “I didn’t do this” that only serves to highlight the broad problem of responsibility in the wider Irish society.
From what I can recall, nobody took to the streets in protest while the times were good, nobody, not even the anti FF brigade. Everybody was happy even though we all knew of the monumental wastage of taxpayers money, the expenses scandals (that were there but nobody cared while things were good), the banks overcharging, the dodgy TDs (none more so then the leader at the time!) . . I could go on, but nobody cared enough to do anything to try to change things. Nobody. . Writing on a board is one step short of thinking about what you want changed. You take to the streets to show you have the courage to match your convictions. We don’t have the revolutionists anymore, people will silently sit and wait until they are right, as opposed to getting up and doing something about it. When they are eventually proven right they simply give everybody else the two fingers and smugly pronounce how everybody else was wrong. This achieves nothing and if anything is counterproductive to progression.
I still cant understand how people think pointing fingers at everybody else is going to solve anything. I don’t mind accountability, but I don’t believe that the Irish people have any moral high ground to take considering our actions (and inaction) during the boom. Doesnt mean we cant rid ourselves of the old guard and get FF out, but it means that we wont get true political reform until we, as a nation, accept our own roles in the mess. I think this is like asking for a right wing nut to support the abolishion of the church. Until this and the “entitlement” culture that exists (not just in public service) is excorcised from our own psyche we will just end up stumbling from one problem to another. There maybe decent timeframes between these crisis, but they will keep repeating, people will keep shifting the blame somewhere else and we will go through the same ignorant agony again and again and again . . . .0 -
This is true, but really we are the government. They came from us, as a nation, and we elected them, 3 times in a row. In particular we elected them in 2007 to continue the policies they had been pursuing. The opposition generally promoted the same policies for that election campaign. Spend more, reduce taxes, don't do anything to contract the economy.
We need to move a bit past this "them and us" view that most people have. We seem to understand (correctly) that the government failed to lead us correctly. We are not learning about/discussing why the public failed in electing that government.
Ix.
Not just that, what exactly do people think would of happened to FF if they had of said before the last elections that they were ramping up tax, abolishing property relief, reducing incentive to buy, increasing the criteria for loans (thus cutting off mortgages to thousands), reduce public service spenditure and tried to implement more prudent policies for a longer term?
They wouldnt of been re-elected and we would of had a government that gave the people what they wanted to hear which is exactly the kind of things being offered by lab and FG. .
Nothing excuses the decisions made by FF and they ultimatley have to take responsibility to leading our country to bankrupcy, but when opposition parties attack what has happened, they generally like to speak over the very clear, undeniable fact that they never ever showed any interest in taking the steps that would of helped prevent us from ending up exactly where we are now.
Of course their supporters say that we cant judge them on things they didnt do, but we can judge them on the things they promised to do because either they lied to the electorate (ie they had no intention of fullfilling what they said) or they intended on doing exactly what they promised at election time (which would of done nothing to prevent what would of happened).
thats why I laugh at people who think its only FF supporters fault. Sure the others were offering not just the same, but even more lavish expenditure and reliefs, if anything had they gotten their ways we would be even worse off!0 -
They wouldnt of been re-elected and we would of had a government that gave the people what they wanted to hear which is exactly the kind of things being offered by lab and FG.
Indeed, and curiously Willie O'Dea when interviewed by Marianne Finucan recently basically said this, but didn't really take the point to it's logical conclusion. He said that yes, what should have happened was that since we could not raise interest rates the government should have increased taxes, but... that would mean they would not have been re-elected and to paraphrase, that would have been completely politically unacceptable. Clearly FG/Labour thought the same. Willie then should have gone on to discuss how we could have a political system that might allow difficult decisions like that. Instead he honestly seemed to be of the frame of mind that that was just the way things had to be. Anything else just would never work. In which case we are indeed condemned to repeat these mistakes... maybe 20-30 years from now.
And I concur on the inaction of the public. Yes, we will throw out FF, but we'll continue to treat politicians as a different evil class, complain about them all and not get involved. And by getting involved I don't just mean protest. Protest is all well and good but it needs to have a specific goal and a way to implement that. Find a politician or party you trust and vote. If none are acceptable to you run for election yourself, or convince a friend to do so. If you have to, pick the least worst option from the ballot paper according to your point of view. Just do vote.
Ix.0 -
It was partially, and significantly, fuelled by this, indeed. My problem is not with that statement. My problem is with the argument that this was clear all along. In fact it was not, not least because of the banks' lack of transparency and Government culpability in its failure to provide adequate regulation.This is something you appear to have difficulty grasping - the property bubble was fueled by the banks ramping up credit in the economy massively.
Some people on here seem to be of the opinion that I am denying the link between the property collapse and the bank collapse. Of course I am not. My point is that the link was not always advertised in the popular media, or at any level. In fact it very, very rarely was, at least up to the point where the banking crisis began to emerge in itself. The only clear red flag that anyone has successfully referenced has been the Time Magazine article you quoted.
Surely if such a link was so blatantly obvious, other pundits would at least have alluded to it, or are people seriously attempting to suggest that any reference to an imminent banking meltdown ought to have been taken for granted and didn't even need to be, often, remotely mentioned or hinted at? Spare me the BS.
The property crash was widely predicted but it was also widely assumed, often in the same breath, as I have shown, that the banks could cope - that is my point.
In retrospect, absolutely. Did you, personally, see the banking crisis coming? Because while I'm not suggesting that I'm some sort of economic guru, neither am I economically illiterate, and I didn't. Nor did anyone in finance that I know personally, nor any pundit who has been contributing to popular discourse - or at least such people had certainly not been publicly promoting the idea pre-bust.There is no way the property bubble can be seen seperately from the credit bubble/banking crisis. One fed the other.0 -
Ash.J.Williams wrote: »We the people all knew some sort of big crash was coming....it was obvious...
It's all the Governments fault.
This is exactly the sort of bizarre opinion that any reasonably intelligent analysis of the situaion is up against. If "we the people all knew" what was about to happen, why were "we the people" so enthusiastic about private and commerical debt and inflated house prices, a shark pool into which we seemed to leap so blindly and with such careless abandon? Or is it your argument that the people were financially kidnapped and shortly thereafter pushed in to monetary nonchalence against their typically austere and sober will?0 -
Advertisement
-
@Later10It was partially, and significantly, fuelled by this, indeed. My problem is not with that statement.
No, it was almost entirely fueled by this. The economy slowed after 2001/2002 and the slack in productivity and wealth creation was taken up by borrowing. Wisdom after the fact is still better than ignorance after the fact.My problem is with the argument that this was clear all along. In fact it was not, not least because of the banks' lack of transparency and Government culpability in its failure to provide adequate regulation.
Some people on here seem to be of the opinion that I am denying the link between the property collapse and the bank collapse. Of course I am not. My point is that the link was not always advertised in the popular media, or at any level.
This is the thing - whilst I agree the popular media was quite poor in highlighting the dangers, its not the job of the popular media to regulate the banks or inform Bertie Ahern of economic risks. Hence, if youre giving credibility to Bertie's self serving ramblings based on the fact the Irish Times didnt run with a headline of "BERTIE - LISTEN UP! WE'RE ****ED!" every day from 2003 to 2007 youre forgetting that Bertie, the DoF, the CB and the FR were not paid to read the Irish Times to discover threats to the economy...they were paid and empowered to go and identify and control systematic risks by themselves.
Berties view that he was never warned about the possibility of a serious hit to the banks is below contempt. He was ignoring warnings from 2000 onwards.Surely if such a link was so blatantly obvious, other pundits would at least have alluded to it, or are people seriously attempting to suggest that any reference to an imminent banking meltdown ought to have been taken for granted and didn't even need to be, often, remotely mentioned or hinted at? Spare me the BS.
The property crash was widely predicted but it was also widely assumed, often in the same breath, as I have shown, that the banks could cope - that is my point.
Pundits had difficulty even getting a hearing on there being valid fears of a property crash, let alone exploring the resulting impact. A blizzard of counter-attacks from banks, the government, social partners, property developers and construction related interests would besiege any pundit who pointed out weakness in the property bubble.
You also seem to be blaming independant pundits for not having a full oversight of the economy, particularly the private banking sector. As a private citizen, Id like to see you get a full and clear understanding of whats hiding in the Anglo-Irish books even today, let alone 6 years ago. Actually, even better - try to find out whats going on in AIB right now. Then try to publish it in the media without getting sued, fined and/or jailed. Plus as Brian Luceys infamous stumble on the "selling the deposits" indicated, even informed private citizens can lack the knowledge and expertise required to analyse the banking sector. This shouldnt be the case for a financial regulator hired for their knowledge and expertise.
The institutions with the power and responsibility to investigate Anglo-Irish failed to exercise their powers. Private citizens didnt have the power to arrive into any bank in the country without warning and examine the books or question staff. The FR did.In retrospect, absolutely. Did you, personally, see the banking crisis coming? Because while I'm not suggesting that I'm some sort of economic guru, neither am I economically illiterate, and I didn't. Nor did anyone in finance that I know personally, nor any pundit who has been contributing to popular discourse - or at least such people had certainly not been publicly promoting the idea pre-bust.
Did I see the banking crisis coming early...no, cant say I did other than not banking with any of the Irish banks - thank christ.
Sure, there was some dawning "hmmm" from 2005 onwards which was too late in any case, but I was reassured by the idea that the government bureacracy was taking care of things. I also rather naively believed that banks would manage their own risk to some degree. Even more naively I didnt really grasp that I was some sort of stakeholder in Irish banks, where I got no profits, but all the losses. Certainly, no Irish banks sent me a dividend or invited me to their AGM to examine the books.
So I can safely say I concentrated on my own interests, did my job, paid my taxes, and presumed the civil service were doing their job as well. So I cant claim to have been a prophet. But I can say that if I had done my job as incompetently as the civil service did theirs...Id be fired.
Like I said earlier, Id be genuinely fascinated to discover what Bertie thought his job was. What he thought he was paid for. Why I paid my taxes to him, and why I will continue to do so to fund his pension.
Hes a sociopath. You seem to be trying to step above the "Skin 'em alive, roll 'em in salt!!!" crew, but youre doing yourself no credit by supporting his denials of responsibility for a job he was paid to do*. Theres no doubt that someone as feckless and reckless as Bertie rising to power is an indictment of the Irish voters and the Irish political system, but it doesnt remove Bertie's own responsibility to do the job he was paid and empowered to do.
* People often bemoan the "blame game". What is missed is that the "blame game" is ended quite quickly when people hold their hands up and say "Yes, I made a serious mistake. I accept responsbility". People tend to respect an acceptance of responsibility, the discussion then moves on to solutions and often the person who made the mistake can dominate this discussion by highlighting the reasons for their errors and thus where the solutions lie. The blame game persists when responsibility is never identified or accepted. Solutions never arise, because the true problem is never recognised. Bertie is actually promoting the blame game because he seems incapable of accepting responsibility.0
Advertisement