Take a hike

JONJO THE MISER

Could this be the 2011 elections new catchphrase telling the E.R and I.M.F to take a hike and we will not repay any debts.

biko

Let's hope so.

FreudianSlippers

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Could this be the 2011 elections new catchphrase telling the E.R and I.M.F to take a hike and we will not repay any debts.

Good thought... so how do we pay to run the country then?

Mr Benevolent

If we renege we'll just go deeper into the shit. The IMF aren't as friendly as MABS.

ejmaztec

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Good thought... so how do we pay to run the country then?

Kidnapping, prostitution, drug-running and extortion.

Agricola

ejmaztec wrote: »

Kidnapping, prostitution, drug-running and extortion.

Racketeering? Can we do some of that? I love the cool names of these criminal activities. Reminds me of my favourite movies.

AnonoBoy

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Could this be the 2011 elections new catchphrase telling the E.R and I.M.F to take a hike and we will not repay any debts.

Ah we really have to repay some of our debts. Otherwise we won't get invited to play with the other countries any more.

Not all..... but definitely some.

FreudianSlippers

Michael Noonan was on the news at 1 today (think it was him) and he outlined the position of FG in regards to the IMF/EU bailout and in comparison with the Labour point of view (or lack thereof) it makes logistical sense. We need the EU bailout, but I think we can legitimately knock down our interest rate significantly.
With regards to the IMF, I'm not sure if we've actually taken any money from them yet, but we should definitely renegotiate with EU and see if we can remove the IMF element if not fully to a large extent.

I do think that Michael Noonan also made a great point about how although we should be repaying our debts, we need to make the "betting" individual bondholders assume more responsibility and we need the ECB to take responsibility as well.

JONJO THE MISER

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Could this be the 2011 elections new catchphrase telling the E.R and I.M.F to take a hike and we will not repay any debts.

Hurts my head..

martic

I wonder had the IMF a forward thinking plan in action when they were offering the terms of the bailout, kind of like what someone selling something does.
For example a second hand car dealer has a car worth E10k so he puts a price of E10.5k on it knowing Joe Soap is more than likely going to haggle him down on the price and when he gets it for E10k he walks away thinking he got some deal.Put this now in the shape of the IMF bailout,they know that the current government will not be in power for much longer and will accept anything so they offer them the money with very high interest rates knowing more than likely a new government will be formed and top of their agenda will be to renegotiate the terms of the loan,leaving them that they can come down a few percent and everyone walks away happy.

DB10

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Could this be the 2011 elections new catchphrase telling the E.R and I.M.F to take a hike and we will not repay any debts.

Only one party will do it

They also take industrial wages by principal

Ruu_Old

Maybe if we pretend that no agreement was made, it'll all go away. "What money?"

flyton5

I say we take the IMF bailout money and put it all on black. No wait!!! All on red...

sensibleken

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Michael Noonan was on the news at 1 today (think it was him) and he outlined the position of FG in regards to the IMF/EU bailout and in comparison with the Labour point of view (or lack thereof) it makes logistical sense. We need the EU bailout, but I think we can legitimately knock down our interest rate significantly.
With regards to the IMF, I'm not sure if we've actually taken any money from them yet, but we should definitely renegotiate with EU and see if we can remove the IMF element if not fully to a large extent.

I do think that Michael Noonan also made a great point about how although we should be repaying our debts, we need to make the "betting" individual bondholders assume more responsibility and we need the ECB to take responsibility as well.

yeah but theyre saying that they are going to use the carrot of have a constitutional amendment that they cant be more than 3% in deficit. thats complete nonsense. what are they going to do, if there is a sudden crash again theyll just cut spending over night without proper wind down? theyll fine themselves? we already have targets liek that from the EU. their method is BS

iPlop

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Michael Noonan was on the news at 1 today (think it was him) and he outlined the position of FG in regards to the IMF/EU bailout and in comparison with the Labour point of view (or lack thereof) it makes logistical sense. We need the EU bailout, but I think we can legitimately knock down our interest rate significantly.
With regards to the IMF, I'm not sure if we've actually taken any money from them yet, but we should definitely renegotiate with EU and see if we can remove the IMF element if not fully to a large extent.

I do think that Michael Noonan also made a great point about how although we should be repaying our debts, we need to make the "betting" individual bondholders assume more responsibility and we need the ECB to take responsibility as well.

I agree ,but what I can see happening is ,in return for a lower interest rate ,the hiking of corporate tax.Let's face it ,it's a big one for them.France and Germany have lower services costs compared to us so if we have the same corporate tax level ,the multinationals will flock there (over time)rather than here

FreudianSlippers

Well, the IMF are contributing €22.5bn at 5.8% interest.

I think that we have a better chance of getting more money at a lower interest rate from the EU than the IMF.

fontanalis

Over a Barrel might be more realistic.

ejmaztec

Agricola wrote: »

Racketeering? Can we do some of that? I love the cool names of these criminal activities. Reminds me of my favourite movies.

We've already had that, which is why there's an election coming up.

On the subject of gangster movies, the "Untouchables" in Ireland's case are the high-rollers that have gotten away with it.

Snakeblood

DB10 wrote: »

Only one party will do it

They also take industrial wages by principal

Hiding bodies by habit?

FreudianSlippers

sensibleken wrote: »

yeah but theyre saying that they are going to use the carrot of have a constitutional amendment that they cant be more than 3% in deficit. thats complete nonsense. what are they going to do, if there is a sudden crash again theyll just cut spending over night without proper wind down? theyll fine themselves? we already have targets liek that from the EU. their method is BS

I would tend to agree with that, but after researching the issue and listening to the party statements today - I can say that while some FG policies are odd at best, the overall legitimacy of their policies compared to Labour is far greater.

Labour have some good policies, but to me, their overall policy(ies) don't make economic sense to me.

Sink The Banana wrote: »

I agree ,but what I can see happening is ,in return for a lower interest rate ,the hiking of corporate tax.Let's face it ,it's a big one for them.France and Germany have lower services costs compared to us so if we have the same corporate tax level ,the multinationals will flock there (over time)rather than here

That is possible, but what Noonan said today is that European banks were reckless in lending to Irish banks and they should take some responsibility for it too.
I think a small corporate tax increase wouldn't be detrimental to this country - once we're still lower than the other countries I think the companies will stay.
A small increase in corporate tax coupled with a MUCH lower interest rate would be in the mid-term interest of the country.
I do accept the point that it may not be in the long-term interest, but this country is begging for the right now at the moment with little thought to the consequences of the future.

I mean, just look at the OP of this thread. Absolutely no sense in the statement and zero thought into anything but the right now.

fontanalis

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I would tend to agree with that, but after researching the issue and listening to the party statements today - I can say that while some FG policies are odd at best, the overall legitimacy of their policies compared to Labour is far greater.

Labour have some good policies, but to me, their overall policy(ies) don't make economic sense to me.


That is possible, but what Noonan said today is that European banks were reckless in lending to Irish banks and they should take some responsibility for it too.
I think a small corporate tax increase wouldn't be detrimental to this country - once we're still lower than the other countries I think the companies will stay.
A small increase in corporate tax coupled with a MUCH lower interest rate would be in the mid-term interest of the country.
I do accept the point that it may not be in the long-term interest, but this country is begging for the right now at the moment with little thought to the consequences of the future.

I mean, just look at the OP of this thread. Absolutely no sense in the statement and zero thought into anything but the right now.

The portion that is used to pay off foreign bond holders (champions of the markets) should be interest free.
What the f*** was Lenihan on?

FreudianSlippers

fontanalis wrote: »

The portion that is used to pay off foreign bond holders (champions of the markets) should be interest free.
What the f*** was Lenihan on?

That's why I was very shocked/excited to hear from Noonan today that FG is planning on holding European banks and bondholders responsible for more of the debt.

I think the jist of what he was saying is that Ireland should pay back the majority of its legitimate debts, but gambling bondholders cannot be realistically expecting to get paid back.
I think he also said he believed the EU/IMF came in with a list of demands which FF signed with no questions asked... he said "the EU/IMF said jump and FF said how high?"

squod

Everyone is aware we can't afford the bail-out, right? I don't want to start argueing with some pie in the sky nonsense FF/FG copy pasta. I'll say this, there's an election due. It's your choice whether you want to take on the debts of gamblers and career criminals or not.

FreudianSlippers

squod wrote: »

Everyone is aware we can't afford the bail-out, right? I don't want to start argueing with some pie in the sky nonsense FF/FG copy pasta. I'll say this, there's an election due. It's your choice whether you want to take on the debts of gamblers and career criminals or not.

What does this actually mean?

How can we not afford the bail out? I say we can't not afford the bailout.
I also see no copypasta.

fontanalis

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's why I was very shocked/excited to hear from Noonan today that FG is planning on holding European banks and bondholders responsible for more of the debt.

I think the jist of what he was saying is that Ireland should pay back the majority of its legitimate debts, but gambling bondholders cannot be realistically expecting to get paid back.
I think he also said he believed the EU/IMF came in with a list of demands which FF signed with no questions asked... he said "the EU/IMF said jump and FF said how high?"

Or they said to themselves what's a jump? What's the old saying; never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity.
I believe having people in charge who were so out of their depth it would be hilarious if it weren't tragic, played a part.

squod

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What does this actually mean?

How can we not afford the bail out? I say we can't not afford the bailout.
I also see no copypasta.

How exactly do you intend paying back ~€100billion while the country is in the worst recession ever? Should we just send the bill to you?

FreudianSlippers

squod wrote: »

How exactly do you intend paying back ~€100billion while the country is in the worst recession ever? Should we just send the bill to you?

You know that's not how it works, right? Like... we don't just pay it back tomorrow.

You are taking the piss right?

DB10

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You know that's not how it works, right? Like... we don't just pay it back tomorrow.

You are taking the piss right?

So thanks to FF/FG

We will pay it back for the next 80 years.

Brilliant.

fontanalis

If there was no bailout where does the money come from again?

squod

fontanalis wrote: »

If there was no bailout where does the money come from again?

We've had no problem previously borrowing money to run the country. If people imagine that taking on an unmanageable debt will endear us to the markets, they're wrong. Investors are as aware as anyone of the fraud this government are committing.

''Let me quote Mr Rehn's admirably frank reminder: "We need to recall that sovereign debt has not been at the origin of the crisis. Rather, private debt has become public debt. The financial sector has misallocated resources in the economy and then stopped working."

Separating this private debt is absolutely necessary, we simply can't afford it.

Snakeblood

fontanalis wrote: »

If there was no bailout where does the money come from again?

It's quite simple. We have enough money for the rest of the year unless something else goes wrong, then at the end of the year we go back to the markets and borrow money from the people we told to get ****ed now, assuming that they have the same grasp of economics that we do.