Why are left-wing parties opposed to the EU/IMF deal?

thomaspat

could you stop this there is only one answer stop counting on your fingers.

Boskowski

Denerick wrote: »

Typical response really. Explain how Ireland is supposed to run the country without external aid. Explain how Ireland is supposed to borrow from the bond markets on a sustainable basis without foreign intervention. In short, stop living in fantasy land and be honest with yourself.

Can you explain instead how Ireland is ever going to pay back the money pumped into the banks? Remember, we own the banks and we tied their balance book to the country's balance book.

If I understand correctly the ECB has already prepped up the banks to the tune of well over 100 billion Euro on top of what the Irish state has pumped into them and what's yet to come. As so far every single prediction of the total final damage has been dwarfed by later figures it is fair assumption to make that a total of 200 billion is not an unrealistic figure.

In a country with just over 1 million taxpayers how is that going to work out? Extra mortgage anyone?

K-9

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Yeah, nobody every recovers from defaults.


Not that we are even talking about Sovereign defaults. Just, you know, bank debt holders who bought risky paper.

Do go on rather than just a Wiki link to debt crises!

Maybe apply it to Ireland as a bonus.

Mervyn Crawford

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/nbe1-o04.shtml
The ULA and SF both start, and end, with the position that this economic crisis can be resolved; and resolved within the boundaries of Ireland.

They believe that through a combination of debt repudiation, re-direction of state resources, and returns to the money markets we can shuffle the pack to give us a different hand. They claim the problem is one of mis-management. The interests of the wealthy are put in front of those of the workers or the people.

Vote for them in the Dail elections so they can pressure (or get into coalition with) other parties to make deals along the lines they suggest.

The speculative frenzy has come to an end. The issuing of credit by capitalist states to cover the cracks in the capitalist profit system has reached it’s inevitable conclusion. The world is now in the end-game of the deferred demise of the post-war economic boom.

Higgins. Boyd-Barret, Doherty tell us that the capitalist system has not irretrievably broken down. They claim to be socialists, sometimes, yet they will not place the economic crisis in its historical context. It’s just something that has happened; and can be rectified by adjusting the political parameters through Dail seats, protest marches and campaigns.

The world’s multi-billionaires and the governments that they own have a different idea. Savage attacks to restore real profit to their system have only just begun. The driving down of wages and services, and the driving up of prices are the aim. They can only achieve this through brute oppression; and even then the economic crisis will not be resolved. Their only answer then to restore ‘their’ profits is to go to war with competing national bourgeoisie.

The ULA and SF are part-and-parcel of this capitalist system. Just as in Egypt and Bahrain the ruling class are trying to fend off the onslaught of the working class by promise of reforms, so in Ireland the ‘lefts’ of the Socialist Party and the SWP have concocted the ULA diversion to try and keep the Irish working class away from mass independent action.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sounds like you should vote ULA then!!

Mervyn Crawford

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The notion of left and right WITHIN the capitalist economic and political system is essentially a matter of degree.

All political tendencies that work the status quo are upholders of capitalism. 'Left' tendencies such as the Socialist Party and the SWP, and often nationalists such as Sinn Fein, are in practice defenders of things as they are.

It's a time-worn method of the ruling class to promote 'socialists' who resoloutely come to the defence of capitalism.

The program of the Socialist Party is a formula to perpetuate the current economy. I suggest you read it.

It suits the powers-that-be to create so-called Left bogeymen to divert the class struggle into a trap. Afterall, have Fianna Fail not always promoted themselves as the party of the small man? And they have virtually been the permanent party of power. (Now Fianna freeFail which itself indicates fundamental shifts in class conciousness.)

I do not know why you express such surprise at the concept of misleadership of the working class? It's as old as the hills.

Of course what is in it for the faux-radicals is a seat at the table, in one form or another. However, their personal psychology is also imbued with the sneering and patronising of their bourgeois masters.
It's interesting how many 'left' or 'progressive' leaders originally thought of becoming a priest.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

Main problem I see is that many of the opponents of the EU/IMF deal are those who don't get what is going on. It seems we can default on the debt and reverse all the cuts by taxing the rich and borrowing more.

I'm heartily of sick of hearing from people who think senior bondholders means 'large firm that made stupid and high risk investments'

Valmont

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm guessing an uprising of some kind...with lots of happy-motorcyclist-doctor-man flags...

A strange part of me wants to see a ULA/SF/LAB alliance spurn the bondholders simply so that I can follow the chaos and join in on the I told you so rants.

OhNoYouDidn't

Lockstep wrote: »

I'm heartily of sick of hearing from people who think senior bondholders means 'large firm that made stupid and high risk investments'

So what are they then?

Lockstep

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So what are they then?

Senior bondholders are ones who took a less risky investment and as such, have priority over junior/subordinated bondholders when it comes to payment. Lower risk means lower rewards.

Similar to senior/junior shareholders in a company.

OhNoYouDidn't

Lockstep wrote: »

Senior bondholders are ones who took a less risky investment and as such, have priority over junior/subordinated bondholders when it comes to payment. Lower risk means lower rewards.

Similar to senior/junior shareholders in a company.

I'm aware what the difference between senior and subordinated debt is.

But the reality is the risk they took failed on them. No reward at all. So I am back to asking you the same question. Who are these investors?

Lockstep

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I'm aware what the difference between senior and subordinated debt is.

But the reality is the risk they took failed on them. No reward at all.


So I am back to asking you the same question. Who are these investors?

That's not what you asked.

If you already knew what they were, you need to phrase your questions more clearly. You didn't ask "who are these investors", you asked "What are they then" when I was remarking on the ignorance of what senior bondholders actually are.

Who are these investors? Various people and companies who have taken a lower risk and as such, are entitled to be paid before subordinated bondholders. To do otherwise would destroy the system of debt security (and shareholding which operates on the same principle.

Take for example This letter
Why does the author feel the need to refer specifically to 'senior bondholders'? Surely he should be raging against the subordinate bondholders who took a higher risk?

Lockstep

Valmont wrote: »

I'm guessing an uprising of some kind...with lots of happy-motorcyclist-doctor-man flags...

A strange part of me wants to see a ULA/SF/LAB alliance spurn the bondholders simply so that I can follow the chaos and join in on the I told you so rants.

In fairness, Labour don't advocate 'burning the bondholders'. They do advocate sharing the burden among bondholders, as Fine Gael do.

OhNoYouDidn't

Lockstep wrote: »

That's not what you asked.

If you already knew what they were, you need to phrase your questions more clearly. You didn't ask "who are these investors", you asked "What are they then" when I was remarking on the ignorance of what senior bondholders actually are.

Who are these investors? Various people and companies who have taken a lower risk and as such, are entitled to be paid before subordinated bondholders. To do otherwise would destroy the system of debt security (and shareholding which operates on the same principle.

Take for example This letter
Why does the author feel the need to refer specifically to 'senior bondholders'? Surely he should be raging against the subordinate bondholders who took a higher risk?

Hold up. You said senior bondholders are not ''large firm that made stupid and high risk investments".

Now you have gone on a tangent about the differences between sub and senior debt.

Are the investors who would have lost out if the state hadn't stepped in here institutional and professional investors or not?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Hold up. You said senior bondholders are not ''large firm that made stupid and high risk investments".

No, they can't be typified or stereotyped. Some are large firms, others are ordinary Joes.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Now you have gone on a tangent about the differences between sub and senior debt.

As that's important. They made a low-risk investment. Highlighting them over subordinate bondholders (who made high risk investments) is utterly disingenuous and misleading.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Are the investors who would have lost out if the state hadn't stepped in here institutional and professional investors or not?

Some are, some aren't. My friend is an office worker and he has a few stocks and bonds. He's not a professional or an institutional investor.

Going on about 'senior bondholders' as if they are a singular entity is utterly retarded. The only thing they have in common is that they made low-risk investments.

Spudmonkey

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

1) Destroy the Irish economy with vast cuts in Public Sector, welfare, enormous increases in taxation, and huge transfers of wealth to Roman Abrovovich et al.
2) Default, reschedule, or burn the bondholders.

You talk about option 2 like it is completely seperate to option 1 when a default, rescheduling or bondholder burning would most likely leave us with most of option 1 being actually enacted.

Soldie

SkepticOne wrote: »

This is just a repeat of the official line. Look, the bailout isn't 85 billion; it is 67.5 billion.

Now the next step is very simple: what percentage of 67.5 billion is 35 billion?

Note here I'm dealing only with actual money transfers. The 85 billion is not a transfer of money since it includes money Ireland has already raised.

If you deal only with real amounts you can see that the majority of money from the lenders point of view is for the banks. We would not get the 67.5 billion otherwise.

Yes, they have phrased it in such a way that it appears that the 35 billion is coming from 17.5 billion pension fund plus some from the loan amount, but you can only do this by inventing the dodgy 85 billion figure.

If I lend you 100 euros on condition that you put 70 euros into some charity of my choosing, you have really only received 30 euros to spend on food although you still owe 100 euros. As well as this most people would agree that the bulk of the loan amount is tied up with the condition that 70 euros must go into the charity.

Now let us say that I stipulate that the 70 euros has to come out of your savings and not the loan amount. Does this make any difference? I think you will agree that the answer is no. The aggregate amounts are the same in both cases.

Does it further make any difference if I add the 70 euros on to the 100 euros to create a 170 euro "package". Again, no. This is all just fiddling about with numbers on bits of papers. In this hypothetical example there are only two real figures a) the 100 euros lent and b) the 70 euros that needs to be put into the charity as a condition of the loan.

But by adding the 70 euros on to the loan amount, it appears that the conditions of the loan are much less onerous. 70 as a proportion of 170 is much less than 70 as a proportion of 100 yet exactly the same transfers of money are involved.

I'll be honest: I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be focusing on the €35 billion -- as opposed to the €50 billion -- because that suits the point you're trying to make. The bail out was required because Ireland could not borrow money at an affordable rate. The deal was structured around the four-year plan, which was the plan to make Ireland solvent again. Based on projections at the time, it was estimated that €50 billion would be needed to plug the hole in the public finances over the course of those four years, so the €50 billion is the number we should be looking at. It would make no sense to have a bail out at all, unless it addressed the fundamental issue, which was -- and still is -- insolvency. The issue of bank recapitalisation was tacked on, because the banks were deemed to required more funds. As you note yourself, most of this money came from our own reserve fund, anyway. The alleged flaws in both the four-year plan and the terms of the bail out are another issue entirely. In fact, this whole tangent is also off-topic, because the point of my original post was not to scrutinise the terms of the bail out, but, rather, to highlight the inconsistency in the left's position regarding the bail out.

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/nbe1-o04.shtml
The ULA and SF both start, and end, with the position that this economic crisis can be resolved; and resolved within the boundaries of Ireland.

They believe that through a combination of debt repudiation, re-direction of state resources, and returns to the money markets we can shuffle the pack to give us a different hand. They claim the problem is one of mis-management. The interests of the wealthy are put in front of those of the workers or the people.

Vote for them in the Dail elections so they can pressure (or get into coalition with) other parties to make deals along the lines they suggest.

The speculative frenzy has come to an end. The issuing of credit by capitalist states to cover the cracks in the capitalist profit system has reached it’s inevitable conclusion. The world is now in the end-game of the deferred demise of the post-war economic boom.

Higgins. Boyd-Barret, Doherty tell us that the capitalist system has not irretrievably broken down. They claim to be socialists, sometimes, yet they will not place the economic crisis in its historical context. It’s just something that has happened; and can be rectified by adjusting the political parameters through Dail seats, protest marches and campaigns.

The world’s multi-billionaires and the governments that they own have a different idea. Savage attacks to restore real profit to their system have only just begun. The driving down of wages and services, and the driving up of prices are the aim. They can only achieve this through brute oppression; and even then the economic crisis will not be resolved. Their only answer then to restore ‘their’ profits is to go to war with competing national bourgeoisie.

The ULA and SF are part-and-parcel of this capitalist system. Just as in Egypt and Bahrain the ruling class are trying to fend off the onslaught of the working class by promise of reforms, so in Ireland the ‘lefts’ of the Socialist Party and the SWP have concocted the ULA diversion to try and keep the Irish working class away from mass independent action.

That's great. Would you care to substantiate any of that? I'll also have some of whatever you're having.

Mervyn Crawford

The Socialist Party and the SWP propose reforms to the current economic framework - being a "cohesive opposition in the Dail" no less!

Meanwhile revolutions are infolding across North Africa and the Middle East
(http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/feb2011/nbre-f25.shtml)
and leading state officials in the US advocate the use of murder (Assange);
and lethal force in Wisconsin:

("Jeff Cox, the Republican deputy attorney general of Indiana recently told the liberal magazine Mother Jones that he favored “live ammunition” as the response to the protests in Wisconsin. He described workers protesting benefit cuts and attacks on their legal rights as “political enemies” and “thugs” and declared, “You’re damned right I advocate deadly force.” Cox, a state attorney for eight years, was fired Wednesday after the magazine published the exchange.")

Obama readies the US military to intervene in Libya because the revolution is getting the upper hand. The fear the American ruling class have is the same as the Egytian, Saudi, Bahraini, Yemeni.......If they use the military they will provoke the revolution. If Obama uses American force he does not know what consequences it will have at home.

And Daly, Boyd-Barret & co tell us we can fix things in Ireland.

All Gardai in Ireland have recently been trained in riot control. This is what we know about. What other preparations are taking place by state armed forces?

A young woman, Rachel Peavoy, is effectively murdered in her home in Ballymun by the Dublin City Council. Yet we are led to beleive by Higgins and the ULA that the unions are the defenders of the working class!

The only course of action open to Dublin residents and workers in the DCC is to unite against their joint enemies of the Council and union apparratuses.

The ULA say the 'Fruits of the Boom' were squandered. It's a strange way of describing a speculative orgy based on credit.

OhNoYouDidn't

Lockstep wrote: »

No, they can't be typified or stereotyped. Some are large firms, others are ordinary Joes.


As that's important. They made a low-risk investment. Highlighting them over subordinate bondholders (who made high risk investments) is utterly disingenuous and misleading.


Some are, some aren't. My friend is an office worker and he has a few stocks and bonds. He's not a professional or an institutional investor.

Going on about 'senior bondholders' as if they are a singular entity is utterly retarded. The only thing they have in common is that they made low-risk investments.

That is self evidently not true....

Anglo was always junk status. High risk, high reward. Dry your eyes when the business model, that was absurd, unravels and your investment is worthless.

Lockstep

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

That is self evidently not true....

Anglo was always junk status. High risk, high reward. Dry your eyes when the business model, that was absurd, unravels and your investment is worthless.

You're saying that Anglo-Irish was *always* a junk investment and that everyone who ever invested in it should have known this?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Deeper analysis would have shown about 90% of its business was in property and development plus Anglo was a joke by people in the know in England eg.

Makes you wonder how much these fund managers etc. actually know and check for, to get these massive bonuses.

OhNoYouDidn't

Lockstep wrote: »

You're saying that Anglo-Irish was *always* a junk investment and that everyone who ever invested in it should have known this?

Yes.

Are you arguing that investors should not check the S&P or Moodys rating of a bond before they buy? That they shouldn't look at the balance sheet of the issuer? That they shouldn't ask why they were offering rewards far higher than any other business in the industry?

OhNoYouDidn't

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Of course they were. How can anyone possibly argue otherwise?

Anglo was a B- rated issuer. It offered far higher returns than other banks. It failed. Join the dots yourself.

If pension fund managers were investing, unhedged, into junk bonds, then they should not be pension fund managers anymore. And they certainly should not be bailed out with my money.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't currently have access to a Bloomberg for the historicals, but for most of the Celtic Tiger Anglo was the lowest rated Irish bank and for long periods, even in the boom, had junk status. I'll try and find something online.

But thats somewhat irrelevant. Caveat emptor. Anglo was a dog with fleas and any canny investor would have given it a swerve. Even if they didn't see what the rest of us saw, they should have been hedged.

This should not be a state liabilty and it should instantly be dropped by the new government. Having it off the state balance sheet means the entire debt / bailout landscape changes.

If you have problems with the language the ruffians on the 'left' are using in relation to this, I suggest you ring Joe Duffy. 1850 715 815 or joe@rte.ie

Permabear

This post has been deleted.