Prime Time on defaulting

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

zig

While I still watch Prime Time Ive no respect for it, one or two of their shows have been a disaster in terms of biased editing.

edit: sorry I was thinking of Prime Time investigates.

zootroid

Aside from the fact that the bank guarantee was immoral, it has also shown to be a mistake - it did not do what it was supposed to do, and it is impossible for the taxpayer to pay the debts of the banks. Some sort of debt re-structuring needs to be worked out. If nothing is done, it is inevitable that we will default, so an agreement needs to be reached on what gets paid and what doesn't, because it is impossible for all the debt to be repaid

Dabhach

Was I the only one in utter despair at what we saw on Primetime tonight? It really has come down to the last shot when David McWilliams starts to look good. Our fearless FG grandees, Bruton and Sutherland, were clear that no matter what happens, the rich will get protected, and since the Blueshirts will be in power for at least the next ten years, then means the rest of us are going to get screwed. FG are still a Civil War party, in case anyone has forgotten; they still have a 1920s mindset which will always make them defer to sophisticated foreigners. That means they will not represent us in Europe because they haven't got the spine to spit in Merkel's and Sarkozy's eyes and threaten massive default.

As a nation and as individuals, we're finished, and I never thought I'd ever say those words. I really don't know what to do anymore. Problem is, neither do our so-called leaders.

bhovaspack

Is it just me, or is the format typically used in these debates fundamentally unsuited to the complexity of the topic being discussed? The presenter needed to hurry everything along, reducing arguments to easily-digestible soundbites. I haven't emerged any wiser from watching this programme. I would like to have seen McWilliams challenged on his assertion that "the markets have no memory", for example. Even after god-only-knows how many scores of hours of watching these programmes I still don't think most people are informed to the standard required for the purposes of, say, voting in the putative bailout referendum (and I include myself in that - there is no way I would trust my limited understanding to be able to make the right call on such a serious issue).

Iwannahurl

I missed it unfortunately. Is there a repeat later, or some other chance to see it?

If we can't afford to repay then at least a partial default must happen. Otherwise we're sunk, no?

I've been thinking about this again while watching the devastation in Japan.

There's talk of the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown costing Japan 120-180 billion Euro for recovery and reconstruction. The global insurance industry alone is to be hit for €34 billion. This is seen as an economic disaster for Japan that could plunge them into a prolonged recession.

Japan has a population of 120 million and a GDP of around 3.5 trillion Euro. Here in Ireland we have 4 million people and a GDP (misleadingly inflated) of €180 billion. And the estimated final cost just for bailing out a few of Paddy's casino banks is €120 billion!!! When all that money is spent -- most of which we will never see again -- unlike the Japanese we won't have new schools, hospitals, roads, power stations, public services and other essential infrastructure as a result. Sick, sick, sick...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kristopherus

Well, as I understand the scenario as outlined in the programme, there is €22/23bn oustanding from the banks, that is not guaranteed. IMHO we will have to default on that in order to protect our sovereign debt.The only obstacle to defaulting is the ECB, only because they believe it would destabilise European banks. Well, they were happy enough to lend recklessly to the Irish banks, so let them suffer for that. We will then have to eyeball europe re the terms for the sovereign debt. If they don't play ball, the the Gov should repatriate all Irish savings that lie in European banks, it must total €50bn at this stage.That would show Germany & France that we can play hardball too.

20Cent

What was the point of having peter sutherland on for?

Should we pay you all that money?
Em yes.

hmmm

Kristopherus wrote: »

If they don't play ball, the the Gov should repatriate all Irish savings that lie in European banks, it must total €50bn at this stage.That would show Germany & France that we can play hardball too.

The government should do what? Those savings are not theirs to repatriate.

I'm beginning to get really worried about private savings (including pensions). It's a typical feature of South American defaults that the first thing the government goes after to plug the hole is private savings, I'd really wish people would stop talking about pensions and savings as some sort of monolithic block that can be deployed on behalf of Ireland inc.

jimmycrackcorm

Kristopherus wrote: »

the the Gov should repatriate all Irish savings that lie in European banks, it must total €50bn at this stage.That would show Germany & France that we can play hardball too.

Eh - how do you do that? Send the boys round to Paris and Bonn on a raid?

jimmycrackcorm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

When all that money is spent -- most of which we will never see again -- unlike the Japanese we won't have new schools, hospitals, roads, power stations, public services and other essential infrastructure as a result. Sick, sick, sick...

What makes me sick, sick, sick is that the one thing that prevents us from defaulting on the bank debt is that we need to borrow to pay for our normal government deficit.

I wonder if we held a referendum on whether we should default or not to get rid of the bank debt but the consequence would be a severe cut in public spending to affordable levels, how people would vote.....

Kristopherus

In a case of national emergency, the Gov can sequestre the assets in foreign banks, just as they can freeze Ghadaffi's assets here. Our backs are against a 20ft thick wall, so desperate remedies need desperate measures. IMO this will be in play if Merkel & Sarkozy don't see the big picture and agree to treat us fairly, before the Ports & Spaniards fall into the abyss.

20Cent

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What makes me sick, sick, sick is that the one thing that prevents us from defaulting on the bank debt is that we need to borrow to pay for our normal government deficit.

I wonder if we held a referendum on whether we should default or not to get rid of the bank debt but the consequence would be a severe cut in public spending to affordable levels, how people would vote.....

Without the bank debt we would be around the average of European debt so severe cuts would not be required. Realistic cuts over a longer period and making the public services more efficient could be done.

hmmm

Kristopherus wrote: »

In a case of national emergency, the Gov can sequestre the assets in foreign banks, just as they can freeze Ghadaffi's assets here. Our backs are against a 20ft thick wall, so desperate remedies need desperate measures. IMO this will be in play if Merkel & Sarkozy don't see the big picture and agree to treat us fairly, before the Ports & Spaniards fall into the abyss.

You'll steal the private assets of Irish people?

hmmm

hmmm wrote: »

The government should do what? Those savings are not theirs to repatriate.

I'm beginning to get really worried about private savings (including pensions). It's a typical feature of South American defaults that the first thing the government goes after to plug the hole is private savings, I'd really wish people would stop talking about pensions and savings as some sort of monolithic block that can be deployed on behalf of Ireland inc.

if your in your early 30s or 20s and planning on staying in Ireland then these people need to get it into their heads that pensions will be extremely expensive that when the time comes what would now be viewed as modest will be seen as luxury and taxed hard to make up for todays mistakes.

I just dont think people understand the full extent of the ramifications of all of this yet

ilovesleep

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I wonder if we held a referendum on whether we should default or not to get rid of the bank debt but the consequence would be a severe cut in public spending to affordable levels, how people would vote.....

I was very well behaved - took out no mortgage, loans, have no credit card, etc Can manage money well. Bar having to give up a few bits and pieces that i enjoy like not going to the cinema as often or not buy computer games much (which i have severely cut down on already), I'd be able for such a move.But many people would have taken out celtic tiger mortgages and loans, many people would not be able for such a move.

femur61

So should we be moving our private savings out of the country. The bank gaurantee would be worthless as there wouldn't be enough money to repay everyone. People do have savings some have unlike the government saved for a rainy day.

ei.sdraob

femur61 wrote: »

The bank gaurantee would be worthless as there wouldn't be enough money to repay everyone.

The bank guarantee is worthless.

you are waking up about 3 years too late, but better late than never

RichardAnd

Deleted User wrote: »

if your in your early 30s or 20s and planning on staying in Ireland then these people need to get it into their heads that pensions will be extremely expensive that when the time comes what would now be viewed as modest will be seen as luxury and taxed hard to make up for todays mistakes.

I just dont think people understand the full extent of the ramifications of all of this yet

I agree. The old way of retiring in our 60s to a pension for the rest of our lives is becoming a thing of the past. At 24, I expect my generation to be working well into our 70s at the least and retiring to a "pension" of personal savings for our last few years.

As to why this is happening? Well I think it's simply a case of there being too many of us and we're living too long. Personally, I don't know why people obsess with living for as long as possibly but that's another topic not suitable for discussion on an economics board.

Tora Bora

RichardAnd wrote: »

I agree. The old way of retiring in our 60s to a pension for the rest of our lives is becoming a thing of the past. At 24, I expect my generation to be working well into our 70s at the least and retiring to a "pension" of personal savings for our last few years.

As to why this is happening? Well I think it's simply a case of there being too many of us and we're living too long. Personally, I don't know why people obsess with living for as long as possibly but that's another topic not suitable for discussion on an economics board.

Is it just me, or have you ever noticed that the hardiest, healthiest, sprightliest looking old people, are working away into the high seventies and beyond. You see them every day, at least in provincial Ireland. The auld farmers, handy men, shop keepers, bar keepers;)

All this bulls*it abou retire at 55, 60, 65 is nonsense. Peddled by pension fund managers, brokers, UNIONS:mad: , etc.

femur61

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The bank guarantee is worthless.

you are waking up about 3 years too late, but better late than never

Not really, money still in the bank. Have to admit very worried though. If we default may not be there much longer:eek:

ei.sdraob

femur61 wrote: »

Not really, money still in the bank. Have to admit very worried though. If we default may not be there much longer:eek:

Except now you have an extra heavy tax debt tied around your neck for decades to come, tax that will not go to improve the country but repay debts.

RichardAnd

Tora Bora wrote: »

Is it just me, or have you ever noticed that the hardiest, healthiest, sprightliest looking old people, are working away into the high seventies and beyond. You see them every day, at least in provincial Ireland. The auld farmers, handy men, shop keepers, bar keepers;)

All this bulls*it abou retire at 55, 60, 65 is nonsense. Peddled by pension fund managers, brokers, UNIONS:mad: , etc.

It's nonsense now but that's only because it's a rule that's been about for years. Back in the 50s, the average male civil servant retired at 60, drew his pension for between 2 - 5 years and then keeled over. Retiring at 60 made perfect sense when the average joe was going to be lucky to live to 70 but when most poeple will probably live into their 80s, it's something that needs to be looked at.

One example I could give of this would be my maternal grandfather who passed away in the summer of 2010. He retired from the civil service in 1988 at 60 years of age and drew his pension for 22 years. I have a grand aunt who is 90 who has been recieving a PS pension for 30 years. Whilst this clearly shows my family to be one blessed with long life, it also high lights that the retirment age of 60 to be woefully outdated.

However, as it's been raised to 68, this is a problem that is being corrected.

BluntGuy

Dabhach wrote: »

Was I the only one in utter despair at what we saw on Primetime tonight?

I certainly was, but more at the thought of the amount of money we pay towards such an substandard, shallow programme. The length of time they wasted on their uninformative, glossy clipshow left no time for an actual, worthwhile debate.

The program failed to address the real consequences of default for ordinary people - the kind of cuts it would mean, the sort of reduction in living standards it would require, and failed to frame that in the context of the sort of cuts that are going to be undertaken in the next four years.

FG are still a Civil War party, in case anyone has forgotten; they still have a 1920s mindset which will always make them defer to sophisticated foreigners. That means they will not represent us in Europe because they haven't got the spine to spit in Merkel's and Sarkozy's eyes and threaten massive default.

I don't think it's wise to be spitting in the eyes of those who are paying for us. It's easy to forget that Merkel and Sarkozy are just figureheads for large countries made up of citizens like you and me. It's not just them individually we are threatening. While I would share the sentiment that, to use a horrible phrase, Ireland should "fight its corner", I don't think huffing and puffing and threatening to blow the house down is going to get us very far. Our bargaining position, in my opinion, is often grossly oversated.

The only thing we can really bank on is proving we can't afford it, proving that we will inevitably default. In fact that is the only way I see us "winning" our case.

I believe it would be somewhat disingenuous to go to Europe threatening to impose the harsh consequences of massive default upon ourselves, whilst simultaneously arguing for a reduction in the "harshness" of the present arrangements. If we're unprepared to take the "harshness" of the package, why on Earth would they have reason to believe we'd elect to take the harshness of such a huge default.

It must also be acknowledged that the electorate voted primarily for the parties that didn't advocate a default. That said, it doesn't necessarily mean the electorate are correct.

HellFireClub

20Cent wrote: »

What was the point of having peter sutherland on for?

Should we pay you all that money?
Em yes.

Look, you know when the likes of Peter Sutherland and Pat Cox, (another clown who gets wheeled out when we start feeling a bit uppedy here in Ireland and when we need a good telling off for the purposes of attempting to put us back into our little national box as happened when Cox was deployed onto the national airwaves during the Lisbon treaty II debates), that we are really onto something as a country.

The long and the short of it I've come to believe is that someone is contributing to the national debate here and they are being paid by the state, then their word and their opinion is worth absolutely jack sh*t in terms of them being "opinion formers". As Upton Sinclair once said: 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

Atilathehun

BluntGuy wrote: »

I certainly was, but more at the thought of the amount of money we pay towards such an substandard, shallow programme. The length of time they wasted on their uninformative, glossy clipshow left no time for an actual, worthwhile debate.

The program failed to address the real consequences of default for ordinary people - the kind of cuts it would mean, the sort of reduction in living standards it would require, and failed to frame that in the context of the sort of cuts that are going to be undertaken in the next four years.



I don't think it's wise to be spitting in the eyes of those who are paying for us. It's easy to forget that Merkel and Sarkozy are just figureheads for large countries made up of citizens like you and me. It's not just them individually we are threatening. While I would share the sentiment that, to use a horrible phrase, Ireland should "fight its corner", I don't think huffing and puffing and threatening to blow the house down is going to get us very far. Our bargaining position, in my opinion, is often grossly oversated.

The only thing we can really bank on is proving we can't afford it, proving that we will inevitably default. In fact that is the only way I see us "winning" our case.

I believe it would be somewhat disingenuous to go to Europe threatening to impose the harsh consequences of massive default upon ourselves, whilst simultaneously arguing for a reduction in the "harshness" of the present arrangements. If we're unprepared to take the "harshness" of the package, why on Earth would they have reason to believe we'd elect to take the harshness of such a huge default.

It must also be acknowledged that the electorate voted primarily for the parties that didn't advocate a default. That said, it doesn't necessarily mean the electorate are correct.

Plus McWillams gets his blond locks on TV again. I reckon he has made a fortune out of the bank crisis. He is on every talk show possible, prattling away with his simple solutions to complex problems.
He annoys me, saying Argentina is a great example of a country which defaulted, and came out the other end in good shape.
He forgets, or glosses over the fact, that Ireland needs to export and trade internationally, to an enormous extent, vis a vis most other countries. We do not really have the same scope to cut and run as many other countries do.
How can we roast the financial markets in Europe, and ask them to buy goods and services from us, the very next day:eek:

Dannyboy83

As already said, it didn't shed any new light.

I guess if the CCCTB becomes mandatory at some stage, we will probably default regardless.

Boskowski

Will people please inform themselves before they start ranting against 'Merkel & Sarkozy'?

If you're unhappy with them then maybe you have a suggestion as to who is going to give us money cheaper or at all? Of course there is also the option of not taking the money. No? Not so good either?

So what is it then? Get out of jail free card is it? Anything but take responsibilty and roll up your sleeves is it? The answer to all the trouble caused by cheap credit is let's demand more cheap credit?

Sand

@BluntGuy

While I would share the sentiment that, to use a horrible phrase, Ireland should "fight its corner", I don't think huffing and puffing and threatening to blow the house down is going to get us very far. Our bargaining position, in my opinion, is often grossly oversated.

Apologising, grovelling and begging hasnt gotten us too far either. Our bargaining position, in my opinion, is almost entirely grossly understated. We might lose the nuclear war of a default, but even the winners of such a conflict dont want to fight it. There are grounds for a genuine neogotiation as opposed to simply accepting any terms we are given and being grateful for them. Id rather the Irish negotiating team err on the side of "huffing and puffing" as opposed to erring on the side of accepting any terms, at all, and tearing up with gratitude at being granted an audience.

So far, Kenny has made the right moves by ruling out a ridiculous deal. That Merkel and Sarkozy actually dared to conceive this deal was workable shows the contempt they viewed the Irish in.

hmmm

Atilathehun wrote: »

He annoys me, saying Argentina is a great example of a country which defaulted, and came out the other end in good shape.

I haven't heard what McWilliams has said about Argentina so I can't comment on his opinion, but I can say that anyone who holds Argentina up as an example of how a default can be good option is off their head. Feel free to ask any Argentinian what the past 10 years have been like.

phosphate

The most tragic outcome of all this cheap accessible credit and political corruption is watching all the little lost sheep crying about the devastating results of default.

The same gulpins arguing public sector get paid too much or social welfare payments are too high..these people are terrified of the government defaulting because they'll lose their own over inflated standard of living.

It illustrates how dependent these selfish people are on the state taking care of them..it's pathetic really when you think how people in poorer countries are surviving...

Some irish think they have problems if they can't go to the pub for a drink or can't afford phone credit...bloody hilarious really.

Eventually you have to face the fact you're not worth much as you think, so get used to it.

Become self sufficient, stop depending on the government to help you out, millions of people around the world do that everyday.

Hawkeye123

How refreshing to hear a little common sense for a change. The leftists are a selfish bunch indeed. They covet the wealth created by others. They are jealous and envious of the rich and demand handouts from the state instead of trying to make a real contribution in the real world instead of a pretend "contribution" in the fake world that is the civil service/public sector. The demand the government borrow to subsidize their standard of living and why wouldn`t they, after all it ultimately falls to the private sector to pay their bill. As for putting a penny aside for a rainy day - forget it! Socialists would have their children starve tomorrow just so they can party today.

irishconvert

bhovaspack wrote: »

Is it just me, or is the format typically used in these debates fundamentally unsuited to the complexity of the topic being discussed? The presenter needed to hurry everything along, reducing arguments to easily-digestible soundbites.

Agree 100%. Prime Time is always like this. The guests can say whatever they want, and as long as they waffle long enough they won't get questioned on their soundbites.

irishconvert

RichardAnd wrote: »

I agree. The old way of retiring in our 60s to a pension for the rest of our lives is becoming a thing of the past. At 24, I expect my generation to be working well into our 70s at the least and retiring to a "pension" of personal savings for our last few years.

As to why this is happening? Well I think it's simply a case of there being too many of us and we're living too long.

No, that's what they would like you to believe. It is just a case of a very small number of people holding onto most of the wealth. There is plenty to go around if these people were not so greedy. They have more money than they could possibley spend.