So then, the bondholders will not be burned.

hatrickpatrick

Am I the only one who is bitterly disappointed?

So much for election manifestos, eh? :mad:

Uuuh Patsy

I for one am very disallusioned... I can only hope they are holding out for europe to fail or for someone else to default first.. I can't see any other reason for the continuation of this chirade... Then I look at the US debt and and think it could be a generation before it happens...

Hayte

I could have told you that a year ago when Anglo was doing debt buybacks. It was always one of the more ludicrous proposals in the Fine Gael manifesto along with renegotiating the interest rate on the ECB/IMF deal with absolutely no leverage and no willingness to make concessions on corporation tax. A team of the mightiest negotiators on the planet couldn't make a proposal like that fly.

Unfortunately, its easier to bury your head in the sand and hope the problem goes away or some politician magically makes it go away (this will never happen). Alot of people on this forum have been doing this for years, talking about burning bondholders and defaulting, with no idea of the consequences or the means of doing same, even if there was political will to do so (there isn't).

zig

In fairness to FG, that was never their policy pre election, its the big reason SF and ULA were the 'other' option. The only reason it became an issue again is because Noonan and Kenny started mentioning it AFTER the election.

ei.sdraob

The "save the bondholders" briggade often trots out the argument that bondholders and depositors are viewed as equals before law (point #1: laws can be changed) but they forget to mention (point #2) that the depositors are often the taxpayers here who do have to pay for the banks while bondholders and foreign depositors do not.

The question that should be asked is are foreign depositors and bondholders more important to us than local taxpayers and citizens who have to carry the stone?

Hayte

If you were that important you wouldn't be carrying the stone now, would you?

beeftotheheels

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The "save the bondholders" briggade often trots out the argument that bondholders and depositors are viewed as equals before law (point #1: laws can be changed) but they forget to mention (point #2) that the depositors are often the taxpayers here who do have to pay for the banks while bondholders and foreign depositors do not.

The question that should be asked is are foreign depositors and bondholders more important to us than local taxpayers and citizens who have to carry the stone?

Define foreign in a world of global finance?

We owe Trichet more than we owe the bondholders and he says that if we burn them he will cease to help us.

If your house was on fire and the fire brigade told you that they wouldn't help you if you stole your neighbor's bucket and tried to put out the flames yourself thus risking spreading the fire to neighboring houses which do you do? Steal the bucket and lose the fire brigade, or sit tight and hope that the fire brigade do their job?

It's not that simple, Trichet cannot get us out of this mess, but without his help we'd be a whole lot deeper in (just shy of €190bn) so we can't p!$$ him off.

ei.sdraob

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Define foreign in a world of global finance?

definition:

Entities who do not pay taxes here and hence will not pay a cent towards the banking mess cleanup (despite having benefited from it)

ei.sdraob

beeftotheheels wrote: »

If your house was on fire and the fire brigade told you that they wouldn't help you if you stole your neighbor's bucket and tried to put out the flames yourself thus risking spreading the fire to neighboring houses which do you do? Steal the bucket and lose the fire brigade, or sit tight and hope that the fire brigade do their job?

If my house was on fire I would expect the neighbours in apartments nearby to help and not pour fuel into the fire.

beeftotheheels

ei.sdraob wrote: »

If my house was on fire I would expect the neighbours in apartments nearby to help and not pour fuel into the fire.

And this goes back to the EFSF and the EFSM and whether their role is to rescue or simply tide over. If it is to rescue then surely they should drop the interest rate to one we can afford, we return to growth and pay them back.

It is is simply to tide us over and put the problem on the long finger then they charge us 5.8% and force us to cut ourselves into a deeper recession, and we default at some stage in the future.

Seems so logical and yet the need for French and German taxpayers to punish us means I am not holding my breath.

beeftotheheels

ei.sdraob wrote: »

definition:

Entities who do not pay taxes here and hence will not pay a cent towards the banking mess cleanup (despite having benefited from it)

It is really not that simple. MNCs pay taxes all over the place including in Ireland. A lot of bondholders who are funds are based here. If we impose losses on them they go under, lay off their staff, stop paying taxes and fees here etc. If we impose losses on e.g. Citi in NY then they could shut their Dublin ops as a result of the necessary cutbacks and we would lose out...

It is very difficult to say with any certainty who we can impose losses on without there being any repercussions for us in this age of globalization.

sollar

I found what gurdiev and somerville were saying on VB last night was fairly depressing. Basically that the EU etc are going to string this along until 2013 and then we will be thrown to the wolves, they won't give a damn about little old ireland.

Scofflaw

sollar wrote: »

I found what gurdiev and somerville were saying on VB last night was fairly depressing. Basically that the EU etc are going to string this along until 2013 and then we will be thrown to the wolves, they won't give a damn about little old ireland.

Out of interest, did they offer any of the following for such a statement - explanation, motive, or evidence? Is its meaning and truth obvious in some way?

cordially,
Scofflaw

sollar

Somerville can be a little ott at times but he is fairly on the ball quite often. I don't think the EU will care too much what happens to ireland so long as they are OK.

Scofflaw

sollar wrote: »

Somerville can be a little ott at times but he is fairly on the ball quite often. I don't think the EU will care too much what happens to ireland so long as they are OK.

Which doesn't really answer the question. What do you think they meant, and what evidence did they offer for it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Snakeblood

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which doesn't really answer the question. What do you think they meant, and what evidence did they offer for it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Euro budget term goes 2007-2013, maybe something radical will happen then?*

*guesswork.

hatrickpatrick

Fact of the matter is that gambling debts should be payed by the gamblers and no one else.

I have yet to hear a satisfactory excuse for treating bondholders otherwise. Investing = gambling. You gamble, you lose, you pay. You don't expect the government to bail you out if you buy shares which go down, or if you bet on a horse which doesn't win, do you?

Time to END the age of banks acting like they have society by the balls. If they fail, they fail.
Better to let a couple of rogue banks bite the dust than to let the entire nation or even the eurozone bite the dust instead.

"Burn" is always a word I've disliked in fact, as it implies actively punishing bondholders. this is not what I want and I imagine not what anyone else wants either. I am simply suggesting we should have allowed the banks to fail without state intervention, just like any business in any other section of the economy would have. A free market is a free market - no special cases, no VIPs. End of story.

Nelson Muntz

Is it not correct that the majority if not all of these bondholders have in fact cashed in their chips & the money is actually owed to the ECB due to FF's most generous blanket guarantee?

Or is that not correct?

Scofflaw

Nelson Muntz wrote: »

Is it not correct that the majority if not all of these bondholders have in fact cashed in their chips & the money is actually owed to the ECB due to FF's most generous blanket guarantee?

Or is that not correct?

Unluckily, it is correct. Latest position versus pre-guarantee:

Irish|%|Eurozone|%|Rest of World|%|Total|ECB Borrowings
25,877 |24.01|14,145 |13.12|67,775 |62.87|107796.6|14,617
52,744 |65.23|9,841 |12.17|18,270 |22.6|80854.83|88,099


International debt holdings drastically down, Irish debt holdings and ECB borrowings up.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Snakeblood wrote: »

The Euro budget term goes 2007-2013, maybe something radical will happen then?*

*guesswork.

I'd presume the reference is to the creation of the permanent bailout fund in 2013 rather than the EU budget cycle...but that doesn't clarify what was actually meant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sollar

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which doesn't really answer the question. What do you think they meant, and what evidence did they offer for it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well most of it is all opinion at this stage nobody can tell what is going to happen in 2 years. So i just happen to believe what the likes of somerville and gurdiev are saying over what or politicians are spinning.

He was basically saying that we will be strung along until much of the danger has passed for the EU and we can be cut loose to our fate when the new rules change in 2013. Thats what i took from it.

Nelson Muntz

There seems to be a nice little cottage industry sprung up for several economists that we regularly see on TV.

Prime Time, VB, etc. Not to mention books & news paper columns. That is fine of course but I have noticed many of them seem to be using stronger language to maintain their place in the public eye.

sollar

Nelson Muntz wrote: »

There seems to be a nice little cottage industry sprung up for several economists that we regularly see on TV.

Prime Time, VB, etc. Not to mention books & news paper columns. That is fine of course but I have noticed many of them seem to be using stronger language to maintain their place in the public eye.

Yeah and its talked down the economy in much the same way as similar programs and newspapers talked it up during the boom imo.

Scofflaw

sollar wrote: »

Well most of it is all opinion at this stage nobody can tell what is going to happen in 2 years. So i just happen to believe what the likes of somerville and gurdiev are saying over what or politicians are spinning.

He was basically saying that we will be strung along until much of the danger has passed for the EU and we can be cut loose to our fate when the new rules change in 2013. Thats what i took from it.

As in actually booted out of the EU/euro? All ECB facilities withdrawn? The bailout facility rescinded?

Sorry to keep harping on it, but this kind of gnomic soundbite stuff by 'commentators' really annoys me. You believe what they're saying, but neither you nor I have any real idea what they actually meant, and they haven't offered any evidence for it whatsoever.

I imagine that in 2013, with a permanent bailout fund in place, and with agreed mechanisms for burden-sharing, Ireland's bank debt will no longer be the hot potato it currently is. If you have a certain type of mind - the individualistic mode, if you like - that forms a natural point at which you can tell Ireland to shove off, because their collapse can no longer do you harm. As a prediction about the behaviour of the EU, though, it tells you a lot about the commentator rather than the EU, because if that were the mindset the EU operated on, it would not exist in the first place.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nelson Muntz

sollar wrote: »

Yeah and its talked down the economy in much the same way as similar programs and newspapers talked it up during the boom imo.

There seemed to be general consensus amongst a lot of the domestic economists over the previous 2 years over the state of the Irish economy but now they seem to be evolving into some type of pseudo politicians, populist rhetoric, soundbites, grandstanding.

Calling to burn the bond holders & deriding the motives of the EU may be popular but as the figures posted by Scofflaw show, there is a lot of possible damage to Irish citizens & entities if they are burnt. Not to mention without ECB funding it is lights out for the economy.

sollar

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sorry to keep harping on it, but this kind of gnomic soundbite stuff by 'commentators' really annoys me. You believe what they're saying, but neither you nor I have any real idea what they actually meant, and they haven't offered any evidence for it whatsoever.

Perhaps sommerville has a book on the way and we are being softened up

P. Breathnach

Nelson Muntz wrote: »

There seemed to be general consensus amongst a lot of the domestic economists over the previous 2 years over the state of the Irish economy but now they seem to be evolving into some type of pseudo politicians, populist rhetoric, soundbites, grandstanding.

Calling to burn the bond holders & deriding the motives of the EU may be popular but as the figures posted by Scofflaw show, there is a lot of possible damage to Irish citizens & entities if they are burnt. Not to mention without ECB funding it is lights out for the economy.

Can I cavil a bit about the passage that I have highlighted? A number of economic commentators (not all of them economists) seem to have found that there is a market for doomsayers, and they are supplying that market.

We don't hear very much from more temperate economists. They don't sell newspapers.

Panrich

And we don't hear much from Morgan Kelly who called it all correctly down to the fact that the banks would need €70bn. I for one would rather hear more from economists like him who didn't take us all for fools during the boom.

Nelson Muntz

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Can I cavil a bit about the passage that I have highlighted? A number of economic commentators (not all of them economists) seem to have found that there is a market for doomsayers, and they are supplying that market.

We don't hear very much from more temperate economists. They don't sell newspapers.

I agree, at first it was general, calm, benign analysis & now it seems to be a contest for the spotlight by whatever means necessary.

I suppose though you would expect the Irish economy to be reported on just as any other news item. 20% happy stories & 80% bad news.

Just like Japan, no one reports on the people just plugging away getting on with the clean up. It is either a miracle survival or the deaths.

beeftotheheels

P. Breathnach wrote: »

We don't hear very much from more temperate economists. They don't sell newspapers.

Have you found a temperate economist on this? The sad fact is that until we see the green shoots of growth not only peeping their heads above the cold winter's soil, but looking strong enough to weather a couple more night's frost, the most temperate economist can say little more than "We may survive this".

The growth indicators are shaky, the bailout has restricted growth, and the green shoots haven't even appeared.

If we get a refi of the EFSF and EFSM to support growth then we may start seeing some positive noises from economists. Once we start to hear positive noises confidence returns and we start entering a virtuous circle rather than the vicious one we are currently in.

At that point in time it may well be worthwhile to look at bringing back internment for the likes of McWilliams, Hobbs & Gurdgiev - it's not like we don't have a ghost estate or two in Leitrim which we could make them and their families comfortable in but well away from the press.

ps
I have to say I respect Scofflaw's ability to see a silver lining in almost every cloud and rationalize it, and its difficult to characterize optimism as a dogma to be critiqued.

I agree that the EU will not want to see us fail or "cut us loose", I merely worry that we may end up falling through the cracks of the new financial order that is the Euro facing its first major sustained crisis.

hmmm

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Have you found a temperate economist on this?

There are many, two alone on Prime Time last night. Sanguine is perhaps the wrong word, realistic about our prospects perhaps more accurate. Unfortunately the media are happy to trot out the doom-mongers as it sells newspapers and they supply easy soundbites, plus we have the influence of legions of online SF stirrers who are happy to tell us that we are all doomed.

The growth indicators are shaky, the bailout has restricted growth, and the green shoots haven't even appeared.

There's no evidence the bailout will restrict growth. It may cut government spending but that's a different matter. The growth figures are shakey +/- 1% or so, but their velocity is upwards and significantly upwards.

If we get a refi of the EFSF and EFSM to support growth then we may start seeing some positive noises from economists.

1% of a change isn't going to matter a toss. The European taxpayer is not going to toss free money at Ireland while we have some of the best paid public sector workers and social welfare recipients in Europe. We wouldn't do it for them, why should we expect them to do it for us.

I have to say I respect Scofflaw's ability to see a silver lining in almost every cloud and rationalize it, and its difficult to characterize optimism as a dogma to be critiqued.

I'm sure he can defend himself but Scofflaw with his mountain of facts and figures presents reality. It contradicts with the McWilliams and ilks appeal to emotive language but it's easier for lazy people to listen to soundbites rather than wade through figures. We have a financially clueless population who rely on authority figures to bail us out of the mess we get ourselves into - then we turn on those figures when they can't produce miracles (witneess what happened Michael Noonan yesterday).

I merely worry that we may end up falling through the cracks of the new financial order that is the Euro facing its first major sustained crisis.

I realise I'm getting old when I hear people going on about how hard things are these days, as they despair at the prospect of having to give up their breakfast latte to help pay for their holidays in Vietnam. We are still paying ourselves far more than our economy ever justified.

P. Breathnach

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Have you found a temperate economist on this? The sad fact is that until we see the green shoots of growth not only peeping their heads above the cold winter's soil, but looking strong enough to weather a couple more night's frost, the most temperate economist can say little more than "We may survive this"....

I agree with you on what constitutes a temperate position: we are in a bad place, and it would be silly to deny it.

Two economists who sometimes get on to the airwaves, and who seem to believe that the sky has not actually fallen are Colm McCarthy and Tony Foley. Posters here don't often pick up on what they say.

beeftotheheels

hmmm wrote: »

There's no evidence the bailout will restrict growth. It may cut government spending but that's a different matter. The growth figures are shakey +/- 1% or so, but their velocity is upwards and significantly upwards.

You're right of course, no one adjusted their growth forecasts after the last budget, must be some other little country I was thinking about.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/46b3afb2-2d44-11e0-9b0f-00144feab49a.html#axzz1IHw93gnN

And +/- 1%? We'll be lucky if growth comes in at 1% so you're suggesting a 100% margin of error, and the difference between growth and no growth is irrelevant?

hmmm wrote: »

1% of a change isn't going to matter a toss. The European taxpayer is not going to toss free money at Ireland while we have some of the best paid public sector workers and social welfare recipients in Europe. We wouldn't do it for them, why should we expect them to do it for us.

Because it benefits no one if we default. It benefits no one if we stagnate, or worse contract.

It benefits everyone if we grow and pay off our debts in a timely manner while making reasonable adjustment to our expenditure along the way.

If we try to bring our expenditure into line with EU norms in one or two years we can kiss all hopes of recovery goodbye.

They have already lent us (committed to lend us) the money, their money is already at risk. The best chance they have of getting their money back from us is by supporting growth in Ireland to facilitate us paying them back their capital and accrued interest.

[Jackass]

I said it a long time ago, and I'll say it again.

The major banks who were irresponsible need to be allowed to collapse and fail.

ALL this billions pumped into the blackhole of these banks to serve boom time wages, boom times bonuses, boom time employment levels, redundancies, massively inflated borrowing costs and serving existing debts is litterally just giving the money away and achieving nothing.

A state bank needed (and still needs to be set up) completely independant (not buying out toxic banks) and this bank to take control of profitable portions of the other banks, at discounts, and to take the best staff from the failing banks, at realistic wages, and keep realistic employment numbers, it would be fully sustainable, backed with multi-billion state support, without the toxic debts, and litterally set up a new financial sector with a view to float the company down the line and privatise it when things settle down.

But right now all we're doing is spending billions to have hands on deck throwing buckets of water off the sinking ship as quickly as they can, but we're not fixing the leak, and wasting money on delaying the inevitable.

They WILL eventually fail, and my proposition WILL be adopted, in a round about way, after billions are wasted.

The last Government hadn't a clue, this Government is trying to put something in place that will work, but with their hands tied behind their back from the deals done by the previous Government, sinking us deeper in trouble, and the single thing that broke this country was the blanket bank guarentee without knowing any extent of the problems, and directors of all the banks should face criminal neglagence charges for it.

This situation is frustrating to say the least.

hmmm

beeftotheheels wrote: »

And +/- 1%? We'll be lucky if growth comes in at 1% so you're suggesting a 100% margin of error, and the difference between growth and no growth is irrelevant?

Ummm as you well know growth can be negative, so throwing out a figure of 100% margin of error is hyperbolic.

Considering our growth rate was -8% approximately in 2009, a rate of around zero growth is far better. Whether it is -1% or +1% isn't too important as long as the trend remains

hmmm

[Jackass] wrote: »

A state bank needed (and still needs to be set up) completely independant (not buying out toxic banks) and this bank to take control of profitable portions of the other banks, at discounts, and to take the best staff from the failing banks, at realistic wages, and keep realistic employment numbers, it would be fully sustainable, backed with multi-billion state support

The state has no money without ECB & IMF support. There are no billions lying around to restart a clean banking system.

But right now all we're doing is spending billions to have hands on deck throwing buckets of water off the sinking ship as quickly as they can, but we're not fixing the leak, and wasting money on delaying the inevitable.

Inevitable what? And if you say "default", what figures are you using to assess our risk of catastrophic default?

beeftotheheels

hmmm wrote: »

Ummm as you well know growth can be negative...

Dear Humpty Dumpty,

My sincere apologies. As a boards.ie newbie I keep falling into the trap of thinking that words mean what the dictionary says they mean. I can now see the daftness of that proposition.

Yours sincerely,

Alice

hmmm

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Dear Humpty Dumpty,

My sincere apologies. As a boards.ie newbie I keep falling into the trap of thinking that words mean what the dictionary says they mean. I can now see the daftness of that proposition.

You're right, .0001% of economic growth is a world away from .000001% of a fall. Don't act the idiot.

beeftotheheels

hmmm wrote: »

You're right, .0001% of economic growth is a world away from .000001% of a fall. Keep up the good work.

I'm saying that 1% growth is way better than no growth, and is a world away from contraction given the position our economy is in right now.

2% growth is almost exponentially better than 1% growth and right now would be a godsend if it happened in 2011.

No growth, negative growth (or contraction as the pedants amongst us might refer to it) will result in default.

So the +/- 1% could be the difference between us recovering market confidence (2%), keeping our heads above water (1% which is the most commonly cited forecast), or facing into defaulting <=0%.

hmmm

beeftotheheels wrote: »

No growth, negative growth (or contraction as the pedants amongst us might refer to it) will result in default.

Why? What figures are you using?

So the +/- 1% could be the difference between us recovering market confidence (2%), keeping our heads above water (1% which is the most commonly cited forecast), or facing into defaulting <=0%.

The markets don't care whether it is + or - 1%, they know the figures will be adjusted long into the future. They only care about the velocity.

beeftotheheels

hmmm wrote: »

Why? What figures are you using?

The markets don't care whether it is + or - 1%, they know the figures will be adjusted long into the future. They only care about the velocity.

This is a three/ four year loan so they care a hell of a lot about the growth being positive, if we only manage to get back into growth in the first quarter of 2015 exactly what reception do you think the bond markets will give us?

If we have three years of consistent growth which is as good as, or better than e.g. the UK we stand some chance even if we will be over geared, and we need to get back into the markets to avoid default.

Scofflaw

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Dear Humpty Dumpty,

My sincere apologies. As a boards.ie newbie I keep falling into the trap of thinking that words mean what the dictionary says they mean. I can now see the daftness of that proposition.

Yours sincerely,

Alice

hmmm wrote:

You're right, .0001% of economic growth is a world away from .000001% of a fall. Don't act the idiot.

Can we try to avoid this kind of exchange as much as possible, please.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Prakari

If you want to understand the majority of variance of a phenomenon, knowledge of its primary forces is required. For instance, if you want to understand human behavioural patterns over the long-term, you would need knowledge of the concepts of evolutionary psychology and behaviourism. Having a basic knowledge of these theories is far more useful at explaining behaviour than having an advanced knowledge of much weaker theories like psychoanalysis or humanistic psychology.

In the same way, if you want to understand the general pattern of wealth distribution over the long-term, you need only a basic knowledge of three factors – how is money created, who creates the money and who controls the supply of money. By understanding these three factors, one can make a number of long-term predictions. The most significant prediction is that under the current monetary system, the proportion of people’s wealth which gets diverted towards banking institutions will continue to increase. In other words, a person’s debt (direct or indirect) will become a greater size relative to their overall wealth. It may fluctuate up and down during the short-term but it will inevitably increase over the long-term. Also, it is possible for people to increase their absolute wealth over periods if advances in technology can keep up with the rate at which wealth is being lost towards the banking institutions.

If one assumes that banking institutions will increasingly gain a greater proportion of the world’s wealth, surely everyone could re-direct their efforts towards making a living off the crumbs of banks? There is one problem however – banks are economic parasites. Beyond generating profits to maintain an institution which provides a secure place for money storage and which facilitates economic exchange, banks will use their privileged position to try and suck up as much wealth as possible from those people in society who create the real wealth – scientists, medical professionals, engineers, farmers etc. If all these people were to try to live off the profits of banks, the banks would no longer have a host and would not be able to generate new profits.

To specifically address the initial topic, I don’t think that the system allows for any productive way to deal with bondholders (there may be a least terrible solution). As a people and a country we are ultimately under the control of those institutions which create our money and control its supply.

Taxi Drivers

How much can be saved if the €36 billion of senior unguaranteed debt is forced to burden share?

I thought it would be more but still think it should be done for all the banks bar Bank of Ireland. Some selected extracts.

This means that savings of €13.2 billion are possible if a 50% haircut is applied to all unguaranteed senior debt (this is in addition to the €5 billion from the 70% haircut on subordinated debt already announced).

A revised table assuming a 50% haircut for unguaranteed unsecured debt but a 25% haircut for unguaranteed secured debt is provided here. This doesn’t change the arithmetic a huge amount and just under €12.0 billion of savings are possible.

In all analysis the greatest potential for savings is in BOI. If done on a bank-by-bank basis it may be decided that burden sharing should not be applied in the case of BOI. This is the only bank that has “non-zombie” status and is the bank that has the potential to return to some form of normality the quickest. It’s ability to raise capital independently may be unduly harmed if burden-sharing is applied here. That would reduce the potential savings to below €8 billion and down to around €6 billion for the four “viable” banks. With the 25% haircut on unguaranteed secured debt the figures are €6.6 billion and €4.8 billion.

The question is whether it is worth avoiding this scenario for AIB, EBS and IL&P. A 50% haircut across all unguaranteed senior debt would generate savings of €6 billion. Even with a the reduced haircut for secured senior debt the savings would be €4.8 billion. These savings are not as large as those who are shouting loudest might have us believe, but they are significant nonetheless.

I tend to agree that bondholders in Bank of Ireland should survive. If it pulls through this, we should be able to recoup most of our "investment" from a re-sale of a reasonably healthy bank. Keeping this bank reasonably strong is important. The rest of them can go jump!

The savings of €6.6 billion to €8 billion are lower than I thought they would be. The €3.7 billion of unguaranteed debt in Anglo and INBS simply has to be cut. This should not even be a decision.

The decisions about AIB, EBS and PTSB are maybe less clear cut, but I think they have to be "burned". They have little to offer the country in their present State. €6 billion is a helluva lot of money and it is not money we can afford especially when we're already faced with a bill of over €60 billion for this mess.

gandalf

I cannot understand why people are "disappointed". FG never said they would burn the bondholders. Without European support for action of this type it was never going to happen and the ECB and major European powers have come out against this totally. Also given that we had people like Charlie McCreevy telling Europe to feck off for years that we were on the right path and knew better than they did it is no wonder that the Europeans are "reluctant" to help us now when a lot of this was because of bad governance by our government and non existence monitoring of the banks by our so called regulators.

On top of this there are elections coming up in the next year in Germany, Finland and a Presidential election in France. The fact we are being bailed out is not very popular with the electorate in these countries hence the tough stance against us at the moment by their leaders, the majority of whom are already on the back foot in those elections.

I do not see anything happening until 2013.

The wild card also is Spain. If they need a bailout I think the Euro is finished then it's all bets are off. We are living that Chinese curse at the moment "may you live in interesting times"!

Thanks to the crazy bank guarantee that the previous FF government committed us as a country to the path the current government can take is very limited and is entirely at the mercy of the powers in Europe. Remember that next time you see Messrs Ahern, Cowen, Lenihan in the street.

Scofflaw

gandalf wrote: »

I cannot understand why people are "disappointed". FG never said they would burn the bondholders. Without European support for action of this type it was never going to happen and the ECB and major European powers have come out against this totally. Also given that we had people like Charlie McCreevy telling Europe to feck off for years that we were on the right path and knew better than they did it is no wonder that the Europeans are "reluctant" to help us now when a lot of this was because of bad governance by our government and non existence monitoring of the banks by our so called regulators.

On top of this there are elections coming up in the next year in Germany, Finland and a Presidential election in France. The fact we are being bailed out is not very popular with the electorate in these countries hence the tough stance against us at the moment by their leaders, the majority of whom are already on the back foot in those elections.

I do not see anything happening until 2013.

The wild card also is Spain. If they need a bailout I think the Euro is finished then it's all bets are off. We are living that Chinese curse at the moment "may you live in interesting times"!

Thanks to the crazy bank guarantee that the previous FF government committed us as a country to the path the current government can take is very limited and is entirely at the mercy of the powers in Europe. Remember that next time you see Messrs Ahern, Cowen, Lenihan in the street.

Something on top of that that's coming to light at the moment is the extent to which Fianna Fáil also neglected European alliances during the "Celtic Tiger" period, which is part of why we're so exposed to the politics of those Member States opposed to leniency. A case of "nothing much done, much left for Fine Gael to do".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand

I dont think theres even been temperate, considered and calm criticism of Irish economic or fiscal policy. I cant remember any criticism at all being greeted as such. Any criticism has always been furiously attacked by the usual suspects as "talking down the economy", "doom mongering" or some variation of ridiculous/alarmist/dangerous/treasonous/making us look bad in front of the neighbours. All critics have been personally targeted for personalised attacks, and derision, the latest of which was Garret Fitzgeralds piece. On top of that attempts have been made to pressure critics employers to either silence them or sack them.

In the meantime, events have progressed to the point where even the most temperate, considered and calm people are becoming worryingly calm about the prospects of an Irish sovereign default - the terms of which will be dictated to us by people who do not share any interests in the future of the Irish people or state.

Strange times indeed.

jimmycrackcorm

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We can happily burn the bondholders just as long as we cut public services and S/W so that we don't have a budget deficit. Then it won't matter about who will or won't lend us money.

beeftotheheels

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We can happily burn the bondholders just as long as we cut public services and S/W so that we don't have a budget deficit. Then it won't matter about who will or won't lend us money.

Would sacking over half of the public sector workers in the morning not breach the Croke park agreement?

I'm also not sure how I would feel about the local school losing say 33% of their teachers and having the ones that remain double up as the local guard and public health nurse (both of whom would get the chop)? I did think about it, and I reckon a primary school teacher used to dealing with unruly children has to be better placed to take on the Guard's work than the Guard would be to take on hers, although am not sure how many corners there are to be used as bold corners in the Garda station.

Also, isn't this reduction in the police force going to be an issue when the pensioners take to the street? Not sure how well my primary school teachers' Garda reserve force will hold up against angry septuagenarians...

later12

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We can happily burn the bondholders just as long as we cut public services and S/W so that we don't have a budget deficit. Then it won't matter about who will or won't lend us money.

If you've said that before then someone has presumably replied asking what would happen in the event of further capital outflows and a failure of the state to combat a negative feedback loop of falling revenues, losing the ability to even meet the lowest of welfare and salary demands and what was your response?

By the way;

We can happily burn the bondholders

I love how some people just pass this off as a jovial exercise, as if attending some chipper little tea party. The implication that it would be a happy, chirpy, devil-may-care event.

beeftotheheels

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Would sacking over half of the public sector workers in the morning not breach the Croke park agreement?

I'm also not sure how I would feel about the local school losing say 33% of their teachers and having the ones that remain double up as the local guard and public health nurse (both of whom would get the chop)? I did think about it, and I reckon a primary school teacher used to dealing with unruly children has to be better placed to take on the Guard's work than the Guard would be to take on hers, although am not sure how many corners there are to be used as bold corners in the Garda station.

Also, isn't this reduction in the police force going to be an issue when the pensioners take to the street? Not sure how well my primary school teachers' Garda reserve force will hold up against angry septuagenarians...

I've sorted out my issues above by the way... We maintain a lot of geriatric nurses, at least until after the pensioners riot, which they can police with calls of "Now dear, remember what the doctor said about watching your blood pressure and not getting over excited? Come on, sit down over here and have a nice cup of tea, all this walking is not good for your varicose veins".

We then deploy the primary school teachers to police the rioting students who have just been told they will have to pay €x,000 fees with "Johnny Murphy, is that you? Oh you were such a nice quiet boy when I taught you in junior infants, does your Mammy know you are out here throwing stones?"

Sorted! Bring on the cuts