peter matthews on vincent brown

Tora Bora

Peter Matthews on V Brown right now, effectively declaring government may default on bank debts to the ECB.
We live in interesting times. I thought ECB loans to the banks, were for liquidity reasons. Keep the ATM's working.

Sand

Peter Matthews is new to the political game, hasnt been properly housetrained by the civil servants yet. I think you'll find he'll be cast out to the "lunatic" fringe tommorrow.

Drumpot

"What do you think about the possibility of reducing lower paid workers as Bruton suggested" ?

Mathews : "I havent read enough to comment" . . Roughly translated - I dont actually agree with it at all, but I am not going to publically denounce Bruton!

Mathews is a disgrace. . The first man to attack anything that was clearly wrong when he was a pundit. Now that he is in office he is learning the old tricks of FF - "Say nothing and they cant do much" . .

What annoys me is if it was any FF TD giving the kind of performance that Mathews is giving, there would be at least 4 pages of ranting in this forum . . Will people start judging FG/Lab on what they do, instead of just being relieved that FF arent in power!

This guy is only 3 months in office and he is already showing the same ignorance and contempt to fair/important questions on a current issue. WTF is wrong with people in this country . . Have they learned nothing from the way they hated being treated by FF ????!!!!!!

Real change me arse . .

RichardAnd

Drumpot wrote: »

WTF is wrong with people in this country . . Have they learned nothing from the way they hated being treated by FF ????!!!!!!

Put simply, no we haven't. The outcome of the last election had virtually nothing to do with the direction the masses wanted mother Ireland to take. It was a circus in which most of the participants only had one wish; punish FF.

Coming up to that election, I posted many, many times that people should not simply vote against FF because they are FF. I also pointed out to one very irate boardy that the line "shure no one can be any worse than FF" was a very dangerous and misleading line of thought. The result of this was that I was jumped on by dozens of angry posters and the accusations to explain my perspicacity ranged from calling me a lazy civil servants to dubbing me a troll.

What I took from this is that the majority of people in Ireland are still politically ignorant. The result of this will mean that once FG have become as loathed as FF, we will have another anger election which could, in all possibility, see FF returned to power and the whole cycle kicking off once again.

macannrb

Drumpot wrote: »

Mathews is a disgrace. . The first man to attack anything that was clearly wrong when he was a pundit. Now that he is in office he is learning the old tricks of FF - "Say nothing and they cant do much" . .


Real change me arse . .

I'd prefer to have more Mathews in government then FF clowns. At least he has real world experience. He has an accountant and MBA qualification. He has massive banking experience.

So what if he doesnt want to sidetrack the issue of the state of government finances. In the scheme of things double pay for some workers on sunday is not as important as the country defaulting.

Drumpot

macannrb wrote: »

I'd prefer to have more Mathews in government then FF clowns. At least he has real world experience. He has an accountant and MBA qualification. He has massive banking experience.

So what if he doesnt want to sidetrack the issue of the state of government finances. In the scheme of things double pay for some workers on sunday is not as important as the country defaulting.

Seriously ? Once again, harping back in comparison to FF as if that makes his actions ok ? And he was on the show to discuss the current goings on in politics, why did he ever bother ?

This is the kind of attitude that will hinder any change . . The "sure theyre not FF" brigade could do as much damage to this country as the previous followers of FF and they dont even know it!

pog it

Tora Bora wrote: »

Peter Matthews on V Brown right now, effectively declaring government may default on bank debts to the ECB.
We live in interesting times. I thought ECB loans to the banks, were for liquidity reasons. Keep the ATM's working.

"Or else the the ATMs won't be working tomorrow morning"...

That's all any Government minister has to say and the sheeple get scared. Don't know anymore whether to laugh or cry.

Drumpot

pog it wrote: »

"Or else the the ATMs won't be working tomorrow morning"...

That's all any Government minister has to say and the sheeple get scared. Don't know anymore whether to laugh or cry.

I heard that the government were at one stage prepared to sacrifice all the first born of every household to keep the ATMs active ! !

The single most important thing that a people of a country should do in these situations is cower behind their chairs, repeat what the government have told them, close their eyes and hope it all works out. To dare question or even ask for more qualified information on why this is the case, is to consign your life to misery . .:rolleyes:

pog it

Yep, give people the allusion that they have wealth and that the economy is being handled well, and they're putty in your hands.

dan_d

But Drumpot, people don't want to know. They don't want to hear that they were overpaid the last few years, that there are problems with jobs, that they might have to pay more tax. They just want someone to sort the problem out without impacting on their bubble, and they'll vaguely consider voting and political issues around next election time. Whatever about the outcome of the last election, the one thing that it did do was force people to look at nationwide issues, rather than the local GAA pitch's problems.

I didn't hear the interview, however I loathe VB with a passion - whiny, snivelling, critical little man that he is - so I won't be re-watching or commenting on it!

To go back to your other point however - people just buy whatever is written in the papers. They quote what they hear journalists saying on the radio (and I admit I'm guilty of that to an extent, but I do have the ability to question what I hear). I heard a journalist yesterday reporting on the whole issues of JLC rates, and how Labour and FG are reacting. And she finished the report by saying something along the lines of "whatever the outcome, the honeymoon period for the coalition partners is long over".Typical media crap. Who's to say it is? Who's to say there's any disagreement there? Who's to say they've even discussed it yet? But because 2 or 3 politicians were asked on seperate occasions about the JLC issue and gave different answers, there's automatically a row going on between them. Anything to sell papers and create headlines.And the general public just drink it all in and believe it, without ever questioning anything or forming their own opinions based on facts.

Rant over...but you see my point. People just don't want to know the reality of the situation.

Tipp Man

pog it wrote: »

"Or else the the ATMs won't be working tomorrow morning"...

That's all any Government minister has to say and the sheeple get scared. Don't know anymore whether to laugh or cry.

Drumpot wrote: »

I heard that the government were at one stage prepared to sacrifice all the first born of every household to keep the ATMs active ! !

So the government decides to default on ECB bank debt and the ECB withdraws its 100 billion funding for Irish banks (at the nearly free rate of 1%)

Can you please explain what happens then???

Tora Bora

Tipp Man wrote: »

So the government decides to default on ECB bank debt and the ECB withdraws its 100 billion funding for Irish banks (at the nearly free rate of 1%)

Can you please explain what happens then???

The lads that are after buying all those dear cattle, would have one hell of a headache:eek:

ei.sdraob

Tipp Man wrote: »

So the government decides to default on ECB bank debt and the ECB withdraws its 100 billion funding for Irish banks (at the nearly free rate of 1%)

Can you please explain what happens then???

They wont withdraw the funding since they would "own" these Irish banks the moment the debt is defaulted on.

It would be like chopping of ones limb out of principle.

Worse than that attempting to chop of the limb would result in the heart getting a heart attack and other limbs dying, as the whole euro project falls apart out of fear.

The job of the ECB is to maintain euro stability, cutting of funding to their newly acquired banks would destroy the euro.


I am getting rather sick of the whole "ECB is giving the banks 1% gift out of the goodness of their hearts" line of arguments

1. its their job to be a lender of last resort
2. the loans are secured on collateral > the Irish banking system
3. its their job to provide stability and ensure there is money in atms

pog it

Tipp Man wrote: »

So the government decides to default on ECB bank debt and the ECB withdraws its 100 billion funding for Irish banks (at the nearly free rate of 1%)

Can you please explain what happens then???

Eh, it's your side that needs to do the explaining Tipp Man. The days where those who advocate default and support Morgan Kelly's proposal should still have to explain their case are gone. That's already been explained, read the literature. I'm not planning to bang my head against a wall and that's what you get arguing with a lot of Irish people.

If you would like to why don't you explain the merits of the current strategy to us? After all, that is the strategy the Government is undertaking on behalf of this country.

eigrod

dan_d wrote: »

But Drumpot, people don't want to know. They don't want to hear that they were overpaid the last few years, that there are problems with jobs, that they might have to pay more tax. They just want someone to sort the problem out without impacting on their bubble, and they'll vaguely consider voting and political issues around next election time. Whatever about the outcome of the last election, the one thing that it did do was force people to look at nationwide issues, rather than the local GAA pitch's problems.

I agree.

People are sick of the debate...it's been going on for nearly 3 years now. Ireland want one thing, the EU/ECB want another thing and the IMF want another thing. We're still in the status quo.

People just want a solution. Be it default, be it a 100 year mortgage on the country, be it whatever. People just want a solution to the banking debts that means that this debate can be put to bed and everyone can get on with picking the country up off it's knees.

beeftotheheels

ei.sdraob wrote: »

They wont withdraw the funding since they would "own" these Irish banks the moment the debt is defaulted on.

It would be like chopping of ones limb out of principle.

Worse than that attempting to chop of the limb would result in the heart getting a heart attack and other limbs dying, as the whole euro project falls apart out of fear.

The job of the ECB is to maintain euro stability, cutting of funding to their newly acquired banks would destroy the euro.


I am getting rather sick of the whole "ECB is giving the banks 1% gift out of the goodness of their hearts" line of arguments

1. its their job to be a lender of last resort
2. the loans are secured on collateral > the Irish banking system
3. its their job to provide stability and ensure there is money in atms

They were pretty clear that they would do so to Greece and they seem to have convinced the others so I think you may want to revisit this position.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...ranscript.html

hinault

I watched the interview early this morning and I thought it was a very depressing show last night.

Mathews always impressed me as a pundit but I think he was grasping at straws last night when he tried to claim that Enda Kenny didn't say what he said. For sure FG/Lab have inherited a mess compounded by stupid decisions taken by the FF/Green gov. since September 2008.

The political government (FG/Lab) may want to restructure the deals agreed by FF/Greens.
But the permanent government (Dept of Finance) appear to want to stand by the FF/Green deals.

Mathews could find himself in a George Lee situation.

dlofnep

I've always found Matthews to be cordial, and a nice person - but I'm not sure if he's cut out for politics. He seemed very weak last night, or evasive rather.. Maybe he is cut out for it afterall.

ei.sdraob

beeftotheheels wrote: »

They were pretty clear that they would do so to Greece and they seem to have convinced the others so I think you may want to revisit this position.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...ranscript.html

0. your linkie is not working

1. They do not own 150 billion of Greek banking debt

2. By doing what they did they have pushed Greece to the brink of default, just like they pushed Ireland towards the bailout 6 months ago

3. By now its obvious that the ECB is the real problem here, their actions in Ireland and now Greece have only made the crisis worse. Instead of doing everything to save the euro they continue to put the whole project at risk.

Tipp Man

Tora Bora wrote: »

The lads that are after buying all those dear cattle, would have one hell of a headache:eek:

I think people with money in an Irish bank would have a bigger headache:D - which is probably one of the reason why cattle have gotten so dear

Tipp Man

pog it wrote: »

Eh, it's your side that needs to do the explaining Tipp Man. The days where those who advocate default and support Morgan Kelly's proposal should still have to explain their case are gone. That's already been explained, read the literature. I'm not planning to bang my head against a wall and that's what you get arguing with a lot of Irish people.

If you would like to why don't you explain the merits of the current strategy to us? After all, that is the strategy the Government is undertaking on behalf of this country.

I'm not on any side whatsoever. I wanted us to start balancing the budget in 2008 so that we WOULDN'T have to keep borrowing

I want you to explain what happens when the funding from ECB is withdrawn

Tipp Man

ei.sdraob wrote: »

They wont withdraw the funding since they would "own" these Irish banks the moment the debt is defaulted on.

It would be like chopping of ones limb out of principle.

Worse than that attempting to chop of the limb would result in the heart getting a heart attack and other limbs dying, as the whole euro project falls apart out of fear.

The job of the ECB is to maintain euro stability, cutting of funding to their newly acquired banks would destroy the euro.


I am getting rather sick of the whole "ECB is giving the banks 1% gift out of the goodness of their hearts" line of arguments

1. its their job to be a lender of last resort
2. the loans are secured on collateral > the Irish banking system
3. its their job to provide stability and ensure there is money in atms

So we can default on the bank debt, just hand the Irish banks over to the ECB and there are absolutely no consequences for the Irish people??

beeftotheheels

ei.sdraob wrote: »

0. your linkie is not working

1. They do not own 150 billion of Greek banking debt

2. By doing what they did they have pushed Greece to the brink of default, just like they pushed Ireland towards the bailout 6 months ago

3. By now its obvious that the ECB is the real problem here, their actions in Ireland and now Greece have only made the crisis worse. Instead of doing everything to save the euro they continue to put the whole project at risk.

0. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-24/ecb-s-noyer-rejects-greek-restructuring-as-horror-transcript.html

1. They still own enough, in the tens of billions of euro on top of the €40bn in sovereign debt they bought in the markets

2. Greece brought themselves to the brink of default, more so than us. They cooked their books to lie their way into the euro, and they are not on track with their privatizations, they are not on track with balancing the books because of widespread tax evasion. Having got themselves to the tip top of the cliff if they were expecting the ECB to tell them to jump straight off it was simply never likely that the ECB would do so given the damage that could do.

3. We do not know this so stop citing it as fact. We cannot quantum leap so we don't know how any of the other routes would have gone, we have no comparable. What we know is that the ECB have spelled out in detail their concerns about any Greek restructuring and those concerns are all to do with protecting the Eurozone, not protecting the ECB. They are threatening to bring themselves down to protect the Eurozone so to pretend that their actions are selfish, or ill informed is just not true. Their position may turn out to be mistaken, but only time will tell this. The bond markets actually relaxed a little when they spelled out their position.

On the bright side, the more recklessly the Greek's behave the starker the contrast with our actions. S&P have noted this, the European parliament is noting this, so hopefully the reasoned argument that we are all in this together, and we are doing our bit so should be helped and not hindered, will start to gain momentum and stupid positions on our tax rate will be put to bed.

ps - nice touch starting with 0 for the broken link, hope that this one works.

ei.sdraob

Tipp Man wrote: »

I want you to explain what happens when the funding from ECB is withdrawn

As I said if they do that then they endup owning the Irish banks, which are not worth anywhere near 150 billion. Worse they put the entire euro and their own jobs at risk.

1. They still own enough, in the tens of billions of euro on top of the €40bn in sovereign debt they bought in the markets

What does it matter to them? they own the printing presses.

2. Greece brought themselves to the brink of default, more so than us. They cooked their books to lie their way into the euro, and they are not on track with their privatizations, they are not on track with balancing the books because of widespread tax evasion. Having got themselves to the tip top of the cliff if they were expecting the ECB to tell them to jump straight off it was simply never likely that the ECB would do so given the damage that could do.

Cooking books eh? say hello to NAMA.

3. We do not know this so stop citing it as fact. We cannot quantum leap so we don't know how any of the other routes would have gone, we have no comparable. What we know is that the ECB have spelled out in detail their concerns about any Greek restructuring and those concerns are all to do with protecting the Eurozone, not protecting the ECB. They are threatening to bring themselves down to protect the Eurozone so to pretend that their actions are selfish, or ill informed is just not true. Their position may turn out to be mistaken, but only time will tell this. The bond markets actually relaxed a little when they spelled out their position.

What the ECB is doing is so far out of line is not funny, they are playing with fire, if the ECB things they can apply enough pressure an eject Greece and Ireland and anyone else who they dont like then the whole euro would fall apart as other members and people using the euro start to question the worthiness of the euro.

Did you see the Icelandic finance minister on Prime Time the other night? "we are observing carefully the behaviour of the core to the periphery and the ECB"

Tipp Man

ei.sdraob wrote: »

As I said if they do that then they endup owning the Irish banks, which are not worth anywhere near 150 billion. Worse they put the entire euro and their own jobs at risk.

Here's where i disagree - the EUR doesn't need Ireland - all we are is a headache to it at the moment, an insignificant economy that is costing Europe billions. If they could get rid of us they proably would and thinking about it logically they would probably be right to get rid of us

You seem to think that Ireland being kicked out of the EUR would make the EUR weaker or unstable - I think it would make it much stronger and more stable.

ei.sdraob

Tipp Man wrote: »

So we can default on the bank debt, just hand the Irish banks over to the ECB and there are absolutely no consequences for the Irish people??

1. The first born of every family would be eaten
2. Aircraft carriers parked in Dublin bay

:rolleyes:

The consequence would be the ECB owning the banks, if the ECB then proceeds to pull the plug on the banks then it will just crystallize its losses, which they wont do
The ECB has threatened to retaliate against Greece in last week, they might try to do same here
By doing this the ECB have shown themselves to be reckless and involved in politics, here we have an undemocratic/uncountable organisation sticking its nose where it does not belong.

Like I said any negative action by ECB towards the periphery could trigger a collapse of the euro.

Monty Burnz

Tora Bora wrote: »

Peter Matthews on V Brown right now, effectively declaring government may default on bank debts to the ECB.
We live in interesting times. I thought ECB loans to the banks, were for liquidity reasons. Keep the ATM's working.

Well, the banks are all insolvent so the money is not for 'liquidity reasons'.

ei.sdraob

Tipp Man wrote: »

Here's where i disagree - the EUR doesn't need Ireland - all we are is a headache to it at the moment, an insignificant economy that is costing Europe billions. If they could get rid of us they proably would and thinking about it logically they would probably be right to get rid of us

You seem to think that Ireland being kicked out of the EUR would make the EUR weaker or unstable - I think it would make it much stronger and more stable.

By attempting to kick out Ireland or Greece out of the euro, the euro itself is undermined. Where does it stop then? Portugal? Spain?? Italy???
A euro with just Germany in it would be strong alright, they may as well call it the Deutchmark by that stage :P

Tipp Man

ei.sdraob wrote: »

1. The first born of every family would be eaten
2. Aircraft carriers parked in Dublin bay

:rolleyes:

The consequence would be the ECB owning the banks, if the ECB then proceeds to pull the plug on the banks then it will just crystallize its losses, which they wont do
The ECB has threatened to retaliate against Greece in last week, they might try to do same here
By doing this the ECB have shown themselves to be reckless and involved in politics, here we have an undemocratic/uncountable organisation sticking its nose where it does not belong.

Like I said any negative action by ECB towards the periphery could trigger a collapse of the euro.

I heard it was the last born in every family that was going to be eaten? Lucky i'm in the middle

You seem to think they wouldn't crystallize there losses - there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest they wouldn't crystallise them. They have no obligation to keep AIB or BOI or any other bank open

You are also suggesting a negative action towards Ireland will collapse the EUR - once again this might not actually be the case. The fact is that currently the EUR would be much stronger if Ireland and Greece weren't involved. In the very short term there may be fallout if Ireland and Greece were removed from it but that would very quickly change IMO

beeftotheheels

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Cooking books eh? say hello to NAMA.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? There may be many legal reasons why NAMA may be set up the way it is. I doubt one of those was to keep the debt off balance sheet since NAMA is itself debt funded by us and as a result that debt is on our balance sheet so it is a zero sum game whether we look at our debt funding of NAMA on an unconsolidated basis, or whether we consolidate NAMA. That said given we now control so many of the banks I would think NAMA is probably back on balance sheet.

But we never hid NAMA, the world including our creditors knew about it. Many commentators are even double counting the debt because of the ownership structure.

This is not intended as a defense of NAMA, or its ownership structure. I am just pointing out that NAMA is not comparable to the Greek situation.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

What the ECB is doing is so far out of line is not funny, they are playing with fire

The Eurozone is on fire, there is nothing else to play with here. We are in a monumental crisis which is potentially large enough to drag the global economy back into recession, nothing about this is funny!

ei.sdraob

Tipp Man wrote: »

I heard it was the last born in every family that was going to be eaten? Lucky i'm in the middle

Careful now the Germans are well known for their efficiency when its required :eek:

Tipp Man wrote: »

You seem to think they wouldn't crystallize there losses - there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest they wouldn't crystallise them. They have no obligation to keep AIB or BOI or any other bank open

Evidence > The constant stream of statements from the ECB being "concerned" as to their involvement in the Irish banking system as fear of loosing money.

Tipp Man wrote: »

They have no obligation to keep AIB or BOI or any other bank open

Ok so they close AIB and BOI, thats great news for the other banks here who were better run, capitalism wins at last!

Tipp Man wrote: »

You are also suggesting a negative action towards Ireland will collapse the EUR - once again this might not actually be the case. The fact is that currently the EUR would be much stronger if Ireland and Greece weren't involved. In the very short term there may be fallout if Ireland and Greece were removed from it but that would very quickly change IMO

Fear my friend, you can not rule with fear. Fear would push other states out such as Portugal and Spain. Anyways a strong euro would only hurt the exporting nations the most, mainly Germany

pog it

Tipp Man wrote: »

I'm not on any side whatsoever. I wanted us to start balancing the budget in 2008 so that we WOULDN'T have to keep borrowing

I want you to explain what happens when the funding from ECB is withdrawn

Read my first post in response. You haven't even tried to explain why the current strategy is better than Morgan Kelly's one, so why should I bow to your request to explain the alternative strategy?

ei.sdraob

beeftotheheels wrote: »

The Eurozone is on fire, there is nothing else to play with here. We are in a monumental crisis which is potentially large enough to drag the global economy back into recession, nothing about this is funny!

Yes we are, remind us again why the ECB put its foot into the Greek situation?

The Greeks, The IMF and the EU council have all more or less agreed that the debt is unsustainable.

So why are the ECB getting involved?

Tipp Man

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Careful now the Germans are well known for their efficiency when its required :eek:

Evidence > The constant stream of statements from the ECB being "concerned" as to their involvement in the Irish banking system as fear of loosing money.



Ok so they close AIB and BOI, thats great news for the other banks here who were better run, capitalism wins at last!

Capitalism wins but for every winner there is a loser - how much irish deposits would be lost if BOI and AIB collapsed?? Billions upon billions??

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Fear my friend, you can not rule with fear. Fear would push other states out such as Portugal and Spain. Anyways a strong euro would only hurt the exporting nations the most, mainly Germany

so ze Germans are happy we are in a mess and draggin down the EUR;)

pog it

eigrod wrote: »

I agree.

People are sick of the debate...it's been going on for nearly 3 years now. Ireland want one thing, the EU/ECB want another thing and the IMF want another thing. We're still in the status quo.

People just want a solution. Be it default, be it a 100 year mortgage on the country, be it whatever. People just want a solution to the banking debts that means that this debate can be put to bed and everyone can get on with picking the country up off it's knees.

People say they want a solution. Morgan Kelly gave them a solution but they wouldn't support it.

ei.sdraob

Tipp Man wrote: »

Capitalism wins but for every winner there is a loser - how much irish deposits would be lost if BOI and AIB collapsed?? Billions upon billions??

At the rate the deposits are leaving the country there might not be much left :P

You have to remember that the reason the ECB is providing these loans is to cover a hole left by deposits leaving and bondholders being paid off, not like this money has disappeared, it just moved elsewhere in euro banking system and non covered Irish banks.

Tipp Man wrote: »

so ze Germans are happy we are in a mess and draggin down the EUR;)

Well the only reason I can see for the ECB constantly dragging the euro down and putting its foot in is to make the currency weaker.
But like I said they are playing with fire, a paper currency without confidence in the paper and bank backing the paper is a disaster, just ask the Zimbabweans

beeftotheheels

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Yes we are, remind us again why the ECB put its foot into the Greek situation?

The Greeks, The IMF and the EU council have all more or less agreed that the debt is unsustainable.

So why are the ECB getting involved?

Because the ECB is a central bank which believes that it knows better which may well be true given that it is the European Central Bank and thus has access to the figures necessary to quantify the systemic risk to the Eurozone.

The IMF does not, the council is made up of nationally elected political leaders, even the Commission is made up of nationally nominated politicians and not central bankers.

Trichet was right when he told Merkel to stop talking about burden sharing (which played to her domestic electorate), but she didn't and look where it left us.

I'm not arguing that because he was right then he is always right, I'm simply pointing out that he may well have a better understanding of the economic as opposed to the political consequences of this action.

He has no loyalty to a domestic electorate as the council have.

He has a loyalty greater than just to Greece (which is where the IMF are at).

So I'm not going to assume the ECB to be wrong on this when I see the merits in their arguments. The ECB is fallible, but to date I have seen no detailed arguments as to why they are wrong given where they are. I have seen Grecocentric arguments from Greece and the IMF, I have seen arguments which play to domestic electorates who don't want a transfer union, but I have seen no arguments other than from the ECB as to the consequences of a Greek restructuring for the Eurozone as a whole.

Tipp Man

pog it wrote: »

Read my first post in response. You haven't even tried to explain why the current strategy is better than Morgan Kelly's one, so why should I bow to your request to explain the alternative strategy?

Look I don't believe in the current strategy - if you can find a post where i am advocating it then you will do well

I am simply asking for all the consequences of defaulting on bank debt - it's effects on the entire spectrum of Irish society - who'll be the biggest losers??. As i have said already I am completley for a balanced budget and have advocated for my entire time on this forum that government spending was at least as big a problem as the banks. (I think i usually wrote it as being a bigger problem)

Now considering the government has made minimal attempts to get it balanced as quickly as possible I fail to see how this country is in a position to default on the bank debt when it needs to borrow 10's of billions annually to keep the show on the road

If in 2008 we had embarked on policies which would have balanced the budget by now then yes i would agree with taking a much much harder stance on the bank debt. The reality of the situation currently is that our banks can't stand without outside support and our government can't stand without outside support. The government has completly failed to wean itself off borrowing and as a result I feel the government is in absolutley no position to take dramatic action on bank debt.

I think the Kelly article was very good and I would agree with his line of thinking - BUT I feel he made very little attempt to highlight the huge impact that it would have across the entire country

That is why i am asking you to outline the consequences of the actions - are you going to do it??

Gallagher5

Sand wrote: »

Peter Matthews is new to the political game, hasnt been properly housetrained by the civil servants yet. I think you'll find he'll be cast out to the "lunatic" fringe tommorrow.

This is so true

ei.sdraob

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Because the ECB is a central bank which believes that it knows better which may well be true given that it is the European Central Bank and thus has access to the figures necessary to quantify the systemic risk to the Eurozone.

The IMF does not, the council is made up of nationally elected political leaders, even the Commission is made up of nationally nominated politicians and not central bankers.

Trichet was right when he told Merkel to stop talking about burden sharing (which played to her domestic electorate), but she didn't and look where it left us.

I'm not arguing that because he was right then he is always right, I'm simply pointing out that he may well have a better understanding of the economic as opposed to the political consequences of this action.

He has no loyalty to a domestic electorate as the council have.

He has a loyalty greater than just to Greece (which is where the IMF are at).

So I'm not going to assume the ECB to be wrong on this when I see the merits in their arguments. The ECB is fallible, but to date I have seen no detailed arguments as to why they are wrong given where they are. I have seen Grecocentric arguments from Greece and the IMF, I have seen arguments which play to domestic electorates who don't want a transfer union, but I have seen no arguments other than from the ECB as to the consequences of a Greek restructuring for the Eurozone as a whole.

Ok so the ECB know something that the Greeks, IMF and EU dont know, fair enough, interesting thesis.

Presumably because they are the ones looking at the big picture (hey I wonder what picture they where looking at when Ireland etc were in a bubble!)
Then why dont they come out and spell out what this something is!

From what I can see this something is the continuing insistence that failure is not an option and under no circumstances bondholders can loose on their investment

Zubeneschamali

pog it wrote: »

People say they want a solution. Morgan Kelly gave them a solution but they wouldn't support it.

Lots of people want a different solution, like a unilateral default, or an immediate balancing of the budget, but only fringe parties offered those solutions before the election, and most voters rejected them.

The solution people voted for is the one being pursued: the published plan to reduce our deficit over time, using the EU-IMF bailout money as a cushion.

Tora Bora

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Lots of people want a different solution, like a unilateral default, or an immediate balancing of the budget, but only fringe parties offered those solutions before the election, and most voters rejected them.

The solution people voted for is the one being pursued: the published plan to reduce our deficit over time, using the EU-IMF bailout money as a cushion.

No. FG told us there would be burden sharing. Now they have turned their backs on their primary election promise. I voted for the lying bstards.

Labour said ........ "Frankfurt's way, or Labour's way". But I didn't vote for those lying bstartds.

ei.sdraob

Peter Matthews was also extremely critical of NAMA (remember his argument with Frank Fahey) what is his position now on NAMA that he is in the Dail

Tipp Man

pog it wrote: »

Tipp man your post demonstrates the type of spin and scare mongering that you must be listening to and reading. If you were to read WSJ and the FT, sites like Zerohedge.com, you would know more about this and not have to ask me to explain it. Why don't you educate yourself?

WTF?? How is there any spin or scaremongering in my post

I take it by your attempt to insult me that you actually can't answer my question

pog it

Tipp Man wrote: »

WTF?? How is there any spin or scaremongering in my post

I take it by your attempt to insult me that you actually can't answer my question

Ah at last. I was waiting for you to level that at me. The answer is actually under your nose and within the Morgan Kelly article, so why not re-read Kelly's article and find out for yourself.

I also said and highlighted what exactly in your post shows how you have been affected by the spin and fear mongering generated by the government, etc. I didn't say you yourself were spinning anything. I don't think you have an agenda anyway which is great.

Tipp Man

pog it wrote: »

Ah at last. I was waiting for you to level that at me. The answer is actually under your nose and within the Morgan Kelly article, so why not re-read Kelly's article and find out for yourself.

I also said and highlighted what exactly in your post shows how you have been affected by the spin and fear mongering generated by the government, etc. I didn't say you yourself were spinning anything. I don't think you have an agenda anyway which is great.

You have a very unusual debating style, if you could call it that

This is the phrase you highlighted as being spin and fear:

"The government has completly failed to wean itself off borrowing and as a result I feel the government is in absolutley no position to take dramatic action on bank debt."

How on earth does the above paragraph highlight that i have been affected by government spin???? The first part of the paragraph is a FACT - the budget deficit was huge in 2008 and it is huge in 2011. Those are facts no spin.

The second part, which starts with "I feel" is clearly an expression of my opinion that given the mess of the government finances we are not in a position to default on ECB loans - once again no spin just an opinion (do you have your own or is it all from the FT??)

In the post I then go on to say that if the government had dealt with the fiscal problems THEN I felt we could take a much stronger position on bank debt than we have

What i find intriguing is that in the Eddie Hobbs thread you thanked a link to an Irish Times article which highlighted the utter devastation that happened to people in Argentina when they defaulted at the start of the century

So do you want to see this devastation happen in Ireland?

I will ask again for the consequences facing Irish people from your choice of defaulting on bank debt? Will Ireland be any different from Argentina?? If so how so??

spider guardian

pog it wrote: »

Ah at last. I was waiting for you to level that at me. The answer is actually under your nose and within the Morgan Kelly article, so why not re-read Kelly's article and find out for yourself.

I also said and highlighted what exactly in your post shows how you have been affected by the spin and fear mongering generated by the government, etc. I didn't say you yourself were spinning anything. I don't think you have an agenda anyway which is great.

You cannot deny that there would be very serious consequences for Ireland and the EU if there was a default. Just because you disagree with the fact doesn't make it scaremongering.

OMD

pog it wrote: »

Ah at last. I was waiting for you to level that at me. The answer is actually under your nose and within the Morgan Kelly article, so why not re-read Kelly's article and find out for yourself.

I also said and highlighted what exactly in your post shows how you have been affected by the spin and fear mongering generated by the government, etc. I didn't say you yourself were spinning anything. I don't think you have an agenda anyway which is great.

Well you have failed to answer the question again and again so it is not surprising this was pointed out to you

pog it

OMD wrote: »

Well you have failed to answer the question again and again so it is not surprising this was pointed out to you

The answer is in the article. It's better if one discovers it for themselves.

Also Tipp man.... I thanked the Irish times article poster not because I hope that happens here.. what a leap. Again try and work out for yourself why I thanked them.

OMD

pog it wrote: »

The answer is in the article. It's better if one discovers it for themselves.

Also Tipp man.... I thanked the Irish times article poster not because I hope that happens here.. what a leap. Again try and work out for yourself why I thanked them.

However many people feel he is wrong in that article. He will not debate what he has said so will you back it up? The answer so far from you seems to be no to that question. It is quite condescending to tell people to discover it for themselves. Most of us have already. It really implies that you don't understand it.

Tipp Man

pog it wrote: »

The answer is in the article. It's better if one discovers it for themselves.

Also Tipp man.... I thanked the Irish times article poster not because I hope that happens here.. what a leap. Again try and work out for yourself why I thanked them.

The answer is NOT in the article. As I have already stated the Kelly article touches on the consequences for Ireland - lower dole etc but was short on so many other consequences that would happen.

I am trying to get you to expand on it but you seem unable to do so. Why won't you take the Kelly arguement and expand on it?? After all i have already stated that I am not against what he is saying. It seems to me that you just don't have the answers to the question i have asked you many times - you haven't even attempted to answer. If you don't know the consequences then no harm done, just say so and stop wasting everybodies time by avoiding the question - it make for a tiresome thread

Regarding your thanks to the Argentina article - it seems strange, a little ironic even, for a person advocating default to thank a post (which was literally only a link btw) that highlighted absolutely everything that is wrong with a default. If i was advocating default, like you, i would take the Irish times piece and try to shred it to pieces - you didn't, you thanked it - which is strange. Whats even more ironic is that you were criticising the government for the 0.6% pension charge (which i myself am opposed to btw) yet when Argentina defaulted millions of its citizens lost a lot of their pensions and savings as a direct consequence of the default.

So you want default but don't want some of the (potential) consequences that go with it??

I don't want to pay the bank debt either but what i do want is an informed discussion on the ENTIRE consequences of defaulting on it.