Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Irish kick in the face to the EU is disgusting
Comments
-
-
-
-
OK - you asked me whether we had functioning banks. We do have functioning banks - even though you don't want to admit it, you've had to describe them as semi-functioning, because 4 of the 6 are rather obviously doing exactly what I said.
I will admit we have some semi functioning banks, in that we can desposit money and access it.
4 out of 6, would you consider that good percentage return on your investment ?
Why I said semi functioning is because they are not truly engaged in the other side of banking, the lending side necessary for commercial business to properly function.
They went from a position of firing money at certain people/certain businesses to now being ultra cautious with even proven businesses.So you've turned to concentrate on Anglo and INBS, which aren't functioning. Sure, but I didn't say they were. I said that ECB life-support enabled us to keep functioning banks, which it does. I didn't say every bank being given ELA by the ECB or guaranteed by the State was a functioning bank.
Well sorry for stating the obvious and harping on the negative.
But we did spend a bloody fortune on two entities that are now defunct and leaving them out of the equation is being economical with the facts.
We have the most expensive publicly funded semi functioning banking system in the world.By the way, that's the total cost of the bank bailout you're citing there, not Anglo & INBS. Not sure why you're doing that - Anglo & INBS between them were €35bn last time I looked, which is half the total cost.
Ehhh is that 35bn not just recapitalisation costs ?
How much has the crud that NAMA bought from these two institutions cost, even after markdown ?
When the loans bought by NAMA have been paid back or more correctly the assets supporting these loans have been sold then lets say it is no longer a cost.
Although I guess you would claim it is an investment.
BTW I hate when people view one in isolation to the other.
NAMA and recapitalisation go hand in hand and are instrinically linked.
What we save in one costs us in the other.
The ones that usually view them as separate processes are usually the supporters of the processes.
The bright idea that NAMA costs could be separated through clever SPIVs was seen through by the ever so important markets.I'm neither claiming nor hinting it - it's open for debate, but the need would be at the least very much reduced, and I'd agree that possibly we wouldn't have had a bailout at all.
Boom boom. (possibly bad choice of phrase here)
You appear to have got what I am saying.
We could have cut deficit and used pension reserve fund as the rainy day fund to try stimulation of the eocnomy.
Instead most if not all of it has been pis**d away to pay for the gambles of our bankers and developers. :mad:However, see the point above - €35bn for the functioning part of the banking system is still a lot of money, and still we'd have had a deficit of €108bn to fund.
True we may have had to have bailout if we only had costs of AIB/BOI/IL&P/EBS.
But at least most of us doubters would have felt we had saved something rather than pi**ed money into a black hole.
So we'd have gone from c. €210bn to c. €175bn without Anglo/INBS - a 17% saving. It's not that much when you look at it like that.
Again does that include cost of NAMA ?
BTW all the pennies or rather billions add up and it means less government spending in our country (some of the government spending is actually good you know) and more taxes....
But we would have needed a bailout if the spending continued at the rate it was going.
This year's deficit is €22.45 billion.
Yeah right, the markets wouldn't have touched us this year with a deficit like that. :rolleyes:
Also claiming that we would have continued the deficit is wrong since the EU/ECB would have forced to cut the deficit through cuts and tax increases.
So basically your claim we would have had to have a bailout due to our deficit is nonsense.I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
I will admit we have some semi functioning banks, in that we can desposit money and access it.
4 out of 6, would you consider that good percentage return on your investment ?
Not hugely so, but then I wouldn't have included Anglo in the guarantee. It needed something done to it, certainly, but not what was done.Why I said semi functioning is because they are not truly engaged in the other side of banking, the lending side necessary for commercial business to properly function.
They went from a position of firing money at certain people/certain businesses to now being ultra cautious with even proven businesses.
Sure - but then they do that in every recession. Banks are very pro-cyclic.Well sorry for stating the obvious and harping on the negative.
But we did spend a bloody fortune on two entities that are now defunct and leaving them out of the equation is being economical with the facts.
We have the most expensive publicly funded semi functioning banking system in the world.
Sure - but as I said.Ehhh is that 35bn not just recapitalisation costs ?
How much has the crud that NAMA bought from these two institutions cost, even after markdown ?
When the loans bought by NAMA have been paid back or more correctly the assets supporting these loans have been sold then lets say it is no longer a cost.
Although I guess you would claim it is an investment.
That's because it is an investment. Maybe a poor investment, but nevertheless, not simply the same as p***ing money down the drain.BTW I hate when people view one in isolation to the other.
NAMA and recapitalisation go hand in hand and are instrinically linked.
What we save in one costs us in the other.
The ones that usually view them as separate processes are usually the supporters of the processes.
The bright idea that NAMA costs could be separated through clever SPIVs was seen through by the ever so important markets.
And I hate when people just add the amount paid by NAMA to our debt, as if there was absolutely nothing at all on the other side of the balance sheet, but there we go, eh? I can't stop people doing it, apparently.Boom boom. (possibly bad choice of phrase here)
You appear to have got what I am saying.
We could have cut deficit and used pension reserve fund as the rainy day fund to try stimulation of the eocnomy.
Instead most if not all of it has been pis**d away to pay for the gambles of our bankers and developers. :mad:
True we may have had to have bailout if we only had costs of AIB/BOI/IL&P/EBS.
But at least most of us doubters would have felt we had saved something rather than pi**ed money into a black hole.
Maybe. Maybe not, though. After all, we dodged a bullet with Depfa, but nobody really takes that into account.Again does that include cost of NAMA ?
BTW all the pennies or rather billions add up and it means less government spending in our country (some of the government spending is actually good you know) and more taxes.
No...as above. You can't simply add what NAMA has paid as debt, because, like it or not, it's an investment. The current non-Government view (courtesy of NAMAWinelake) is that it will lose about €3bn over its lifetime.Yeah right, the markets wouldn't have touched us this year with a deficit like that. :rolleyes:
Also claiming that we would have continued the deficit is wrong since the EU/ECB would have forced to cut the deficit through cuts and tax increases.
So basically your claim we would have had to have a bailout due to our deficit is nonsense.
It's arguable, but it's not even close to "nonsense". A lot would have depended on the extent to which there was seen to be a will to tackle the deficit.
Because deficits add up - and I mention that only because it seems too often to be ignored. People say "pfft! Deficit of €22.45bn? That's nothing!" - but it's not nothing, particularly if the previous year's deficit was similarly sized, and the next year's expected to be.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement