‘OCCUPY Wall Street’ protestors on Dame Street

hatrickpatrick

hmmm wrote: »

An election deposit is only 500 quid. If your views are so vital and important, why not simply put yourself forward for election and let the 99% decide? If we let every group who takes to the streets dictate policy, we'll be no better than Germany in the 1930s.

The political process is a shambles. Check out my posts about Fingleton and the British EU referendum (which was ignored by those responding to me, I might add) earlier in the thread.

If I ever run for election it'll be under a totally different system of democracy to this one. This one is a sham.

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

For a start, how in God's name was Anglo "systemically important"? And at the very least why were the Golden Circle not chased down by the authorities? I'm pretty sure what they did was illegal, IE getting loans from a company to buy shares in that company? I'm open to correction on that but AFAIK, that's straight up fraud / price fixing territory. When will we see a proper investigation? It's been three years and nothing further has been heard from these people.

Secondly, if we MUST bail out banks, we should be bailing them out only to a level that's absolutely essential - and insisting that every penny of profit is paid back to the taxpayer. No more six figure salaries for executives. No more bonuses. Bailed out banks no longer exist to make a profit but to provide a public service. The size of Drumm's pension is an absolute disgrace when you consider that the money is coming not from his failed bank, but out of my pocket, your pocket, and the pockets of every other honest citizen in this country.

Thirdly, IF there is a situation where banks MUST be bailed out - "too big to fail", "systemically important" or whatever you want to call it, this must be changed. ASAP. One of the calls from the Occupy movement is for major reform of how the monetary system works. Banks must no longer have the power to hold society by the balls and demand special treatment "or else". That's sick.

It's undeniable in my opinion. The political class in this country looks after its own cronies before looking after anyone else. If Roscommon hospital had a Golden Circle I highly doubt they would have been covered up and protected in the way the actual Golden Circle were, unless they also happened to be personal friends of politicians or influential businessmen.

The amount of corruption in this country (and in the wider financial/political axis) is sickening to the very stomach. And it must change. Now.

I agree with most of what you said as I said "few would agrue the government went about it the right way" As for banking executives getting 6 figure sums I assume most people what the best people to run the countries banks. They don't come cheap given the qualifications of such people they aren't going to find it hard to get another job here or abroad. As for the purpose of bonuses in any job. I would advise you look up "agency theory". You'll find plenty of well researched articles on their purpose and limitations

Banks don't get special treatment. Governments will step in when any business/industry that is considered systematiclly important to a countries economy is on the brink of failure. Look at the bailout of car makers in the USA. Banking is only one of a number of sectors to enjoy this.

In the case of the Roscommon hospital even that a group recommended the actions the government took. This to me means that the hospital wasn't that important on a national level and even at a local level its services could be provided else where.

Godge

I have had a look at the four demands and my response is as follows:

Demand 1 - get rid of the IMF and ECB.
Answer 1 - Who else is going to lend us money to pay for hospitals, schools, gardai and social welfare? Do we really want to send our economy back to 1950?

Demand 2 - we won't pay our debts, the ones we freely took on 30 September 2008
Answer 2 - I have a lot of sympathy for this but some decisions are taken and things have been done. I think this country will never rescue another bank in the same way again but that is done, Brian Lenihan decided to rescue them all, it is not possible to undo it (why can't people understand it) all that is left is to pay the bill.

Demand 3 - oil and gas reserves that were criminally handed away to private corporations be returned to sovereign control
Answer 3 - this is the most laughable of the demands. What oil and gas? It is also the demand that says to the outsiders, oh, these are the serial protesters, just moved down from Mayo. How did such a specific demand get in there among the other more general ones?

Demand 4 - Participatory democracy
Answer 4 - this is the one that most insults the Irish people. We had our election and picked our government. It is only fascists and anarchists that try to change a democratic outcome. This is not China with one-party government, we changed our government only a few months ago. We are having two referenda, a presidential election and a by-election this week. How much more participatory do you want? Or do we have to keep running elections until we get the right result?


So three loony demands, and one that we would all like to see happen but the train has left the station on that one thanks to FF.

hatrickpatrick

PeadarCo wrote: »

I agree with most of what you said as I said "few would agrue the government went about it the right way" As for banking executives getting 6 figure sums I assume most people what the best people to run the countries banks. They don't come cheap given the qualifications of such people they aren't going to find it hard to get another job here or abroad.

And the people who caused this mess are the "best people"?
LEt me rephrase in case I wasn't clear: Anyone who actually oversaw the destruction of the Irish economy, who was actually in charge during the years of corruption and gambling, should have been fired from that instituion and forfeited their rights to any golden handshakes or gigantic pensions.

There must be a penalty both for incompetence and corruption. David Drumm's pension is €7m. This is disgusting.

Banks don't get special treatment. Governments will step in when any business/industry that is considered systematiclly important to a countries economy is on the brink of failure. Look at the bailout of car makers in the USA. Banking is only one of a number of sectors to enjoy this.

As stated before, Anglo was systemically important to nothing other than the wallets of those with friends in high places.

I'm sorry but I firmly believe that there was nothing whatsoever to be gained from bailing out Anglo except saving people the government valued higher than everyone else in our society. I don't believe it was an act with good intentions, I sincerely believe it was an act of cynical corruption; putting one's friends first in public policy. I absolutely refuse to believe that Lenihan and Cowen were stupid enough to believe the BS about Anglo's alleged systemic importance. There isn't a shadow of doubt in my mind that this particular decision was undertaken for entirely corrupt reasons.

In the case of the Roscommon hospital even that a group recommended the actions the government took. This to me means that the hospital wasn't that important on a national level and even at a local level its services could be provided else where.

I never said the hospital shouldn't have been closed. Read my post again. I wasn't referring to the issue itself, merely using it as an example of a broken political system - a system where members of parliament do not vote on their own policy or on the wishes of those they allegedly "Represent", but on a party line, and face severe penalties for failing to do so. The other example I used was Britain's "three line whip" in the case of the EU referendum, which STILL hasn't been addressed by anyone in here.

I'm not attacking the issue, but the mechanisms through which it was dealt. Having government policy made by party chiefs is NOT democracy. MPs and TDs should be free to vote according to their own decision. Party politics are not in any way democratic. I voted for Sean Barrett and Mary Mitchell to represent ME as a constituent, not their party's leadership. Fingleton is a true democrat and for that he is punished by the system. This is disgusting.

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not attacking the issue, but the mechanisms through which it was dealt. Having government policy made by party chiefs is NOT democracy. MPs and TDs should be free to vote according to their own decision. Party politics are not in any way democratic. I voted for Sean Barrett and Mary Mitchell to represent ME as a constituent, not their party's leadership. Fingleton is a true democrat and for that he is punished by the system. This is disgusting.

Is that the problem with our system. There's too much nimbyism. Politicans have to consider everyone not just a select few people from their area. It should also be remembered that the vast vast majority of politicians campaign on party picket. If people don't want to vote for a political party they are few free to elect independents that only look after their interests. But to fair isn't that exactly what the protesters are against? Politicians looking after only a select few. And if political parties aren't democratic why do people vote for them why not just vote indepedents. How parties operate in the Dail isn't a secret people vote in the knowlege of this.

hmmm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The political process is a shambles. Check out my posts about Fingleton and the British EU referendum (which was ignored by those responding to me, I might add) earlier in the thread.

If I ever run for election it'll be under a totally different system of democracy to this one. This one is a sham.

Let me see if I have this right.

You're not going to put your views forward for election. A "shambles" of a process you say, which involves people having to put a tick beside your name. But you're not going to ask them to do that.

Instead, you're going to seek legitimacy by squatting in a street in Dublin. That is more democratic than asking people to put a tick beside your name.

When your street protest succeeds in overthrowing the current democracy, you will then put yourself forward for election. But only then. Because street protests are more democratic than asking people to vote for you under the current system.

I think you don't like the current system because you can't get elected that way and the people have rejected your views in the last election. So instead you blame the system and the electorate (the 60% who voted), and want to impose some new system.

Profoundly undemocratic.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

I have had a look at the four demands and my response is as follows:

Demand 1 - get rid of the IMF and ECB.
Answer 1 - Who else is going to lend us money to pay for hospitals, schools, gardai and social welfare? Do we really want to send our economy back to 1950?

No one pretends to have an answer to this but the loan is just that - a loan. We're going to have to pay it back some day, all we're doing is kicking the can down the road for a future generation to deal with. We may as well deal with it now and get it over with.

Demand 2 - we won't pay our debts, the ones we freely took on 30 September 2008
Answer 2 - I have a lot of sympathy for this but some decisions are taken and things have been done. I think this country will never rescue another bank in the same way again but that is done, Brian Lenihan decided to rescue them all, it is not possible to undo it (why can't people understand it) all that is left is to pay the bill.

Define "we"? The government had clearly lost its mandate. Secondly, the decision to bail out Anglo wasn't taken on 30 September, the nationalization took place long after the guarantees. Thirdly, what's done is clearly not done. Burn them. We haven't paid them back yet and we don't have to. Bank bondholders aren't the same as government bondholders. Iceland and Argentina burned them, and they're doing fine now.

Demand 3 - oil and gas reserves that were criminally handed away to private corporations be returned to sovereign control
Answer 3 - this is the most laughable of the demands. What oil and gas? It is also the demand that says to the outsiders, oh, these are the serial protesters, just moved down from Mayo. How did such a specific demand get in there among the other more general ones?

The oil and Gas given away by Ray Burke for nothing to Shell. You refer to these people as "serial protesters", don't you see a common theme running through it? I'm not in any way part of Shell2Sea but I do sympathize with it. Decisions taken by politicians which are later discovered to have been taken with corrupt and illicit intentions should be declared invalid.

Demand 4 - Participatory democracy
Answer 4 - this is the one that most insults the Irish people. We had our election and picked our government. It is only fascists and anarchists that try to change a democratic outcome. This is not China with one-party government, we changed our government only a few months ago. We are having two referenda, a presidential election and a by-election this week. How much more participatory do you want?

What about a "no party government"? What about a government in which the people have more direct control, or have more control over what their representatives do in power? What about a system where we DON'T elect people for 5 years and they can then do WHATEVER THEY WANT regardless of what they promised before the election?

Participatory democracy = all the people have more say in more decisions rather than handing it over to a small group to run amok with power for 5 years in which the citizens are utterly powerless to stop them.

Or do we have to keep running elections until we get the right result

No, don't you know that only happens when the government want us to accept a referendum and we vote the "wrong" way?

So three loony demands, and one that we would all like to see happen but the train has left the station on that one thanks to FF.

The first three demands are not loony, although I don't agree with all of them. The fourth is not impossible. We could stop paying Execs. We could demand justice for those who committed crimes and we could insist bondholders take a haircut. There are any number of things we could do other than writing a blank cheque to the bondholders and IGNORING the former managers and executives who committed CRIMES and walked away scott free. Seanie fiddled the company's books and Drumm aided and abetted him, that is pretty much an established fact at this stage and they wouldn't have resigned if the allegations hadn't been true. The Golden Circle also committed crimes and are not being held accountable for them.

Why should ordinary people be punished for the criminality of others?

hmmm

PeadarCo wrote: »

If people don't want to vote for a political party they are few free to elect independents that only look after their interests. But to fair isn't that exactly what the protesters are against? Politicians looking after only a select few. And if political parties aren't democratic why do people vote for them why not just vote indepedents. How parties operate in the Dail isn't a secret people vote in the knowlege of this.

But the people keep picking the wrong politicians!? The people can't be trusted with something as important as voting, we need some sort of centralised committee which can foster their political re-education, a sort of vanguard of the people so to speak.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The oil and Gas given away by Ray Burke for nothing to Shell. You refer to these people as "serial protesters", don't you see a common theme running through it? I'm not in any way part of Shell2Sea but I do sympathize with it. Decisions taken by politicians which are later discovered to have been taken with corrupt and illicit intentions should be declared invalid.

Are people stupid or what? The Ray Burke licenses have expired. How many times do they have to be told this. If that is what you are protesting about, you are getting wet for nothing.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What about a "no party government"? What about a government in which the people have more direct control, or have more control over what their representatives do in power? What about a system where we DON'T elect people for 5 years and they can then do WHATEVER THEY WANT regardless of what they promised before the election?

Participatory democracy = all the people have more say in more decisions rather than handing it over to a small group to run amok with power for 5 years in which the citizens are utterly powerless to stop them.

A "no party governement"???? Give me one example of where this has worked (apart from North Korea where they all rely on the Dear Leader or Great Leader or whoever he is). Seriously, we are deep in ****, broke, and you want to try some sort of new participatory democracy that has no track record of working. This is like some sort of cult where people start believing all sorts of mad things (including we have billions of barrels of oil that we can bring ashore relatively cheaply and quickly).

Head The Wall

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm 22 years old.

Why should I pay for other people's mistakes?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The size of Drumm's pension is an absolute disgrace when you consider that the money is coming not from his failed bank, but out of my pocket, your pocket, and the pockets of every other honest citizen in this country.

How long have you been working and contributing taxes to this country, I'm just curious as a huge percentage of people are outside the tax net or else pay very little?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No one pretends to have an answer to this but the loan is just that - a loan. We're going to have to pay it back some day, all we're doing is kicking the can down the road for a future generation to deal with. We may as well deal with it now and get it over with.

The loan is growing day by day, the banking side of it although substantial is only a small fraction of our ongoing problem which is the current budget deficit.

Bannasidhe

Head The Wall wrote: »

How long have you been working and contributing taxes to this country, I'm just curious as a huge percentage of people are outside the tax net or else pay very little?

I've being paying tax and PRSI for 31 years. My OH has been paying tax and PRSI for 25 years - and it in the highest tax bracket. We support the Occupy Movement 100%. Is our combined 56 years of contributions to the State enough for us to qualify for a say in how our money is used?

The loan is growing day by day, the banking side of it although substantial is only a small fraction of our ongoing problem which is the current budget deficit.

The exchequer has a deficit - so add on the banks debts as well. Excellent fiscal management!
Without having to bail out the banks - what is the deficit?
What is it after the state took on the banks debts?

Scofflaw

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Head The Wall wrote: »

How long have you been working and contributing taxes to this country, I'm just curious as a huge percentage of people are outside the tax net or else pay very little?

I've being paying tax and PRSI for 31 years. My OH has been paying tax and PRSI for 25 years - and it in the highest tax bracket. We support the Occupy Movement 100%. Is our combined 56 years of contributions to the State enough for us to qualify for a say in how our money is used?



The exchequer has a deficit - so add on the banks debts as well. Excellent fiscal management!
Without having to bail out the banks - what is the deficit?
What is it after the state took on the banks debts?

There's a good summary here (and it's from Cork!): http://www.corkeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Irelands-Public-Debt.pdf

Basically, of the additional €104bn in debt acquired between 2006 and end 2010:

12% went to build up cash balances
50% went to fund government services
38% for the bank bailout

Existing debt at the end of 2006 was €44bn, which was all government services deficit, so of the €148bn at the end of 2010:

8.5% on cash balances
65% government deficit
26.7% banks

Their estimated debt at the end of 2014 is c. €208bn:

By going through the debt numbers, we see that we brought €44 billion of debt with us into this crisis in 2006. Bailing out the banks will have generated about €30 billion of debt by 2014, with that increasing to over €60 billion once all the Promissory Notes have been redeemed. The annual budget deficits between 2007 and 2014 will have generated more than €100 billion of borrowings.

Although the GGD will be around €205 billion by 2014, just a quarter of it will be due to the banks. We are swimming in debt of our own making. In 2014, it is forecast that the General Government Deficit will still be around €8 billion a year. It is not the banks that will push us over the edge; it is the annual deficit from the provision of the services of government that we benefit from. We have to reduce the €50 billion of budget deficits over the next four years.

The banks have been expensive, and we could have done without that cost, but the government deficit is far, far larger.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

Scofflaw wrote: »

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Head The Wall wrote: »

How long have you been working and contributing taxes to this country, I'm just curious as a huge percentage of people are outside the tax net or else pay very little?

There's a good summary here (and it's from Cork!): http://www.corkeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Irelands-Public-Debt.pdf

Basically, of the additional €104bn in debt acquired between 2006 and end 2010:

12% went to build up cash balances
50% went to fund government services
38% for the bank bailout

Existing debt at the end of 2006 was €44bn, which was all government services deficit, so of the €148bn at the end of 2010:

8.5% on cash balances
65% government deficit
26.7% banks

Their estimated debt at the end of 2014 is c. €208bn:



The banks have been expensive, and we could have done without that cost, but the government deficit is far, far larger.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks for that.

No-one is denying there is a government deficit that needs to be addressed. That there was, and continues to be, enormous inefficiencies and wastage.

However, if government had not added on the banks debts - would we have required IMF/ECB loans to bail us out or was the deficit difficult but manageable?

The issue for many people is that we were already in trouble - and everyone would have to take a hit. BUT - our problems were compounded by the debts accrued by a small, influential, section of society has been imposed upon all of society increasing the debt burden. I cannot help but see it as a form of neo-Feudalism - where all of society has cut back to garner the ransom to bail out our noble betters from the repercussions of their own incompetence and greed at the same time as the crops are failing.

Valmont

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think I just heard 20cent's fingers go into his ears.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The oil and Gas given away by Ray Burke for nothing to Shell. You refer to these people as "serial protesters", don't you see a common theme running through it? I'm not in any way part of Shell2Sea but I do sympathize with it. Decisions taken by politicians which are later discovered to have been taken with corrupt and illicit intentions should be declared invalid.

The defenders of the protest are coming on here and telling us that there is an open mind down on Dame Street, that people are willing to discuss options, there is an open debate, no preconceptions, that possible options need to be discussed and debated in depth before reaching conclusions.

Sounds fair enough, until you see the first statement which contains the demand for the oil and gas to be taken back, perpetuating an urban myth propagandised by Shell to Sea and other environmental campaigners. It seems the agenda has been decided from the start and the protest movement has been infiltrated by the serial protesters. Yet, the newbies (and you seem to be one of them) don't seem to realise that you have been hoodwinked by them.

It is amazing to see that some Irish people who have been fooled for so long by Fianna Fail are now being fooled by another group of people with another agenda. You should wake up and read some facts and then make up your own mind.

The facts are that apart from one small gas field off Mayo which has yet to make it to shore and boost our economy (maybe save us piling up some more debt) because of the stupidity of the Shell to Sea people, there is no gas or oil discovered. And as for the Ray burke licenses, these are expired or expiring replaced by licenses issues by a Green minister and still no sign of rushing to bring ashore all that gas and oil. Those are the facts and it makes the Dame St. people look stupid, naive and gullible by including the oil and gas demand in their list.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes - the unemployed caused all of this - oh and the guards, nurses, firefighters, teachers, ambulance drivers, army, navy, lecturers, radiologists etc.

None of the banks debts are our debts. None of the developers bad loans are our bad loans. Take them out of the equation then lets see what is actually our debt.

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

The defenders of the protest are coming on here and telling us that there is an open mind down on Dame Street, that people are willing to discuss options, there is an open debate, no preconceptions, that possible options need to be discussed and debated in depth before reaching conclusions.

Sounds fair enough, until you see the first statement which contains the demand for the oil and gas to be taken back, perpetuating an urban myth propagandised by Shell to Sea and other environmental campaigners. It seems the agenda has been decided from the start and the protest movement has been infiltrated by the serial protesters. Yet, the newbies (and you seem to be one of them) don't seem to realise that you have been hoodwinked by them.

It is amazing to see that some Irish people who have been fooled for so long by Fianna Fail are now being fooled by another group of people with another agenda. You should wake up and read some facts and then make up your own mind.

The facts are that apart from one small gas field off Mayo which has yet to make it to shore and boost our economy (maybe save us piling up some more debt) because of the stupidity of the Shell to Sea people, there is no gas or oil discovered. And as for the Ray burke licenses, these are expired or expiring replaced by licenses issues by a Green minister and still no sign of rushing to bring ashore all that gas and oil. Those are the facts and it makes the Dame St. people look stupid, naive and gullible by including the oil and gas demand in their list.

But Godge - we are discussing it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote: »

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Thanks for that.

No-one is denying there is a government deficit that needs to be addressed. That there was, and continues to be, enormous inefficiencies and wastage.

However, if government had not added on the banks debts - would we have required IMF/ECB loans to bail us out or was the deficit difficult but manageable?

The issue for many people is that we were already in trouble - and everyone would have to take a hit. BUT - our problems were compounded by the debts accrued by a small, influential, section of society has been imposed upon all of society increasing the debt burden. I cannot help but see it as a form of neo-Feudalism - where all of society has cut back to garner the ransom to bail out our noble betters from the repercussions of their own incompetence and greed at the same time as the crops are failing.

The only alternative would have seen Anglo and Irish Nationwide go down in flames while we nationalised Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland. The short-term shock to Ireland would have been greater (we would probably have needed IMF/EU intervention at an earlier date) but the long-term debt should have been less. The big issue is that because of the reckless spending or low taxes (take your pick) of the FF government and the failure to regulate the banks, both of which are of our own making and of the people we elected, we did not have enough resources to deal with a crisis that was bigger than it should have been.

For all that the banks did wrong, they still have a legitimate question to ask, why did the regulators appointed by the politicians elected by the people let us do what we did? The answer to that, and people don't wnat to hear it (put your fingers in your ears) is that we all were enjoying the good times, from those on the highest social welfare rates in Europe up to those at the top of the gravy train and we didn't want it to stop.

So by the end of 2014, a quarter of the debt due to the banks, about half of which was unavoidable and definitely our fault for electing FF, so about one-eighth of the problem due to the banks and the bad decisions of Lenihan.

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But Godge - we are discussing it.

You miss the point, by including the demand on the oil and gas (as the only demand unrelated to the current crisis), the Dame Street protest has shown itself to have already been taken over and influenced by what some people refer to as "the usual suspects". The fact that the demand is nonsensical only adds to the problem.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

You miss the point, by including the demand on the oil and gas (as the only demand unrelated to the current crisis), the Dame Street protest has shown itself to have already been taken over and influenced by what some people refer to as "the usual suspects". The fact that the demand is nonsensical only adds to the problem.

I haven't missed you point - but perhaps you have missed mine. Nothing is written in stone - we are having a dialogue in which various viewpoints are being put forward. No-one knows yet what will eventually emerge. It is important we discuss it, and the views of people like yourself who can demonstrate why certain 'demands' are not feasible are vital to that process.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So explain to me why we are paying an extra 25% on top of an already horrendous debt? Do we not have enough of a burden without that 25%?

Scofflaw

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Thanks for that.

No-one is denying there is a government deficit that needs to be addressed. That there was, and continues to be, enormous inefficiencies and wastage.

However, if government had not added on the banks debts - would we have required IMF/ECB loans to bail us out or was the deficit difficult but manageable?

The likely answer there is that we would still have required the bailout. There's a couple of reasons for thinking that - first, relatively little of the bailout money was for the banks, and second the wider eurozone crisis would still have affected us, while the deficit levels would still have been seen as very difficult to manage.

Against that one can argue that without the bank debt - and particularly the uncertain scale of that debt - tied to the state, we would have been seen as a better bet by the markets, and may have gone on being able to borrow there instead.

All of the arguments against, though, fall down in the face of the fact that we wouldn't have had a functioning domestic banking sector, and would therefore have been instantly regarded as a basket case (which we would have been, because the collapse of the major domestic banks would have torn large holes in the domestic private sector). The point is often made that Iceland didn't bail out its banks - true, and it didn't avoid an IMF bailout either. If anything, it got there quicker.

So, on balance, allowing the banks to collapse would probably have seen us on the troika's books about 2 years earlier, maybe for less state debt in the long run depending on how much greater the collapse of tax revenues and the surge in unemployment was, and likely with much larger devastation of the domestic economy.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The issue for many people is that we were already in trouble - and everyone would have to take a hit. BUT - our problems were compounded by the debts accrued by a small, influential, section of society has been imposed upon all of society increasing the debt burden. I cannot help but see it as a form of neo-Feudalism - where all of society has cut back to garner the ransom to bail out our noble betters from the repercussions of their own incompetence and greed at the same time as the crops are failing.

Not really - the issue is somewhat more tragic. Banks are, like it or not, an integral part of the modern economy. Electricity, gas, water, money - they're all utilities - but for some reason we persist in treating banking as a private affair...until something goes wrong, whereupon we rediscover that it's a public matter.

AIB and BoI between them handle something like 75% of all financial transactions in the Irish economy, split roughly evenly between them. The loss of either of them literally stops large sections of the economy dead - wages aren't paid, bills aren't met, suppliers aren't paid, etc etc. The effects are enormous - most businesses and households could survive at most a week or so without the banks.

So those banks - the structural banks - had to be protected. The argument for protecting Anglo was that allowing it to fail would have taken the other banks with it - relatively few people would accept that now, but at the time very much less was known.

To come back again to the point about banks being a utility - they're genuinely vital, and you don't let vital pieces of economic infrastructure collapse. If you like, you can consider them as similar to power stations, except pumping out money rather than electricity - by analogy, if the country has dozens of small power plants, you can allow some of them to collapse without worrying too much. If, like Ireland, you have two or three main plants which generate most of the money for the whole country, you can't afford to allow them to collapse.

The obvious implication of that is that banks need to be regulated very heavily, because if they look like they're going to collapse, they will be propped up with public money, unless they're small and/or you have lots of them. However, deregulating them allows them to put out lots more money, which means your economy can grow faster...unfortunately, an almost inevitable result is some kind of asset bubble, where people start paying over the odds for something like property, or shares, or tulip bulbs simply because they know the next person will do the same.

The real failure of the Celtic Tiger was the overheated economy resulting primarily from allowing the banks to operate in a minimally regulated way - the bank bailout, the government deficit, the collapse of the construction sector and the resulting unemployment are really just the unwinding of that particular idiocy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I haven't missed you point - but perhaps you have missed mine. Nothing is written in stone - we are having a dialogue in which various viewpoints are being put forward. No-one knows yet what will eventually emerge. It is important we discuss it, and the views of people like yourself who can demonstrate why certain 'demands' are not feasible are vital to that process.

The sad thing in Ireland is that not only do our FF governments (which have been in power for most of independence) become beholden to vested interests, but so do our protest movements. Behind every protest movement over the years has hidden a political activist with an agenda.

talkinyite

Just came across this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4klALeFpvc

FreudianSlippers

:rolleyes: who are the most senior counsel that she went to? did she pay them? why not produce their opinions that say that the courts would tie them up? who is her instructing solicitor?