The 1%

davoxx · 03-11-2011 4:48pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Starting from definition
<text>
We all have a say in decisions that affect our lives when we choose a government, president and every so often have referendums (direct democracy) as is set out in our constitution (which has many of the similar points of the German one btw)
<text>
and getting down to a more refined definition of what we have here (Representative + Constitutional democracy with a sprinkle of direct democracy via referendum mechanism)
<text>
Now please explain how we the people of Ireland can ever vote for a bunch of hippies in tents when those people choose not to put themselves and their aims forward in a democratic election.

so it is not democratic .. i never voted to bail out the banks ... so what you must mean it that it is a representative democracy, well it's a good thing that our representatives will stick to their promises ... oh wait they did not ... but at least "i" voted for them, well i did not myself ... well maybe i can run for president myself ... oh yeah i need the "backing" of .. you know what forget it ... at least there is a way for the public to force a re-election .. oh wait there is not ...

Bannasidhe · 03-11-2011 4:54pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Starting from definition

We all have a say in decisions that affect our lives when we choose a government, president and every so often have referendums (direct democracy) as is set out in our constitution (which has many of the similar points of the German one btw)

I asked you a very specific question - how is our current system of government as described by former Taoiseach John Bruton democratic?

I do not need or desire an outline of the concept of democracy - I asked if you believe the principles of democracy are being applied in Ireland.

Perhaps if I break it down into a few individual points you will address those questions and not spout rhetoric?

We elected our present government based on their Manifesto - manifestos that turned out not to worth the paper they were written on. How is that a democracy?

How is the imposition of the 3-way whip democratic?

How is the fact that policy is formulated by unelected civil servants democratic?

How is the fact the our parliament is denied the opportunity to even debate issues such as the 1 billion dollar pay out to Anglo bondholders democratic?

Our 'say' is limited to choosing between Political Parties who have a tendency to implement the same polices regardless of their manifestos. If our chosen one is a backbencher - they will sit on their arse in the Dail for about 110 days a year and vote what ever way their party leadership tells them to. If we choose an independent we better hope he/she is a cute hoor as that is the only way they will get a say.

How is that Democracy?

Now please explain how we the people of Ireland can ever vote for a bunch of hippies in tents when those people choose not to put themselves and their aims forward in a democratic election.

Ah - dismiss them all as hippies - yes. That will address the issues alright.

Bannasidhe · 03-11-2011 5:00pm

antoobrien wrote: »

They're considering disbanding the temporary halting site in galway. I was home last weekend, they don't have much support, mostly gawkers. I wonder what'll happen when the Dale farm lads come around and pitch up beside them....

Hey lets fling a few snide comments about Travellers about now!!!
Christ - no wonder this country is ****ed :mad:.

Dunno what the source used by the Galway news is but doesn't look to me like Occupy Galway is moving

Occupy Galway #OccupyGalway
great turn out and coverage for our first march today. we had open mic contributions at both Eyre Sq and outside the Anglo offices. speakers were both passionate and hopeful for the future of this movement. thanks to Free Education for Everyone, and nohouseholdtax.org for their support and solidarity.
the next one will be even bigger.our voices will be even louder.we will not be silenced.

02/11/2011 http://www.facebook.com/OccupyGalway?sk=wall&filter=2

antoobrien · 03-11-2011 5:18pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hey lets fling a few snide comments about Travellers about now!!!
Christ - no wonder this country is ****ed :mad:.

Dunno what the source used by the Galway news is but doesn't look to me like Occupy Galway is moving

02/11/2011 http://www.facebook.com/OccupyGalway?sk=wall&filter=2

Why shouldn't we, after all it is populated by the usual shower of crusties and does look remarkably like a tip head.

I can guarnatee you one thing. If the travelers did come into Eyre Sq. from Doughiska or Ballindooley (two existing halting sites in Galway city) they'd be turfed out for illegal camping.

So before you go throwing snide comments about people cracking jokes consider the inherent double standards in supporting something illegal - camping on public property.

Bannasidhe · 03-11-2011 5:35pm

antoobrien wrote: »

Why shouldn't we, after all it is populated by the usual shower of crusties and does look remarkably like a tip head.

I can guarnatee you one thing. If the travelers did come into Eyre Sq. from Doughiska or Ballindooley (two existing halting sites in Galway city) they'd be turfed out for illegal camping.

So before you go throwing snide comments about people cracking jokes consider the inherent double standards in supporting something illegal - camping on public property.

Pardon me if I don't find bigotry funny.

Yes - the would be turfed out. Yes, there are double standards being applied here - in this instance by Galway City Council. It would seem they fear to take action to turf out the 'shower of crusties' - wonder why?

This forum is beginning to become indistinguishable from After Hours. Which is a real pity.

jmayo · 03-11-2011 6:02pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

We here in Ireland had an election not to long ago and the majority "have spoken" voting in the current (somewhat queer) government coalition, if anything the pressure should be put on FG/Lab for backtracking on many of their promises already, not sure what protesting outside Dame street would accomplish

Well we didn't protest outside government buildings when NAMA was being set up, we didn't protest when Anglo and INBS were being wards of this state and all their debt was turned into soverign debt.
Hell the biggest protest outside a government party was about a ban on stag hunting.

I may not like a lot of the protestors, I may think some of them are the usual rent a mob, but at least they are protesting about the state of our so called capitalistic society.
As for the 1% I think that is a catchphrase borrowed from the US and nothing more.

I note a few lauding our capitalism and how it is the best we have.
Well that might have been correct 20 odd years ago, but today we have one sector of capitalism totally out of control where the old adage about reward and failure has gone out the window.
The adage still applies to normal companies, but if you are a so called systemic enterprise the first born of every citizen of the state can be sacrificed to save them.

Nowadays we have commerical financial companies being larger in economic terms than nation states and these same financial institutions are being given the ultimate reward of a tax payer funded bailout for their ultimate failure.
Nation states have been hocked to keep insolvent badly run greedy enterprises afloat.

Someone stated how necessary profit making banks are.
That is true and it is true when looking at what investment banks once were.
But nowadays they dream up fancy investment instruments that ultimately are wagers, which if successful result in big profits and big bonuses for the staff.
On the other hand if these same wagers are unsuccessful it results in terrible pain for normal people who have never even heard of either these financial instruments nor the banks that created them or invested in them.

Over the last 30 odd years we have numerous bubbles and busts.
Who gained out of these, but the wall street connect types.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

...
@Statistician, Marxist is very apt name, since alot of the sentiment is about taxing the rich and giving to the poor and of course the hate for capitalism (which despite its recent hickups is a darn better alternative in the long run than the rest!), Just like democracy has its downsides but its still damn better than the alternatives (especially the alternatives the far lefties want!)

I aint a marxist or a communist, but I know damm well our current wall street led type of capitalism aint working.
The gulf between rich and even middle class, nevermind poorer working class has jumped hugely.
In the US the gulf has never been as large except possibly in the late 19th century with era of the robber barons.
Compare the difference between CEO salary and normal worker in the 60s with today and ratio has changed hugely.

To add insult to injury the lower classes are feeling the pain disportionately more the ones at the top who were often the ones involved with the high end failing financial institutions.

This crisis is far from over and as the taxpayers of the states who bailed out
the banks/insurance companies are suffering cuts, they get to see the top executives in the same banks/insurance companies rewarding themselves with bonuses.

laoch na mona wrote: »

if you want to change something vote

Yeah right.
Sadly I will admit that a vote for this government only achieved the last inept corrupt unethical shower were removed.
As was shown over the last few days our government can't decide jack sh** anymore, since some people in Europe, be it EU or ECB, have decided that the investors/speculators must be paid at all costs.
Obama, for all the rhethoric hasn't achieved jack sh** either.

Wipee for capitalism ECB/Wall St/US Fed style.
At least the citizens of Goldman Sachs, etc are doing ok. :rolleyes:

SupaNova wrote: »

I can agree that the banking system is unstable and fractional reserve lending is a problem but not much else.

There lots of other issues such as the bonus culture which rewards high risk gambles.
Giving someone bonuses for increasing lending is a receipt for disaster.

SupaNova wrote: »

Governments and central banks are responsible for the monetary base, money created by private banks is a derivative of the monetary base.

Banking should be for profit. Profit and loss lets banks know how they are doing. Banks making profits are ones that are managing their supply of loanable funds well and making successful loans, loans that improve economic output or re-allocate resources to better meet consumer demands.

And just imagine where we have removed the threat of making losses, unimaginable ones at that.
Banks are now a no lose enterprise.
Shareholders may lose, but bond holders do not.

Imagine the disaster where an entire nation is left for decades paying off the gigantic debts run up by a few people in their gambling enterprises ?

antoobrien · 03-11-2011 6:06pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Pardon me if I don't find bigotry funny.

Yes - the would be turfed out. Yes, there are double standards being applied here - in this instance by Galway City Council. It would seem they fear to take action to turf out the 'shower of crusties' - wonder why?

This forum is beginning to become indistinguishable from After Hours. Which is a real pity.

I'm wondering what your problem is:
the fact that many people aren't taking the protest seriously (evidenced by the genuine amusement I saw on hundreds of faces last week)
the fact that the camp I referred to does resemble a traveler encampment (hence the halting site gag)
the fact that the crusties people involved in the camp are the same serial complainants that I dodge every weekend I'm in Galway
the fact that there are people willing to put the protesters on the same legal ground as travelers
the fact that I can and will joke about all of the above (as is my right as somebody from the crusty summer camp)

PeadarCo · 03-11-2011 6:14pm

jmayo wrote: »

Well we didn't protest outside government buildings when NAMA was being set up, we didn't protest when Anglo and INBS were being wards of this state and all their debt was turned into soverign debt.
Hell the biggest protest outside a government party was about a ban on stag hunting.

I may not like a lot of the protestors, I may think some of them are the usual rent a mob, but at least they are protesting about the state of our so called capitalistic society.
As for the 1% I think that is a catchphrase borrowed from the US and nothing more.

I note a few lauding our capitalism and how it is the best we have.
Well that might have been correct 20 odd years ago, but today we have one sector of capitalism totally out of control where the old adage about reward and failure has gone out the window.
The adage still applies to normal companies, but if you are a so called systemic enterprise the first born of every citizen of the state can be sacrificed to save them.

Nowadays we have commerical financial companies being larger in economic terms than nation states and these same financial institutions are being given the ultimate reward of a tax payer funded bailout for their ultimate failure.
Nation states have been hocked to keep insolvent badly run greedy enterprises afloat.

Someone stated how necessary profit making banks are.
That is true and it is true when looking at what investment banks once were.
But nowadays they dream up fancy investment instruments that ultimately are wagers, which if successful result in big profits and big bonuses for the staff.
On the other hand if these same wagers are unsuccessful it results in terrible pain for normal people who have never even heard of either these financial instruments nor the banks that created them or invested in them.

Over the last 30 odd years we have numerous bubbles and busts.
Who gained out of these, but the wall street connect types.

I aint a marxist or a communist, but I know damm well our current wall street led type of capitalism aint working.
The gulf between rich and even middle class, nevermind poorer working class has jumped hugely.
In the US the gulf has never been as large except possibly in the late 19th century with era of the robber barons.
Compare the difference between CEO salary and normal worker in the 60s with today and ratio has changed hugely.

To add insult to injury the lower classes are feeling the pain disportionately more the ones at the top who were often the ones involved with the high end failing financial institutions.

This crisis is far from over and as the taxpayers of the states who bailed out
the banks/insurance companies are suffering cuts, they get to see the top executives in the same banks/insurance companies rewarding themselves with bonuses.

Yeah right.
Sadly I will admit that a vote for this government only achieved the last inept corrupt unethical shower were removed.
As was shown over the last few days our government can't decide jack sh** anymore, since some people in Europe, be it EU or ECB, have decided that the investors/speculators must be paid at all costs.
Obama, for all the rhethoric hasn't achieved jack sh** either.

Wipee for capitalism ECB/Wall St/US Fed style.
At least the citizens of Goldman Sachs, etc are doing ok. :rolleyes:

There lots of other issues such as the bonus culture which rewards high risk gambles.
Giving someone bonuses for increasing lending is a receipt for disaster.

And just imagine where we have removed the threat of making losses, unimaginable ones at that.
Banks are now a no lose enterprise.
Shareholders may lose, but bond holders do not.

Imagine the disaster where an entire nation is left for decades paying off the gigantic debts run up by a few people in their gambling enterprises ?

To be fair banks are a lose enterprise. In the case of too big to fail banks its the tax payer who loses. That should mean they are far more regulated in the future. In the case of bondholders they lent money to the bank not invested unlike shareholders with differing exposures to risk depending on what type of bonds or loan they gave. Although again in an ideal world they would also lose out. The government has to weigh up the pros and cons. Reading around there doesn't seem to be a definite answer from anaylists so the decision in not a clearly not a clear cut one.

On the subject of protests. Does the fact most people aren't protesting also send a message?

davoxx · 03-11-2011 6:22pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

On the subject of protests. Does the fact most people aren't protesting also send a message?

i'm sure it sends several ones ... we need a poll to see why people aren't
protesting

Bannasidhe · 03-11-2011 6:28pm

antoobrien wrote: »

I'm wondering what your problem is:

Ha -I was actually thinking the same about you...;)

the fact that many people aren't taking the protest seriously (evidenced by the genuine amusement I saw on hundreds of faces last week)

the fact that many people are taking the protest seriously (evidenced by the amount of food, equipment, clothes, tents, waterproofs, delivery of lectures,duct tape, generators, computers, waterproofs being donated by the public )

the fact that the camp I referred to does resemble a traveler encampment (hence the halting site gag) - not even going there!

the fact that the crusties people involved in the camp are the same serial complainants that I dodge every weekend I'm in Galway - see, no need for this. Seriously. There are people there you don't approve of - I get that. But are you sure everyone involved is part of this 'group'? I have a very low opinion of human beings in general (occupational hazard of being a historian

) but I still try and avoid tarring large groups with the same broad brush (except the Dominicans and their Inquisition - tar and set fire to the lot of them IMHO :mad:)

the fact that there are people willing to put the protesters on the same legal ground as travelers - who are? I'm genuinelly not sure what you mean here.

the fact that I can and will joke about all of the above (as is my right as somebody from the crusty summer camp). Joke away boy, but when it is all joke and no substance it becomes a bit of an issue for me.

What on earth is the crusty summer camp?

Bannasidhe · 03-11-2011 8:55pm

Another example of Democracy Irish style (and the toothlessness of our Dail)

Thursday November 03 2011
A TOP civil servant has refused to give assurances that a €3.6bn national accounts blunder will be cleared up before he steps down next year.

Kevin Cardiff, secretary-general of the Department of Finance, shrugged off suggestions he should resign over the hugely embarrassing mistake which went unnoticed despite repeated warnings for more than a year.

The €200,000 public finances chief came under fire at a parliamentary public accounts watchdog over his role in the affair, while he switched the spotlight to two middle-ranking managers at his department.

Independent TD Shane Ross demanded Mr Cardiff give a vow to sort out the "shambles" before leaving "with his saddle bags full" to a new government-appointed job in the European Court of Auditors next March.

But Mr Cardiff insisted he could not give that guarantee.

Responding to accusations from Sinn Fein's Mary Lou McDonald that he had utterly failed in his duties and refused to be made accountable, he launched into a defence of his time at the head of the Department of Finance.

Mr Cardiff, who was appointed to the role in January 2010 and who played a key role in banking policy and the state banking guarantee, said he had done his best for the country.

He claimed that a helmsman charged with steering a ship during a storm should not be blamed for the storm before adding that his new job in Luxembourg would be a "doddle" compared with his present position.

Mr Cardiff also told Ms McDonald that it was the government's job, and not hers, to judge him.

The senior civil servant later apologised to the Dail's Public Account Committee for what he branded his "rant" and vowed to leave the department in the best possible shape he could.

Committee chairman John McGuinness, Fianna Fail, said the watchdog was doing its job in scrutinising Mr Cardiff and added there was no doubt the Department of Finance had been attempting to keep the accounting error a secret.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/top-civil-servant-shrugs-off-suggestions-he-should-resign-over-euro36bn-accounts-blunder-2925923.html

The Department of Finance has this afternoon released its file of correspondence with the National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA) over an issue that led to €3.6 billion being added to the General Government deficit in error.

The correspondence consists of emails and letters from the NTMA alerting the department about new financing arrangements for the Housing Finance Agency t hat required different accounting treatments.

The first email was sent on August 23rd, 2010, and in all some six emails and letters were sent before the issue was finally addressed and rectified in late October this year.

The department admitted today that no evidence or documents have come to light that show the officials responsible replied to the email or letters, or responded to the issues being flagged.

Senior officials from the Department and the NTMA appeared before the Public Accounts Committee today where they were asked to explain how such a large error, which is equal to the total budgetary adjustment this year, could have been left unnoticed for so long.

Secretary general of the department Kevin Cardiff said the error was made at “middle management” level and was never communicated up to a more senior level. He said the department was initiating an internal inquiry to examine the issue and would establish an external review to look at the systems and to put safeguards in place to ensure such mistakes were not repeated in the future.

Mr Cardiff, and, to a lesser extent, NTMA chief executive John Corrigan - who was not at the meeting - were criticised by members of the committee.

Sinn Féin’s Mary Lou McDonald said she had not confidence in Mr Cardiff and believed that, as the accounting officer, he should resign over such a major error. Ms McDonald also said she had no confidence in Mr Cardiff becoming Ireland’s next representative on the European Court of Auditors in the new year.

Mr Cardiff responded by saying that if a secretary general resigned after every error there would be no secretaries general, and if a secretary general resigned in the wake of a major error, the only ones who would survive would be “lucky secretary generals”.

Mr Cardiff said he had spent every waking moment since assuming the top position in the Department of Finance in February 2010 working to ensure he was doing the best post possible job for the country.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1103/breaking55.html

The most senior official in the Department of Finance has told the Public Accounts Committee that he only became aware of a €3.6bn blunder in calculating the debt in our national accounts last Friday evening.

Department of Finance secretary general Kevin Cardiff is giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee over how the debt was "double-counted".

The potential for the accounting mistake was raised by the National Treasury Management Agency 15 months ago, and several times since.

Mr Cardiff said an internal and external investigation would be carried out, but that he believed the error was missed on several fronts. The figures are supposed to be checked by the Department of Finance, the CSO and the NTMA.

"There was a contagion of the error from one organisation to the other, instead of the issues being separately checked in each one," he said.

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/senior-finance-official-became-aware-of-36bn-error-last-friday-526911.html#ixzz1cfqS0KjJ

Is ANYBODY running things accountable in this blasted country? :mad:

antoobrien · 03-11-2011 10:53pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

what on earth is the crusty summer camp?

Its proper name is Galway city

Bannasidhe · 03-11-2011 11:09pm

antoobrien wrote: »

Its proper name is Galway city

Ah - funny, the inhabitants of Galway have always struck me as resembling German backpackers- Dunno why. Now Clonakility - that is Summer Crusty Camp.

jmayo · 04-11-2011 12:20pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

To be fair banks are a lose enterprise.

????

PeadarCo wrote: »

In the case of too big to fail banks its the tax payer who loses. That should mean they are far more regulated in the future.

You would think, but AFAIK the last recommendation from one of the Central Bankers meeting in Basel for Tier 1 capital ratio or the proportion of capital that banks would need to hold was lower than that held by Lehmans at the time of it's demise.
Hell at one stage ex French finance minister and now ms IMF Christine Lagarde had said that it was "imperative not to penalise (the banking sector) by imposing excessive demands."

PeadarCo wrote: »

In the case of bondholders they lent money to the bank not invested unlike shareholders with differing exposures to risk depending on what type of bonds or loan they gave. Although again in an ideal world they would also lose out.

Yes but if I lent money or indeed invested in a normal private sector company that went affectively insolvent and bust, then should I expect the taxpayers of the state where the company is based to cough up to recompense me ?

PeadarCo wrote: »

The government has to weigh up the pros and cons. Reading around there doesn't seem to be a definite answer from anaylists so the decision in not a clearly not a clear cut one.

The government have been told by the ECB/EU/US Fed that there is no choice.
No bank was allowed go bust and you pay up all the private sector debt i.e. bondholders.
Of course Scofflaw now charges over the hill demanding I provide the signed memos with DNA to prove this assertion.
To which I would say just listen to the end of Kenny's speech to the Dáil the other day.

PeadarCo wrote: »

On the subject of protests. Does the fact most people aren't protesting also send a message?

Why very little protests ?
Firstly studies have shown that universities have become less the bastion of protest and challenge to current world order, but more the breeding ground for new footsoldiers for the current economic and political system.
University stduents are now less about coming our with radical ideas, but about getting your foot in the door and on the ladder.
From the point of starting junior cert the ultimate aim for most students is to do well in state exams, get into college course, get degree and get job.
Look at UK where current party leaders went from university into the political system ultimately to get to the seat of power.

Secondly Irish people don't really do protests unless they are really shoved.
One of the few areas in Ireland to resort to protest has been the farming sector and even then they are mild in comparison to some of our European neighbours.

Also I don't think Irish people are that civically minded as in some other countries where protest movements have prospered.
Maybe we are a nation of me feiners and maybe this whole thing shows why it took us so long to shift our neighbours out ?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Another example of Democracy Irish style (and the toothlessness of our Dail)

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/top-civil-servant-shrugs-off-suggestions-he-should-resign-over-euro36bn-accounts-blunder-2925923.html

Is ANYBODY running things accountable in this blasted country? :mad:

Ehhh that would be big NO.

hatrickpatrick · 06-11-2011 3:46pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Starting from definition

We all have a say in decisions that affect our lives when we choose a government, president and every so often have referendums (direct democracy) as is set out in our constitution (which has many of the similar points of the German one btw)

Did you vote to bail out Anglo?
Were you offered any ability to impeach the FF administration when it became clear that they were going to pander to the financial sector instead of letting them pay for their own mistakes?
No? Then it's not a democracy. I had no idea they would do this in 2007 - and even if I had, I was under 18 so I wouldn't have been able to vote. However, I was OVER 18 when they brought down the economy, and until 2011 I was totally powerless as a citizen to stop them. In a real democracy, when the overwhelming majority want a government out, that government should be out. End of story.

and getting down to a more refined definition of what we have here (Representative + Constitutional democracy with a sprinkle of direct democracy via referendum mechanism)

Do you know what the word "represent" means?
The politicians are not "representing" the people's wishes when they side with the elite. Ergo, if you insist that this indeed a representative democracy, the so called "representatives" aren't playing by the rules.
They're meant to be "representing" all the people, not just their friends.

Now please explain how we the people of Ireland can ever vote for a bunch of hippies in tents when those people choose not to put themselves and their aims forward in a democratic election.

On this note I'm done. Playing the hippy card completely destroys your credibility and I'm not arsed arguing with you anymore.
How do you define "hippy", btw?

PeadarCo · 06-11-2011 4:34pm

jmayo wrote: »

????
You would think, but AFAIK the last recommendation from one of the Central Bankers meeting in Basel for Tier 1 capital ratio or the proportion of capital that banks would need to hold was lower than that held by Lehmans at the time of it's demise.
Hell at one stage ex French finance minister and now ms IMF Christine Lagarde had said that it was "imperative not to penalise (the banking sector) by imposing excessive demands."

Yes but if I lent money or indeed invested in a normal private sector company that went affectively insolvent and bust, then should I expect the taxpayers of the state where the company is based to cough up to recompense me ?

The banks were bailed out because at least some were considered and are critical to the general health of the economy. They aren't the only sector to enjoy this. There are other more critical services such as food and water for example. The banking system is relatively concentrated by comparison to the say food industry. Also if there is lack food ie famine aid agencies will step in. Interntionally the money markets and supply of credit slowed down making the situation worse. Unfortunately the rescue plan will only increase concentration. In Denmark banks have been allowed to go the wall and from what I've read its down to the fact they have more smaller banks so the failure of one does not have a massive overall effect. It should be noted however without good regulation even this won't work if the banks are too interconnected. Look at great depression and the banks failures there. For another modern example of companies being bailed out look at the automotive industry in the US. Finally to compare a person on the street to a billion euro corporation is a bit ridiculous. It should be remembered that shareholders were wiped out. As for senior bondholders they hold the same status as depositers in Irish Law. It the government imposed loses on depositer I don't think they would be too popular. Also many of the organisations that buy senior bonds tend to be pension funds looking for a safe investment. Hitting them may also mean hitting peoples pensions. Personally I don't agree about how the banks were bailed and would have done thinks differently.

Also telling banks to increase capital reserves and at least maintain lending levels is contradictory.

jmayo wrote: »

The government have been told by the ECB/EU/US Fed that there is no choice.
No bank was allowed go bust and you pay up all the private sector debt i.e. bondholders.
Of course Scofflaw now charges over the hill demanding I provide the signed memos with DNA to prove this assertion.
To which I would say just listen to the end of Kenny's speech to the Dáil the other day.

You missed my point. I know the government had very little choice but does not mean the choice they made was wrong. It could be wrong and may when looking back it could be considered to be wrong. But my point is the decision was a not clear cut even if they had no other option.

jmayo wrote: »

Why very little protests ?
Firstly studies have shown that universities have become less the bastion of protest and challenge to current world order, but more the breeding ground for new footsoldiers for the current economic and political system.

Also I don't think Irish people are that civically minded as in some other countries where protest movements have prospered.
Maybe we are a nation of me feiners and maybe this whole thing shows why it took us so long to shift our neighbours out ?

Ehhh that would be big NO.

What have universities got to do with protests? Anyone can protest and have a right to protest not just students. I can't imagine that all 14% unemployed are all students even if students have been hit hard. Is it not lazy to say that people are brainwashed into the current economic order. Could it be a case most people benefit or percieve that they will benefit from it and are therefore overall happy with it. People can make there own decisions. Given the internet its very easy to find a wide variety of views. For people not being civically minded you could argue that because people are civically minded there are no protests and are aware of the disruption they can cause.

If you propose and alternative system how would people benefit and how realistic would it be. People don't like change especially on a major scale so they have to clearly benefit from it. If you doubt this I would advise reading up journals on how difficult it can be for companies to implement new systems never mind countries.

jmayo · 07-11-2011 1:16pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

The banks were bailed out because at least some were considered and are critical to the general health of the economy. They aren't the only sector to enjoy this. There are other more critical services such as food and water for example.

Right please tell me when and where food companies were given whol;esale bailouts and entire states were hocked to do so ?
Please give examples where water companies were bailed out and please do not use the privatised water companies in the UK ?

PeadarCo wrote: »

The banking system is relatively concentrated by comparison to the say food industry. Also if there is lack food ie famine aid agencies will step in.

Stop comparing food companies to banks.

PeadarCo wrote: »

Interntionally the money markets and supply of credit slowed down making the situation worse. Unfortunately the rescue plan will only increase concentration. In Denmark banks have been allowed to go the wall and from what I've read its down to the fact they have more smaller banks so the failure of one does not have a massive overall effect.

And the whole argument about letting smaller banks go leads me to the question why was INBS bailed out to the tune of 10 billion plus (including NAMA and recap costs here) ?

PeadarCo wrote: »

It should be noted however without good regulation even this won't work if the banks are too interconnected. Look at great depression and the banks failures there.

This is my point about a needed overhall of the world financial system.
If the likes of HSBC or Citigroup go bust who saves them ?

PeadarCo wrote: »

For another modern example of companies being bailed out look at the automotive industry in the US.

Did the automotive companies get a 100 billion plus ?
In 2008 they asked for $50 billion to pay for health care expenses and avoid bankruptcy and ensuing layoffs.
They got $25 billion loan from Congress.
Bush had agreed to an emergency bailout of $17.4 billion

AIG alone cost the US taxpayers $85 billion.
Then add in the cost of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Sterns deal with JP Morgan, etc.

PeadarCo wrote: »

Finally to compare a person on the street to a billion euro corporation is a bit ridiculous. It should be remembered that shareholders were wiped out. As for senior bondholders they hold the same status as depositers in Irish Law. It the government imposed loses on depositer I don't think they would be too popular. Also many of the organisations that buy senior bonds tend to be pension funds looking for a safe investment.
Hitting them may also mean hitting peoples pensions. Personally I don't agree about how the banks were bailed and would have done thinks differently.

Ahh the old chestnut of the pension funds.
You forgot the other one, the credit unions. :rolleyes:
Is it up to ordinary Irish taxpayers to help the pensions of German, French, UK and US workers ?

PeadarCo wrote: »

Also telling banks to increase capital reserves and at least maintain lending levels is contradictory.

Ah so then let them keep their low capital reserves, to hell with the capital to loan ratios and we will be back here again in a few years. :rolleyes:
BTW the banks aren't maintaining lending.

PeadarCo wrote: »

What have universities got to do with protests? Anyone can protest and have a right to protest not just students.

The hotbed of protests and new ideas in the 60s were universities.
In the last 30 years that has changed.

PeadarCo wrote: »

I can't imagine that all 14% unemployed are all students even if students have been hit hard. Is it not lazy to say that people are brainwashed into the current economic order. Could it be a case most people benefit or percieve that they will benefit from it and are therefore overall happy with it. People can make there own decisions. Given the internet its very easy to find a wide variety of views. For people not being civically minded you could argue that because people are civically minded there are no protests and are aware of the disruption they can cause.

You are right some people are doing ok and couldn't care less.
It is when their pockets get hit that they then act.
IMHO we are not a civically minded race, yeah we get all patriotic when a ball of some sort is involved but that's about it.

PeadarCo wrote: »

If you propose and alternative system how would people benefit and how realistic would it be. People don't like change especially on a major scale so they have to clearly benefit from it. If you doubt this I would advise reading up journals on how difficult it can be for companies to implement new systems never mind countries.

Change is difficult and can be scary, but failing to change means you end up back in the same place yet again.
The world's entire financial system needs to change and failing to notice that or do anythign about it, means we are going to end up in a much worst place some day.

I am all for capitalism where you take risks and if you succeed you keep your profits. If you fail then you suffer the losses.
I am not for the type of capitalism, as practiced by insurance and financial institutions, where the people working there or running them to get play with other people's money and make vast bonuses if they make a profit.
If they make gigantic losses, through their often very speculative risky greedy ventures, they have the luxury of getting governments to decide that the taxpayers will cough up the money to make up for these losses.

PeadarCo · 07-11-2011 3:16pm

jmayo wrote: »

Right please tell me when and where food companies were given whol;esale bailouts and entire states were hocked to do so ?
Please give examples where water companies were bailed out and please do not use the privatised water companies in the UK ?

To my knowledge in Ireland the water system is nationalised and is by and large the responsibilty of the government. There may be execeptions. Even if privately run the industry would have to meet strict regulations for obvious reasons. Ideally that would be the same for the run of a mill bank. Also we haven't bailed out food companies for reasons I stated in my previous post.

jmayo wrote: »

Stop comparing food companies to banks.

I am comparing banks to food companies because to maintain our current standards of living we need a working monetary/value transfer system and food industry. Banking is essential just like the food sector. I know the food sector is even more critical but for reasons I mentioned if my previous post I can't imagine any company needing a bailout in the near future thankfully.

jmayo wrote: »

And the whole argument about letting smaller banks go leads me to the question why was INBS bailed out to the tune of 10 billion plus (including NAMA and recap costs here) ?

Good question. I don't know as I said I don't agree with how the bank bailout was done

jmayo wrote: »

This is my point about a needed overhall of the world financial system.
If the likes of HSBC or Citigroup go bust who saves them ?

Did the automotive companies get a 100 billion plus ?
In 2008 they asked for $50 billion to pay for health care expenses and avoid bankruptcy and ensuing layoffs.
They got $25 billion loan from Congress.
Bush had agreed to an emergency bailout of $17.4 billion

AIG alone cost the US taxpayers $85 billion.
Then add in the cost of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Sterns deal with JP Morgan, etc.

Those insurnace companies cost more unfortunately. My point was banking and insurance aren't the only industries that will be bailed out.

jmayo wrote: »

Ahh the old chestnut of the pension funds.
You forgot the other one, the credit unions. :rolleyes:
Is it up to ordinary Irish taxpayers to help the pensions of German, French, UK and US workers ?

What about Irish pension holders? At least some of those pension funds would hold Irish pensions. As for the pensions of other countries those taxpayers are the reason we are only cutting by 3.8 billion not bringing the budget deficit to zero in one year. Also the countries you mention are also some of our biggest export markets. The better their economies are, the better it is for our exports

jmayo wrote: »

Ah so then let them keep their low capital reserves, to hell with the capital to loan ratios and we will be back here again in a few years. :rolleyes:
BTW the banks aren't maintaining lending.

Thats my point they can't if your asking them to increase capital reserves. Overtime ideally capital ratios would be increased. But asking them to maintain lending in an enviornment were people are very risk adverse and at the same time increase capital reserves's doesn't make sense. I would support increased capital ratios but done over an extended period of time that takes account of the current envoirnment.

jmayo wrote: »

The hotbed of protests and new ideas in the 60s were universities.
In the last 30 years that has changed.

Your point being what?

jmayo wrote: »

You are right some people are doing ok and couldn't care less.
It is when their pockets get hit that they then act.
IMHO we are not a civically minded race, yeah we get all patriotic when a ball of some sort is involved but that's about it.

Listening to Pat Kenny recently it was interesting to hear the american saying how every person they met tried to sell the country even if they were sworn enemies. But if your of the opposite opinion your perfectly entitled to it.

jmayo wrote: »

Change is difficult and can be scary, but failing to change means you end up back in the same place yet again.
The world's entire financial system needs to change and failing to notice that or do anythign about it, means we are going to end up in a much worst place some day..

Change is happening. The world economy will not be same once this is all over. My be its not to your liking but if you feel strong about go for election try persuade people to your point of view or at least generate some debate.

jmayo wrote: »

I am all for capitalism where you take risks and if you succeed you keep your profits. If you fail then you suffer the losses.
I am not for the type of capitalism, as practiced by insurance and financial institutions, where the people working there or running them to get play with other people's money and make vast bonuses if they make a profit.
If they make gigantic losses, through their often very speculative risky greedy ventures, they have the luxury of getting governments to decide that the taxpayers will cough up the money to make up for these losses.

Captialism like any system is imperfect. The theory behind it assumes perfectly free markets which don't and will not exist for a number of reasons. It also ignores what happens when a firm goes bust. I don't think anyone is happy about having to bailout banks. I only support it as I view the alternative as even worse. In reality any government will step in some shape or form if a business that is considered critical to the health of an economy is on the brink of failure. I know that isn't capitalism but we don't live in a society that is based on pure capitalism.

As for bonus's look up Agency Theory. If any person can solve that problem they won't have to worry about money ever again.

ei.sdraob · 08-11-2011 5:13pm

Well I finally found the answer

will the real 1% please standup :cool:

On Sunday, October 23, a meeting was held at 60 Wall Street. Six leaders discussed what to do with the half-million dollars that had been donated to their organization, since, in their estimation, the organization was incapable of making sound financial decisions. The proposed solution was not to spend the money educating their co-workers or stimulating more active participation by improving the organization’s structures and tactics. Instead, those present discussed how they could commandeer the $500,000 for their new, more exclusive organization. No, this was not the meeting of any traditional influence on Wall Street. These were six of the leaders of Occupy Wall Street (OWS).

davoxx · 08-11-2011 5:39pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Well I finally found the answer

will the real 1% please standup

it's a good thing that source is not biased in the least ... :rolleyes:

but i'll wait for a few more site carrying this story ...
would not want it to be just another empty tents story ...

ei.sdraob · 08-11-2011 5:48pm

reuters/yahoo

The totals raised -- more than $500,000 in New York and around $20,000 in Chicago, Richmond and other cities -- have surprised everyone from the protesters to those overseeing their finances.

"I figured they would bring in maybe $10,000, maybe $20,000 and it would be no big deal. They were quickly bringing in that much and more a day," said Chuck Kaufman, the Tucson-based national co-coordinator of Alliance for Global Justice (AFGJ), the movement's fiscal sponsor.

Although the Occupy Wall Street finance committee's website lists 87 members, Kaufman said the core was about six people, including a lawyer, an accountant and a tattoo artist.

The movement is keeping its money at Amalgamated Bank, which was started in the 1920s by a garment-workers union and was until recently 100 percent union-owned.
That sole union ownership ended in September just as the protests were starting. Nine days after the demonstrations began, Amalgamated sold 40 percent of its stock to two of America's best-known investors, Wilbur Ross and Ron Burkle.

Last Friday, the Occupy Wall Street finance committee made one of its first detailed reports, saying it had spent $55,000 to date, including $22,000 for food, medical care and laundry and $20,000 on communications systems.

Are they even paying tax on these donations, since they are not a registered charity, and only 10% of what was collected has been spend on actual protests, the rest parked in a ... ... bank.

Btw Wilbur Ross is same guy who is after scooping up recently that chunk of BoI for 1 billion

dailymail
Is this the end of the Wall Street camp? Protesters squabble over $500,000 as cold weather threatens to send them home

msncb

OWS' latest issue: What to do with their money

davoxx · 08-11-2011 6:20pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

reuters/yahoo

Are they even paying tax on these donations, since they are not a registered charity, and only 10% of what was collected has been spend on actual protests, the rest parked in a ... ... bank.

Btw Wilbur Ross is same guy who is after scooping up recently that chunk of BoI for 1 billion

dailymail
Is this the end of the Wall Street camp? Protesters squabble over $500,000 as cold weather threatens to send them home

msncb

OWS' latest issue: What to do with their money

thanks for having more sources ... it's good to see different views on it.

ianuss · 08-11-2011 6:33pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

reuters/yahoo

Are they even paying tax on these donations, since they are not a registered charity, and only 10% of what was collected has been spend on actual protests, the rest parked in a ... ... bank.

Btw Wilbur Ross is same guy who is after scooping up recently that chunk of BoI for 1 billion

dailymail
Is this the end of the Wall Street camp? Protesters squabble over $500,000 as cold weather threatens to send them home

msncb

OWS' latest issue: What to do with their money

You automatically lose points for posting a Daily Mail link

ei.sdraob · 08-11-2011 6:39pm

ianuss wrote: »

You automatically lose points for posting a Daily Mail link

Aye

I cant wait for the 99% of OWS to rebel against their 1% leaders once those guys make a run for some tropical island with their donations, socialism is so predictable

some pigs are truly more equal than other pigs

Bannasidhe · 08-11-2011 6:44pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Aye

socialism is so predictable

Sigh - so was that comment.

ei.sdraob · 08-11-2011 7:38pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sigh - so was that comment.

Because the Occupy stands for something completely new and never seen in econo-political history before :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe · 08-11-2011 7:47pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Because the Occupy stands for something completely new and never seen in econo-political history before :rolleyes:

It is an attempt to try something new away from all the right Vs left crap.... jeeze...why do I bother....

http://www.occupydamestreet.org/consensus

Information on Consensus Decision Process in #OccupyDameStreet

What is consensus?

Consensus is a way of reaching decisions. It is a process which brings together the views of all members of a group but it does not mean that all have to agree in everything or abandon their personal values. Consensus decision-making requires that we share a common goal and are willing to work on issues together so that all concerns are addressed and we find a way forward. It is about an environment in which everybody feels welcome and safe to speak, get their views acknowledged and validated. In the consensus process, we share the responsibility for transforming our principles into meaningful change. Through the process, the group proposes amendments to the original proposals until everybody is comfortable with them.

ei.sdraob · 08-11-2011 8:20pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is an attempt to try something new away from all the right Vs left crap.... jeeze...why do I bother....

http://www.occupydamestreet.org/consensus

Wait what? "consensus" is a new concept

Bannasidhe · 08-11-2011 8:25pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Wait what? "consensus" is a new concept

Please do and try stop being obtuse. It's not funny. It's not clever. It adds nothing to the debate.

You don't agree with the Occupy Movement. We get that. We got that several pages ago.

If all you have to offer now is digs at the Left and snide comments - really why bother?
Perhaps there are some copies of Das Kapital you could be burning?

ei.sdraob · 08-11-2011 8:28pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Please do and try stop being obtuse. It's not funny. It's not clever. It adds nothing to the debate.

You don't agree with the Occupy Movement. We get that. We got that several pages ago.

If all you have to offer now is digs at the Left and snide comments - really why bother?
Perhaps there are some copies of Das Kapital you could be burning?

Why bother? because the Occupy movement when one digs down to the core of what they stand for are the same old wolf pretending to wear new sheep skin

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it

The 1%

Comments