Banks asked to write off Priory Hall mortages?

Big C

Phil Hogan is to ask banks to write off mortages. Why ? I dont like anything the banks are doing but I really dont think the banks (us) should pay for something they had no act or part in creating. I agree the proiry residents should have the mortages cleared but if any one was at fault (besides the builder, long gone) it was Fingal county Council, they are the ones who were ment to be overseeing the building (they got enough fees to do it). I have not heard of any engineers or planning officers losing anything over this sham.

Scortho

Banks are asked to write off the mortgages as they didn't do due diligence on the security.
Personally I'd be going after whoever signed off on it that the site complied with regulations. Then I'd be going after the council.
How the banks are liable at all is beyond me! They're the ones who'd be least liable out of the builder, architect, engineers, council, unit owners and the banks.

D3PO

i also agree they should be written off but whoever signed them off as meeting standards should be doing so (or whoever they have professional indemnity insurance with)

gaius c

Doesn't matter. It'll be us paying for it anyway.

Borderfox

Nama have repossessed the developers houses, why cant these be sold off and used to pay the owners of the apartments

Sconsey

So if the loans are going to be 'written off' (ie: transferred to the taxpayer) then I assume the poor slobs that bought one of this appartments with their savings will also be refunded? or is it only the people that borrowed that get compensated?

I agree these people have all been shafted, and in classic Irish fashion no one seems to be held responsible, just the default response of 'let the bank write off the debts'. Depressing, narrow-minded response....why the feck is Phil not saying that he is gonig to chase down every person/organisation responsible for this debacle and squeeze every last cent out of them to pay back the people that were ripped off.

Lantus

what about the architect and consultants who signed for practical completion? Also there should of been a surveyors report done for each unit sold.

Your right when you say the ordinary people will pay. We have a small development which has a fire alarm system that was never installed or finished. wires hanging out the walls. Its a critical part of the building to ensure compliance. I've been 'discussing' it with the county fire officer for 10 months now and so far they have done nothing. Its become quite an annoyance for them when I ring to talk to them. Recently they wrote to me and suggested that I just work it out myself.....

shameful. men women and children could burn to death tonight and this cowardly animal who is paid circa 50-60k+ per annum to enforce regulations just shrugs their shoulders and will hope the people will pay for it all themselves so they can leave work early.

When the local authority doesn't care then why should we?

I hope they do get their mortgages quashed. If we are going to enslave people like this and destroy their lives and any hope for the future then what's the point?

miss no stars

I think the point is that the taxpayer has already paid for their mortgages to be written off. The banks are capitalized way in excess of where they need to be. That extra capital came from a public bail out. They can afford to write these off, they just aren't bothered.

what bothers me is when the public divides and disagrees and ultimately we all lose out. The banks can afford to write off these mortgages - so let them. Then, if they want the money back, let them with their big guns go after whomever they find to be responsible for presenting properties for sale that were unsafe for habitation.

But to think that it does anyone any favours to have normal people so desperately strapped while trying to pay rent and a mortgage on a place that they will NEVER be able to live in or let out is absurd. The sooner people like those from Priory Hall can move on, the sooner the economy can move on.

D3PO

miss no stars wrote: »

I think the point is that the taxpayer has already paid for their mortgages to be written off. The banks are capitalized way in excess of where they need to be. .

are you having a laugh ??

Irish banks are over capitalized that has to be a contender for quote of the year !! Its also ridiculously untrue.

generalmental

Sconsey wrote: »

So if the loans are going to be 'written off' (ie: transferred to the taxpayer) then I assume the poor slobs that bought one of this appartments with their savings will also be refunded? or is it only the people that borrowed that get compensated?

I agree these people have all been shafted, and in classic Irish fashion no one seems to be held responsible, just the default response of 'let the bank write off the debts'. Depressing, narrow-minded response....why the feck is Phil not saying that he is gonig to chase down every person/organisation responsible for this debacle and squeeze every last cent out of them to pay back the people that were ripped off.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of his friends or a friend of a friend is involved with it. Same old Ireland just a bunch if cronies

The_Conductor

[QUOTE=miss no stars;86604297The banks are capitalized way in excess of where they need to be. That extra capital came from a public bail out. They can afford to write these off, they just aren't bothered. [/QUOTE]

International consensus is that our banking system needs at least another 20 billion and possibly as much as 35-36 billion, depending on how unsustainable residential debt is dealt with- in order to meet national obligations under the revised Basle Convention on capital requirements. BOI is expected to go to the markets before the end of the year- and AIB have considered doing likewise as soon as circumstances are conducive for them. Our third pillar bank (P-TSB) has not advised of any intention thus far.

Yes- the taxpayer recapitalised the banks- but not to the extent that they can write off mortgage debt willy nilly without consequence. If we want to write off mortgage debt- they are going to need more public money- simple as. And bucket loads of it........

beauf

Who ever signed off on these building should be liable.

MadsL

The state of the apartment at this stage, even if the mortgages are fogiven, the poor owner will be faced with a worthless apartment. Priory Hall is uninhabitable.

Personally I feel the mortgages should be written off AND the owners should get the proceeds from the sale of the developer's property and this bulldozed site to boot.

athtrasna

miss no stars wrote: »

But to think that it does anyone any favours to have normal people so desperately strapped while trying to pay rent and a mortgage on a place that they will NEVER be able to live in or let out is absurd. The sooner people like those from Priory Hall can move on, the sooner the economy can move on.

The residents are not currently paying rent, Dublin City Council is...it's before the courts almost every second week.

My heart goes out to those people and their living nightmare BUT like them I bought a boom time apartment off the plans.

However, we hired professionals to check the building standards and compliance as well as a very good solicitor who wouldn't let us hand over a cent more than the deposit until we had evidence that everything was above board. It cost but before I handed over the largest sum of money I am likely to ever spend, landing myself with a 30 year debt, I made it my business to make sure that I was buying somewhere that was safe and built to last.

Am now in negative equity with a property worth about half what was paid for it, mortgage has gone up and up. But thanks to diligence at purchase, I can live in my apartment.

So I'm turn between heart and head on this one. I don't think it's fair that some peoples mortgages get written off because they effectively bought a pig in a poke. Either give a percentage universal forgiveness to all those who bought between 2000-2007ish and are now in negative equity or not, but I'm not for selective debt forgiveness.

Scortho

MadsL wrote: »

The state of the apartment at this stage, even if the mortgages are fogiven, the poor owner will be faced with a worthless apartment. Priory Hall is uninhabitable.

Personally I feel the mortgages should be written off AND the owners should get the proceeds from the sale of the developer's property and this bulldozed site to boot.

Loans secured on Mcfeely's assets that were repossessed by Nama would have been cleared with the proceeds of the sales.
Cleared isnt the right word, but the assets would have been used to go against these loans that were outstanding.
His house on Ailesbury Road only realised 2.6

http://propertypriceregisterireland.com/details/coolbawn_2_ailsbury_road_ballsbridge_dublin_4_co_dublin_ireland-72247/

miss no stars

athtrasna wrote: »

The residents are not currently paying rent, Dublin City Council is...it's before the courts almost every second week.

My heart goes out to those people and their living nightmare BUT like them I bought a boom time apartment off the plans.

However, we hired professionals to check the building standards and compliance as well as a very good solicitor who wouldn't let us hand over a cent more than the deposit until we had evidence that everything was above board. It cost but before I handed over the largest sum of money I am likely to ever spend, landing myself with a 30 year debt, I made it my business to make sure that I was buying somewhere that was safe and built to last.

Am now in negative equity with a property worth about half what was paid for it, mortgage has gone up and up. But thanks to diligence at purchase, I can live in my apartment.

So I'm turn between heart and head on this one. I don't think it's fair that some peoples mortgages get written off because they effectively bought a pig in a poke. Either give a percentage universal forgiveness to all those who bought between 2000-2007ish and are now in negative equity or not, but I'm not for selective debt forgiveness.

I'm just curious as to how you think your work would have uncovered everything that could have possibly gone wrong? Did you carry out opening up works to inspect fully? Can't see that happening. Wasn't Priory hall signed off on anyway? Are you saying that of a whole building full of people, not a single buyer checked the documents with their solicitor?

Fire certs are issued without inspection - it's based on plans.

By the way, this is not about negative equity. It's about the fact that the apartments may as well not exist because they're never going to be fixed and thus, never going to be habitable. That's not the fault of the owners - that's the fault of the government and banks for funding and allowing this to continue on for so long.

Don't forget - the banks have NOT been acting professionally in this. Sending letters addressed to both Stephanie Meehan AND Fiachra Daly after he had already died, then ringing her not to apologise but just to check that she got the letter. Let people move on ffs.

Ash.J.Williams

I'd gladly chip in to re house those people, it's an absolute disgrace.

miss no stars

Actually, thinking about it. There's a fair whack of taxpayer money in the banks already. Priory hall won't be fixed (look at the state of it now anyway) So the choice is between housing these poor people indefinitely, when they have no ability to contribute to rent because they're paying mortgages on uninhabitable apartments and will be pensioners (or damned near to it) by the time it's paid off so no real hope of them ever buying their own place and not needing to be housed... Or just use the tax payer's money that the banks already have and cut the former residents free. Take your pick. Pay for their housing for 30 years plus, or cut them free.

beauf

athtrasna wrote: »

....However, we hired professionals to check the building standards and compliance as well as a very good solicitor who wouldn't let us hand over a cent more than the deposit until we had evidence that everything was above board.....

What evidence was this?

Sconsey

This is not aimed at the Priory Hall residents as such, they have been shafted and do deserve some sort of compensation from those responsible for the building but....

"Write off the debt"... how exactly? I hear people constantly throwing that phrase about, DO they think the debt disappears into thin air? I doesn't. Someone has to pay the debt if you want to keep the banks open, so if you 'write off the debt' you are actually saying 'let the taxpayer pay the debt', you are saying give priority to your tax money being used to cover peoples mortgages, let the public services suffer. So those underwater mortgage payers will get to keep their houses but maybe pensioners won't get to heat their homes this winter, or people with mental health issues will be put back on the street, children will get sub-standard educations, etc. etc.

Just saying, writing off debt has a huge impact on the state, at a mimimum I would say the phrase should be 'Let the state cover mortgage debts' instead of the nonsense 'write off the the debt' phrase.

beauf

Regardless if its the banks, the council or nama. They are all funded by the tax payer.

So this isn't about who is going to pay this. Its just waiting someone to make a decision.

Scortho

miss no stars wrote: »

By the way, this is not about negative equity. It's about the fact that the apartments may as well not exist because they're never going to be fixed and thus, never going to be habitable. That's not the fault of the owners - that's the fault of the government and banks for funding and allowing this to continue on for so long.

Don't forget - the banks have NOT been acting professionally in this. Sending letters addressed to both Stephanie Meehan AND Fiachra Daly after he had already died, then ringing her not to apologise but just to check that she got the letter. Let people move on ffs.

the first part isn't the banks fault though at all. They provided money to a developer to build the apartments and also money to people to buy said apartments.

The apartments were signed off by people in authority such as fingal co. co. and the architect.
These two are the ones, after the developer who should be liable. The developer is bankrupt, so they cant exactly get any money there to cover the mortgages etc. Id love to see him sent to jail, but that would involve the DPP to prosecute.
For that to happen a crime would have to be committed. What crime has been committed though (in the eyes of the law). Potentially fraud, but he can away with it by saying at the time it was signed off as complying with regulations.
It shouldn't be the banks who have to pick up the can for this. They're the least involved.

Some of the banks who'll be asked to write down these debts, have received no tax payers funds, for example KBC and Ulster.
There'd be uproar here, if this was the UK and AIB's UK arm was asked to write of mortgages of people who bought sub standard properties.

With the second part I dont know but were they informed of their deaths? It has happened where people pass away and their family doesnt inform banks/service providers and only realise that they never informed them when they get a phone call or receive a letter.
Now at the same time they should issue an apology and Id be surprised if they hadn't already. It is standard practice to do so.

The one thing the whole priory hall shows us is that we badly need proper building control regulations and an end to self certification.

Lantus

Sconsey wrote: »

This is not aimed at the Priory Hall residents as such, they have been shafted and do deserve some sort of compensation from those responsible for the building but....

"Write off the debt"... how exactly? I hear people constantly throwing that phrase about, DO they think the debt disappears into thin air? I doesn't. Someone has to pay the debt if you want to keep the banks open, so if you 'write off the debt' you are actually saying 'let the taxpayer pay the debt', you are saying give priority to your tax money being used to cover peoples mortgages, let the public services suffer. So those underwater mortgage payers will get to keep their houses but maybe pensioners won't get to heat their homes this winter, or people with mental health issues will be put back on the street, children will get sub-standard educations, etc. etc.

Just saying, writing off debt has a huge impact on the state, at a mimimum I would say the phrase should be 'Let the state cover mortgage debts' instead of the nonsense 'write off the the debt' phrase.

The banks created the money out of thin air. That's how our fractional reserve banking system works. A viewing of 'modern money mechanics'is a real eye opener. Consider this; In 1970 the entire world money supply was about 2 Trillion. In 2008 is was about 60 Trillion. Where did the 58 Trillion come from??? People say words like 'growth' This doesn't really explain much as companies and individuals exchange money already in existence, they don't actually create it. The banks literally created it out of thin air. Its called debt and every cent in existence is debt as banks don't give money away they 'lend it'.

Our system of monetary control is old and outdated. It serves a very small people to huge advantage and the drive of profit by all people is done to the detriment of people and the environment we live in.

Technology can replace almost every mundane job we have which could free humanity from its pointless pursuits and joyless work requirements. Since the 1960's countries have ben suppressing technology to 'protect' jobs. Soon our technology will surpass our need for many jobs and with so many people out of work the ability of people to spend will diminish and the system will collapse in itself. I don't want to see that. Better to change the fundamentals of our society in a controlled manner than blindly ignore change.

lomb

]Guys the game needs to be taken out of Irish politics. People see themselves as caring by offering to write off mortgages but its BS. Its a big boys game, anyone buying a house takes a gamble. Usually it pays off sometimes it doesnt.
Its like an insurer taking a risk , someone crashes costing them 1 million, they are big boys and knew the game.

If someone pays cash for their apartment it wont be refunded but if they have a mortgage they will be? Why to show we are caring. This is a capitalist democracy with laws ,rules and rights last time I checked. Someone has to pay, its a big boys game.Obviously under Irish law those who bought it and by the owners suing the developer for their money back. Obviously the developer isnt going to give it back so its tough ****. Thats the law and the rules. If the Priory Hall people had made 200 grand each on their purchase I doubt they would be giving any back to anyone (other than the usual tax system, and purchasing things).

miss no stars

Scortho wrote: »

the first part isn't the banks fault though at all. They provided money to a developer to build the apartments and also money to people to buy said apartments.

The apartments were signed off by people in authority such as fingal co. co. and the architect.
These two are the ones, after the developer who should be liable. The developer is bankrupt, so they cant exactly get any money there to cover the mortgages etc. Id love to see him sent to jail, but that would involve the DPP to prosecute.
For that to happen a crime would have to be committed. What crime has been committed though (in the eyes of the law). Potentially fraud, but he can away with it by saying at the time it was signed off as complying with regulations.
It shouldn't be the banks who have to pick up the can for this. They're the least involved.

Some of the banks who'll be asked to write down these debts, have received no tax payers funds, for example KBC and Ulster.
There'd be uproar here, if this was the UK and AIB's UK arm was asked to write of mortgages of people who bought sub standard properties.

With the second part I dont know but were they informed of their deaths? It has happened where people pass away and their family doesnt inform banks/service providers and only realise that they never informed them when they get a phone call or receive a letter.
Now at the same time they should issue an apology and Id be surprised if they hadn't already. It is standard practice to do so.

The one thing the whole priory hall shows us is that we badly need proper building control regulations and an end to self certification.

They were aware - they were hounding her for interest due on arrears after her husbands life assurance paid off the mortgage. They had to know he was dead - firstly it was all over the news, and secondly they were writing to tell her that the life assurance payout doesn't cover interest on arrears and demanding payment of such. You don't write that letter without knowing that one of them is dead....

Sconsey

Lantus wrote: »

The banks created the money out of thin air. That's how our fractional reserve banking system works. A viewing of 'modern money mechanics'is a real eye opener. Consider this; In 1970 the entire world money supply was about 2 Trillion. In 2008 is was about 60 Trillion. Where did the 58 Trillion come from??? People say words like 'growth' This doesn't really explain much as companies and individuals exchange money already in existence, they don't actually create it. The banks literally created it out of thin air. Its called debt and every cent in existence is debt as banks don't give money away they 'lend it'.

So the taxpayer won't have to cover these debts then? the debt can vanish into thin air? feck it let's write off everybodys debts so.

Wabbit Ears

1)If someone paid for this apartment with their savings will they be given that money back?
2)Some of the residents have stopped paying their mortgage and are in arrears despite their replacement accommodation being paid for, should these people get debt forgiveness?
3) Some of these were buy to lets, the owners never lived in then, should these be written off as they were a failed gamble?
4)The person with a mortgage and has been diligently paying it, should he get debt forgivness AND money already paid returned to bring him in line with the amount of deby written off by the person in point 2 or just the remainder forgiven?

Debt forgiveness in this situation is not a fair solution and I don't think the government should be involved. It should be a group civil case taken against the council and architects who signed off on the plans and individuals pay what they own to the banks or have deals based on their ability to pay like everybody else.

Lantus

Sconsey wrote: »

So the taxpayer won't have to cover these debts then? the debt can vanish into thin air? feck it let's write off everybodys debts so.

Well in this small case I think the thing should be demolished and all the people re-compensated for the bad product they bought in good faith. The exact mechanism of this needs to be worked out as people ay some paid cash and some didn't.

In terms of the global consequences of money we should start planning for making it obsolete as an outdated and totally unnecessary method of control and ultimately enslavement. Humanity now has the technology to develop a resource based economy and we probably have enough time left to transition towards it before countless lives are wasted and destroyed trying to hang onto the no longer fit for purpose systems of money and democracy we currently still believe in.

The_Conductor

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I'd gladly chip in to re house those people, it's an absolute disgrace.

Thats those people. By some estimates there are almost 3000 developments around the country that don't meet building standards codes- do you think all these people should be rehoused too? Who should pick up the tab? Angela Merkel again?

I do feel sorry for these people- but if you decide to unilaterally write-off their debt- then you move on to the next development- and so ad infinitum.......

What might be a manageable situation- if it only referred to the Priory Hall owners- becomes horrifically expensive, and would send the country back for a fresh bailout- if you were to extend it to cover even a portion of the other developments that aren't up to code.

The_Conductor

Lantus wrote: »

all the people re-compensated for the bad product they bought in good faith. The exact mechanism of this needs to be worked out as people ay some paid cash and some didn't.

What about the people who bought bank shares as an investment to fund their pensions- Bank of Ireland shares were recommended by most analysts @ Euro10 a share- and many people borrowed to buy them. They did peak at Euro21 a share- however- now they're worth 21c a share (and they are the only of our major banks who managed to remain outside of majority state ownership).

Or- the 3,000 cars bought in the UK in good faith and imported here- and found to be defective when NCT'ed last year?

Or any other pig in a poke.........

Do we wave a magic wand, give the magic money tree a shake and give everyone burnt in one way or another, a dig out?

Lantus

The_Conductor wrote: »

What about the people who bought bank shares as an investment to fund their pensions- Bank of Ireland shares were recommended by most analysts @ Euro10 a share- and many people borrowed to buy them. They did peak at Euro21 a share- however- now they're worth 21c a share (and they are the only of our major banks who managed to remain outside of majority state ownership).

Or- the 3,000 cars bought in the UK in good faith and imported here- and found to be defective when NCT'ed last year?

Or any other pig in a poke.........

Do we wave a magic wand, give the magic money tree a shake and give everyone burnt in one way or another, a dig out?

As highlighted the entire monetary system works towards profit, that's the primary motivation of every company. Not making peoples lives better or improving the environment. As you correctly point out the system is no longer working for us in any regard with manufacturers incentivised to make sub standard products to maximise profitability or deliberate obsolescence so that they will break quickly ensuring the next model can be bought at an extreme waste of resources which then gets thrown into landfill.

Money is really a nothing thing. No fiat currency has survived if we look at history. The dollar has devalued 94% since its introduction. The roman denarius suffered the same fate and led in part to the fall of the empire.

What I'm suggesting is that a people we move away from money and adopt a saner way of live as a technologically emergent species like a resource based economy

The_Conductor

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

1)If someone paid for this apartment with their savings will they be given that money back?

On what basis? And what of people who bought at different price points? If you are doing a scheme- it would have to be ascribing a nominal value to each unit- and refunding this- and if there was further debt or negative equity- it would be up to the people to discuss this individually with their lender?

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

2)Some of the residents have stopped paying their mortgage and are in arrears despite their replacement accommodation being paid for, should these people get debt forgiveness?

Same boat as the 120,000 other mortgages- some of them can pay but won't pay- others probably can't pay (esp. if they've lost their jobs etc). Going down the road of debt forgiveness- is fraught with these scenarios. By opening this Pandora's box- and it is a Pandora's box- you are tacitly stating there is a magic money tree- but we'll only shake for some people- until the next people come along........ If you have forgiveness for this development- what off the 3000 other developments around the country in a similar or worse situation, not complying with basic building codes?

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

3) Some of these were buy to lets, the owners never lived in then, should these be written off as they were a failed gamble?

I didn't win on the lottery last night. I'd like my money back too. Can I? Please?

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

4)The person with a mortgage and has been diligently paying it, should he get debt forgivness AND money already paid returned to bring him in line with the amount of deby written off by the person in point 2 or just the remainder forgiven?

Why would he get debt forgiveness- in the first instance- but more pertinently- why would he get his payments already made returned to him- esp. when the vast bulk of payments early in the life of the mortgage are interest payments, and not payments off the principle.

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Debt forgiveness in this situation is not a fair solution and I don't think the government should be involved. It should be a group civil case taken against the council and architects who signed off on the plans and individuals pay what they own to the banks or have deals based on their ability to pay like everybody else.

I concur wholeheartedly with you. Unfortunately- as usual- its he who shouts loudest and makes most noise, who gets listened to. Bad as their situation is- and don't get me wrong- it is bad- there are thousands of people nationwide in far worse situations than these people. I sympathise with the lady whose partner committed suicide- and definitely think their debt should be wiped off the face of the planet- the others, I'm sorry- but why should their debt be paid- when you're opening the door to mass debt forgiveness. I was prudent and didn't borrow beyond my means- but I also didn't get the foreign holidays and the new cars- that many of these people got during the boom. How about we quantify 10 years of foreign holidays and a new car every year or two- and give it to those of us who were actually prudent- as we, and our children, are going to be the ones paying for these people's windfalls?

The_Conductor

Lantus wrote: »

As highlighted the entire monetary system works towards profit, that's the primary motivation of every company. Not making peoples lives better or improving the environment. As you correctly point out the system is no longer working for us in any regard with manufacturers incentivised to make sub standard products to maximise profitability or deliberate obsolescence so that they will break quickly ensuring the next model can be bought at an extreme waste of resources which then gets thrown into landfill.

Money is really a nothing thing. No fiat currency has survived if we look at history. The dollar has devalued 94% since its introduction. The roman denarius suffered the same fate and led in part to the fall of the empire.

What I'm suggesting is that a people we move away from money and adopt a saner way of live as a technologically emergent species like a resource based economy

We abandon money and barter resources instead?
Like when we sold beef to the Poles in the 1980s- in exchange for coal?
How is this progress?

mrwhite2

How many more priory halls are out there. Not just fire regulations but all types of building controls. I am right in thinking building control were moved from the public to private sector 15 years ago. What safeguards were put in place to regulate this and who is prosecuting corrupt architects and engineers. Why are architects not blamed the way builders are?

Scortho

Lantus wrote: »

As highlighted the entire monetary system works towards profit, that's the primary motivation of every company. Not making peoples lives better or improving the environment. As you correctly point out the system is no longer working for us in any regard with manufacturers incentivised to make sub standard products to maximise profitability or deliberate obsolescence so that they will break quickly ensuring the next model can be bought at an extreme waste of resources which then gets thrown into landfill.

Money is really a nothing thing. No fiat currency has survived if we look at history. The dollar has devalued 94% since its introduction. The roman denarius suffered the same fate and led in part to the fall of the empire.

What I'm suggesting is that a people we move away from money and adopt a saner way of live as a technologically emergent species like a resource based economy

But profit or the search for profit dies make your life better.
If there was no profit, there'd be no investment from businesses, which means no jobs for people.
There'd be no innovation, no technology invented (who funds the development of technology, people in search of profit).
We can't all work in the public service.
The lack of profit is what hinders growth and development.

If you want to go off to some communist utopia off you go, but I ain't going with you.

Don't get me wrong capitalism isn't without it's faults, but just like democracy it's the best of a bad bunch!

Thoie

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

1)If someone paid for this apartment with their savings will they be given that money back?
2)Some of the residents have stopped paying their mortgage and are in arrears despite their replacement accommodation being paid for, should these people get debt forgiveness?
3) Some of these were buy to lets, the owners never lived in then, should these be written off as they were a failed gamble?
4)The person with a mortgage and has been diligently paying it, should he get debt forgivness AND money already paid returned to bring him in line with the amount of deby written off by the person in point 2 or just the remainder forgiven?

Debt forgiveness in this situation is not a fair solution and I don't think the government should be involved. It should be a group civil case taken against the council and architects who signed off on the plans and individuals pay what they own to the banks or have deals based on their ability to pay like everybody else.

There are no group court case facility (or class actions) in Ireland afaik, so that road isn't open to them.

If the magic money tree suddenly comes up with extra money from somewhere for the Priory Hall people, I think the only fair way to do it would be for each apartment to be "bought" from people for a set, and equal amount - e.g. all 1-beds get €150k, all 2-beds get €200k and 3-beds get €250k (or whatever apportioning made sense, depending on the amount the magic money tree yields). People with mortgages should then be made to pay off the mortgage with that amount, and then see what the balance is, the same as if they'd sold the apartment in the normal run of things. That way everyone would hopefully be brought back a bit closer to whatever their starting position was, taking into account that 99% of people who bought around that time are in negative equity.

Ipso

Lantus wrote: »

What I'm suggesting is that a people we move away from money and adopt a saner way of live as a technologically emergent species like a resource based economy

I suppose history is full of examples of this working?
Just because it sounds nice as you type it doesn't mean it will work.

Lantus

The_Conductor wrote: »

We abandon money and barter resources instead?
Like when we sold beef to the Poles in the 1980s- in exchange for coal?
How is this progress?

In a resource based economy all the earth resources are declared the common heritage of all mankind and all systems of money and barter are made obsolete. The efficient use of our resources through the application of technology can provide our needs to a standard of living far above that which we enjoy today without having to force people to engage in meaningless or repetitive jobs.

Lantus

Scortho wrote: »

But profit or the search for profit dies make your life better.
If there was no profit, there'd be no investment from businesses, which means no jobs for people.
There'd be no innovation, no technology invented (who funds the development of technology, people in search of profit).
We can't all work in the public service.
The lack of profit is what hinders growth and development.

If you want to go off to some communist utopia off you go, but I ain't going with you.

Don't get me wrong capitalism isn't without it's faults, but just like democracy it's the best of a bad bunch!

In terms of capitalism there are better options. We have been brought up to believe in the current way we operate without consideration for any alternative. Democracy was a good idea 100 years ago but today is no longer fit for purpose. I don't believe there is such a thing as utopia but it is possible to make things significantly better than they are.

In terms of motivation many people are motivated by things other than money. Many millionaires complain that there isn't enough time in the day to everything they want, why are they not just lounging around in the sun? I myself spend tens of hours a week involved in community work.

Its true that money dos provide some motivation but it also is primarily responsible for greed, theft, corruption, crime, poverty, suffering and many other abhorrent social factors.

There is a wealth of information on a better model of social arrangement as proposed by Jacque Fresco (now 97.) You can look up his many informative videos on you tube and there is a wealth of information on the venus project website.

alb

Lantus wrote: »

Money is really a nothing thing. No fiat currency has survived if we look at history. The dollar has devalued 94% since its introduction. The roman denarius suffered the same fate and led in part to the fall of the empire.

What I'm suggesting is that a people we move away from money and adopt a saner way of live as a technologically emergent species like a resource based economy

The solution is already here, open-source, public, de-centralised digital crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin.

The_Conductor

Sigh- why do I get the notion that the next direction this conversation is going to move in- involves rolls of tinfoil and the NSA?

Lantus- whether you like it or not, and Fiat currency or not- we don't have the capacity to print money to magic our way out of this debt. It not going to happen.

alb- bitcoin is already illegal in several countries, and the subject of criminal investigation in others. Its rapidly evolving into the currency of choice for criminals. Some mainstream businesses are beginning to accept it- I note one pub who allow you buy drinks with bitcoin currency alongside 1 bakery (note- the pub is in Australia- the bakery is in Yorkshire- so its not exactly mainstream........)

We don't have a solution- that we can all agree on- and any solution that is agreed on- if it doesn't have sufficient constraints built into it to dissuade the public at large from using it as some sort of precedent- will torpedo the country for once and for all.

alb

The_Conductor wrote: »

alb- bitcoin is already illegal in several countries, and the subject of criminal investigation in others. Its rapidly evolving into the currency of choice for criminals. Some mainstream businesses are beginning to accept it- I note one pub who allow you buy drinks with bitcoin currency alongside 1 bakery (note- the pub is in Australia- the bakery is in Yorkshire- so its not exactly mainstream........)

To my knowledge Bitcoin is not illegal in any country, someone wrote a blog article saying it was illegal in Thailand, which was based on no actual legislation but yet got reported as news :cool: Besides, outlawing Bitcoin completely will stop it about as much as it stopped bittorrent. It would just drive it underground. Crypto currencies, whether Bitcoin or others are here to stay, there's just too many advantages for it to fail.

The fact criminals are using only proves it works as money. Fiat money is still the primary currency used by criminals, what's the point?

You're right it's not mainstream, it's in its infancy. It's only a few years old, give it time. The progress so far has been incredible given the short time frame. It still works as a value store and a hedge against government printing infinite fiat even if you can't do the weekly shopping with it (yet).

Nate--IRL--

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I'd gladly chip in to re house those people, it's an absolute disgrace.

You already have, and will continue to do so.

Nate

Scortho

Lantus wrote: »

In terms of capitalism there are better options. We have been brought up to believe in the current way we operate without consideration for any alternative. Democracy was a good idea 100 years ago but today is no longer fit for purpose. I don't believe there is such a thing as utopia but it is possible to make things significantly better than they are.

In terms of motivation many people are motivated by things other than money. Many millionaires complain that there isn't enough time in the day to everything they want, why are they not just lounging around in the sun? I myself spend tens of hours a week involved in community work.

Its true that money dos provide some motivation but it also is primarily responsible for greed, theft, corruption, crime, poverty, suffering and many other abhorrent social factors.

There is a wealth of information on a better model of social arrangement as proposed by Jacque Fresco (now 97.) You can look up his many informative videos on you tube and there is a wealth of information on the venus project website.

Such as?
Its easy to say that there is better options than capitalism, but what are they.

The only thing I can think of is libertarianism however unfortunately that will never happen in this country.:mad:

The_Conductor

alb wrote: »

To my knowledge Bitcoin is not illegal in any country,

It may not be illegal- but its getting there.
New York has subpoena'ed representatives of the 22 companies behind Bitcoin- and Federal Authorities in Texas have ruled it a currency subject to all the rules of financial transactions, and under the remit of the federal authorities.

alb

The_Conductor wrote: »

It may not be illegal- but its getting there.
New York has subpoena'ed representatives of the 22 companies behind Bitcoin- and Federal Authorities in Texas have ruled it a currency subject to all the rules of financial transactions, and under the remit of the federal authorities.

I would say this is more towards regulating it than making it illegal. The subpoenas appear to have been an information gathering excercise ahead of the US govs meetings with the Bitcoin Foundation. Representatives of the foundation said the people they met were mostly curious about bitcoin and open to ideas about how to deal with it. They also explained how getting hostile towards it won't stop it anyway, so it would be best to work with them. How they will go about regulating/taxing it will be interesting.