The irony of ireland`s homelessness crisis

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

This is not austerity. How could it be when the government is still borrowing, the ECB are setting interest rates artificially low and pumping 80 billion euro a month into the eurozone economy. Austerity is what will come when the policies of stimulus fail and I expect that to happen later this year.

Actually it is


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/austerity

austerity
noun UK ​ /ɔːˈster.ə.ti/ US ​ /ˈɑː.ster.ə.t̬i/
​
[ C or U ] the condition of living without unnecessary things and without comfort, with limited money or goods, or a practice, habit, or experience that is typical of this:[/quote

amcalester

kbannon wrote: »

You've been predicting doom and gloom for a good while now.
I do admire your perseverance!

More predictions than Nostradamus.

kippy

amcalester wrote: »

More predictions than Nostradamus.

A stopped clock is right..... Etc

Timberrrrrrrr

amcalester wrote: »

More predictions than Nostradamus.

Nossy was right a couple of times though

jimmycrackcorm

realitykeeper wrote:

This is not austerity. How could it be when the government is still borrowing, the ECB are setting interest rates artificially low and pumping 80 billion euro a month into the eurozone economy. Austerity is what will come when the policies of stimulus fail and I expect that to happen later this year.

How are you equating government spending in Ireland with the EU monetary policy?.

Since when did austerity mean you don't borrow? People can manage to live within their means yet still borrow money that is their mortgage or for a car loan to enable them to get to work so that they can earn that money.

realitykeeper

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

How are you equating government spending in Ireland with the EU monetary policy?.

Since when did austerity mean you don't borrow? People can manage to live within their means yet still borrow money that is their mortgage or for a car loan to enable them to get to work so that they can earn that money.

There are a limitless number of excuses for borrowing to live beyond ones means, which by the way is precisely what borrowing is.

realitykeeper

Actually it is
austerity ...
the condition of living without unnecessary things and without comfort, with limited money or goods, or a practice, habit, or experience that is typical of this

Everything is relative. Now may genuinely seem like an austere time to a lot of people compared to say the naughties, but I suspect it will be sorrowfully missed as a time of luxury and abundance by the 2020s.

Those in power will see it as a lost opportunity and they will feel a lot of regret. Most ordinary people will not feel regret because they always tend to blame other people more than themselves so the masses will feel a lot of rage. They will probably turn against anyone they think has something they want so after a period of anarchy, some sort of brutal dictatorship will emerge.

I do believe this year will mark the end of the "good" (materialistic) times.

FreudianSlippers

OP based on flawed premise that Iceland let all the banks fail, which they didn't.

/thread?

end of the road

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It's simply astonishing that people suggest that the government should have let the banks go bust.

So every single business suddenly cannot buy from their suppliers or pay their staff wages.

No ATMs and no credit cards, no imports of oil, medical supplies or practically everything we depend on apart from potatoes because foreign suppliers wouldn't get paid.

How do people suggest this over and over without even spending ten seconds thinking of the consequences.

This country has it's problems not because of the government bailing out the banks but because of what happened before it had to.

We all partied, the hangover has been massive.

we didn't all party. a number did, a number of us rightly didn't.

FreudianSlippers

end of the road wrote: »

we didn't all party. a number did, a number of us rightly didn't.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. You may not have individually "partied" but the point is that government spending was out of control, particularly damning that it continued into a period of global crisis that for whatever insane reason, Ireland thought it was immune to.

Seth Brundle

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. You may not have individually "partied" but the point is that government spending was out of control, particularly damning that it continued into a period of global crisis that for whatever insane reason, Ireland thought it was immune to.

But you're wrong there! It was actually all Lehmann's fault!

FreudianSlippers

kbannon wrote: »

But you're wrong there! It was actually all Lehmann's fault!

I genuinely don't disagree with that tbh. But our government reacted to that ****-show with the political equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going LALALALALALA

Katiefe

The current homeless crisis cannot be just attributed to the banking crisis or rising rents. One area where the government did not spend money on during the boom was social housing stock. The provision of housing for the less well off was left to the private market through the use of rent supplements. The nature of this market is to make a profit regardless of whether people can afford to pay. Would the money spent subsidising private rentals not have been better put to use by increasing the supply of actual social housing?

Looking to banks and builders to provide cheap rentals to solve the current crisis runs the risks of repeating the same mistakes especially if tenants are not offered long term options or protection.

Surely at this stage the focus should be on avoiding the mistakes of the past if we are to offer young people the chance of living in a more permanent home let alone owning one.

Wanderer78

Katiefe wrote: »

The current homeless crisis cannot be just attributed to the banking crisis or rising rents. One area where the government did not spend money on during the boom was social housing stock. The provision of housing for the less well off was left to the private market through the use of rent supplements. The nature of this market is to make a profit regardless of whether people can afford to pay. Would the money spent subsidising private rentals not have been better put to use by increasing the supply of actual social housing?

Looking to banks and builders to provide cheap rentals to solve the current crisis runs the risks of repeating the same mistakes especially if tenants are not offered long term options or protection.

Surely at this stage the focus should be on avoiding the mistakes of the past if we are to offer young people the chance of living in a more permanent home let alone owning one.

unfortunately, many of our politicians have become blinded by fundamentally flawed economic theories and principles such as neoliberalism and free market economics etc, and it looks like we could be waiting a while for them to realise it, if ever.

Katiefe

Wanderer78 wrote: »

unfortunately, many of our politicians have become blinded by fundamentally flawed economic theories and principles such as neoliberalism and free market economics etc, and it looks like we could be waiting a while for them to realise it, if ever.

I'd say a lot of the public have bought into it too otherwise there would not be these politicians

realitykeeper

Katiefe wrote: »

The current homeless crisis cannot be just attributed to the banking crisis or rising rents. One area where the government did not spend money on during the boom was social housing stock. The provision of housing for the less well off was left to the private market through the use of rent supplements.

Just because someone is less well off does not mean they should not be able to get a house via rent or mortgage. If the manufacturing jobs that were lost to China were still here, the "less well off" would be working in manufacturing and contributing to society instead of depending on inadequate government handouts. If those jobs were still here, they would have higher incomes.

Dimplex is one example, 16 years ago I bought an electric fire which was made in Ireland. Shortly after they moved to China because Ireland was borrowing to fuel a property bubble and house buyers competed to out borrow each other to pay the highest price. Those of us who remained sane are now expected to pay the price of other peoples stupidity while the young who had no part in the borrowing binge are expected to pay sky high rent to the very people the banks are not allowed to summarily foreclose upon. Where is the justice in all this?

pilly

realitykeeper wrote: »

Just because someone is less well off does not mean they should not be able to get a house via rent or mortgage. If the manufacturing jobs that were lost to China were still here, the "less well off" would be working in manufacturing and contributing to society instead of depending on inadequate government handouts. If those jobs were still here, they would have higher incomes.

Dimplex is one example, 16 years ago I bought an electric fire which was made in Ireland. Shortly after they moved to China because Ireland was borrowing to fuel a property bubble and house buyers competed to out borrow each other to pay the highest price. Those of us who remained sane are now expected to pay the price of other peoples stupidity while the young who had no part in the borrowing binge are expected to pay sky high rent to the very people the banks are not allowed to summarily foreclose upon. Where is the justice in all this?

What on earth has the property bubble got to do with Dimplex closing??

Very all over the place post?

realitykeeper

pilly wrote: »

What on earth has the property bubble got to do with Dimplex closing??

Very all over the place post?

Well you see, people started working in the building industry and service sector jobs which either supported or were supported by the the building boom. The problem with this is that unlike manufacturing, these industries did not export goods or bring in revenue from abroad. Also, it was fueled by foreign credit which ultimately drains money from the economy.

The building industry probably paid more than manufacturing but again it was all financed by credit which was a kind of Trojan horse.

In short, the economy lost manufacturing jobs which were good to a credit fueled building boom which was bad.

FreudianSlippers

realitykeeper wrote: »

Just because someone is less well off does not mean they should not be able to get a house via rent or mortgage.

It absolutely should. There is a rule of thumb that rent/mortgage monthly repayments should not be any more than a third of your monthly income.

By definition, our housing issue is intrinsically intertwined with people who had houses they couldn't afford.

If the manufacturing jobs that were lost to China were still here, the "less well off" would be working in manufacturing and contributing to society instead of depending on inadequate government handouts. If those jobs were still here, they would have higher incomes.

I disagree; I don't think we have the ability to compete with China on manufacturing jobs. Maybe Dimplex would have just gone out of business entirely?

realitykeeper

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I disagree; I don't think we have the ability to compete with China on manufacturing jobs. Maybe Dimplex would have just gone out of business entirely?

If Ireland got rid of the minimum wage we could still pay workers a lot more than they get in China but we could also compete with China (which has to transport goods 10,000 miles to get here).

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It absolutely should. There is a rule of thumb that rent/mortgage monthly repayments should not be any more than a third of your monthly income.

Two points on this: a) Ireland`s housing market has been thoroughly interfered with, which is why both house prices and rent are a lot higher than they would be in an un-manipulated market. b) A salary from a basic goods manufacturer would be a lot higher than the dole. Borrowing to pay people the dole while keeping manufacturers out with the high minimum wage is not a good idea.

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

if Ireland got rid of the minimum wage we could still pay workers a lot more than they get in China but we could also compete with China (which has to transport goods 10,000 miles to get here).

Two points on this: a) Ireland`s housing market has been thoroughly interfered with, which is why both house prices and rent are a lot higher than they would be in an un-manipulated market. b) A salary from a basic goods manufacturer would be a lot higher than the dole. Borrowing to pay people the dole while keeping manufacturers out with the high minimum wage is not a good idea.

So you want to make poor people poorer but want banks to give them mortgages

marienbad

realitykeeper wrote: »

but we could also compete with China (which has to transport goods 10,000 miles to get here).

.

Irish manufacturing cannot compete with China or Vietnam or Indonesia etc even when you factor in freight costs ,tariffs etc.

It is head in the sand stuff to believe otherwise .

eagle eye

marienbad wrote: »

Irish manufacturing cannot compete with China or Vietnam or Indonesia etc even when you factor in freight costs ,tariffs etc.

It is head in the sand stuff to believe otherwise .

Yeah we need to end our deals with those countries and do a Trump and put a huge levy on all goods coming from there.

realitykeeper

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you want to make poor people poorer but want banks to give them mortgages

Are the banks giving poor people mortgages now? Of course not, because the house price bubble has been re-blown to facilitate NAMA. House prices would not have stopped falling at 60% below the peak if the government had not stepped in (with borrowed money) and interfered. Had house prices been allowed to fall to the bottom (which might have been by 80%) and the defaulters were evicted and held liable for the balance, young people (and the poor) who did not indulge in property speculation would be free to buy at low cost without competition from the evicted (who would have to rent).

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

Are the banks giving poor people mortgages now? Of course not, because the house price bubble has been re-blown to facilitate NAMA. House prices would not have stopped falling at 60% below the peak if the government had not stopped in (with borrowed money) and interfered.

So they shouldn't have stepped in?

House prices should have continued to tumble?

realitykeeper

marienbad wrote: »

Irish manufacturing cannot compete with China or Vietnam or Indonesia etc even when you factor in freight costs ,tariffs etc.

It is head in the sand stuff to believe otherwise .

By getting rid of the minimum wage, Ireland can compete with China. Needless to say, politicians and civil servants would need to have their salaries cut by at least 75% before the minimum wage is abolished. The dole would also have to be reduced substantially and prices would also fall.

Mr.Micro

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So they shouldn't have stepped in?

House prices should have continued to tumble?

No, and Yes, house prices should have tumbled until the floor was hit. That's the reality in most normal economies. Now much of the property is owned by foreign vulture funds. We had the Celtic Tiger economy which was not real and now we have this pseudo economy with a mountain of debt behind it.

realitykeeper

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So they shouldn't have stepped in?

House prices should have continued to tumble?

Correct on both counts.

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

Correct on both counts.

And how do you feel the people whos homes lost 80% of their equity would have felt about that? How many people would have walked away from properties unable to pay their mortgage? You really seem to have a very poor grasp on real world economics.

Mr.Micro

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And how do you feel the people whos homes lost 80% of their equity would have felt about that? How many people would have walked away from properties unable to pay their mortgage? You really seem to have a very poor grasp on real world economics.

Buying a property is a decision with risk. The Government is not there to hold your hand if the market goes bad. Only in the case of our basket case economy it did, at a huge cost for generations to come.

Timberrrrrrrr

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Buying a property is a decision with risk. The Government is not there to hold your hand if the market goes bad. Only in the case of our basket case economy it did, at a huge cost for generations to come.

I agree, How many more properties would have been snapped up by foreign investors if the market had hit absolute rock bottom? How many more people would be homeless now costing the government god knows how much?

chicorytip

Timberrrrrrrr wrote:

Are the people in Apollo house not homeless because they have lost their jobs and can't afford rent/mortgages?

No. They are homeless, in the main, because of chaotic lifestyles brought about by serious alcohol or narcotic addiction and untreated psychiatric problems.

Mr.Micro

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I agree, How many more properties would have been snapped up by foreign investors if the market had hit absolute rock bottom? How many more people would be homeless now costing the government god knows how much?

Even more properties would have been bought by foreign investors as they buy for the long term to rent and own, not to sell in the short term. There might be more homeless people, but now people cannot afford rents as the new owners can charge what they like. So young people will not be able to afford rent or a house as they are so expensive, unless they can get a massive mortgage, that will be too much too handle. Manipulation of the housing market only kicks the can down the road.

realitykeeper

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I agree, How many more properties would have been snapped up by foreign investors if the market had hit absolute rock bottom? How many more people would be homeless now costing the government god knows how much?

The answer to your first question is far fewer than has turned out to be the case. Big foreign investment firms do not go around buying up individual properties only people do that. Unfortunately, NAMA made it nice and handy for them by selling large tranches of property at a time.

The homeless problem is worse now than it would have been if property prices had been allowed to fall to the bottom. As things stand, the homelessness crisis is just beginning - it will get a lot worse and unless the government reverses everything that has been done to interfere in the housing market over the past decade, there is no hope. The can be no functioning building sector without state support and given that the state itself will run into solvency issues later this year, the problems they have tried to postpone will reappear, larger than ever.

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

The answer to your first question is far fewer than has turned out to be the case. Big foreign investment firms do not go around buying up individual properties only people do that. Unfortunately, NAMA made it nice and handy for them by selling large tranches of property at a time.

The homeless problem is worse now than it would have been if property prices had been allowed to fall to the bottom. As things stand, the homelessness crisis is just beginning - it will get a lot worse and unless the government reverses everything that has been done to interfere in the housing market over the past decade, there is no hope. The can be no functioning building sector without state support and given that the state itself will run into solvency issues later this year, the problems they have tried to postpone will reappear, larger than ever.

Here we go again :rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers

I'm not going to bother replying to realitykeeper's posts individually, but let's just say for every single claim that they have made: *source required.

If they could provide a shred of evidence to remotely support 10% of the wild claims that have been made in the past 24 hours, I'd be shocked.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lux23

realitykeeper wrote: »

There were credit unions, the post office, foreign banks, new banks would have been licenced to fill the void quite quickly.

Bailing out the banks was prone to corporate moral hazard, it was unprincipled and will ultimately cost the country dearly.

Its nearly ten years since the crash and only in the last year have new entrants come unto the market. What foreign bank would have rushed to lend in Ireland during the recession if they aren't doing it now?

realitykeeper

Lux23 wrote: »

Its nearly ten years since the crash and only in the last year have new entrants come unto the market. What foreign bank would have rushed to lend in Ireland during the recession if they aren't doing it now?

A recession is the perfect time to invest. The problem is that the government intervened and stopped the recession from happening. I do concede that the next recession will be different in that it would not be a good idea to invest in Ireland or in western economies generally. That is because the next recession will end capitalism in the west. Trumps wall could well end up trapping people in the USA if the US turns Communist.

kippy

realitykeeper wrote: »

A recession is the perfect time to invest. The problem is that the government intervened and stopped the recession from happening. I do concede that the next recession will be different in that it would not be a good idea to invest in Ireland or in western economies generally. That is because the next recession will end capitalism in the west. Trumps wall could well end up trapping people in the USA if the US turns Communist.

The end of capitilism. That's a pretty bold statement.
What do you suggest it will be replaced with?

Seth Brundle

realitykeeper wrote: »

A recession is the perfect time to invest. The problem is that the government intervened and stopped the recession from happening.

So there was no recession?
At all?

realitykeeper wrote: »

the next recession will end capitalism in the west.

Do you have a date for when this will occur?

realitykeeper

kippy wrote: »

The end of capitilism. That's a pretty bold statement.
What do you suggest it will be replaced with?

The pendulum is swinging wildly now so either Communism or Fascism.

realitykeeper

kbannon wrote: »

So there was no recession?
At all?
Do you have a date for when this will occur?

There is no comparison between the little bit of economic turbulence seen since 2008 and the crash that would have happened without state intervention. I am expecting western economies to destabilize by the end of this year and it will be all downhill from there.

worded

The bigger problem with bailing the banks is we gave away our pension fund.
There is a crisis looking in the future as we are all living longer and are we having less kids ?

Seth Brundle

realitykeeper wrote: »

There is no comparison between the little bit of economic turbulence seen since 2008 and the crash that would have happened without state intervention

So now you're saying there was a recession?

realitykeeper wrote: »

I am expecting western economies to destabilize by the end of this year and it will be all downhill from there.

Didn't you say the same thing last year?

realitykeeper

kbannon wrote: »

So now you're saying there was a recession?


Didn't you say the same thing last year?

There was an arrested recession but it cannot be contained indefinitely. It must run its course, only now it has a lot more pent up energy to wreak havoc around the globe.

Yes I said the depression would start in 2017, last year. I am saying the same thing this year.

kippy

realitykeeper wrote: »

There is no comparison between the little bit of economic turbulence seen since 2008 and the crash that would have happened without state intervention. I am expecting western economies to destabilize by the end of this year and it will be all downhill from there.

Can you outline what you would define as "downhill"?

Seth Brundle

realitykeeper wrote: »

There was an arrested recession but it cannot be contained indefinitely. It must run its course, only now it has a lot more pent up energy to wreak havoc around the globe.

Hang on. You first said there was no recession. Now you're saying there was? Can you please be definitive?
(Given the widely accepted definition, there either was or there wasn't one!)

realitykeeper wrote: »

Yes I said the depression would start in 2017, last year. I am saying the same thing this year.

I'm quite sure that you forecasted it to be last year. Still, as most of what you post comes across as bluff, does it really matter?

realitykeeper

kbannon wrote: »

Hang on. You first said there was no recession. Now you're saying there was? Can you please be definitive?
(Given the widely accepted definition, there either was or there wasn't one!)


I'm quite sure that you forecasted it to be last year. Still, as most of what you post comes across as bluff, does it really matter?

I said the government stopped the recession. From that, you said that I said there was not a recession. So let me repeat what I did say: The government stopped the recession.

If you are "quite sure", then post the quote. For my part, I reiterate my assertion that capitalism in the west will to all intents and purposes stop, by the end of this year. Until, this year I have never made such a near term estimate.

Seth Brundle

realitykeeper wrote: »

I said the government stopped the recession. From that, you said that I said there was not a recession. So let me repeat what I did say: The government stopped the recession.

If you are "quite sure", then post the quote. For my part, I reiterate my assertion that capitalism in the west will to all intents and purposes stop, by the end of this year. Until, this year I have never made such a near term estimate.

You actually said that they "stopped the recession from happening". (note how I too an emphasise to make a pojnt)The "from happening" bit implies explicitly that it didn't happen despite your bogus claim otherwise.

As for your claims about doom and gloom due to happen last year, I'm not going to spend my time searching through a years worth of your drivel just to prove a point.