Property rights in Ireland

realitykeeper

Is there a connection between respect for property rights and the overall prosperity of a country?

Is the imposition of debt really any different to the requisitioning of a person`s property? If not, would it be true if say, the government could no longer finance itself through borrowing and taxes?

Is the imposition of rent controls a diminution of property rights.

My own view is that the bank bailouts were indicative of true attitudes in this country, at least among those in power. A lot of indebted people tend to lack responsibility and respect for other people`s rights in my opinion. I mean if the the banks take on defaulter`s bad debt and the taxpayer bails out the banks, then the taxpayer pays other people`s debt. Enormous debts (to the banks) can be written off in just a few years with our easy bankruptcy laws so, the non indebted end up with other people`s debt.

Ireland could be on the path to impoverishment as a consequence of these attitudes. Am I wrong?

EdgeCase

There is a lot going on in this post, more of a political or philosophical question then an investment one.

Controls on rental markets are common in many (most) very prosperous societies. They're just a way of managing a housing shortage. Market regulation and property rights aren't really connected.

Constitutionally speaking Ireland has some of the strongest property rights of any developed country but it also has constitutional requirements to regulate business in the interest of the greater good.

The bank bailouts were similar to what happened in quite a lot of countries, including the US, UK and plenty of Eurozone members in the aftermath of 2008 and were about maintaining financial system integrity. Whether they went about it the right way is a matter for political debate. The banks globally managed to off load their mess on civil society and in a lot of cases didn't face the kind of financial consequences at management level, but their shareholders in most cases were wiped out in temporary nationalisation and so on. That didn't necessarily result in serious consequences for their management.

They're are major questions about moral hazard as the losses we basically dumped on large numbers of small scale investors, pension funds and civil society through the bailouts. Even their staff took a big burden as they're were layoffs and closure of branch networks.
Yet many banks around the world who'd been through this, not much has changed at the upper levels.

So I think really you're looking at two different questions.
There's nothing wrong with a state regulating a failed or flawed market and is nothing unusual.

The 2008 bank collapse really just shows how moral hazards are for the little guy where organisations have huge power in a system.

It also shows from an investment point of view banks aren't really normal businesses and their shares are a highly regulated asset class in some ways, as they're essentially of systemic importance to the whole financial system and by extension to states and will not be allowed to cease trading, even if they fail.

Jim2007

EdgeCase wrote: »

There is a lot going on in this post, more of a political or philosophical question then an investment one.

Best to ignore this OP as it will only lead to more of the same and totally unrelated to this forum.

realitykeeper

EdgeCase wrote: »

There is a lot going on in this post, more of a political or philosophical question then an investment one.

Controls on rental markets are common in many (most) very prosperous societies. They're just a way of managing a housing shortage. Market regulation and property rights aren't really connected.

Constitutionally speaking Ireland has some of the strongest property rights of any developed country but it also has constitutional requirements to regulate business in the interest of the greater good.

The bank bailouts were similar to what happened in quite a lot of countries, including the US, UK and plenty of Eurozone members in the aftermath of 2008 and were about maintaining financial system integrity. Whether they went about it the right way is a matter for political debate. The banks globally managed to off load their mess on civil society and in a lot of cases didn't face the kind of financial consequences at management level, but their shareholders in most cases were wiped out in temporary nationalisation and so on. That didn't necessarily result in serious consequences for their management.

They're are major questions about moral hazard as the losses we basically dumped on large numbers of small scale investors, pension funds and civil society through the bailouts. Even their staff took a big burden as they're were layoffs and closure of branch networks.
Yet many banks around the world who'd been through this, not much has changed at the upper levels.

So I think really you're looking at two different questions.
There's nothing wrong with a state regulating a failed or flawed market and is nothing unusual.

The 2008 bank collapse really just shows how moral hazards are for the little guy where organisations have huge power in a system.

It also shows from an investment point of view banks aren't really normal businesses and their shares are a highly regulated asset class in some ways, as they're essentially of systemic importance to the whole financial system and by extension to states and will not be allowed to cease trading, even if they fail.

Yes we have seen what happened in the years leading up to and following the 2008 crash. What we have not yet seen is the ultimate consequences for all of the countries that have been most impacted by the great recession. I believe, the consequences were not suffered but postponed thanks to quantitative easing and that medicine will not work next time, the costs will be too high.

In other words, the suffering that was postponed will have to be suffered in the real sense but with interest.

coolshannagh28

realitykeeper wrote: »

Yes we have seen what happened in the years leading up to and following the 2008 crash. What we have not yet seen is the ultimate consequences for all of the countries that have been most impacted by the great recession. I believe, the consequences were not suffered but postponed thanks to quantitative easing and that medicine will not work next time, the costs will be too high.

In other words, the suffering that was postponed will have to be suffered in the real sense but with interest.

Have to agree with this , QE and low interest rates have buoyed western economies but efforts by the FED to initiate normalisation of rates in the US have precipitated a bear market in stocks which could escalate quickly to a crash . The timescale to the next recession is shortening rapidly and there are no effective tools to fight it ie lowering interest rates or QE .
The consequences will be catastrophic with a deep long recession , bank bail ins , pensions raided ,rapid inflation , US dollar crash ,possible civil unrest or worse.
Will the 1 % prevail as in the noughties or will we reset to a much earlier time ?

An_Toirpin

Jim2007 wrote: »

Best to ignore this OP as it will only lead to more of the same and totally unrelated to this forum.

Very bad attitude. It is a relevant question.

An_Toirpin

EdgeCase wrote: »

Controls on rental markets are common in many (most) very prosperous societies. They're just a way of managing a housing shortage. Market regulation and property rights aren't really connected.

Ture but it is still possible that rent controls undermine prosperity. Given

the consensus amongst economists that rent control undermine housing supply and quality while distorting the market it is more probable than possible. Clearly it is not totally crippling but it is somehow related.