Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

What steps brought Ireland out of recession

2

Comments

  • #32
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The OP reckons we're not doing much for education.

    Bizarre statement.

    Anyway, small open multinational tax haven does well when global recession finishes and suffers more than proportionately when recession hits, film at 11


  • #33
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,542 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    yeah keep it going for FG, the banks and the usual hangers on... The ones I truly feel sorry for are the actually vulnerable (this doesnt include your typical pensioner or welfare lifer) :rolleyes: and those that are done in with outrageous mortgage or rent!

    id partly agree with your statement and add a bit more, most if not all workers are getting screwed in all this, recovery, me arse! the whole housing market is a train wreck


  • #34
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,546 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    id partly agree with your statement and add a bit more, most if not all workers are getting screwed in all this, recovery, me arse! the whole housing market is a train wreck

    I wouldnt quite agree, if you bought your house years ago and happy with it you can coast along quite happily, we will soon be back at full employment.

    If you are renting or attempting to buy you will be crucified on a cross.


  • #35
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Topgear on Dave wrote: »
    I wouldnt quite agree, if you bought your house years ago and happy with it you can coast along quite happily, we will soon be back at full employment.

    If you are renting or attempting to buy you will be crucified on a cross.

    If you bought your house and it's now in negative equity? If you managed to hang onto it you mean?

    Full employment? Not as shiny a prospect as it may have been in the past. More tax payer money needed to support these people with "jobs"? More tax payer money needed to help them make rent?


  • #36
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 43,817 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    If you bought your house and it's now in negative equity? If you managed to hang onto it you mean?
    Negative equity is only relevant if you plan on selling up.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    kbannon wrote: »
    Negative equity is only relevant if you plan on selling up.

    Would you be "happy with it"? And would it enable you to "coast along quite happily" as you pay the loan on something no longer worth the loan price?


  • #38
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 43,817 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Would you be "happy with it"? And would it enable you to "coast along quite happily" as you pay the loan on something no longer worth the loan price?
    If I bought a house (and thus was happy with the price) then I cant complain afterwards that I paid too much for it, especially if I have no plans to sell it!
    Why don't people complain that their shares are in negative equity?

    Anyhow, my original point was that if you have no plan to sell (or remortgate the place) then negative equity doesn't affect you.


  • #39
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    yeah keep it going for FG, the banks and the usual hangers on...

    The banks themselves, the institutions, were taken into public ownership because the economy needs them to operate. The banks owners were utterly wiped out, not rescued.

    Many of the actions people here wish happened (let the banks all fold, slash welfare) would have had disastrous effects on the economy, and NOT doing those things helped us out of the recession.

    In addition, Ireland's Gini coefficient, the measure of inequality, actually went down since before the crash. We not only recovered, we lowered the gap between rich and poor in the process. We recovered without eating the poor.


  • #40
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,458 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    The banks themselves, the institutions, were taken into public ownership because the economy needs them to operate. The banks owners were utterly wiped out, not rescued.

    Many of the actions people here wish happened (let the banks all fold, slash welfare) would have had disastrous effects on the economy, and NOT doing those things helped us out of the recession.

    In addition, Ireland's Gini coefficient, the measure of inequality, actually went down since before the crash. We not only recovered, we lowered the gap between rich and poor in the process. We recovered without eating the poor.

    I agree about the banks and why they were taken into state ownership. But I'd keep one of them in state ownership, had rates on mortgages in particular set lower, to control the market to extent. For the good of the people, not the banks for a change ...


  • #41
    eoinfitzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 303 ✭✭eoinfitzokk


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    I agree about the banks and why they were taken into state ownership. But I'd keep one of them in state ownership, had rates on mortgages in particular set lower, to control the market to extent. For the good of the people, not the banks for a change ...

    A government controlled mortgage market could be a disaster, everyone would assume that they have a right to a mortgage. Balancing books could prove difficult if that bank had to go out to the market like AIB and BOI.
    More competition would really help this market, but a state funded bank would be a political nightmare in my opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    eoinfitzokk wrote: »
    A government controlled mortgage market could be a disaster, everyone would assume that they have a right to a mortgage. Balancing books could prove difficult if that bank had to go out to the market like AIB and BOI.
    More competition would really help this market, but a state funded bank would be a political nightmare in my opinion.

    We have a government controlled rental and housing market.
    We spend tax money on keeping rents and house prices artificially high, with subsidies and allowances. The market does not set the price.


  • #43
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 43,817 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    We have a government controlled rental and housing market.
    We spend tax money on keeping rents and house prices artificially high, with subsidies and allowances. The market does not set the price.
    I think thats a very simplistic view if the situation and doesn't take in the high cost of land and construction, the ever growing demand, the culture of property ownership, the car culture and ultimately the shortage of supply in the areas of demand.


  • #44
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    kbannon wrote: »
    I think thats a very simplistic view if the situation and doesn't take in the high cost of land and construction, the ever growing demand, the culture of property ownership, the car culture and ultimately the shortage of supply in the areas of demand.

    It's a fact. It's not the whole story of course, but a major part of maintaining and exacerbating the housing and homeless crises.


  • #45
    Good loser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,283 ✭✭✭Good loser


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Easy. They made the poor and middle classes pay for the rich people's losses.

    That's particularly false. Didn't the largest property developers go broke?

    The ESRI showed that the top 10% and the bottom 10% paid the highest prices for the recession.


  • #46
    Good loser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,283 ✭✭✭Good loser


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    We have a government controlled rental and housing market.
    We spend tax money on keeping rents and house prices artificially high, with subsidies and allowances. The market does not set the price.

    Yes it does.

    Saw there in Tralee houses selling for as low as €60,000, better ones between 125k and 160k.

    In Thurles reasonable houses for less than 175k.


  • #47
    server down
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,611 ✭✭✭server down


    Good loser wrote: »
    That's particularly false. Didn't the largest property developers go broke?

    The ESRI showed that the top 10% and the bottom 10% paid the highest prices for the recession.

    My guess is that’s the exact opposite of the truth. There were no significant welfare cuts and the rich made off like bandits with asset increases.

    The rest got USC.


  • #48
    server down
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,611 ✭✭✭server down


    Good loser wrote: »
    Yes it does.

    Saw there in Tralee houses selling for as low as €60,000, better ones between 125k and 160k.

    In Thurles reasonable houses for less than 175k.

    His point is that government subsidies for rent pushes up prices. As did nama. As did bailing out the banks.


  • #49
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 43,817 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    It's a fact. It's not the whole story of course, but a major part of maintaining and exacerbating the housing and homeless crises.
    Which of your statements is a fact? That the government controls rental and housing market, that we spend tax money on keeping rents and house prices artificially high or that the market does not set the price?
    A source for this "fact" would be good.

    As for your first point, I've already provided a number of factors that influence property prices. The second point is somewhat true but prices are likely to be high anyhow given the difference between supply and demand.
    Your third point is not worthy of response really.


  • #50
    Samaris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    kbannon wrote: »
    If I bought a house (and thus was happy with the price) then I cant complain afterwards that I paid too much for it, especially if I have no plans to sell it!
    Why don't people complain that their shares are in negative equity?

    Anyhow, my original point was that if you have no plan to sell (or remortgate the place) then negative equity doesn't affect you.

    I won't pretend that housing is my area or that I know a great deal about it, but a house is a solid asset, the largest personally owned asset most people will ever possess. It is a security net. Isn't asking people why they're mad that's it's now a much weaker asset or even a liabilty a bit akin to asking why would someone be mad that their savings were wiped out if they weren't planning on immediately using them? Upkeep, repairs, loans and mortgages still have to be paid, but there us nothing to recoup losses against if times get hard.

    Boom and bust economies are awful, but it's a bit harsh to withold any sympathy for those caught in the cycle who have little control over the cycle.


  • #51
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 43,817 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Samaris wrote: »
    I won't pretend that housing is my area or that I know a great deal about it, but a house is a solid asset, the largest personally owned asset most people will ever possess. It is a security net. Isn't asking people why they're mad that's it's now a much weaker asset or even a liabilty a bit akin to asking why would someone be mad that their savings were wiped out if they weren't planning on immediately using them? Upkeep, repairs, loans and mortgages still have to be paid, but there us nothing to recoup losses against if times get hard.
    Upkeep, repairs, loans and mortgages would have to be made/paid regardless of the equity in the house.
    Samaris wrote: »
    Boom and bust economies are awful, but it's a bit harsh to withold any sympathy for those caught in the cycle who have little control over the cycle.
    They had control over the purchase. I stayed within my means. Should I sympathise with someone who didn't? Maybe depending on the situation but I'm not going to pretend that I think hey were foolish and irresponsible.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Good loser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,283 ✭✭✭Good loser


    server down wrote: »
    My guess is that’s the exact opposite of the truth. There were no significant welfare cuts and the rich made off like bandits with asset increases.

    The rest got USC.

    So the ESRI research is trumped by your 'guess'? Surely that's absurd!


  • #53
    Jim2007
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 11,028 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    Samaris wrote: »
    but a house is a solid asset, the largest personally owned asset most people will ever possess. It is a security net. Isn't asking people why they're mad that's it's now a much weaker asset or even a liabilty a bit akin to asking why would someone be mad....

    Property is actually one of the most risky asset classes you can invest in. It is exactly why asset managers are usually required to keep in well down in the single % digits!

    When you invest in a property you break every single best practice:
    • You borrow to invest
    • you fail to diversity
    • it is an illiquid asset

    And on top of all this, it is not the first, second or even third time that a property bubble has wipe out the wealth of the English speaking world (for want of a better term).

    Back in the day I was regularly asked by Swiss colleagues here, how the Irish could be so crazy. Here buying property is something you only do if you can't find anything else to do with your money!

    We need to realise that a housing policy that requires people to take massive amounts of debt or rely on social support to put a roof over our heads is crazy!

    We need a major paradigm, if we are to avoid seem our wealth wiped out once again in the next few years.


  • #54
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,279 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    kbannon wrote: »
    If I bought a house (and thus was happy with the price)

    One doesn't necessarily correspond with the other. :rolleyes:


  • #55
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,279 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Jim2007 wrote: »
    Back in the day I was regularly asked by Swiss colleagues here, how the Irish could be so crazy. Here buying property is something you only do if you can't find anything else to do with your money!

    Well, here people buy because there's no real option open to them to do anything else if they wish to put down some roots and remain in a home for longer than 12 months. Renting in Ireland is a joke and one is left to the mercy of a fuckhead type of landlord class that will squeeze every drop of money out of the punter that they can. Renters here are subject to ridiculous 12 month leases and are never sure where the hell they'll be living next year. They could find themselves with an unreasonable hike in their rent and if they aren't willing to pony up, they're shipped out, so some other desparate mugs can be brought in.

    That might be ok, if you're 24. But if you're and adult, it's no bloody good.

    If you have children, the situation becomes worse. You can't send little Jimmy or Sarah to the local school, because that local school may be a couple of hours drive away next year, if your landlord pretends to "sell up", cos he wants you out to jack up the rent again, or put bunk beds in another room so he can squash in a few more bodies U-Boat style.

    In that type of situation, people feel there's no other choice but to buy an overpriced shack (assuming they have the money saved for the deposit) and hope they'll have enough employment in their lives to fund it.

    People here are caught between a rock and hard place when it comes to simply having a place to live and our political classes and other smug twats don't give a tinkers cuss about it.

    We are setting ourselves up for crash 2.0 and it's coming down the road faster than anyone thinks. Amazingly our glorious leaders have learned absolutely nothing whatsoever from 2008 and all the same mistakes are being made again, because their decisions don't affect them.

    So, the next time someone Switzerland asks you "how the Irish can be so crazy", you'll know what to tell them.


  • #56
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 43,817 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Tony EH wrote: »
    One doesn't necessarily correspond with the other. :rolleyes:
    Nobody forces a person to buy property. If someone buys a house the assumption can be made that they were happy to pay that price.
    If they were unhappy with the price then why buy?


  • #57
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,279 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    kbannon wrote: »
    Nobody forces a person to buy property. If someone buys a house the assumption can be made that they were happy to pay that price.
    If they were unhappy with the price then why buy?

    Don't be so stupid.

    People buy, because renting isn't an option.

    It doesn't mean they're "happy" with the price.


  • #58
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 43,817 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Don't be so stupid.

    People buy, because renting isn't an option.

    It doesn't mean they're "happy" with the price.
    I've never come across someone who bought a house because they hadn't the option of renting somewhere.
    Maybe you can provide some examples in the mainstream media.

    And if you disagree with my post then provide a strong response rather than calling me stupid!


  • #59
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,623 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Good loser wrote: »
    That's particularly false. Didn't the largest property developers go broke?

    The ESRI showed that the top 10% and the bottom 10% paid the highest prices for the recession.


    In terms of impact of the recesssion it was something like this, those who suffered worse first:

    - those in the private sector who lost their jobs or their businesses
    - those in the public sector who saw major pay cuts and a pension levy
    - those in the private sector who saw minor pay cuts
    - those on welfare who saw minor cuts

    Most in the private sector neither lost their job nor had pay cuts, so only suffered USC like everyone else while pensioners suffered least.


  • #60
    server down
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,611 ✭✭✭server down


    kbannon wrote: »
    I've never come across someone who bought a house because they hadn't the option of renting somewhere.
    Maybe you can provide some examples in the mainstream media.

    And if you disagree with my post then provide a strong response rather than calling me stupid!

    After he called you stupid he argued against your point.

    People don’t want to buy expensive houses. They want to buy decent cheap housing. They want to get out of the rental sector as it is too volatile.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Good loser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,283 ✭✭✭Good loser


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Well, here people buy because there's no real option open to them to do anything else if they wish to put down some roots and remain in a home for longer than 12 months. Renting in Ireland is a joke and one is left to the mercy of a fuckhead type of landlord class that will squeeze every drop of money out of the punter that they can. Renters here are subject to ridiculous 12 month leases and are never sure where the hell they'll be living next year. They could find themselves with an unreasonable hike in their rent and if they aren't willing to pony up, they're shipped out, so some other desparate mugs can be brought in.

    That might be ok, if you're 24. But if you're and adult, it's no bloody good.

    If you have children, the situation becomes worse. You can't send little Jimmy or Sarah to the local school, because that local school may be a couple of hours drive away next year, if your landlord pretends to "sell up", cos he wants you out to jack up the rent again, or put bunk beds in another room so he can squash in a few more bodies U-Boat style.

    In that type of situation, people feel there's no other choice but to buy an overpriced shack (assuming they have the money saved for the deposit) and hope they'll have enough employment in their lives to fund it.

    People here are caught between a rock and hard place when it comes to simply having a place to live and our political classes and other smug twats don't give a tinkers cuss about it.

    We are setting ourselves up for crash 2.0 and it's coming down the road faster than anyone thinks. Amazingly our glorious leaders have learned absolutely nothing whatsoever from 2008 and all the same mistakes are being made again, because their decisions don't affect them.

    So, the next time someone Switzerland asks you "how the Irish can be so crazy", you'll know what to tell them.

    That's pretty much grade A rubbish from beginning to end.

    Strong culture of victimhood throughout.

    There are two types of people in this country it seems - the good guys and the bad guys and, mirabile dictu, you include yourself with the good guys. What if you aren't?

    I and others rented a house in middle class Dublin from 1990 to 2010. In that time the rent increased by £50 or €50 per month per person - a total of 200. Actually the rent was per person so when a tenant left the rent to the landlord fell by 25%.

    A quick question Would Ireland be better off with more or less of the landlord class?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement