Bowie wrote: » Ah, yes. It's great in context. I can't get the bunting out on an economy that ignores record breaking societal crises. We came 18th in regards of 'rich nations' and Child Poverty.
Bubbaclaus wrote: » I meant in the context that it looked like the country was on the brink of a complete collapse only a decade ago, and we are now the strongest growing economy in the OECD and 2nd on the UN HDI. We were 10th on the list in 2012. Great news story all round.
UN to examine whether Irish tax policy harms rights of children overseas
Bowie wrote: » Were did we come a decade ago?
Bubbaclaus wrote: » Considering where we were only a decade ago, this is pretty impressive news. Ireland has second-highest quality of life in the world, according to the UN https://jrnl.ie/5303638
markodaly wrote: » I will once you tell us all about these Negative Market Caps I keep hearing about.
smurgen wrote: » Go on educate us on the difference of between a bondholder and shareholder in the context of government bailout using taxpayer money.
jmayo wrote: » I was trying to make the point that there is corruption without it being linked to ff, fg, labour or indeed sf or sd. And if you think otherwise you are deluded.
jmayo wrote: » ......... What a surprise a lot of them would vote for the more socialist magic money tree parties. :rolleyes: Then again the other parties are fooking useless as well.
markodaly wrote: » If you think differentiating between a bondholder and a shareholder is mere 'pedantics' then its no surprise people can be so ignorant about complex topics. Tell me all about Negative Market Cap's.... anytime soon will do.
smurgen wrote: » I have to laugh at some someone arguing that taxpayers funds were used to bailout and arguing on pedantics thinking they've won an argument. Imagine if the money was physically burned and you think you're correct because you've pointed out it was actually diesel used to burn the money instead of petrol. That's basically where you're at. Lol.
Bowie wrote: » I'm not but I prefer them to FF/FG. More a SD person. Yes, because that would be irellivant regarding this. Yes, that's not good enough on the tax payers coin. We deserve better than what we've come to expect from FF/FG and hangers on. Yes. It's cronyism with other peoples money. It should be recognised as fraud. As with any crony sweet deal. Well excusing it as 'the way it is' and scaremongering any party outside of FF/FG, you might be okay with it. I'm not.
Bowie wrote: » Private investors were rescued. They would have been wiped out but for the bail outs. Where did we buy the shares from? The con here is people talking about the need for a bailout like the problem fell from the sky and not a government MM was part of.
Bubbaclaus wrote: » It was a massive new issue of shares in the banks, they weren't "bought" from anywhere. The shareholders didn't receive anything and their shareholdings got diluted to essentially 0. Pretty amazing really that you clearly don't know what happened and you are coming out with statements like the below. It's pretty clear really that there is a large amount of people that don't actually know what happened during the bailout, or have any understanding of how a new issue of shares works and where the flow of funds go in a new issue.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Woulfe is back. Kelly grilling Varadkar in the Dáil on latest revelations.
markodaly wrote: » Words are irrelevant, much like the truth it seems. Tell me all about Negative Market Caps.
FrancieBrady wrote: » He got Leo curtailed and off the silly Tweeting, self promotion fixation etc, then he goes and loses the rag and puts himself in the frame. You couldn't write the level of absurdity.
Nobotty wrote: » Micheál Martin must be reading the Kamikaze handbook
smurgen wrote: » Typed like a person who doesn't pay all that much USC every month. His words are irrelevant because the deductible is there in black and white and no amount of revisionism from him or the likes of Bertie will tell the taxpayers otherwise. His words in the Dail and subsequent apologist words here tell me that lessons have not been learnt.
Taoiseach Micheál Martin referenced the bank bailout some 57 times in the Dáil before his "bizarre" claim that the Irish banks “were not bailed out” yesterday. The Taoiseach was accused of seeking to re-write history and "denying reality" in making his claim that the banks did not receive a €64bn bailout.
markodaly wrote: » Ah, I see you want to move the goalposts now, from your earlier utterances. Shareholders own shares Bondholders own bonds. Shares are equity Bonds are debt Do you understand this bit at least? Is that too much to take in? Or do I need to dumb it down further for you. I know these are new concepts, so ill be patient.
markodaly wrote: » Well, you say something alright. Gibberish for the most part, usually factually wrong and displaying ignorance and contempt for the facts, but yes, I guess you do say something alright. Ill give you that.
Bowie wrote: » So nobody came away with any money from failed not fit for purpose bailed out banks?
Bowie wrote: » As you can see if you say something they don't want to hear they get all YFG about it.
smurgen wrote: » The usual pedantry from the 2+2=5 brigade. To detract form Michael's booboo.
In contrast, it was largely taken for granted that holders of subordinated debt, also known as “junior bondholders”, were not subject to similar protection and would receive very little of what was owed to them. This position was reflected in a “take it or leave it” offer of 20 cent on the dollar/euro to junior bondholders by the Irish government, an offer accepted by most creditors. Some, however, decided to “hold out”, including by selling their claims to hedge and distressed debt funds (otherwise known as “vulture funds”). Fast forward several years and considerable legal activity in the meantime regarding junior debt, including litigation in the UK courts. Most recently, a few days before Christmas the Government let it be known that for legal reasons outstanding holders of junior bonds issued by Anglo Irish would have to be “made whole”, i.e. repaid in full.
The State could have saved more than €9 billion by imposing losses on senior debt holders at the six Irish banks, the National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA) told the Government in March 2011. Written evidence supplied to the Oireachtas banking inquiry shows the NTMA, which manages Ireland’s national debt, advised the Government that “immediate steps” could be taken to enable this burden sharing, adding that markets had already priced this haircut into the bonds. But it also warned that there could be potential implications with “external authorities”, a reference to the European Central Bank, which had warned Dublin a “bomb” would go off if it was to do so. The failure to impose losses on senior bondholders to recoup some of the cost of the €64 billion bank bailout has been a source of political controversy since Fine Gael and Labour entered Government.
