The 'No the Nama' Street Protest on 12th Sept

leonardjos · 17-08-2009 10:20am #1

I've started a new thread for this protest, as I believe it is a very important issue.

The Facebook Group and members from the Property Pin have attended a planning meeting for the 'No to Nama' street protest. The time and date have been set at 2pm on Saturday 12th September, we're marching from the Garden of Remembrance (top of O'Connell St) to the Dail.

Dave Brown of www.irishpeopleunion.com is spearheading the protest arrangements, and appeared on Newstalk to publicise the protest. Dave will be conducting a media blitz in the run up to the protest to mobilise as many people as possible to make their voice heard regarding NAMA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1Ya7viWyNM

greendom · 17-08-2009 10:22am

So what's your alternative?

What are you saying YES to?

leonardjos · 17-08-2009 10:34am

As has been covered on the Facebook Group, and Property Pin there are many equitable and viable alternatives.

We are saying Yes to exploring all the alternatives, with temporary nationalisation as the best alternative currently on the table. We are also saying Yes to transparency and accountability. We are saying Yes to safeguarding the taxpayers' funds, and ensuring that the taxpayer doesn't carry unnecessary costs. Yes to using taxpayers' funds for the next generation to provide healthcare, education and infrastructure investment. Yes to real changes in how the banking system workings and real changes in financial regulation.

Long Onion · 17-08-2009 10:40am

leonardjos wrote: »

As has been covered on the Facebook Group, and Property Pin there are many equitable and viable alternatives.

We are saying Yes to exploring all the alternatives, with temporary nationalisation as the best alternative currently on the table. We are also saying Yes to transparency and accountability. We are saying Yes to safeguarding the taxpayers' funds, and ensuring that the taxpayer doesn't carry unnecessary costs. Yes to using taxpayers' funds for the next generation to provide healthcare, education and infrastructure investment. Yes to real changes in how the banking system workings and real changes in financial regulation.

To be perfectly honest, the things you are saying yes to are all very worthy but I don't see where the mutual exclusivity is coming from. If the banks are nationalised, the tax payer will still own the bad loans, the banks will still need capital and that will come in the form of Government Bonds (directly or indirectly). In fact, Nama acquiring the loans at a discount (any level of discount) is surely better than the tax payer acquiring the banks and carrying the liability for the original loan amounts.

We can improve provision for healthcare, education and regulation without stopping NAMA.

ArmaniJeanss · 17-08-2009 11:21am

leonardjos wrote: »

As has been covered on the Facebook Group, and Property Pin there are many equitable and viable alternatives.

We are saying Yes to exploring all the alternatives, with temporary nationalisation as the best alternative currently on the table. We are also saying Yes to transparency and accountability. We are saying Yes to safeguarding the taxpayers' funds, and ensuring that the taxpayer doesn't carry unnecessary costs. Yes to using taxpayers' funds for the next generation to provide healthcare, education and infrastructure investment. Yes to real changes in how the banking system workings and real changes in financial regulation.

Is the underlined bit what the propertypin people are saying Yes to, or is it what you are saying Yes to?

I'm opposed to NAMA, but I tend not to go on these marches as (it seems to me) they get bandwagoned by sectional interests. So I expect there'll be banners there from people protesting hospital closures / Welfare Cuts / Child Benefit Cuts / Thomas Cook supporters / Civil Service AntiPension Levy groups / Joe Higgins waffling on about Bin Taxes etc.

So whilst I'm opposed to NAMA, I couldn't in good conscience associate with some of these groups.

eamonnm79 · 17-08-2009 12:00pm

Long Onion wrote: »

To be perfectly honest, the things you are saying yes to are all very worthy but I don't see where the mutual exclusivity is coming from. If the banks are nationalised, the tax payer will still own the bad loans, the banks will still need capital and that will come in the form of Government Bonds (directly or indirectly). In fact, Nama acquiring the loans at a discount (any level of discount) is surely better than the tax payer acquiring the banks and carrying the liability for the original loan amounts.

We can improve provision for healthcare, education and regulation without stopping NAMA.

Nationalisation removes the huge issue of Overpaying for the loans. It will also mean that bond holders will have to pay their fair share for this mess.
We do need a national asset manangement agency but it should be done only after nationalisation

Long Onion · 17-08-2009 12:07pm

eamonnm79 wrote: »

Nationalisation removes the huge issue of Overpaying for the loans. It will also mean that bond holders will have to pay their fair share for this mess.
We do need a national asset manangement agency but it should be done only after nationalisation

I don't see how. If we nationalise the banks, we in effect take over the liability for the full amount loaned ot. At least the NAMA route we will only take on liability for 75ish% (depending on the final valuation)

As for the bond holder issue - a huge amount of shareholders in the banks are large pension funds - a write off here will effect a huge portion of pensioners and workers across the state. Allowing bond holders to suufer a loss will not have any effect on the toxic loan issue.

leonardjos · 17-08-2009 12:39pm

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Is the underlined bit what the propertypin people are saying Yes to, or is it what you are saying Yes to?

I'm opposed to NAMA, but I tend not to go on these marches as (it seems to me) they get bandwagoned by sectional interests. So I expect there'll be banners there from people protesting hospital closures / Welfare Cuts / Child Benefit Cuts / Thomas Cook supporters / Civil Service AntiPension Levy groups / Joe Higgins waffling on about Bin Taxes etc.

So whilst I'm opposed to NAMA, I couldn't in good conscience associate with some of these groups.

While I obviously can't speak for everybody who posts on the Property Pin, the guys who attended the protest planning meeting were very clear in their view that the price to be paid for NAMA will manifest itself in a generation of more tax increases and more severe cutbacks to public services. We all agreed that tax increases and cutbacks would be necessary with or without NAMA to get the public finances back into order. But we felt that when the EUR90bn NAMA gamble inevitably loses, that these taxes and cutbacks would be greater than necessary to pay for NAMA's losses.

Dave has made it clear on his interview, and we have also made it clear on the Facebook Group that we are not affiliating ourselves with any political parties or groups. The people involved in organising the protest are all capitalist in outlook, hence we do not support NAMA which is welfare for the banks and developers.

I can assure you that we share your concerns about this protest being hijacked by socialist groups, and we will be taking steps to make sure that doesn't happen. We dont want to make it easy for the government or elements of the media to write off the protest as just another socialist or hippy march. We will be sending a clear signal that the Irish people will not be ignored or treated with contempt, and will not be told that NAMA is the only game in town and expected to just swallow it. :mad:

SkepticOne · 17-08-2009 12:45pm

Long Onion wrote: »

As for the bond holder issue - a huge amount of shareholders in the banks are large pension funds - a write off here will effect a huge portion of pensioners and workers across the state. Allowing bond holders to suufer a loss will not have any effect on the toxic loan issue.

Why should the general public compensate the owners of companies who took risks and lost?

AIB and BOI took risks that failed to pay off. If those risks paid off do you think they'd be lining up to give their surplus to the state?

That is the moral argument. The other argument is that there's no point in transferring money from one set of pockets (many of whom may well end up getting the basic state pension) and putting them into another. No net benefit.

SkepticOne · 17-08-2009 12:55pm

Long Onion wrote: »

I don't see how. If we nationalise the banks, we in effect take over the liability for the full amount loaned ot. At least the NAMA route we will only take on liability for 75ish% (depending on the final valuation)

These are not liabilities. They are impaired assets. Some very strongly impaired to the point that they are worth next to nothing but they are not liabilities. Others are worth a bit more.

If the banks are nationalised then we are less likely to overpay for these assets overall. If we do overpay then we will benefit when the the banks are reprivatised.

leonardjos · 17-08-2009 1:06pm

Long Onion wrote: »

I don't see how. If we nationalise the banks, we in effect take over the liability for the full amount loaned ot. At least the NAMA route we will only take on liability for 75ish% (depending on the final valuation)

As for the bond holder issue - a huge amount of shareholders in the banks are large pension funds - a write off here will effect a huge portion of pensioners and workers across the state. Allowing bond holders to suufer a loss will not have any effect on the toxic loan issue.

The NAMA proposal involves effectively guessing the value of the EUR90bn worth of bad loans. The government are determined to overpay for these loans. If we overpay, the taxpayer must absorbe these losses over the lifetime of NAMA. However if we underpay, we will have to provide further money to the banks to keep them running. So the taxpayer has the full downside exposure and no upside exposure.

The amounts involved are huge. The Liam O'Carroll case is showing us just how little can be recovered from these loans and underlying property assets. The April emergency budget scraped together EUR3.5bn, and we all know how much that hurt our paychecks. This is EUR90bn of a gamble with no safeguards for the taxpayer.

If we nationalise the banks, we will only suffer the losses that we absolutely need to. The gamble of trying to value the loans is taken out of the equation. We have exposure to the upside by means of our equity stake in the banks.

I have highlighted in bold the flawed element of your logic. We take on the exact same EUR90bn of bad loans. These loans are actually an asset for the banks or for NAMA. The liabilites side of the equation is the bonds used to finance the loans. The government has already garaunteed the full bank's liabilities, which in hindsight could be considered a mistake. These liabilities will now have to be made good on, whether through NAMA or not.

Where NAMA versus nationalisation differs is the critical valuation of loans. Nationalisation removes the massive inherent risk of this process, and ensures that the taxpayer will not pay more than is required to fix the banking system.

Long Onion · 17-08-2009 1:07pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

These are not liabilities. They are impaired assets. Some very strongly impaired to the point that they are worth next to nothing but they are not liabilities. Others are worth a bit more.

If the banks are nationalised then we are less likely to overpay for these assets overall. If we do overpay then we will benefit when the the banks are reprivatised.

Hmmmmm. I think lines are crossed here. Say AIB has lent 20 Billion to developers who are now distressed. If we nationalise the banks, we now take over the 20 Billion hole in the balance sheet. If those loans are mover to NAMA with a 25% haircut, we now only take over 15 Billion of bad loans, the bank carries the rest.

When I say liabilities here I am assuming that debts which have gone to distressed status are no longer assets but are now liabilities on the balance sheet of the bank. If the banks are nationalised we will have to absorb the full extent of the loans granted.

leonardjos · 17-08-2009 1:13pm

Long Onion wrote: »

When I say liabilities here I am assuming that debts which have gone to distressed status are no longer assets but are now liabilities on the balance sheet of the bank.

You could use a lesson in accounting.

Long Onion · 17-08-2009 1:13pm

leonardjos wrote: »

The NAMA proposal involves effectively guessing the value of the EUR90bn worth of bad loans. The government are determined to overpay for these loans. If we overpay, the taxpayer must absorbe these losses over the lifetime of NAMA. However if we underpay, we will have to provide further money to the banks to keep them running. So the taxpayer has the full downside exposure and no upside exposure.

The amounts involved are huge. The Liam O'Carroll case is showing us just how little can be recovered from these loans and underlying property assets. The April emergency budget scraped together EUR3.5bn, and we all know how much that hurt our paychecks. This is EUR90bn of a gamble with no safeguards for the taxpayer.

If we nationalise the banks, we will only suffer the losses that we absolutely need to. The gamble of trying to value the loans is taken out of the equation. We have exposure to the upside by means of our equity stake in the banks.

I have highlighted in bold the flawed element of your logic. We take on the exact same EUR90bn of bad loans. These loans are actually an asset for the banks or for NAMA. The liabilites side of the equation is the bonds used to finance the loans. The government has already garaunteed the full bank's liabilities, which in hindsight could be considered a mistake. These liabilities will now have to be made good on, whether through NAMA or not.

Where NAMA versus nationalisation differs is the critical valuation of loans. Nationalisation removes the massive inherent risk of this process, and ensures that the taxpayer will not pay more than is required to fix the banking system.

I'm sorry but I just dont agree with you. The full 90bn will transfer to NAMA but the tax payer has only paid a % for these 'assets' so if the loans re never recovered we will only be short the % we paid, the Banks will have to absorb the difference between this sum and the original 90bn. If we nationalise the banks we carry the can for the full 90bn. The government guarantee scheme is due to end next year and will not be as comprehensive if renewed post NAMA on top of that, we have not even begun to see the full extent of the residential mortgage arrears, nationalisation would land us with all this also.

I don't believe my logic is flawed at all - Nationalisation means taking €90bn of 'assets' for €90bn Nama means taking €90bn of assets for less than €90bn?

Long Onion · 17-08-2009 1:15pm

leonardjos wrote: »

You could use a lesson in accounting.

Would you now count a loan to Liam Carroll as being an asset to your business - you could use a lesson in modern day realities - leave the semantics aside

egan007 · 17-08-2009 1:19pm

leonardjos wrote: »

with temporary nationalisation as the best alternative currently on the table.

Ha, ha ha, ha ha ha ha ha

Ha

Ha

ha...

good one....

Because we all know that the state can run things better than private companies.

leonardjos · 17-08-2009 1:24pm

Long Onion wrote: »

Would you now count a loan to Liam Carroll as being an asset to your business - you could use a lesson in modern day realities - leave the semantics aside

I'm sorry, but its not semantics. This bad loan is still an asset. It will need to be written down in value, but its still an asset.

If it was a liability, it would mean that you owed further money to Liam Carroll.

This argument would be funny if it wasn't so serious. EUR90bn is of utmost importance to the future of our country. I am all too aware of the stark realities of what we do next, whether that be NAMA or temporary nationalisation. This financial arrangments of this are quite complex, but you are not helping people to understand it by posting your flawed logic.

leonardjos · 17-08-2009 1:32pm

egan007 wrote: »

Ha, ha ha, ha ha ha ha ha

Ha

Ha

ha...

good one....

Because we all know that the state can run things better than private companies.

Which private financial company is your favourite:

Anglo Irish Bank, AIB, BOI, Irish Nationwide?

Then I can choose which one to give examples of how great they were run :rolleyes:

Actually I couldn't be bothered.

Long Onion · 17-08-2009 1:37pm

leonardjos wrote: »

I'm sorry, but its not semantics. This bad loan is still an asset. It will need to be written down in value, but its still an asset.

If it was a liability, it would mean that you owed further money to Liam Carroll.

This argument would be funny if it wasn't so serious. EUR90bn is of utmost importance to the future of our country. I am all too aware of the stark realities of what we do next, whether that be NAMA or temporary nationalisation. This financial arrangments of this are quite complex, but you are not helping people to understand it by posting your flawed logic.

Look at the reality of what happens - i loan you €1bn for land that is now only worth €1m. In my mind, I now have a liability of €900m. You are saying 'forget about that, sure you still have an asset of €1m'. The €900m is something i am going to have to write off at some stage in the future so to me at least, there is a liability. If NAMA is willing to pay less than the original loan amounts, it makes financial sense.

I don't see how nationalisation is a better deal - the banks have already valued these loans at 100% when they gave them out, by nationalising now, we would be taking that value and (as you have skipped over) the large potential losses in the personal loan and mortgage books of the banks which are already under pressure.

For me it comes down to this - the Banks have loaned €90bn which could potentially go bad - therefore they have a potential hole of €90bn in thier balance sheet, if we nationalise, we have to deal with potential liability of €90bn - this is logical, no?

If NAMA buys the loans for, say €75bn, we now only deal with a potential liability to the tax payer of €75bn, the banks write off the balance so we lower our potential liability by €15bn plus avoid the retail and non-development loans which are also going bad at an increasing rate.

leonardjos · 17-08-2009 1:41pm

Long Onion wrote: »

Look at the reality of what happens - i loan you €1bn for land that is now only worth €1m. In my mind, I now have a liability of €900m.

Go play there instead, and leave reality to the grownups.

Come back when you finish that accounting lesson.

Long Onion · 17-08-2009 1:47pm

Mature of you good sir,

You still haven't dealt with the issues raised, good luck with your march.

eamonnm79 · 17-08-2009 2:49pm

Long Onion wrote: »

Look at the reality of what happens - i loan you €1bn for land that is now only worth €1m. In my mind, I now have a liability of €900m. You are saying 'forget about that, sure you still have an asset of €1m'. The €900m is something i am going to have to write off at some stage in the future so to me at least, there is a liability. If NAMA is willing to pay less than the original loan amounts, it makes financial sense.

I don't see how nationalisation is a better deal - the banks have already valued these loans at 100% when they gave them out, by nationalising now, we would be taking that value and (as you have skipped over) the large potential losses in the personal loan and mortgage books of the banks which are already under pressure.

For me it comes down to this - the Banks have loaned €90bn which could potentially go bad - therefore they have a potential hole of €90bn in thier balance sheet, if we nationalise, we have to deal with potential liability of €90bn - this is logical, no?

If NAMA buys the loans for, say €75bn, we now only deal with a potential liability to the tax payer of €75bn, the banks write off the balance so we lower our potential liability by €15bn plus avoid the retail and non-development loans which are also going bad at an increasing rate.

Hi Long Onion.
Your analysis leaves aout a very important group.
The Bond holders and the Shareholders.
They invested in Private companies that are now insolvent.
They should all be loosing all of their money, but they are not.
The government is propping up the otherwise dead banks and allowing them to make significant gains in the value of their shares.

Think about the way they will be affected if nationalisation occours.

Long Onion · 17-08-2009 3:00pm

eamonnm79 wrote: »

Hi Long Onion.
Your analysis leaves aout a very important group.
The Bond holders and the Shareholders.
They invested in Private companies that are now insolvent.
They should all be loosing all of their money, but they are not.
The government is propping up the otherwise dead banks and allowing them to make significant gains in the value of their shares.

Think about the way they will be affected if nationalisation occours.

Hi Eamonnm79,

I did touch on it further back. This is one aspect that does carry a moral dilemma, for what it's worth, I do believe that the initial investment by bond and shareholders carried a risk and that in normal circumstances they should not be bailed out for backing the wrong horse. But I don't believe that forcing them to take a loss should be the defining factor in the matter.

NAMA will have a side-effect of enriching them and morally this may be incorrect but I don't think this is enough of a reason to wade in and nationalise the banks thus exposing the tax payer to higher potential losses. Look at the continued re-capitaisation of Anglo, the loss making deposit interest rates it's paying, the mounting loan impairements.

I think we have to choose between the lesser of two evils and in my opinion, this is NAMA. Didn't realise some would be so shirty

LostinBlanch · 17-08-2009 4:06pm

Look, NAMA is just a vehicle for taking more money out of our pockets and those of our children and grandchildren and transferring it to a small section of society who have shown little regard for society as a whole.

Maybe you want to pay an extra €2000 a year to go into the pockets of bank bondholders / shareholders, FF donors etc. Personally I don't. McCarthy came out this on rte morning and said that we will probably be nationalising the banks as well as having NAMA anyway.

If we have to loan money to keep the banks afloat. They will have to pay it back to us. With NAMA they are hoping that they can bamboozle us with jargon telling us that we should pay the economic value [whatever that is] and not the market price i.e. massively overpay for bad assets.

This kind of thinking was knocked on the head by the supreme and high court rulings on Liam Carroll's group hearings last week. His lawyers were described in the press as practically putting forward the same arguments as NAMA aplogists have, and they were shown to be equally as flimsy.

SkepticOne · 17-08-2009 4:10pm

Long Onion wrote: »

Hmmmmm. I think lines are crossed here. Say AIB has lent 20 Billion to developers who are now distressed. If we nationalise the banks, we now take over the 20 Billion hole in the balance sheet. If those loans are mover to NAMA with a 25% haircut, we now only take over 15 Billion of bad loans, the bank carries the rest.

When I say liabilities here I am assuming that debts which have gone to distressed status are no longer assets but are now liabilities on the balance sheet of the bank. If the banks are nationalised we will have to absorb the full extent of the loans granted.

No they are still assets. They are just worth a lot less than than the "book value". They might be worth close to zero in some cases but they don't confer obligations to pay anything on the owners of these assets so they are not liabilities. It is very important to understand the difference between assets and liabilities and why the government is not taking on liabilities but assets (impaired and sometimes worthless but assets nonetheless).

SkepticOne · 17-08-2009 4:12pm

Long Onion wrote: »

I think we have to choose between the lesser of two evils and in my opinion, this is NAMA. Didn't realise some would be so shirty

But you have ignored or thrown back some of the attempts to respond to you.

leonardjos · 17-08-2009 10:22pm

TV3 News have been covering the online 'No to NAMA' movement.

This is a link to the video of the report on the TV3 website,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxA7wVxS17o

The 'No to NAMA' Facebook Group gets a special mention.

The report finishes by broadcasting the details of the street protest on 12th September.

DeVore · 17-08-2009 10:28pm

I will only give you 1000 to 1 that SWP or whatever they are calling themselves lately are behind this.

I think NAMA needs to be reviewed alright but I freakin' hate those bandwagon jumpers.

DeV.

LostinBlanch · 18-08-2009 11:04am

You're not the only one.

leonardjos · 18-08-2009 11:45am

DeVore wrote: »

I will only give you 1000 to 1 that SWP or whatever they are calling themselves lately are behind this.

I think NAMA needs to be reviewed alright but I freakin' hate those bandwagon jumpers.

The SWP have their own protest planned for a week later than ours.

NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION
PEOPLE POWER TO STOP THE CUTS

BAIL OUT JOBS & SERVICES
NOT THE BANKS
NEED BEFORE GREED

Saturday Sept 19th
Assemble 1pm, Garden of Remembrance, Parnell Square, Dublin.
BRING POTS AND PANS TO MAKE NOISE
Called by the United Alliance Against Cuts.

Dave Browne of www.irishpeopleunion.com and the rest of the people (from the Facebook Group and the Property Pin) at the planning meeting expressed our determination that the protest will not be hijacked by other political parties or union groups.

We will be expressing to them in the run up to the protest, that banners for other groups will not be welcomed, and that anyone attending the march should do so as a concerned citizen with a clear 'No to NAMA' message.

I hope this can put peoples' minds at ease regarding the protest. :cool:

the butcher · 18-08-2009 12:18pm

egan007 wrote: »

Because we all know that the state can run things better than private companies.

And NAMA is going to be run by whom? Get your facts straight.

Anyway this thread is on the protest. From what I've read it's strictly 'No To NAMA'. The government have given no thought to any other option available. NAMA in it's present form is a complete disaster.

This is a chance for any individual to stand up and protest against NAMA. I dont want to read people moaning on other threads "My taxes have gone up", "I lost my job in the public sector", "Damn water charges", "I hate the new property tax", "Why are the banks putting up the rates" etc etc, like it or not NAMA in it's present form effects all of us in the future.

eamonnm79 · 18-08-2009 2:30pm

Long Onion wrote: »

Hi Eamonnm79,

I did touch on it further back. This is one aspect that does carry a moral dilemma, for what it's worth, I do believe that the initial investment by bond and shareholders carried a risk and that in normal circumstances they should not be bailed out for backing the wrong horse. But I don't believe that forcing them to take a loss should be the defining factor in the matter.

NAMA will have a side-effect of enriching them and morally this may be incorrect but I don't think this is enough of a reason to wade in and nationalise the banks thus exposing the tax payer to higher potential losses. Look at the continued re-capitaisation of Anglo, the loss making deposit interest rates it's paying, the mounting loan impairements.

I think we have to choose between the lesser of two evils and in my opinion, this is NAMA. Didn't realise some would be so shirty

With Nama after nationalising you save the money you have to pay out to bond and shareholders and you have no risk in over/underpricing.
This is a very significant saving.

leonardjos · 24-08-2009 10:55am

On second thoughts, we'd better call the protest march off. Brendan O'Connor advises to bend over and accept our medicine. :rolleyes:

We could get angry over this mess . . . or get real
Nama is unjust but necessary, and we must now accept the things we cannot change and face the new reality, writes Brendan O'Connor
...
On the issue of what price the State will pay for the debts, let's be real, too. Whatever you or I think, the Government will give the banks whatever they have to give the banks to ensure they don't go under. As to the subtleties of how much of this will be given as payment for loans and how much of it will be given as refinancing, I'm sure they'll work that out, too. :eek:
...
Or you could just accept the reality that they are actually never going to do anything about public sector pay or numbers, that they would genuinely rather see the country beggared than to do it. You could just accept that asking our politicians to cut quangoes full of former or current civil servants, or asking them to fire any of their brethren in government departments, would be like asking them to cut off their hands. It is against their very nature. And to ask them to do it merely to save a few faceless workers in the private sector? Never. As if they would dream of getting rid of living, breathing flesh and blood public sector workers, people like themselves, people who got their jobs because of being like themselves, in order to save some mere numbers out in the private sector.

You could knock yourself out going mad about all this stuff. Or you could have the wisdom to accept the things you cannot change. I don't see Brian Cowen giving himself blood pressure over any of this, so why should we? And as unreal as it might all seem, this, folks, is the new reality.

Footnote: For anyone who doesn't remember, this is the guy who said The smart, ballsy guys are buying up property right now in July 2007.

oceanclub · 24-08-2009 11:00am

leonardjos wrote: »

Footnote: For anyone who doesn't remember, this is the guy who said The smart, ballsy guys are buying up property right now in July 2007.

When this genius is for something, you know it's bound to be bad.

Of course, the smart ballsy guy was whining a whole back about how negative equity was everyone's fault except, well, puffed-up journos shilling for the property industry:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/hurley-and-his-banker-cronies-have-ruined-this-country-fire-him-now-1773209.html

P.

gurramok · 24-08-2009 12:26pm

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'm opposed to NAMA, but I tend not to go on these marches as (it seems to me) they get bandwagoned by sectional interests. So I expect there'll be banners there from people protesting hospital closures / Welfare Cuts / Child Benefit Cuts / Thomas Cook supporters / Civil Service AntiPension Levy groups / Joe Higgins waffling on about Bin Taxes etc.

So whilst I'm opposed to NAMA, I couldn't in good conscience associate with some of these groups.

DeVore wrote:

I will only give you 1000 to 1 that SWP or whatever they are calling themselves lately are behind this

No, they are not behind it. You will be surprised that its mostly middle-class types.

Its ironic that scaremongering of a SWP type organised protest scares people away from their right to protest at something they disagree with. Sad for democracy.

oceanclub · 24-08-2009 12:30pm

gurramok wrote: »

No, they are not behind it. You will be surprised that its mostly middle-class types.

Its ironic that scaremongering of a SWP type organised protest scares people away from their right to protest at something they disagree with. Sad for democracy.

The SWP are definitely not behind it. I should know because I was the admins of one of the anti-NAMA facebook groups and had a SWPers contacting me asking me to add a link to their protest to the No to NAMA one.

As for the idea that you shouldn't protest against something because someone, somewhere, that you don't like may agree with you on it, well, realistically you never vote or protest ever again. And if you don't protest against it, I hope that you're not someone whinging about tax increases down the line.

P.

thebman · 24-08-2009 12:57pm

It seems politics is relevant to the middle classes now that we are up sh** creek and the government has made it clear they want to lean on the middle class again to make up the difference for government policy mistakes.

Not surprising we are angry, expect the government to try to censor the Internet next to stop this easy organising of protests! That will solve the problem :-/

Count Dooku · 24-08-2009 1:36pm

thebman wrote: »

It seems politics is relevant to the middle classes now that we are up sh** creek and the government has made it clear they want to lean on the middle class again to make up the difference for government policy mistakes.

Not surprising we are angry, expect the government to try to censor the Internet next to stop this easy organising of protests! That will solve the problem :-/

From independent
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/spending-cuts-must-be-priority-1867239.html

The new taxes that the commission proposes represent a full frontal assault on the middle classes -- the least organised and least militant sector in society.

eamonnm79 · 24-08-2009 2:48pm

The likes of Brendan O Conner have done an excellent job of demonising the left. Infact he and his ilk have succeded in making left, social, union etc. dirty words in the ears of many broadsheet readers.

Now that his free market, every man for himself, ideals have gone down the pan he would rather be completely defeatest than to actually think, hey maybe I was wrong about those leftie lads maybe they were just trying to look out for middle/lower classes.

As for not joining a protest because you dont like some of the others who agree with you on this issue. That makes no sense. Divide and concour.

oceanclub · 24-08-2009 4:33pm

eamonnm79 wrote: »

The likes of Brendan O Conner have done an excellent job of demonising the left. Infact he and his ilk have succeded in making left, social, union etc. dirty words in the ears of many broadsheet readers.

Now that his free market, every man for himself, ideals have gone down the pan...

Sorry, but I had to interrupt and say it would be a step-up for O'Connor to have any ideals.

P.

Salvelinus · 24-08-2009 5:18pm

eamonnm79 wrote: »

The likes of Brendan O Conner have done an excellent job of demonising the left. Infact he and his ilk have succeded in making left, social, union etc. dirty words in the ears of many broadsheet readers.

Now that his free market, every man for himself, ideals have gone down the pan he would rather be completely defeatest than to actually think, hey maybe I was wrong about those leftie lads maybe they were just trying to look out for middle/lower classes.

As for not joining a protest because you dont like some of the others who agree with you on this issue. That makes no sense. Divide and concour.

You're a star, Smarty McBallsy Brendan O'Connor? As someone said before "somewhere out there, there's a monkey grinding an organ with more dignity than Brendan O'Connor"

LostinBlanch · 24-08-2009 7:41pm

oceanclub wrote: »

Sorry, but I had to interrupt and say it would be a step-up for O'Connor to have any ideals.

P.

I read that as ideas and still agreed with it.

leonardjos · 25-08-2009 8:29am

Gambling all for a prize not worth winning

by FINTAN O’TOOLE in the Irish Times today

The fundamental reform in attitudes, values and priorities that is crucial to our survival will be impossible. All we’ll have is an economic version of Sophie’s Choice: heads, we lose billions of public money; tails we inflate another bubble.

This is why Nama has to be stopped, and why public opinion has to make itself felt. If Nama goes ahead without the largest public demonstrations ever seen in the State, we deserve what we get. Our kids deserve better.

A clear rallying to action!

Start getting your placards ready for the protest now!

eamonnm79 · 25-08-2009 11:25am

Have any of the Unions or Sinn Fein or labour been in touch with regard to the march?

getcover · 25-08-2009 2:11pm

leonardjos wrote: »

Footnote: For anyone who doesn't remember, this is the guy who said The smart, ballsy guys are buying up property right now in July 2007.

The second paragragh of that "article" reads:

"Tell you what, I think I know what I'd be doing if I had money, and if I wasn't already massively over-exposed to the property market by virtue of owning a reasonable home. I'd be buying property. In fact, I might do it anyway. You don't even need money to buy property these days. Imagine if you walked into the bank and said, "Listen, guys. I want to gamble a million on the stock market. I have 100 grand myself, will you guys lend me 900 grand at really low rates and I'll pay you back over 40 years? In fact I won't even pay off the principal, I'll just pay off the interest." They'd laugh you out of it. But substitute gambling on the property market for gambling on the stock market and they'll fall over themselves to give it to you."

That pretty much sums up what the banks did, aided and abetted by FF/PD, and yet some people still think these are the very same people to get us out of the mess they created...

Sand · 25-08-2009 5:15pm

Have any of the Unions or Sinn Fein or labour been in touch with regard to the march?

I think the organisers have been very clear that they want a very simple and direct focus on opposition to NAMA - they dont want it hijacked for the purposes of the trade unions, Sinn Fein or the Labour parties political aims and needs. Which is very understandable in my book, as its far easier to unify around opposition to NAMA than the Sinn Fein manifesto.

They could do with contacting Fintan O'Toole though - a lot of the comments on the article were calling for him to lead a protest march...it might be easier for him to endorse the one organised for Sept 12th and make sure people are aware of it.

meathstevie · 25-08-2009 5:43pm

egan007 wrote: »

Ha, ha ha, ha ha ha ha ha

Ha

Ha

ha...

good one....

Because we all know that the state can run things better than private companies.

I would dare to say so yes. State organisations that aren't directly governed by some numbskull politician tend to be ran quite well. I haven't heard about AGS or the Defence Forces or courts service for example being in the load of ****e the banks and developers got themselves into....

Sand · 25-08-2009 6:03pm

Have you heard of the Financial Regulator? No?

dresden8 · 25-08-2009 6:56pm

Sand wrote: »

Have you heard of the Financial Regulator? No?

There is a lot wrong with the public service, but he was a special fncker who seemed to be in thrall to everybody except the public.

You can't taint 300,000 people with that fnckers contagion.

The phrase "political appointee" springs to mind.

leonardjos · 26-08-2009 8:15am

The 'No to NAMA' campaign has been ratched up today with 46 economists signing a letter in the Irish Times calling on the government to reconsider its NAMA plans

Nama set to shift wealth to lenders and developers

The key difficulty facing the Government is that to pay existing market prices would leave the banks sitting on losses large enough as to effectively bankrupt them. This would then require the State to invest in the banks to such an extent as to effectively nationalise them.

Consequently, it is clear that the Government is determined to pay a price for land and speculative developments greatly in excess of the market clearing price.

Thus, by overpaying, the State will wind up transferring to private individuals a sum close to the entire tax take across all tax heads.

In a period of fiscal collapse this is surely not a decision that should be taken lightly, if at all.

We therefore urge the Government to reconsider its approach to payment for loans to be taken into Nama, to pay no more than current market value – which can be ascertained even in these times – and to require the investors in the banks to bear some of the cost of restructuring the system. Moreover, we also argue that the Government should not burden the State with more debt than is absolutely required.

To do otherwise would be economic folly.

Maxster · 26-08-2009 10:21pm

I've no political bias. I want to remain living in Ireland. I have two small boys I want to live in Ireland. I don't see why because I bought a nice car and house I should be taxed to the limit for 30 years and my sons after me. My father went through that.

Listening to radio 1 this evening, we're all missing the objective, getting the economy going again is whats NAMA was supposed to be about. Getting money circulating to business and shops.

Some where along the line that translated into artifically supporting property prices at the expense of the tax payer. The debt difference(boom property price less todays property price) has to be paid to the international investors who loaned to Irish banks (really the Irish people including developers) if Ireland is to remain a viable economically. We can't get away from that. Thats one side of the equation. The other side can be written anyway we like.

NAMA does not appear to recognise the responsibility of banks and developers to pay their share of the debt difference. It appears to lay completely with the tax payer.

There is a real mis-trust of the body politic now, all parties included. I can't agree with the NAMA idea as it. I am guessing that the estimates of €90b are probably best case figures.

There plenty solutions out there but the correct one is the one for Irish people not the banks or developers. They made massive money for 15 years and they knew that property prices could rise and fall. They are property professionals, tax payers are not.

Lets hear the other solutions, there must be better ones.

The 'No the Nama' Street Protest on 12th Sept

Comments