NAMA - If there wer'e a referendum on it... How would you vote?

fergusman · 17-09-2009 09:55PM

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

fergusman wrote: »

Like I explained in the Lisbon thread, my main objections to it are in the order of:

1. Any suggestion of expanding ANY military spending, increasing the onas on countries to modernise their forces or ANY to do with the military is just a big no no for me... Im sorry... there is absolutlely no need to even promote the military anymore... if anything they should be finding ways to wind it down... I am totally oppsosed to any European treaty which makes provisions for the military, that includes Lisbon.

2. The response to climate change mentioned in the treaty may as well be as useful as one of those "legal garuantees" written on a napkin. Totally lame and putting the entire world on the back foot. Back to the drawing board I say!

3. I dont trust the the ECB. Nor do I trust any bank, but I still need them for some fckd up reason! You mentioned "no obligation" for the ECB to rescue us... now I cant see what provisions are in the treaty that say, if Ireland does not vote yes, we will let you BURN... thats school yard stuff, this is different.

Far from perfect? How about "not far enough" in some cases and the other "perfect for big boys with big toys"

We are now going way off topic with Lisbon, there is a separate thread for this. Incidentally I'm voting yes but I have no interest in debating it here.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

We do have another way... like I said, we gotta just let what happening play itself out first.. step back for awhile... RELAX... close your eyes and breathe... reconnect with your soul for a moment and get that money free feeling of hapiness, you know what Im on about.. now hold that thought and envolve like your should, thats natural.

Woah man can I have some of what youre smoking!!!! :p:p

drunken_munky52 · 17-09-2009 10:11PM

fergusman wrote: »

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

We are now going way off topic with Lisbon, there is a separate thread for this. Incidentally I'm voting yes but I have no interest in debating it here.

Yes. Back to NAMA... Just heard Coglan on the radio, saying how disappointed she is to see the opposition parties not intersted in "growth".

Can I asked you one question: Why do we not nationalise the banks?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Woah man can I have some of what youre smoking!!!! :p:p

You can have some of what the opposition are smoking today, coz thats some goooood sshh!t

And where the is your response to the fractional reserve banking statement? :cool:

fergusman · 17-09-2009 10:24PM

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

fergusman wrote: »

And where the is your response to the fractional reserve banking statement? :cool:

Erm.. its 2 posts up...

jenzz · 17-09-2009 10:28PM

Im putting my money on it now that in 5 years time when we the taxpayer are paying for another tribunal that it comes out that the developers were all allowed to buy the debt back from Nama at a discount. So Billy the builder owes AIB €300 m now & buys it back off nama for €1m next year.

fergusman · 17-09-2009 10:42PM

jenzz wrote: »

Im putting my money on it now that in 5 years time when we the taxpayer are paying for another tribunal that it comes out that the developers were all allowed to buy the debt back from Nama at a discount. So Billy the builder owes AIB €300 m now & buys it back off nama for €1m next year.

If Billy the Builder owes 300m and ends up going to NAMA where the **** is he going to get 1m to buy back the assets if hes bankrupt?

Western_sean · 18-09-2009 07:18AM

Please understand that the ECB are ultimately to blame for our current woes, as they were the root source for the credit that gave the Irish banks the ability to loan the the money to ordinary people and developers in the first place.

I think this represents a substantial part of the problem - nobody made us borrow money, we must begin to accept responsibility for our own actions as a nation in this regard before we can reach a sensible resolution to the current problem.

Secondly it appears to me that you are confusing the lax standard of Irish banking regulation with availability of credit. Just because money was available in international markets Irish banks were under no obligation to lend it on to the people. Clearly it is a matter for the Irish financial regulator to control lax lending practice in the market and that to my mind is where blame ultimately lies - though I could see valid arguments for dept of finance responsibility as well.

Why should we put our faith in such a "reckless" institution once again, when they were the ones that grossley overlent way beyond their means.

That's just incorrect the ecb has been many things but never reckless. It has followed the mandate it was given accurately and reasonably successfully. European inflation has to an acceptable degree followed its target. The problem from an Irish point of view is that the Irish economy was not moving in harmony with the continental ones at the point where we joined the euro. Our leaders subsequently choose courses of action which moved us further out of step with the larger european economies/ Now as interest rates begin to rise the price of this course of action will have to be paid by ordinary people in terms of higher loan repayments when they can least afford them. This, while unsavoury, is I think fair and reasonable as the majority of these people supported the government policies which caused their current and future problems.

Can I asked you one question: Why do we not nationalise the banks?

Excellent question this, I can see only 2 possible answers either
1 as a point of principle this government believes in nationalising losses and privatising gains
2 Sudo private banks are a requirement to access the ECB funding

Anyone know? Any other theories?

fergusman wrote: »

If Billy the Builder owes 300m and ends up going to NAMA where the **** is he going to get 1m to buy back the assets if hes bankrupt?

I think there is a point worth noting here. It is probable that the current crop of large scale development companies will not be in a position to buy anything. However this does not mean that the principles associated with these companies won't be in a position to be active in the property market.

drunken_munky52 · 18-09-2009 02:09PM

Western_sean wrote: »

2 Sudo private banks are a requirement to access the ECB funding

Anyone know? Any other theories?

Theres that word private. The European Central Bank was quoted as saying it would prefer to see the banks in private hands. I also note the word "requirement". Does that mean its written into law? Of course not, becuase Anglo would not be owned by the tax payer now if it were a law. So its obviously a self-governing rule that the ECB have pulled out of thin air...

Why is this?
What is there to gain for this baseless "requirement"?
Are they looking out for their own interests, the interests of the market or the interests of something else?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of privitisation ond nationalisation?

Rujib1 · 18-09-2009 03:10PM

What is not properly understood, is that no money was lost in the property boom

The money, just got transferred from one place to another. From buyer to seller. It's still out there. There are some guys sitting on serious piles of cash.

I bet ny bottom dollar that the drunk monkey is one of them :cool:

R

Western_sean · 18-09-2009 04:12PM

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Theres that word private. The European Central Bank was quoted as saying it would prefer to see the banks in private hands. I also note the word "requirement". Does that mean its written into law? Of course not, becuase Anglo would not be owned by the tax payer now if it were a law. So its obviously a self-governing rule that the ECB have pulled out of thin air...

I don't think what you're saying here allows us to draw the conclusion you've drawn.

Why is this?
What is there to gain for this baseless "requirement"?
Are they looking out for their own interests, the interests of the market or the interests of something else?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of privitisation ond nationalisation?

Again I think you've projected issues in to this debate which may or may not exist based on your original flawed premise - I think you need to establish a sound factual and logical base to support your theories - I appreciate that this is an emotive issue but I'm not sure your approach is constructive.

drunken_munky52 · 18-09-2009 04:51PM

Western_sean wrote: »

Again I think you've projected issues in to this debate which may or may not exist based on your original flawed premise - I think you need to establish a sound factual and logical base to support your theories - I appreciate that this is an emotive issue but I'm not sure your approach is constructive.

OK, I can appriciate going outside of the box is too much for you to handle... you can stick to the script if you want and believe everything the modern world sets in stone

I find it amazing that people who spend their lives in economics dont ever question the system... and when they are presented with the presence of such hidden practices, they shy away from it and brand it a conspiracy theory just so they can avoid discussing it.

fergusman · 18-09-2009 06:13PM

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

I find it amazing that people who spend their lives in economics dont ever question the system... and when they are presented with the presence of such hidden practices, they shy away from it and brand it a conspiracy theory just so they can avoid discussing it.

I find it far more amazing that people who have never studied economics can make sweeping generalisations and judgments on the subject after reading a few articles on the internet by dubious sources with biased views.

Read and research both sides of the argument then make your judgment.
In economics rarely is there one complete answer, its a social science based on theories and is constantly evolving.
Its not like maths where youre either right or wrong.

drunken_munky52 · 18-09-2009 06:54PM

fergusman wrote: »

I find it far more amazing that people who have never studied economics can make sweeping generalisations and judgments on the subject after reading a few articles on the internet by dubious sources with biased views.

Read and research both sides of the argument then make your judgment.
In economics rarely is there one complete answer, its a social science based on theories and is constantly evolving.
Its not like maths where youre either right or wrong.

I knew I would get a dito response like this... knock knock!

Again, side stepping my previous questions and statements and trying to make me out to be conspiracy theorist... thats your response to everyhing

I have not made any generalisations or theories in regards to the poster before you, I asked a number of questions which still have not been debated by either of you... if you can come back with an explanation or answer I will oblige

drunken_munky52 · 18-09-2009 11:08PM

Life... whats it all about exactly?

If its all about this sh!t above then how fcukd we be!

fergusman · 19-09-2009 12:46AM

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

I knew I would get a dito response like this... knock knock!

Well you should have seen it coming then shouldnt you!!

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Again, side stepping my previous questions and statements and trying to make me out to be conspiracy theorist... thats your response to everyhing

What questions have I not responded to that were addressed to me?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

I have not made any generalisations or theories in regards to the poster before you, I asked a number of questions which still have not been debated by either of you... if you can come back with an explanation or answer I will oblige

Here are some quotes from your earlier posts...

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

"they dont want the people to own such a enterprise... rather their own handful of elite."

Who are they? Who are these elite? and why?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

NAMA will only serve to boost the share prices of the institutions it will be used on... thus returning the millions that have been wiped out by the fat cat elite in our ranks...

The government are now the major shareholders in all these banks so we share some of any upside when the banks are freed from their toxic debts.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Please understand that the ECB are ultimatley to blame for our current woes, as they were the root source for the credit that gave the Irish banks the ability to loan the the money to ordinary people and developers in the first place

This is the same as blaming McDonalds for being fat. People CHOOSE to borrow money, no one is forced to.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

to reject the EU corporate elite who have deliberatly engineered this mess, by providing the banks of Europe with loans that effectively cant be repaid for decades to come.

Sorry but this sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

that Irish developers got LOANS from Irish banks -> The Irish banks got their LOANS from the ECB -> The ECB got its LOANS from the WORLD BANK/IMF -> That leads to the United States Federal Reserve

This is factually incorrect. Do you accept that?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Nothing mushroomed in Ireland, until we devalued our currency in the early 90s and that was an internal decision, no help for Brussels.

Also inaccurate, i explained why earlier.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

You have obviously looked into this system in far too great detail then. For various banking terminolgy in it is a mere mask for what really is going on.

This makes no sense, its like saying someone who has studied medicene or any dicipline that they basically know too much to know whats really going on... while someone who just read a manual on how to diagnose a disease is better placed to diagnose it.

Incidentally regarding Nationalisation of the banks, even with Nama it may still be necessary, but personally I'd like us to try something akin to Nama first, although I still have issues with some of the provisions of Nama.
Let me also say clearly, I regard NAMA as far from perfect but so far its the best show in town.
Nama will be hard enough for our limited politicians and civil service to manage, let alone the whole Irish banking system.
State run institutions dont have a good track record in this country, just look at the state of our health system and civil service. The wastage in both is horrendous.

Also regarding Fractional Reserve Banking, what system would you propose exactly? (see my previous post on the subject, which you didnt reply to)

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Life... whats it all about exactly?

If its all about this sh!t above then how fcukd we be!

AGREED!! and on that note, i'm off to bed, going surfing in the morning if theres some fecking waves!!
have a good weekend drunken monkey!!!:cool:

drunken_munky52 · 19-09-2009 02:27AM

fergusman wrote: »

What questions have I not responded to that were addressed to me?

You answered, I did not see that post.

fergusman wrote: »

Who are they? Who are these elite? and why?

Banks have historically owned major stakes in industrial corporations. Slavery requires that slaves be housed and fed... economic slavery allows for people to feed and house themselves.

fergusman wrote: »

This is the same as blaming McDonalds for being fat. People CHOOSE to borrow money, no one is forced to.

We are raised in a environment where we just accept this as gospal, that money is faith... money is debt and debt is money... its there blackmail people for life... a mortgage is the way to ensure you work yourself to your full, thus my whole notion of modern day, hidden slavery. But I have to mention my fellow man making my clothes and shoes on less than a Euro a day, he must have it really bad...

fergusman wrote: »

This is factually incorrect. Do you accept that?

Yes. But explain to me the exact role of the Central bank?
What I am getting at is the fact that... the government want to take a loan of lets say €5 billion... the ECB goes sure, we will buy €5 billion worth of government bonds from you...

So the ECB prints a load of toilet paper and sends it over to Ireland in exchange for more toilet paper.

There you go... €5 billion added to the Irish reserves... and the fact that we handed bonds to the ECB means we are obliged to pay that money back to the ECB...

How can we ever repay money that does not even exist to begin with?
How can we rid the national debt, when the fact remains that the amount of money floating around in the world will always be less than the amount owed back to the central banks?

Another point: every €10 note in your wallet is owed to somebody by somebody... if there was not any debt in your wallet, then there would be nothing to owe... then the money wouldnt even exist...

mind numbing as it may seem, explain this....

One final question... is the money that the centralbanks come up with in the first place, based on gold or thin air? If neither, then what?

fergusman wrote: »

Also regarding Fractional Reserve Banking, what system would you propose exactly? (see my previous post on the subject, which you didnt reply to)

Resource based economics. Not a barther system just in case you think...

Économiste Monétaire · 20-09-2009 12:29AM

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Please understand that the ECB are ultimatley to blame for our current woes, as they were the root source for the credit that gave the Irish banks the ability to loan the the money to ordinary people and developers in the first place.

Err, you'll find that central bank lending accounted for very little of Irish bank wholesale funding until very recently. Most of it was from other banks and money market participants, very little from monetary policy operations.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

The likes of you keep blaming our own banks and developers for losing the run of ourselves... it should be apparant by now from my above arguements... that Irish developers got LOANS from Irish banks -> The Irish banks got their LOANS from the ECB -> The ECB got its LOANS from the WORLD BANK/IMF -> That leads to the United States Federal Reserve, who are no more federal than federal express... follow the money trail and it is easy to see who has the ordinary people by the balls in this day and age... I could go on with this... but I would like to hear your view first on where this is going and answer my first question.

You really have no clue what you're talking about. It looks as though you watched something like Zeitgeist and assumed a role of monetary economist/finance expert. The ECB doesn't get a loan from the IMF, and where you got the idea that the ECB got a loan from the World Bank (a bank for developing countries, by the way) I don't know. You probably saw the prefix of "World" and assumed it fitted the conspiracy.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Yes. But explain to me the exact role of the Central bank?
What I am getting at is the fact that... the government want to take a loan of lets say €5 billion... the ECB goes sure, we will buy €5 billion worth of government bonds from you...

The ECB doesn't lend money to governments, try picking up a principles of economics book. You'll see the section called 'monetary financing' and a section on the Maastricht Treaty. You'll also notice that the ECB ruled out financing NAMA at the end of its opinion paper:

3.2 Prohibition of monetary financing: It is understood that the draft law will comply fully with the prohibition of monetary financing laid down in Article 101(1) of the Treaty, read in conjunction with Council Regulation (EC) No 3603/93 of 13 December 1993 specifying definitions for the application of the prohibitions referred to in Articles 104 [now 101] and 104b(1) [now 103(1)] of the Treaty (‘Council Regulation (EC) No 3603/93’)37. In this respect, NAMA will qualify as a ‘public undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 101(1) of the Treaty and Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3603/93 as NAMA is to be established under the draft law as a ‘public undertaking’ over which the Irish State may exercise a dominant influence by virtue of its ownership of it, its financial participation therein and the rules which govern it. In particular, the Minister advances to NAMA the funds that are necessary for performance of its functions, and appoints all the members of the NAMA Board. Moreover, the Minister (after consultation with the CBFSAI Governor, acting independently) will have the power to issue written guidelines to NAMA in connection with its functions, and may give binding written directions to NAMA concerning the achievement of NAMA’s purposes. NAMA’s assets will thus be under the effective control of the Irish State. Therefore, overdraft facilities or any other type of credit facility with the CBFSAI in favour of NAMA, as well as the direct purchase from NAMA by ESCB central banks of debt instruments, will not be possible, in view of the prohibition of monetary financing under Article 101 of the Treaty.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

There you go... €5 billion added to the Irish reserves... and the fact that we handed bonds to the ECB means we are obliged to pay that money back to the ECB...

The ECB never takes ownership of the bonds. When a bank borrows from the central bank, it retains ownership of the collateral used. All coupon payments accrue to the Irish banks.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Another point: every €10 note in your wallet is owed to somebody by somebody

Currency is a liability of the central bank...

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

One final question... is the money that the centralbanks come up with in the first place, based on gold or thin air? If neither, then what?

What is money? A medium of exchange. It need not be packed by anything except confidence. A central bank increases the monetary base in line with population and productivity growth.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Resource based economics. Not a barther system just in case you think...

Haha, Jacque Fresco; how delusional. Someone watched Zeitgeist 2 and thought it was the solution to all our problems.

drunken_munky52 · 20-09-2009 01:35AM

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Err, you'll find that central bank lending accounted for very little of Irish bank wholesale funding until very recently. Most of it was from other banks and money market participants, very little from monetary policy operations.

So where did that money come from that was lent to the banks that lent to the Irish banks other than the ECB?

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

You really have no clue what you're talking about.

I certainly know what I am thinking, and thats good enough for me... your feable attempt at an insult just makes me cringe.

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

The ECB doesn't lend money to governments, try picking up a principles of economics book. You'll see the section called 'monetary financing' and a section on the Maastricht Treaty. You'll also notice that the ECB ruled out financing NAMA at the end of its opinion paper:

Tis all well and well they were kind enough to spoil European banks such as Irish ones for years with low interest rates... this was a direct booster to loans given out to ordinary people who could not afford it... now they are been even more kind, to effectively lower the interest rate so much that it fools us into thinking we can pay off our dues with no extra cost... for a short time anyway, until this so called "upturn" occurs, then they will jack it up again... but then again they are the "rules"

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

The ECB never takes ownership of the bonds. When a bank borrows from the central bank, it retains ownership of the collateral used. All coupon payments accrue to the Irish banks.

Ownership? you must be joking mate... tell that to the families who have lost their homes so far in this reccesion... so they maintained "ownership" of their "collateral" (their house) and the banks still reposesses it.... but the rules for banks defaulting on other banks are different... cronies take care of other cronies

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Currency is a liability of the central bank...

As opposed to an asset??? Who has that then?

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

A central bank increases the monetary base in line with population and productivity growth.

Yeah............ inflation.......... i suppose thats good for us you think?

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Haha, Jacque Fresco; how delusional. Someone watched Zeitgeist 2 and thought it was the solution to all our problems.

You seem like a smart guy with an understandable ignorance ... "delusional"?

Économiste Monétaire · 20-09-2009 12:28PM

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

So where did that money come from that was lent to the banks that lent to the Irish banks other than the ECB?

Pension funds, money market funds deposits and investments in CDs and CP from banks; Carry-trades from Japan. Prove your original point by taking a time series of central bank funding to Irish mortgage lenders over the bubble period relative to their interbank and residential deposit liabilities, or accept your point is wrong.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

I certainly know what I am thinking, and thats good enough for me... your feable attempt at an insult just makes me cringe.

You watched a couple of Youtube videos and you think you know what you're talking about; you're even rolling out the lines from the movies, about as federal as Federal Express. :rolleyes: Ever taken economics at university? Ever worked in a bank?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Tis all well and well they were kind enough to spoil European banks such as Irish ones for years with low interest rates... this was a direct booster to loans given out to ordinary people who could not afford it... now they are been even more kind, to effectively lower the interest rate so much that it fools us into thinking we can pay off our dues with no extra cost... for a short time anyway, until this so called "upturn" occurs, then they will jack it up again... but then again they are the "rules"

This is relevant to your point that the ECB lends to governments... how? So, you cede the point?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Ownership? you must be joking mate... tell that to the families who have lost their homes so far in this reccesion... so they maintained "ownership" of their "collateral" (their house) and the banks still reposesses it.... but the rules for banks defaulting on other banks are different... cronies take care of other cronies

This is relevant to the point that the bond payments are accruing to the ECB? Umm, no. Here's a simple example:

Bank A: Hi Mr. Central Bank, I'd like to borrow X amount of reserves.

Mr. Central Bank: OK, you can borrow X amount of reserves, the interest rate is r, and you'll repay us X(1 + r) in one weeks time. To protect us from counterparty risk, please place marketable securities [the bonds] in your securities account to the amount X.

Interest payments accrue to the commercial bank (e.g. AIB, BOI), the coupon payments are not owed to the ECB, only in the case of a default would the ECB exercise it's right to take control of the security.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

As opposed to an asset??? Who has that then?

It's your asset, currency is hardly a liability for someone holding it. :rolleyes:

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Yeah............ inflation.......... i suppose thats good for us you think?

As opposed to dullards who yearn for the gold standard just to keep a price index constant—the mechanism by which to achieve this is deflation à la the Great Depression money supply contraction. Inflation at a constant rate of 2-3% isn't a problem, the debate around this ended 30 years ago, try looking up rational expectations and money illusion.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

You seem like a smart guy with an understandable ignorance ... "delusional"?

You don't seem like a smart guy, just a simpleton who peddles garbage from Youtube videos.

drunken_munky52 · 20-09-2009 04:22PM

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

You don't seem like a smart guy, just a simpleton who peddles garbage from Youtube videos.

And your just a fat nerd who read piles of boring economic text books while idlising cut throat boardroom culture, void of feeling for the needs of people and persuing profit to satisfy greed... a computer programme, written by a profoundly sick world, thanks for your useful explanation of the term delusional :rolleyes:

fergusman · 20-09-2009 07:13PM

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

And your just a fat nerd who read piles of boring economic text books

Those "boring" economics textbooks form a basis for understanding how economics actually works, they might be worth you actually reading them first and then judging their content and contribution to the understanding of this debate.

Personally i think its a more reliable place to start than youtube and wikipedia.

Also this is the second person you've chastised for studying economics too much...
Do you chastise your doctor for studying medicene "too much" as well ?
Do you complain to your solicitor that he has studied law too much?

Its a ridiculous argument.

Économiste Monétaire · 20-09-2009 07:33PM

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

And your just a fat nerd who read piles of boring economic text books while idlising cut throat boardroom culture, void of feeling for the needs of people and persuing profit to satisfy greed... a computer programme, written by a profoundly sick world, thanks for your useful explanation of the term delusional :rolleyes:

Haha! Your argument breaks down because you haven't a bog as to what you're talking about. Your display of Nerd Rage just adds to the failure—you might also want to learn the difference between your and you're, just a thought.

Imagine an economist reading economics books! Shock, horror. Stop-The-Presses.

drunken_munky52 · 20-09-2009 08:53PM

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Haha! Your argument breaks down because you haven't a bog as to what you're talking about. Your display of Nerd Rage just adds to the failure—you might also want to learn the difference between your and you're, just a thought.

Imagine an economist reading economics books! Shock, horror. Stop-The-Presses.

Borrrrrrrring

Sticking to what I believe and you can just stick yours.

NAMA is robbery... you can use all your fancy little terms to try justify it, thank god most people are not polluted with the crap you were thought, you are all mighty coz you think you are qualified to explain this to people, take your explanantion and kiss some business mans arse with it, coz the public won't buy it

meglome · 21-09-2009 03:28AM

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Borrrrrrrring

Sticking to what I believe and you can just stick yours.

NAMA is robbery... you can use all your fancy little terms to try justify it, thank god most people are not polluted with the crap you were thought, you are all mighty coz you think you are qualified to explain this to people, take your explanantion and kiss some business mans arse with it, coz the public won't buy it

Yourself and Rtdh amaze me. I know that there's only so much knowledge I have. So when I have people, for example, with an economics background advice me on economics I'll make sure to listen carefully. Of course they may not be correct but I'll take it seriously. You on the other hand are just dismissing it out of hand based on some youtube videos. Rtdh is choosing to believe an internet publication which is packed with lies and which we have no idea who's behind over pretty much every sensible publication there is.

And you know what the really funny thing is (laugh or cry I say) even if we as a country lost say 10 billion Euro on NAMA over the next ten years it would still pale the 20 billion we're going to lose this year alone from our overspending. Time to smell the flowers.

drunken_munky52 · 21-09-2009 09:32PM

meglome wrote: »

Yourself and Rtdh amaze me. I know that there's only so much knowledge I have. So when I have people, for example, with an economics background advice me on economics I'll make sure to listen carefully. Of course they may not be correct but I'll take it seriously. You on the other hand are just dismissing it out of hand based on some youtube videos. Rtdh is choosing to believe an internet publication which is packed with lies and which we have no idea who's behind over pretty much every sensible publication there is.

Oh well, off to watch Pat Kenny's new show now in a moment... "Frontline". I suppose it will be you and the economist's cup of tea anyday... pre-filtered news and prespectives brought directly into your living room...

hopefully it will be a change from all the waffle we here from the "experts" on primetime, NAMA this NAMA that, this number and this value = confused yet? Thats right public, stay confused... we experts will tell you the truth... you dont have to understand it... just believe what we say and everything will be OK... trust us.

meglome · 22-09-2009 12:00AM

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Oh well, off to watch Pat Kenny's new show now in a moment... "Frontline". I suppose it will be you and the economist's cup of tea anyday... pre-filtered news and prespectives brought directly into your living room...

hopefully it will be a change from all the waffle we here from the "experts" on primetime, NAMA this NAMA that, this number and this value = confused yet? Thats right public, stay confused... we experts will tell you the truth... you dont have to understand it... just believe what we say and everything will be OK... trust us.

Why bother quoting my post if you're just going to rant about other things?

drunken_munky52 · 22-09-2009 12:36AM

meglome wrote: »

Why bother quoting my post if you're just going to rant about other things?

Its all relative you see. You continue to quote the treaty... thats your world for the next two weeks, zzzzzzzzzzzzz. Welcome to the real world friend, this is where you on one side have a belief based on fact, yet you ignore the big picture... I on the other hand have a strong belief (just belief) that Lisbon is wrong, based on some facts of the treaty I have brought to your attention so far... but mostly based detaching myself from mainstream ways of precieving things... you and your muscle boy economist have branded me as "delusional" and spreading "lies", that is true... but you fail the acknowledge them still...

Still tough, what did you think about loud mouth Lenihen barking over Pat tonight? Jesus the spindoctors were rolling around in his eyeballs all the time... but I take it you have swallowed his complete crap and thwarted intentions?

meglome · 22-09-2009 01:26AM

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Its all relative you see. You continue to quote the treaty... thats your world for the next two weeks, zzzzzzzzzzzzz. Welcome to the real world friend, this is where you on one side have a belief based on fact, yet you ignore the big picture... I on the other hand have a strong belief (just belief) that Lisbon is wrong, based on some facts of the treaty I have brought to your attention so far... but mostly based detaching myself from mainstream ways of precieving things... you and your muscle boy economist have branded me as "delusional" and spreading "lies", that is true... but you fail the acknowledge them still...

Still tough, what did you think about loud mouth Lenihen barking over Pat tonight? Jesus the spindoctors were rolling around in his eyeballs all the time... but I take it you have swallowed his complete crap and thwarted intentions?

Sorry just because you believe in the tooth fairy doesn't mean I'm going to.

There is no need for my opinion here, or your opinion, or anyone's opinion. This is a detailed legal document which you can either show the parts you don't like or you can't. You have singularly failed to show the problems you claim with the Lisbon treaty.

You've also failed to show an understanding of even the basic workings of economics yet you want us to believe you on that as well.

I don't claim to know that much but I'm willing to back up with I say with evidence and logic, maybe you could try this.

drunken_munky52 · 22-09-2009 09:39AM

meglome wrote: »

Sorry just because you believe in the tooth fairy doesn't mean I'm going to.

You dont have to, thats just my opinion. Thank god we live in a "free" world where speech is considered a luxary.

meglome wrote: »

There is no need for my opinion here, or your opinion, or anyone's opinion. This is a detailed legal document which you can either show the parts you don't like or you can't. You have singularly failed to show the problems you claim with the Lisbon treaty.

Yes, I have interupted in my own way just like you have. Basically, until the military aspect of it is dropped I wont be touching it with a 6ft pole... do you not understand that or are you just blinded by the "pros" of the treaty and not seeing the "cons" at all? Is there any aspect you do not like?

meglome wrote: »

You've also failed to show an understanding of even the basic workings of economics yet you want us to believe you on that as well.

Economics is for people who dedicate their lives to understanding it... and even different economists differ on issues... its not an exact science like lets say engineering is... and engineering solves real problems is the world...

meglome wrote: »

I don't claim to know that much but I'm willing to back up with I say with evidence and logic, maybe you could try this.

So did you like Frontline? Do you think that NAMA is a good idea? Why are we pumping our money into banks to clear the loans of fat cats? Lenehin is a liar and a cheat to do this to us.

meglome · 22-09-2009 12:07PM

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

You dont have to, thats just my opinion. Thank god we live in a "free" world where speech is considered a luxary.

Personally I don't care whatever opinion you hold. But if you going to tell porkies and misrepresent the facts I'll be pointing that out.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Yes, I have interupted in my own way just like you have. Basically, until the military aspect of it is dropped I wont be touching it with a 6ft pole... do you not understand that or are you just blinded by the "pros" of the treaty and not seeing the "cons" at all? Is there any aspect you do not like?

I haven't interpreted anything, it's a detailed legal document so it doesn't need to be interpreted.

Most of this treaty is pretty innocuous so I'm okay with it. I'm not 100% on the defence and security aspects but they will have little affect in practice over what's happening already so I'll be voting Yes. I would suggest that any treaty negotiated between 27 countries can never be all things to all people, but on balance can be good

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Economics is for people who dedicate their lives to understanding it... and even different economists differ on issues... its not an exact science like lets say engineering is... and engineering solves real problems is the world...

Like you I don't know an awful lot about economics but I know enough not to believe some youtube videos.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

So did you like Frontline? Do you think that NAMA is a good idea? Why are we pumping our money into banks to clear the loans of fat cats? Lenehin is a liar and a cheat to do this to us.

Well right now NAMA is the only show in town. I'd prefer if the banks were nationalised. Well I'd prefer if we didn't put ourselves into this **** in the first place but there you go.

What do you think we should do?

drunken_munky52 · 22-09-2009 01:56PM

meglome wrote: »

What do you think we should do?

Well, my aim would be to see and end to the banking system altogether... but as that is not going to happen in my life time... the banks should be all taken above byt the government first... no flush them down the toilet.

Wipe the slate clean... start fresh

Take all the banks and create one giant govnt superbank... sort out the loans and all the jazz business... let people off the hook etc... take all the wealthy bankers sports cars, house and trophy wives and sell them on Ebay...

Now use all that money to build high speed broadband, hospitals and schools... etc etc

NAMA - If there wer'e a referendum on it... How would you vote?

Comments