Bertie the champion of the world

Liam Byrne · 15-02-2010 01:49AM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

In truth the banks had little choice because the shareholders demanded increased profits year on year. 'Getting-by' was never an option.

Yes, it's true that it sickens me that profit is viewed as the be-all and end-all.

That's a personal view.

But likewise, the fact remains that the banks (a) not only did have a choice - I said as much that their responsibility is to ensure that they got paid and (b) the Financial Regulator's job should have damn-well ensured that they didn't overdo it and land in the mess that they did.

But of course the fact that he was crap at his job and didn't bother doing it was irrelevant, because he was Bertie's mate.

spj1960 · 15-02-2010 11:38AM

It will be interesting to see the findings of the investigations into Anglo. As for Sean Fitzpatrick, he may or may not have received a payment on exiting however he has not been repaying any of his loans.

Mr FitzPatrick used the secret loans to invest in Anglo shares, property funds, wealth management products, investment property, film finance and pension products.

The Anglo shares obviously are now worthless, Property Funds have dropped but not obliterated, wealth management products - the value would be dependant on the underlying assets so is anybody's guess. But the final two are the most interesting, Film Finance and Pensions. The Film Finance I would say is "Film Relief whereby Tax Relief on 100% of the investment is available. The Pension, well this is still within whatever pension product he choose and in his name. If he gets away without paying his loans, that is some severance package. Wonder what security, if any, is attached to these loans.

It appears that the Civil Service ignore contracts when making severance payment for their high profile people. In the case of Rody Molloy, he contract did not allow him to receive such a payment, they choose to give it to him. There is still a questions as to whether they could legally do this.

jmayo · 15-02-2010 12:38PM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Whatever happened to personal responsibility . . . ? See, I agree (and have done throughout this debate) that the government should have done more to take the heat out of the property bubble and I hold them partly responsible for where we are today . . but to hold them solely responsible and to absolve the consumer of any blame or responsibility just doesn't sit well with me. . . We have to take responsibility for our own actions.

That's a bit glib . . particularly as I had already answered Liam Byrnes question and acknowledged that the FF need to take a level of responsibility for the situation.

I completely agree ... of course the banks benefit, and if they didn't what would be the point ? ... The whole purpose of NAMA is to free up the banking system to operate because without a banking system we don't have an economy !

I am all in favouir of personal responsibility.
Check out my posts stating the same when people raise the concept of a personal NAMA.

But the fact is the country's budget deficit is not down to individual people buying property they could not afford.
It is down to ff led governments increasing public spending based on short term transactional taxes that they shoudl have known would come to an end some day.

The fact that the banks are insolvent is not because ff ran the banks and actualyl gave out the loans themsevles.
The primary reason the banks are insolvent is down to the greedy bankers, but the hige secondary reasons are becuase the regulatory authorities and Dept of Finance, all answerable to government in some shape or form played along with the bankers.

Also the bubble was allowed go on unabated because the ff led government refused to introduce taxes or remove investor/speculator tax incentives that would take some of the heat out of the market.
If you can't see that then you are blind.

A government has to do things for the good of the country, for the good of society as a whole and not just for short terms gains for a portion of society.
An example of this was the brave decision of bringing in the smoking ban.
Maybe they should have considered investors, developers, vested interests as the equivalent of the smokers and thought about the long term health of the rest of society just once during the years 2002-2007 ?

I am all for people taking responsibility for their own actions.
What pis***me off is that I (and all the other tax payers still left in the country today and all the future taxpayers of the country) are being asked to take responsibility for the actions of bertie, biffo, michael neary, seanie fitzpatrick, david drumm, eugene sheedy, brian goggins, liam o'reilly, hurley, liam carroll, bernard mcnamara, paddy kelly, mr fleming, sean dunne, etc, etc.

Maybe when I see them really suffering for their actions then I might not be so pi**ed off.
Until then I wish them nothing but the bad luck they deserve for leaving us carrying their crocks of sh**.
They didn't share their personal profits or bonuses with us, so why should they share their losses now.

I know we need banks for an economy to function, but I have asked on another thread somewhere recently what ultimate price to we put on that.
Are we willing to pay any price ?

Are we willing to mortgage our future and our childrens' futures so that maybe some of them some day may actually get a mortgage from one of these banks that we are going to save ?

I actually think the same question is going to be asked about bailing out countries. These quesitons are being faced by the French and more particularly the German taxpayers as they now know that they are affectively going to be bailing out their less frugal contemporaries firstly in Greece and then maybe some other Eurozone countries.

Red_Marauder · 15-02-2010 12:50PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You said that "the financial institution takes the risk".
If they take risks, then it's their tough.

Yes. They are paying for that risk now. Nobody is suggesting they get off scot free or that they have got off scot free so far. Those who risked taking out the loans have to pay for that as well.

Any "sensible business" would also ensure that they would get paid. Anything else is irresponsible to their shareholders.

Even George Lee and David McWilliams did not predict anything close to the scale of economic collapse that has toppled down since the Summer of 2008. In that climate, those risks were deemed as reasonably safe, inasmuch as any risk is ever safe. Banks and financial markets cannot operate in a system of total certainity - that's the whole point of a free market system.

It's gas......if I sold something someone that I knew they couldn't afford, and then came on here and complained that they couldn't pay me for it, I'd be told I was a right eejit. And rightly so.

I sincerely doubt that they "knew" you couldn't afford it. Even if you said (x) is my salary, i can afford (x-(a+b+c)), the natural assumption is that you would cut out b and c from your spending if it came to the crunch. Like I said, banks don't have consciences, they don't care if you have to sell your car or your pet rabbit or your grandmother to get by. Nor should they.

Sickening outlook. You sell someone what they need, at a reasonable price, ensuring they can pay you back. Both sides happy. Return customer.

No. You sell someone what they want but don't need for as much as they will reasonably pay, and they come back. Both sides happy. Capitalism.

You won't make millions, but who needs millions ?

If nobody wanted to be millionaires in this society, we would be doomed.

Be thankful that people want to get rich, or you wouldn't have a boss to pay wages. Who needs millionaires? Capitalism. Be glad it does.

paddyland · 15-02-2010 01:18PM

Will you at least agree that when somebody buys a house for purely speculative reasons, they feck up the market on another somebody who needs that house to live in, whether it be through buying or renting?

One allows that there will always be a bit of horse trading going on, and kept to a reasonable level, the market will remain healthy enough.

What we had was a market gone completely mad, where far, far too many houses were being bought by speculators, putting them out of reach of the people who actually wanted them to live in. Add to that a glut of new houses built by speculative developers in completely unrealistic locations (Leitrim, anybody?) built purely to feed the speculation frenzy. There was no desire for people to live in such numbers in out of the way places, nor ever likely to be.

Government should have had control over that market, using taxes and regulation in a way to calm the market and keep things at a reasonable level. Unfortunately government through this period were the glutinous and corrupt FF party, who saw an opportunity for selfish advancement, and did EVERYTHING wrong, to feed the fire instead of controlling it.

Ordinary people were used as fodder to create a super race of multi millionaire speculators, with the whole hearted backing of a corrupt government who should have had ordinary people's interests at heart, instead of joining in the mass rape. Ordinary people just want to get on with life, they will grab such opportunities as they get, however ill advised. The purpose of government is to manage that situation, not to fan a spark into a forest fire.

I buy a few potatoes, sell them to you, make a profit. Maybe you sell a few on, make a profit too. Good, healthy capitalism.

I buy up every potato in the nation, and hold you all to ransom for ten times their value. That is not capitalism, that is sick.

hallelujajordan · 15-02-2010 01:28PM

paddyland wrote: »

Ordinary people were used as fodder to create a super race of multi millionaire speculators, with the whole hearted backing of a corrupt government who should have had ordinary people's interests at heart, instead of joining in the mass rape. Ordinary people just want to get on with life, they will grab such opportunities as they get, however ill advised. The purpose of government is to manage that situation, not to fan a spark into a forest fire.

I buy up every potato in the nation, and hold you all to ransom for ten times their value. That is not capitalism, that is sick.

I don't agree with the way you distinguish 'ordinary people' from 'multi-millionaire speculators' . . The reality is a little different. Many 'ordinary people' became speculators, sometimes in their own properties but often in a second or third property . . . most of them never became millionaires of any description and a lot of them have now lost out hugely in the property crash.

paddyland · 15-02-2010 01:39PM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I don't agree with the way you distinguish 'ordinary people' from 'multi-millionaire speculators' . . The reality is a little different. Many 'ordinary people' became speculators, sometimes in their own properties but often in a second or third property . . . most of them never became millionaires of any description and a lot of them have now lost out hugely in the property crash.

An unhealthy amount of those 'ordinary people' would turn into speculators too, if only they got half a chance. The point is that government should step in and manage that situation.

FF did everything to encourage the 'mini speculator' frenzy, and as such are far more culpable, because too many ordinary people did not understand what they were doing. The government DID, or SHOULD HAVE, and should have stepped in and took control. They didn't, and that's why I blame FF much more than the ordinary person who didn't know any better.

You suggest people need to take full responsibility for their own actions. I suggest if people were that smart, there would be no need for a government at all. The whole purpose of government is to manage a people who cannot manage themselves.

Fianna Fáil the Bertie Party have failed utterly.

Red_Marauder · 15-02-2010 02:03PM

paddyland wrote: »

Will you at least agree that when somebody buys a house for purely speculative reasons, they feck up the market on another somebody who needs that house to live in, whether it be through buying or renting?

Absolutely not.

Every sale has an effect on the market. To say that investors 'F it up' by making property investments suggests there is something wrong with investing in commodities because it might increase their value.

Do you realise how backwards that is? Nobody owes anybody a house. You compete on an open market for one.

What we had was a market gone completely mad, where far, far too many houses were being bought by speculators, putting them out of reach of the people who actually wanted them to live in.

You seem unable to let go of this idea of 'deserving' something. People don't automatically deserve to own their own homes, they are entitled to purchase them as long as they have the money.

Add to that a glut of new houses built by speculative developers in completely unrealistic locations (Leitrim, anybody?) built purely to feed the speculation frenzy

Hang on, built purely to feed speculation frenzy?

Now you are just engaging in language for dramatic effect... 'purely to feed speculation frenzy? Get real, individual schemes were built to make money for an individual investor. Fair enough. They were not built as some elaborate plan to further speculation frenzy. Nobody goes into business with such a pointless plan as their goal. The goal is profit, as it should be.

Ordinary people were used as fodder to create a super race of multi millionaire speculators, with the whole hearted backing of a corrupt government who should have had ordinary people's interests at heart, instead of joining in the mass rape.

Where are you getting this from?

People chose to buy all of these houses - ordinary people - for extraordinary prices. That was their choice. Why don't you understand that? There was no forced purchase.

I buy a few potatoes, sell them to you, make a profit. Maybe you sell a few on, make a profit too. Good, healthy capitalism.

I buy up every potato in the nation, and hold you all to ransom for ten times their value. That is not capitalism, that is sick.

That is typical potato famine mentality.

Eat apples.

hallelujajordan · 15-02-2010 02:18PM

paddyland wrote: »

An unhealthy amount of those 'ordinary people' would turn into speculators too, if only they got half a chance. The point is that government should step in and manage that situation.

FF did everything to encourage the 'mini speculator' frenzy, and as such are far more culpable, because too many ordinary people did not understand what they were doing. The government DID, or SHOULD HAVE, and should have stepped in and took control. They didn't, and that's why I blame FF much more than the ordinary person who didn't know any better.

I think the whole 'ordinary person, didn't know any better' line is just the most enormous cop-out . .

First, I don't believe it and second, whether or not they knew no better does nothing to diminish their responsibility. . . Apart from which, according to you guys, the dogs on the street knew about the impending crash.

The reality is they didn't care because they believed they were going to make a quick buck . . and that's ok . . as long as you are willing to take responsibility for the consequences when it doesn't work out.

Liam Byrne · 15-02-2010 02:23PM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The reality is they didn't care because they believed they were going to make a quick buck . . and that's ok . . as long as you are willing to take responsibility for the consequences when it doesn't work out.

Interesting concept. Any chance you could get the banks to abide by it so that we don't have to pay for bank shares in incompetent banks that no-one wants ?

As for the "make a quick buck" - yet AGAIN you're ignoring all of the many, many people who just wanted a home, myself included.

hallelujajordan · 15-02-2010 02:29PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Interesting concept. Any chance you could get the banks to abide by it so that we don't have to pay for bank shares in incompetent banks that no-one wants ?

I wish it were that simple . . I wish that we could allow the debts to sit with the banks and bankers; Unfortunately, we have an economy to consider. .

Liam Byrne wrote:

As for the "make a quick buck" - yet AGAIN you're ignoring all of the many, many people who just wanted a home, myself included.

Come on Liam, I don't ignore you guys . . I've said it a thousand times on here . . Of course there were those who 'just wanted a home'. . but there were many who 'just wanted a bigger home' or 'just wanted a nicer car' or 'just wanted a foreign holiday' . . . Collective, doesnt mean everyone (Deja vu ?)

paddyland · 15-02-2010 02:32PM

Red_Marauder wrote: »

You seem unable to let go of this idea of 'deserving' something. People don't automatically deserve to own their own homes, they are entitled to purchase them as long as they have the money.

People deserve to LIVE IN a home. Whether that be by buying or renting is another thing. The logical consequence of this FF led speculator market was a) house prices go up and nobody could afford to buy, and then b) rent prices also go up, and nobody can afford to rent either. You seem to suggest that people who can't afford to buy should be held to ransom to pay exorbitant rents to speculators who were just fortunate enough to have a bit more money, get in early, and make a killing. The more the speculators get control of the market, and push prices ever higher, the more ordinary people get screwed, and the more the gap between rich and poor gets wider. I'm not saying there should never be rich or poor, but where does the wedge stop pushing?

A sound government would keep some modicum of control over things, keep it all in perspective. You seem to suggest no, the market should be let run out of control, let people ruin themselves. In case you hadn't noticed, the result of that thinking is the recession we are in now. It is a brutal check to a system that shouldn't have needed such a check.

Do you suggest the people of Haiti don't deserve to own their own homes either, that they should be at the complete whim of whichever unscrupulous developer might move in there to make a killing on a captive market?

There's nothing wrong with renting in civilised European countries where the government probably put in place regulation to control the worst excesses of the market. There is everything wrong with renting in an Ireland run by a corrupt and dysfunctional FF who would do nothing to protect hapless ordinary people from unscrupulous elements in the market, who know which pockets to line.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Eat apples.

That sounds disconcertingly like 'Let them eat cake...'

Laminations · 15-02-2010 03:11PM

This thread has gone way off track, can we bring it back to Bertie. If he did some good, state what that was and post links. If he did some bad, again state what exactly with references (see Biggins earlier posts). Finally without having to list everything good and bad try and weigh up his legacy and give a verdict.

The nitty gritty of divvying out responsibility for the over borrowing and lending can be done elsewhere. But here is my opinion briefly. Overborrowing joes are liable to the banks (they'll be taken to the proverbial cleaners), the banks are regulated by a government appointed regulator (supposed to regulate to prevent crises such as the current one) and the government are answerable to the joes. Your 'holy collective' is indeed partly responsible for returning the government so many times, some hypocritically note this as a fault of the past but still recommend its repeated in the future. Also the consequences of indebtedness seem to differ based on level of wealth. Overall the product of this recession, debt, is being handled very unfairly by government and banks.

IrishTonyO · 15-02-2010 03:19PM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The reality is they didn't care because they believed they were going to make a quick buck . . and that's ok . . as long as you are willing to take responsibility for the consequences when it doesn't work out.

Exactly so why should I pay for the banks making quick and massive bucks. Let them take responsibility as well. Why should I pay for their mistakes, you reckon they would pay for mine?

hallelujajordan · 15-02-2010 03:47PM

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Exactly so why should I pay for the banks making quick and massive bucks. Let them take responsibility as well. Why should I pay for their mistakes, you reckon they would pay for mine?

Great . . in theory . . Now, please explain how you retain the responsibility (i.e. the toxic debt) with the banks and still keep the economy afloat . .

In any other business I would agree with you . . the business owners and decision makers should take responsibility for their deeds / misdeeds . . . however the taxpayer / government / economy requires a stable banking system so this just cannot work ... The government are not supporting the banks for the banks' sake . . they are doing it for the sake of the economy.

Liam Byrne · 15-02-2010 04:01PM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Great . . in theory . . Now, please explain how you retain the responsibility (i.e. the toxic debt) with the banks and still keep the economy afloat . .

In any other business I would agree with you . . the business owners and decision makers should take responsibility for their deeds / misdeeds . . . however the taxpayer / government / economy requires a stable banking system so this just cannot work ... The government are not supporting the banks for the banks' sake . . they are doing it for the sake of the economy.

FG suggested it. Set up a new, clean bank. Let the gamblers rot.

It's finally been admitted that FF were warned that NAMA wouldn't provide credit.

Why didn't FF embed this in the rules for the bailout ?

AIB have a Polish subsidiary that makes profits, and yet expect us to bail them out. Why ?

And under whose watch did individual banks become "too important to fail" ?

If FF - say - privatised the water services, and then that company screwed up royally, would we then have to bail them out (despite initially having no choice but to pay their charges and add to their profits) ?

The FF-appointed Financial Regulator did not do their job to safeguard this "resource".

FF were happy to base the economy on finite transactional taxes, and put no money away for the future (because it might have been FG or Labour that got to spend it).

No competence, planning or thoughts of the good of Ireland whatsoever.

hallelujajordan · 15-02-2010 04:31PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

FG suggested it. Set up a new, clean bank. Let the gamblers rot.

It really isn't that simple . . .

Karl Whelan, professor of economics at UCD can explain why better than I . .

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2009/05/15/thoughts-on-fine-gael%E2%80%99s-bank-plan/

I'll leave you to read the rest but he summarises thus ..

"I’m sympathetic to what FG want to achieve here but the plan strikes me as potentially a recipe for chaos if adopted."

Liam Byrne · 15-02-2010 04:49PM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

It really isn't that simple . . .

Karl Whelan, professor of economics at UCD can explain why better than I . .

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2009/05/15/thoughts-on-fine-gael%E2%80%99s-bank-plan/

I'll leave you to read the rest but he summarises thus ..

"I’m sympathetic to what FG want to achieve here but the plan strikes me as potentially a recipe for chaos if adopted."

Strange, that. Because that's my reaction to NAMA and its required future inflated prices and uncompetitiveness.

And it's very odd that you're resorting to quoting Karl Whelan NOW, despite your party ignoring his previous observations :

http://ideas.repec.org/p/ucn/wpaper/200914.html

In this paper, I provide a selective review of Ireland’s economic performance of the last 20 years, from the early days of the Celtic Tiger, through to the housing boom and the recent slump, and then attempt to draw a few lessons from the period. I argue, based on a range of observations, that a substantial slowdown was looming for Ireland by 2007, independent of what was going to happen in the global economy, and much of this evidence was ignored in the implementation of economic policy.

The result was a range of policies based on an unwarranted over-optimism which left Ireland terribly exposed to the international downturn. Policy failures in the fiscal and banking are are discussed, as well as some common criticisms of policy that have less justification.

Any comment on why he's suddenly credible in your eyes ?

Or maybe he's just one of these who's bound to be right "the odd time" ?

Laminations · 15-02-2010 05:07PM

This excerpt from a few years ago sums Ahern up for me

Just as the Northern scene was already set for the final denouement when Bertie arrived, so too the preconditions for our prosperous economy were already in place, fortunately for Bertie, when he came to power in 1997. Accordingly, he nurtured -- and took credit for -- the booming economy rather than creating it. All that is now drawing to a close and the question must be asked: Did Ahern, in his 11 years of power, make the most of this unprecedented prosperity for the public benefit? The answer can hardly be positive, given the present state of health, education and infrastructure, generally.

He was a manager and a very bad one at that, and he took credit for the hard work of other people.

oh well , okay · 15-02-2010 05:24PM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

It really isn't that simple . . .

Karl Whelan, professor of economics at UCD can explain why better than I . .
."

My last word on NAMA I swear , apologies to laminations for being off topic

Karl Whelan ya say .....

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0417/1224244902514.html

Twenty of Ireland’s leading academic economists argue that the Government has got it badly wrong. Nama is not the way to clean up the banking mess created by the property bubble: temporary but full-blooded nationalisation of the banks is the only way

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0826/1224253267074.html

Nama set to shift wealth to lenders and developers
Forty-six academic economists and lecturers in business think the Government has got it wrong on the National Asset Management Agency. Here, they explain why

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1217/1224260833035.html

The Government repeatedly assured us the banks would use bonds given to them by Nama to secure loans from the European Central Bank (ECB), and these funds would be lent to Irish businesses and households.
The truth is that Nama was never likely to get credit flowing, and this has now been confirmed by the recent appearances of AIB and Bank of Ireland executives before an Oireachtas committee.
Perhaps by the spring, we’ll all be told that nationalisation is The Only Game in Town

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0813/1224252497177.html

OPINION: The Carroll judgment is very good news for the taxpayer: the cat is out of the bag as to why the banks are cosying up to Nama, writes KARL WHELAN

The Carroll case revealed the latest, and most disturbing, aspects of the unholy banker-developer alliance. Justice Peter Kelly concluded that the survival plan put forward by the Carroll group was "fanciful" and "lacking in reality" and he was supported in this assessment by the Supreme Court.
However, despite the reality that Carroll’s business simply could not be saved, all the Irish banks involved, apart from ACC, actively supported this survival plan, allowing Carroll to continue rolling up interest and also taking the highly unusual step of providing the funds to pay off unsecured trade creditors.
Why would the banks do this? Why would they extend further money to a clearly failing developer with a fanciful survival plan? The only possible answer is these banks were determined to maintain the illusion Carroll would one day pay back the money he owed. And the reason for this illusionist act? Nama.
With Nama apparently determined to put an optimistic spin on all loan purchases, viewing them through the rose-tinted spectacles of "long-term economic value", the incentive for the participating banks has been to maintain that loans such as Carroll’s are good and to then sell them to Nama for far more than they will ever repay.

Red_Marauder · 15-02-2010 05:54PM

paddyland wrote: »

People deserve to LIVE IN a home. Whether that be by buying or renting is another thing.

Exactly.
If you can't afford to buy - then do like other Europeans, rent, or lease. Home ownership is a choice.

The logical consequence of this FF led speculator market was a) house prices go up and nobody could afford to buy, and then b) rent prices also go up, and nobody can afford to rent either.

So where did people live?
The fact is that they did rent, and they did buy.

You seem to suggest that people who can't afford to buy should be held to ransom to pay exorbitant rents to speculators who were just fortunate enough to have a bit more money, get in early, and make a killing.

People who purchase property for the purpose of their own habitation are investing in an asset as well as a family home.

If these investors, just like developers, chose not to pay above a property's reasonably value, then property market prices would have been sustained. They make up the vast bulk of property market investors, and they chose not to hold back on their investmenets.

The net result was substantial rise in property prices.

You seem to suggest no, the market should be let run out of control, let people ruin themselves.

People should have the common sense not to ruin themselves.

I was a University student throughout the later years of the celtic tiger. I was offered relatively generous student loans with an interest free period that I could only have afforded to the cost of my studies, so I didn't take them. It seems to be lost on some people that just bacause a bank offers you money, you automatically take it or that it means you will be better off with it.

Take personal responsibility.

Do you suggest the people of Haiti don't deserve to own their own homes either, that they should be at the complete whim of whichever unscrupulous developer might move in there to make a killing on a captive market?

You seem to think 'making a killing' involves exactly that - going out and threatening people for money.

You make a profit when there is demand for a product or service that you can provide for a price that is higher than your initial costs.

People weren't throwing money at estate agents or builders with funds they had found under their pillow - they were funds they actively went out and sought themselves - often foolishly.

Don't blame a builder for that.

There's nothing wrong with renting in civilised European countries where the government probably put in place regulation to control the worst excesses of the market.

"Probably"? Like what? Don't kid yourself. Irish people didn't veer away from long term leases because of worries about property legislation - too many just wanted to own their own homes for no good reason - or because they actually themselves saw it as a financial asset, and were in becoming that, the investor you so dislike.

There is everything wrong with renting in an Ireland run by a corrupt and dysfunctional FF who would do nothing to protect hapless ordinary people from unscrupulous elements in the market, who know which pockets to line.

Why should it be a business mans job to protect "hapless ordinary people"?
You seem to have very little confidence in the renting or buying public. You seem to think they are easily tricked, you call them "hapless".

Maybe people like that have no business making adult decisions in the first place and should stay at home living in the safety of their parents homes if they don't want to engage with the real world.

Red_Marauder · 15-02-2010 06:00PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

FG suggested it. Set up a new, clean bank. Let the gamblers rot.

Any chance you could get the banks to abide by it so that we don't have to pay for bank shares in incompetent banks that no-one wants ?

You do realise that it is Fine Gael policy to re-capitalise the banks?

And that this money could as easily be used to fund people like failed developers or property investors in their new business ventures as any other entrepreneur?

I vote Fine Gael, I just don't see how you consider the current rescue plan and the current approach to "gamblers" as being so different.

Liam Byrne · 15-02-2010 06:01PM

Red_Marauder wrote: »

It seems to be lost on some people that just bacause a bank offers you money, you automatically take it or that it means you will be better off with it.

Take personal responsibility.

To be fair, there is a lot of truth in what you say in relation to those who went mad, or who invested, or took second mortgages and thereby put their main home at risk.

The issue is that taking responsibility is well and good, but when you are forced to "take responsibility" and bail out the gambling low-lifes through your tax and a lower standard of living, you are bound to complain.

If everyone who made bad decisions - FF, the bankers, the developers AND (some of) us - now had to live with the consequences of their decisions, then fair enough.

If everyone who made good decisions made a small profit or put enough aside to survive, then fair play to them.

But that is not the case. We got none of the bank or developers profits and are now expected to absorb their losses, despite the fact that many of us made reasonably good decisions.

And that is the main issue.

Liam Byrne · 15-02-2010 06:02PM

Red_Marauder wrote: »

You do realise that it is Fine Gael policy to re-capitalise the banks?

And that this money could as easily be used to fund people like failed developers or property investors in their new business ventures as any other entrepreneur?

I vote Fine Gael, I just don't see how you consider the current rescue plan and the current approach to "gamblers" as being so different.

How do you reckon that a bank would agree to fund someone who was proven to be incompetent and reckless ?

I would assume that a proper "social" bank would be driven by a proper, sustainable and balanced combination of small profit and social need.

Anyway, we should discuss this elsewhere.

This thread is about Ahern, and he didn't even use banks for his "somehow-gotten" gains.

Red_Marauder · 15-02-2010 06:12PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How do you reckon that a bank would agree to fund someone who was proven to be incompetent and reckless ?

Banks on the ground are going to have to be realistic.

There is an extraordinary amount of default out there, all being recorded by credit agencies when it reaches that level. This issue exists both at personal level and at commercial level.

Banks will not be able to ignore people with poor credit history or people whose business suffered as a result of the economic crash in the same way they did in the past. If they did, the country would be facing total shutdown.

You have to lend to entrepreneurs. Even if they have messed up in the past. If the banks were to turn down every personal business and personal customer who was "reckless" throughout the boom, they would probably be turning down most of their repeat loan applicants.

The whole point behind Fine Gael's plan to help out SMEs through bank recapitalisation is to help SMEs who have gotten into trouble. This cannot logically exclude all of our property investors and developers.

I would assume that a proper "social" bank would be driven by a proper, sustainable and balanced combination of small profit and social need.

I think that's the wrong party, maybe ask Joe Higgins.

Liam Byrne · 15-02-2010 06:15PM

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Banks on the ground are going to have to be realistic.

There is an extraordinary amount of default out there, all being recorded by credit agencies when it reaches that level. This issue exists both at personal level and at commercial level.

Banks will not be able to ignore people with poor credit history or people whose business suffered as a result of the economic crash in the same way they did in the past. If they did, the country would be facing total shutdown.

You have to lend to entrepreneurs. Even if they have messed up in the past. If the banks were to turn down every personal business and personal customer who was "reckless" throughout the boom, they would probably be turning down most of their repeat loan applicants.

The whole point behind Fine Gael's plan to help out SMEs through bank recapitalisation is to help SMEs who have gotten into trouble. This cannot logically exclude all of our property investors and developers.

It can - and should - logically exclude all of the seriously reckless ones.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I think that's the wrong party, maybe ask Joe Higgins.

Hold on a second, now. The banks want / need OUR money. We're entitled to make the rules.

jmayo · 15-02-2010 07:16PM

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Banks on the ground are going to have to be realistic.

There is an extraordinary amount of default out there, all being recorded by credit agencies when it reaches that level. This issue exists both at personal level and at commercial level.

Banks will not be able to ignore people with poor credit history or people whose business suffered as a result of the economic crash in the same way they did in the past. If they did, the country would be facing total shutdown.

You have to lend to entrepreneurs. Even if they have messed up in the past. If the banks were to turn down every personal business and personal customer who was "reckless" throughout the boom, they would probably be turning down most of their repeat loan applicants.

The whole point behind Fine Gael's plan to help out SMEs through bank recapitalisation is to help SMEs who have gotten into trouble. This cannot logically exclude all of our property investors and developers.
I think that's the wrong party, maybe ask Joe Higgins.

Developers and investors who have lost serious amounts on property should not be in receipt of a single penny of new loans from banks.
In fact since some of them are bankrupts who will have dumped their debts on the taxpayers they shouldn't be in charge of any business.
I believe in second chances for people who tried to create successful businesses that added to our exports or to cutting our imports, but no way do I beleive gombeens that just thought building cr** quality over priced houses shoudl get a second chance.

Why do we need developers at the present time, we have chronic over supply of property both residential and commerical so why do developers need loans ?

I believe if the government had let Anglo go it would have proven a valuable incentive to the others to toe the line.
As it is they saw that lenihan and the government led by the muppet supremo blinked first and now they get their own way as was shown by the new ceos who are really all part of the old guard.

The only meaningful symbolic change at CB/IFSRA was bringing in Honohan, but I beleive not fully backing him for proper bank enquiry has affectively shown the banks he is going to be neutered.

Thus we will have business as usual.

If anyone wants a luagh or maybe a cry see what the overview of the role of IFSRA states on their website.
Pity they didn't bother carrying out this role 8 odd years ago.

http://www.financialregulator.ie/about-us/role/Pages/default.aspx

Red_Marauder · 15-02-2010 08:20PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Hold on a second, now. The banks want / need OUR money. We're entitled to make the rules.

I'm responding to you issue of "social need". I'm saying if you think thats the basis upon which the banks are to be recapitalised, then you would be better off voting red.
Banks should ideally be recapitalised directly proportional to the magnitude whereby they help business people generate disgustingly large profits. This is capitalism, and it is healthy, and it is necessary.

Originally Posted by jmayo
Developers and investors who have lost serious amounts on property should not be in receipt of a single penny of new loans from banks.

It depends on what you mean by serious amounts.

Personally I don't like the idea of any defaulter being entertained again.

But the reality is there are a huge amount of businesses struggling out there, and they are being reported to the credit agencies, or they are in trouble with their banks. these are the very people that Fine Gael is trying to protect - and rightly so - not least because they are keeping people in work and off the Dole.

So if a small time newsagent employing ten people invested in a few bedsits in Ranelagh and has made a loss, or an architecture firm employing six people has lost money on a new office suite they had to release at a loss - they need financial support.

If a property developer who has been a successful business man in a variety of different fields over 30 years has lost everything because of a shared culpability in the property market, and now wants 70k to fund a new business in selling pet products, then I'd be all for that to be honest.

These might be people who have failed in the past, but they are also the people who got up and went out and were as aggressive as possible in making a buck and hiring new staff and turning a profit. We don't need an inflated property market, but we need entrepreneurs, and we cannot exclude everyone who has been involved in that game in the past.

Liam Byrne · 16-02-2010 12:11AM

Red_Marauder wrote: »

If a property developer who has been a successful business man in a variety of different fields over 30 years has lost everything because of a shared culpability in the property market, and now wants 70k to fund a new business in selling pet products, then I'd be all for that to be honest.

How has he lost everything ?

Where are the cumulative profits ? Where's the money put aside ? Where's the surplus that he didn't gamble ?

If he built up something, then recklessly gambled everything and lost, then tough. He's a gambler, not a businessman.

If he's in difficulty but has reneged on a small fortune, hammering the taxpayer, then tough.

Answer me this ? If we indirectly fund this entrepreneur, who gets the new profits, us or him ?

Small businesses tipping away and having cashflow issues are NOT comparable to those who have gambled millions on a "house of cards".

I wouldn't hang most of them, but I wouldn't go running to give them more money either.

On the other hand, anyone who has created a generally-sustainable business, tipping away nicely, and hasn't gambled their profits or speculated ridiculously SHOULD be supported.

P.S. Maybe I should - as you put it - "vote red". I do believe that work should be rewarded, but likewise I believe that everyone is entitled to be able to make a basic living if they do work. And I believe that money is a necessary evil - it's needed because bartering didn't work.

But it's not a means to an end, and ruining lives just in order to get a profit is something I want to part of......that's an 80s A-Team plot-line and has no place in modern society.

Anyway, that's definitely my last comment on this, because this thread is about Ahern, and diverting that discussion lets that little toe-rag off the hook.

Red_Marauder · 16-02-2010 01:04AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How has he lost everything ?

Where are the cumulative profits ? Where's the money put aside ? Where's the surplus that he didn't gamble ?

Many did have extra funds, but it's all been washed up in debts since business ceased.

If he built up something, then recklessly gambled everything and lost, then tough. He's a gambler, not a businessman.

You didn't necessarily recklessly gamble everything simply because you've gone bankrupt in property investment.
It's not just the rug that's been pulled out from under the market, it's the entire foundation. Everybody in property has lost out big time.

If he's in difficulty but has reneged on a small fortune, hammering the taxpayer, then tough.

You seem to think this immediately falls back on the taxpayer.

These people still owe the same money even post-NAMA. They are still liable for every last cent whether it's to AIB or a National Recovery Bank or Liam_Byrne Finance.
Even in limited property companies many debtors have personally guaranteed their funds long after the business stopped making profits around 2007, and are personally liable for such debts through their home, their car, and their belongings right down to the kitchen sink. They face bankruptcy, leaving them in a financial wasteland into the future.

You might think that's fair - I won't necessarily argue. But please don't protest that these people are somehow being treated better than Joe and Josephine up the road who equally saw their half a million quid shoebox as an investment on the property ladder themselves.

Answer me this ? If we indirectly fund this entrepreneur, who gets the new profits, us or him ?

Him. He is the one taking out a 70k business loan, he is the one getting up and brushing himself off, and taking on new staff, and making a go of things again.

Someone once made the remark that in the USA failrure is like a badge of honour. People boast that they failed 10, 20, maybe 30 times before making their millions and becoming industry leaders and large employers.

Here, failure is a financial death sentance out of which we seek to draw absolutely no positives from whatsoever.

He gets the profits. People like him - failing, trying again even more vigourously, then generating profits, is what will drive this economy out of the mire. Guffawing at ambition for wealth will only drive this country backwards.

Bertie the champion of the world

Comments