Bertie the champion of the world

Red_Marauder wrote: »

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.

Yet again, you're skewing my point.

I have no problem with people who bought something as an "investment" losing out. They took a chance.

I have a problem with people who bought a home losing out.

And my criteria would be whether that person ever used the disgusting phrase "property ladder".

Now can we please get back on topic re the con-man mentioned in the title ?

Feel free to set up a new thread to discuss rampant, greedy capitalism and all its ills.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Why?
They took a mortgage?
Then they took a chance, just like an investor.

Incorrect, on two counts.

1) They didn't take it in order to make money or to prevent someone else buying it

2) If they made a choice within their means and budget and now that budget has been hammered by extra taxes and bailing out the banks, then they are not at fault

Finally, for someone who is so pro-capitalism, it's amazing that you're not objecting to the subversion of capitalism that has allowed incompetent businesses - the banks themselves - to NOT fail based on their chosen path and the market.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Originally Posted by Red_Marauder
Why?
They took a mortgage?
Then they took a chance, just like an investor.

Incorrect, on two counts.
1) They didn't take it in order to make money or to prevent someone else buying it
2) If they made a choice within their means and budget and now that budget has been hammered by extra taxes and bailing out the banks, then they are not at fault

Read the post. I'm saying that people who took out personal mortgages during the Ahern era took a chance when they took out a mortgage, just like developers take chances with finance.

I'm not saying they always had the same investment goals, though many would have had. But what they all had in common was a form of a gamble - whether the end result was a family house to pass onto future generations, or to sell on to future clients, whatever.

Finally, for someone who is so pro-capitalism, it's amazing that you're not objecting to the subversion of capitalism that has allowed incompetent businesses - the banks themselves - to NOT fail based on their chosen path and the market

Saving the banking system from collapse does not subvert capitalism - it endorses capitalism because of the influence the sector has on private industry and commercial activity.

There is a certain assuaging of the public going on here.

The Government and business leaders have an undeniable culpability in this recession. But it is the media in particular who does not seem to question the third elephant in the room - the consuming public.

The media have a special interest in not censuring the public over our part since we, effectively, are in charge of their success.

Elements of the public, particularly in countries like Greece and Ireland, are acting like some sort of spoilt, insolent prince, refusing to acknowledge our own responsibilities, haughtily assured of our virtues by venerating courtiers.

paddyland wrote: »

But sure that's human nature, you can't deny that.

You seem to dismiss all public repsonsibilties with excuses. We were 'forced' to buy houses, 'tricked' into things, and oh well failing to acknowledge our reponsibilities is just "human nature". That isn't good enough.

Still comes back to my point that the job of government is to MANAGE the worst excesses of that. Not to stand back and ignore it, or worse, like Bertie, actively join in and whip it up out of all proportion.

Who is saying the Government did a perfect job? Who is slapping the banks on their backs. The point is there is a third party who is not acknowledging any blame, and therefore refusing to learn from the lessons of this recession. And that third party is the ordinary, selfish, consuming public.

Tommy Bateman wrote: »

I must say i'm looking foward to Bertie been elected mayor. If he brought peace to NI and an economic boom to the Republic, imagine what he can do for Dublin. No better man for the job than Bertie, and the good people of Dublin know this. Bless em.

All of my family, friends and I are from Dublin...we think he's a c***.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Most people would be able to afford their personal mortgage if they did not have to pay extra taxes and levies now, or if they hadn't lost their jobs due to mismanagement of the economy.

I have emboldened the last bit to highlight your short sighted reasoning.

Based on that statement you imply that we are in trouble because of economic mismanagement and no other factors. Now if that is not your opinion, and you have left out the other important players, then fair enough, but at least be clear.

We are in serious economic trouble because a number of factors, all inter-related. Economic mismanagement and poor corporate governance are the two well documented ones. The third is no less important (I personally would argue it is more important) and that is a lack of personal responsibility and due care at the individual level.

So they were affected by OTHERS; not by their own greed.

No. You are wrong. This is not some linear equation in which the doomed mortgage holder is some sort of hapless by-product.
There was a complex dynamic at work whereby economic growth touched everybody, and it spurred an awful lot of consumers into a sort of credit euphoria.

It reminds me of the term 'to be as brave as ones brandy'. These investors - whether they were investing in private homes or in developing houses - were not financially sober. Government, industry and private citizens were all at the party, they were all drunk on wealth.

Like a group of drunks, they rouse one another while the party's roaring, and they blame one another for their hangovers the next day.

Some got greedy, and I've already said "tough" to them too; but you insist on lumbering those two sets together - the set that I have sympathy for and the set that I don't.

You said that you differentiate the two groups based on whether they use the term "property ladder", and if they do, you don't have sympathy. Isn't that a little unreasonable?

We should encourage those who do choose to purchase properties to see them as assets or possibly investments - that is perfectly fine.

But someone was dumb enough to take out a 100% mortgage on a property they could not afford deserves no more mercy than a developer who mortgaged what he couldn't afford.

Yet again, you're listing ONLY longer-term goals. Where is "to live in" in that sentence ? That is what a house is for, y'know (or at least, a few of us still believe that).

Yes, that's what a house is for. But you only purchase it when you can afford it.

You can't have it both ways, saying that it does apply when they get greedy but that you can't apply it because of the influence.

Yes, in fact, I can, and most people do.

In these circumstances, it is perfectly acceptable to rescue the banks based on our own long term recovery needs.

You suggest letting them go? Or that letting them go would be a more capitalist or clever move? That's total nonsense to be honest.

And you're ignoring the fact that not everyone bought into this "property ladder" bull****, and those people are paying for the scum that dragged us into the ****.

No I'm not ignoring that. So much of what I've written so far is how the property consumers caused a lot of this economic mess - all property consumers.

And of course, FF with their repeated mention of "international factors" and "Lehman Brothers" are acknowledging their responsibilities ?

They are factors, but they don't excuse the Government's mistakes.
I certainly am not arguing the Government's corner on this one, I just don't want to dig my head in the sand about it either and most people in Fine Gael wouldn't either.

I've said it a million times at this stage. We'll accept our responsibilities and pay a proportional price when those who had the spectacular failures and greed do so first.

That reminds me of the petty Coughlan vs O Leary "no, you ring me first" debacle.

Everybody needs to take responsibility and learn from past stupidity. Government and commercail failures have been acknowledged, it is time for the public to step up to the mark on this as well.

Wanting a roof over your head is completely different to wanting to make a million. And it's not a "gamble".

Taking a 300,000 euro mortgage on a cardboard cut out in Lucan is indeed a gamble - whether you are a schoolteacher or a property developer.
It doesn't matter if you want to sell the house, or live in it, or breed ponies in it. A gamble is a gamble is a gamble.

Do you view someone who buys food to eat as an "investor", equating them to someone who buys it in order to make a killing and a profit by hoarding it until the price goes up ?

Yes, you are investing in a product for a known benefit.

And if you buy a hoard of food to sell on at another known benefit (in that case, presumably, profit), then you are an investor as well and perfectly entitled to do so. You are what the retail outlets would call a "supplier" and you should be quite glad these people exist.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I have emboldened the last bit to highlight your short sighted reasoning.

Based on that statement you imply that we are in trouble because of economic mismanagement and no other factors. Now if that is not your opinion, and you have left out the other important players, then fair enough, but at least be clear.

I was perfectly clear, so less of the misrepresentation please.

I said that if someone was perfectly capable of repaying and NOW CANNOT REPAY DUE TO ADDITIONAL TAXES IMPOSED TO BAIL OUT THE BANKS then that is NOT THEIR FAULT.

Those taxes are required due to economic mismanagement.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

These investors - whether they were investing in private homes or in developing houses - were not financially sober. Government, industry and private citizens were all at the party, they were all drunk on wealth.

Absolutely and utter bull****, and I object to this blanket generalisation. I have repeatedly pointed out that I was offered too much by the bank, and declined it. I did not take out a 100% mortgage or anything close to it.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

You said that you differentiate the two groups based on whether they use the term "property ladder", and if they do, you don't have sympathy. Isn't that a little unreasonable?

We should encourage those who do choose to purchase properties to see them as assets or possibly investments - that is perfectly fine.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here; I merely suggested that we treat them differently because they had a different purpose - one a necessity (a roof over our heads) and one jumping on the bandwagon as an "investment" - and all investments carry a risk attached.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

But someone was dumb enough to take out a 100% mortgage on a property they could not afford deserves no more mercy than a developer who mortgaged what he couldn't afford.

One point that we agree on, at least. But do not lump everyone into that category.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Yes, that's what a house is for. But you only purchase it when you can afford it.

Yes. But when the government - through their mismanagement - then impose extra taxes and levies on you, and you then can no longer afford it, it is not your fault.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Yes, in fact, I can, and most people do.

In these circumstances, it is perfectly acceptable to rescue the banks based on our own long term recovery needs.

You suggest letting them go? Or that letting them go would be a more capitalist or clever move? That's total nonsense to be honest.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

No I'm not ignoring that. So much of what I've written so far is how the property consumers caused a lot of this economic mess - all property consumers.

An investor is not a consumer. Investors who want short-term profits by abusing the markets and buying things to hoard them - be it through oil or property or whatever - are leeches.

Anyone who adds value to something is entitled to a return.

Anyone who is greedy and just wants money should not be.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Government and commercail failures have been acknowledged, it is time for the public to step up to the mark on this as well.
Taking a 300,000 euro mortgage on a cardboard cut out in Lucan is indeed a gamble - whether you are a schoolteacher or a property developer.
It doesn't matter if you want to sell the house, or live in it, or breed ponies in it. A gamble is a gamble is a gamble.

It is not a gamble if you could afford it and wanted it as a home.

If you never planned to sell it, then the negative equity is somewhat irrelevant, because you still have the home that you wanted.

HOWEVER, my point is that if those who manipulated the property market in order to ensure you had to pay extra are now being bailed out, and as a result of that bailout you now are hard-pressed to pay for it, while those who bolloxed things up still get their €600,000 a year, then that is 100% unfair.

They've proved their incompetence, and you still have to pay for them, while you are still trying to pay the monies that you budgetted for in good faith.

And it also skews the capitalism model where those who take educated and informed risks are rewarded, while those who are reckless and gamble fail.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

All I'm saying is that personally, I look at the Celtic Tiger period with a certain degree of admiration for Fianna Fáil - that is not an easy thing for a FGer to admit. I would have loved to have been part of a party that oversaw that era - mot only because I think FG could have done it better, but because of what an exciting and confident time it was for the Irish nation.
I don't overlook Fianna Fáil transgressions, but to be quite honest with you, I see them as small apples in the scheme of things. I appreciate that everyone doesn't agree with that, that's perfectly understandable.

That's what you said. Admiration for Fianna Fáil. If you want to argue that you meant it in a different context, fair enough. I am just transcribing exactly what you posted.

Besides that, you see FF transgressions as small apples (potatoes?) - I see them as bloody great apples, fundamentally culpable for the dysfunction in our society. Humans will be humans. Humans will act as humans act. The difference in Ireland is we have had generations of FF government who stood back and let the country and it's people run wildly out of control, interested only in feeding off the cream of the frenzy for themselves, and to hell with the long term consequences. We may as well not have government at all. At least it would be cheaper.

And there we differ.

The ongoing debate about Minister Wille O Dea ceratinly has something to say about Bertie Ahern's ethical contribution to Irish political life. :


http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0216/odeaw.html

The Dáil is to debate a motion of no confidence in Defence Minister Willie O'Dea next week.
Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny announced he was putting down the motion after the Minister read an explanation of the circumstances surrounding his admission that a sworn statement to the High Court was untrue.

Happily there will be no mention of horses in this particular deabte !

Biggins wrote: »

Well I won't quite say that!
The whole bunch are our night-mares! [/QUOTe
Touché

Lots of nagging to be expected though !