Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Am I missing something here (re: the

2»

Comments

  • #32
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    How can you forget something that you do not know? I have not expressed a personal opinion about any of the major parties in this forum.

    The "your" is the "your" quoted in the post to which you were replying i.e
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69334763&postcount=24
    i.e.
    If your contributions to this forum

    the
    "your" being Liam Byrne in message 22 as used by you.


  • #33
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Liam Byrne wrote: »

    Why do they have to be proveable lies ?

    "I have a fire breathing dragon in my garage". is a story told by Carl sagan. The idea is what I have elsewhere termed "Sagan's Dragon"

    cutting to the chase - what is the difference between "no evidence of a dragon" and "no dragon"?

    You seem to think that people are assumed guilty until proven innocent. The point is that we assume innocence until we can prove guilt. It seems your interlocuter P Breathneach is taking some midway which it is assumed but not proven.

    if I have a track record of twisting and have been caught out numerous times, the "benefit of the doubt" decreases each time. That is perfectly normal.

    actually it isn't! What is normal is for ecvery case to be judged on its evidence.
    Suppose you go to trial for rape. Let us say you were accused of rape or even convicted of it ten times already. Is the jury told this in advance of your trial and their verdict?
    NO! If they were you could get a mistrial.
    I could list pages of those inconsistencies, and whatever about which is the lie,

    Feel free to do so. It still wont affect a different case.
    the fact is that if you listen to FF - and listen far more carefully than you seem to want to give people credit for - they contradict themselves. Regularly.


    That is an unsupported "sweeping statement" without evidence! But again it is off topic and also a red herring.

    snip the rest... off topic attack on FF and not dealing with the issue of NTMA report.


  • #34
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    ISAW wrote: »
    actually it isn't! What is normal is for ecvery case to be judged on its evidence.

    In a court case, maybe; in real life (such as a guy not trusting his girlfriend because she's been caught out numerous times before) it is perfectly normal to doubt someone with a track record.

    Also, the court case includes a specific instruction : "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", which negates a lot of the double-speak that P Breathnach listed, and allows people to judge solely on facts, not twisted versions of them.

    And what I said is that I will look for info from a credible source in order to determine whether this government are speaking the truth for a change. If you look back I thanked the person who explained what the "average interest rate" was all about, and you did mention that it came from the NTMA - again because the Government announcements were obfuscated and unclear.

    Mind you, if the NTMA is credible, then there's even a question there, because the NTMA recognised that Anglo was a cesspit, while FF chose to go right ahead and - without any discussion with us - throw our money into it and say they weren't warned and couldn't have known.

    So even within the Government / NTMA setup, someone's telling porkies!


  • #35
    Dirk Gently
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,784 ✭✭✭Dirk Gently


    P. Breathnach wrote: »


    The bit I have bolded shows where our positions start to diverge. I am open to the possibility that government statements might be wrong, but I believe that they have not told many provable lies. I make my point in a general way, rather than digging into the catalogues of "lies" that some people are concocting. There are many alternative explanations for seemingly incorrect statements in the public domain:
    • there have been mistakes, where the mistake was not apparent until later;
    • there have been instances of optimistic talking-up of the state of things;
    • there possibly have been things that were true at the time when they were said, but where subsequent events have changed the situation;
    • there is political spin, which is an effort to show a group in the most flattering light possible, and might involve masking the truth;
    • there is dissimulation, where neither truth nor falsehood is uttered, but people are allowed, even implicitly invited, to form their own versions of truth;
    • there is the making of very precise distinctions, where the reader does not appreciate the nuance.

    I dont really see a divergence of our positions there tbh, just a confirmation of the reasons why critical analysis needs to be applied and any statement not accepted on face value. An outright lie is very difficult to prove but spin is in essence deliberate misleading. Just because a statement is a mistake, an untruth, or a positive spin it doesnt change the fact that it shouldn't be just accepted as the full truth.


  • #36
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I find the last one in particular extremely patronising, and typical of FF in their view of the public. Why stick in a confusing nuance (unless you plan to use it as a get-out-of-jail clause later) ? ...

    You are expending a great deal of energy trying to justify a position that I see as being intemperate, and I am not minded to chase things all around the house. But the point I have quoted above merits a response.

    Putting together our rescue package involved (among other thing) politics, government, law, diplomacy, and finance. These are areas of life that are often complicated. Yes, many things can be expressed in a simple and direct fashion, but there are many others that can not. It is preposterous to suggest that our government (politicians and establishment together) should not carefully and precisely nuance just about everything to do with such a big commitment. If people who are not directly involved in the process do not immediately understand everything, that's not a big deal; if, in the fullness of time, things remain incomprehensible, then it possibly is a big deal.

    That brings us neatly back to the OP in this thread: DeVore asked a question because something was not clear to him. It was unclear because it was not spelt out in early communications on the package. He got his answer from Anonymous1987. In other words, things are not continuing to be incomprehensible.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Fact 1 : We're getting approx 65 billion
    Fact 2 : They called it an 85 billion bailout
    Fact 3 : They specifically claimed an "average" interest rate of 5.8%
    Fact 4 : Our own input into 85 billion is 17 billion, and since that's our own money it would be at 0%

    Fact 5 : It was an FF negotiation and announced by Cowen, which means that on track record there's something unpalatable / pull a fast one somewhere.

    That still makes absolutely no sense. This is the NTMA and Central Bank we're talking about here, financial professionals. They're not going to be party to bull**** like counting our contribution as 0% to make the average rate look lower. Patrick Honrohan would be out in a shot to the media to correct such bull**** and the Government would know this. Also the international financial media and markets would never forgive such bull**** statements. Also the 5.8% was stated by the European Commission iirc, which again have no incentive to lie.

    Honestly, again, your position makes no sense given the broad range of groups involved here.


  • #38
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Possibly a little too much interpersonal stuff going on here, by people who really should know better. Don't let it slide over from attacking the posts to attacking the poster!

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • #39
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    In a court case, maybe; in real life (such as a guy not trusting his girlfriend because she's been caught out numerous times before) it is perfectly normal to doubt someone with a track record.

    So the country should be run by "real life" whims and not by laws?
    In fact if you go to a priest for confession for "real life" sins he assumes you are sorry and does not begin by asking you to list every sin you ever committed.
    Also, the court case includes a specific instruction : "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", which negates a lot of the double-speak that P Breathnach listed, and allows people to judge solely on facts, not twisted versions of them.

    Only on behalf of witnessess. The ACCUSED isnt forced to say anything! That is called "right to silence" something you seem toi want to do away with as well now?

    It would seem your "real life" is tantamount to a kangaroo court.
    And what I said is that I will look for info from a credible source in order to determine whether this government are speaking the truth for a change.

    But you are already creating your own spin since you already deemed FF as not ever credible! Your own bias in this regard means you will assume they are not telling the truth in advance oif hearing their case.

    Second you have been pointed to an independent source! NTMA.
    If you look back I thanked the person who explained what the "average interest rate" was all about, and you did mention that it came from the NTMA - again because the Government announcements were obfuscated and unclear.

    Blame their press office then. Don't just assume they are all liars.
    Mind you, if the NTMA is credible, then there's even a question there, because the NTMA recognised that Anglo was a cesspit, while FF chose to go right ahead and - without any discussion with us - throw our money into it and say they weren't warned and couldn't have known.

    Different topic and another off topic chance to sling mud at FF. Stick with the issue. what is the so called "bailout"?
    So even within the Government / NTMA setup, someone's telling porkies!

    And you are back to calling people liars again! And as far as you are concerned in advance of knowing it must be FF.


  • #40
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    It seems even some respected sources are questioning the interest rate now. See the Irish Economy Blog for the post.


  • #41
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Anonymous1987 wrote: »
    It seems even some respected sources are questioning the interest rate now. See the Irish Economy Blog for the post.

    A bit of back-calculation suggests that the 6.05% is based on using the 3-year swap rate, not the 7-year swap rate. That's the same sort of basis as Greece, and I'm not sure why he assumes the 7.5 year term noted as applying to the IMF EFF loan applies also to the EFSF loan.
    The EFSF Q&A documentation states “The Framework Agreement does not contain any maturity limitations for the loans nor for the funding instruments. However, in line with the experience under the Greek program, loans and bonds are envisaged to have an average maturity of three to five years.”

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    NTMA Technical Note wrote:
    "The average life of the borrowings, which will involve a combination of longer and shorter dated maturities, under each of these sources [in reference to the IMF/EFSM/EFSF] is 7.5 years"

    Wouldn't this suggest the seven year swap rate is appropriate given a 7.5 year maturity for the loan.


  • #43
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Anonymous1987 wrote: »
    Wouldn't this suggest the seven year swap rate is appropriate given a 7.5 year maturity for the loan.

    I stand corrected. The mystery remains, so. The long period is interesting in itself:
    The NTMA note and Karl’s and Eoin’s expositions above make clear that part of the high headline interest cost of 5.8 percent reflects, given the yield curve, the long maturity of the loans under this package. The cost would have been lower if the package was on SBA terms (repayment 3 1/4 to 5 years after each disbursement instead of 4 1/2 to 10), and I wonder therefore why the government opted for the longer EFF maturity given that drawings under an SBA could also have been structured over 3 years. Suggests a very cautious approach to Ireland’s prospects for regaining market access over the medium term.

    Warranted, perhaps?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #44
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I stand corrected. The mystery remains, so.
    So we are paying 3 year maturity prices for a 7.5 year maturity... bargain!
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The long period is interesting in itself:
    Warranted, perhaps?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    The way I see it the more cautious the more credible to the markets so yes I would think it is warranted.


  • #45
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Anonymous1987 wrote: »
    So we are paying 3 year maturity prices for a 7.5 year maturity... bargain!

    The way I see it the more cautious the more credible to the markets so yes I would think it is warranted.

    The three-year thing interests me, though. I'm obviously very much speculating here, but I can't help but notice that it takes us to 2013, which is an interesting date, because that's when the EU wants to bring in new rules that would allow for 'burden-sharing' with bondholders as part of the replacement of the EFSF.

    Probably just coincidence...

    speculatively,
    Scofflaw


  • #46
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The three-year thing interests me, though. I'm obviously very much speculating here, but I can't help but notice that it takes us to 2013, which is an interesting date, because that's when the EU wants to bring in new rules that would allow for 'burden-sharing' with bondholders as part of the replacement of the EFSF.

    Probably just coincidence...

    speculatively,
    Scofflaw

    The plot thickens. I don't know what to think, hopefully there will be some clarification now that it is being brought to attention.


  • #47
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Anonymous1987 wrote: »
    The plot thickens. I don't know what to think, hopefully there will be some clarification now that it is being brought to attention.

    Or further, better, mystification, of course.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


Advertisement