Joe Higgins v. Jose Manuel Barroso. Who do you support?

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You might enlighten us as to what the point of that post is pal, in the context of this thread.

I would have thought it was self-explanatory. You seem to believe,given your posts, that socialists are in some way intellectually,economically and industrially inferior to capitalists. As you have already ceded the point that they are ethically, morally and judicially more mature than capitalists it hardly needed to be addressed. Although perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to how a nine year old Irish child should be held responsible for looking after the private capital of a fifty year old German.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You might enlighten us as to what the point of that post is pal, in the context of this thread.

I believe what he is saying is that when we discover hundreds of billions of oil and gas reserves we can try going socialist for a few years.

Buceph wrote: »

I believe what he is saying is that when we discover hundreds of billions of oil and gas reserves we can try going socialist for a few years.

To be fair Sweden and Finland are also more socialist than us and they aren't doing too badly. Granted I think it might be a different flavour to Higgins'.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Who is this nine year old child and who is this fifty year old German?

Anyone I know?

Judging by this reply the nine-year old Irish child is yourself. Man up and defend your argument or have the maturity to accept that it was poorly thought out.
By what concepts of justice do you believe that any Irish citizen is responsible for DeutscheBank/BNP/Anglo/AIB etc.'s inability to conduct due dilligence in their capacity as a private lender of private capital?

Buceph wrote: »

I believe what he is saying is that when we discover hundreds of billions of oil and gas reserves we can try going socialist for a few years.

I don't know whether you're agreeing with me or being sarcastic. We have discovered hundreds of billions of oil and gas reserves. Unfortunately they now belong to the Norwegian people, as will our forests and bogs in a few years.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Now supply me with the details of all that rhetoric you have there friend, facts and figures and I will work on a reply.

The short answer is there is no justice in it, anymore than there is justice in my taxs being used to defend criminals, compensate victims of uninsured drivers , compensate victims of abuse in state run institutions.

Ok my friend;)

Rhetoric?

As for facts and figures, did I imagine the bank bailout and the EU-IMF loan taken out to protect private banking institutions that are owned by international shareholders and operate in a global market? Or perhaps you believe organised child abuse is of far less import than the protection of the privilege of secretive valueless institutions?

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Rhetoric?

As for facts and figures, did I imagine the bank bailout and the EU-IMF loan taken out to protect private banking institutions that are owned by international shareholders and operate in a global market? Or perhaps you believe organised child abuse is of far less import than the protection of the privilege of secretive valueless institutions?

Yes. Ensuring the economic soundness of a nation is far more important than compensating people who have been abused. I don't know how you could suggest anything else. If the state is bankrupt then there won't be state run institutions to let kids get abused.

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Judging by this reply the nine-year old Irish child is yourself. Man up and defend your argument or have the maturity to accept that it was poorly thought out.
By what concepts of justice do you believe that any Irish citizen is responsible for DeutscheBank/BNP/Anglo/AIB etc.'s inability to conduct due dilligence in their capacity as a private lender of private capital?

I doubt many could defend it, problem is our Government caused the mess in the first place here and then royally f*cked up the crisis by choosing to guarantee them. Ideally the banks here would have been let fail but politicians fear economic meltdown, something they all share, whether they be Irish, German or whatever.

Buceph wrote: »

Yes. Ensuring the economic soundness of a nation is far more important than compensating people who have been abused. I don't know how you could suggest anything else. If the state is bankrupt then there won't be state run institutions to let kids get abused.

I honestly don't know if you're being serious or not. How is the economic soundness of our nation served by nationalising massive amounts of private debt?

Buceph wrote: »

I can do smilies as well.

But I see your point. A country with no banks, and every multi-national scrambling to desert the country would do really well. We'd just have to get the army to take over the Corrib Gas Fields and we'd do fine with the 25 to 40 billion worth of Gas that we wouldn't have access to or the expertise to get at.


There were other options. I think we should have gone to the EU for negotiations on what would happen to the debt before a bank guarantee was ever even considered. But simply letting the banks collapse, which would happen when they have zero access to funds, was not an option. Bank failures have happened, but never banks with such a huge importance to the economy as the Irish situation.

If only there was something to smile about.:pac:

To answer your points. The Corrib gas fields I thought were valued at many multiples of the figures you have given and there is much more out there. We were faced with the exact same options as Norway and they chose to develop the expertise rather than give away their natural resources. So much for our smart economy.:rolleyes:
Secondly, while it would have presented a massive logistical problem, we do have post offices all around the country (many of which we are shutting through lack of work) which could have been used for financial transactions while the banks were being looked into. It also has it's own bank.People have been brainwashed by the media into believing that saving these banks was necessary to avuid economic meltdown. This is "accepted wisdom" but there is no reason to believe it except for the fact that we were told so. The banks should have been put into administration as would have happened with any other business and the costs of this administration should have fallen on their creditors ( DeutscheBank,BNP etc.) as happens with any other business. Quinn Insurance did not suddenly stop operating. I don't understand why you think multinationals would suddenly up stakes and leave. What would have (and should have)happened is that depositors in all of these private institutions would have seen their deposits garnished to a serious degree as all shareholders across the board saw happen when Lehmann's collapsed. While this would have been very harsh on ordinary depositors and bondholders, this is the price you pay for failing to ensure your capital is in safe hands. To expect an unintersted third party to take responsibility for the actions of lender or borrower is simply unacceptable by any standards of natural justice and amounts to no more nor less than organised crime.

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

If only there was something to smile about.:pac:

To answer your points. The Corrib gas fields I thought were valued at many multiples of the figures you have given and there is much more out there. We were faced with the exact same options as Norway and they chose to develop the expertise rather than give away their natural resources. So much for our smart economy.:rolleyes:
Secondly, while it would have presented a massive logistical problem, we do have post offices all around the country (many of which we are shutting through lack of work) which could have been used for financial transactions while the banks were being looked into. It also has it's own bank.People have been brainwashed by the media into believing that saving these banks was necessary to avuid economic meltdown. This is "accepted wisdom" but there is no reason to believe it except for the fact that we were told so. The banks should have been put into administration as would have happened with any other business and the costs of this administration should have fallen on their creditors ( DeutscheBank,BNP etc.) as happens with any other business. Quinn Insurance did not suddenly stop operating. I don't understand why you think multinationals would suddenly up stakes and leave. What would have (and should have)happened is that depositors in all of these private institutions would have seen their deposits garnished to a serious degree as all shareholders across the board saw happen when Lehmann's collapsed. While this would have been very harsh on ordinary depositors and bondholders, this is the price you pay for failing to ensure your capital is in safe hands. To expect an unintersted third party to take responsibility for the actions of lender or borrower is simply unacceptable by any standards of natural justice and amounts to no more nor less than organised crime.

I disagree. I think there would be far wider effects, especially with raising funds for internationals who have doubts about the economy. And the banks would have serious issues with cash flow and runs on deposits, let alone getting into the credit the leveraged against the deposits. The EU would have gone ape****. The pension funds of everyone who wasn't relying on social welfare would have been wipedl We would have been in unmitigated ****.

I do agree that it was the wrong choice to guarantee the debt. I think the EU could have been used with a mini-bailout and restructuring of the interbank loans/creditors. It was at that point that Ireland should have taken the lead, and looking to Italy, Spain, and Portugal (and Britain to a certain extent with their huge levels of debt) and done something about the bond market and sovereign debt for one, and the facilitating of debt relief for banks as another.

But that ship has sailed. And Joe Higgins shooting his mouth off about workers of Europe standing up for themselves is doing nothing to help what the next government will have to sit down and negotiate with Europe for, a reduced interest rate being the least of it.

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Unfortunately I have no idea what you're talking about. 124 billion euro in debts didn't come from mortgage default.

True but the developer loans wouldn't have been such an issue without the insatiable demand of so many Irish people for property. The reason developers paid such over inflated prices for sites was because the demand was there.

I've no doubt that if the crisis didn't happen we'd still be buying shoe boxes for ½ a mill or 3 or 4 million for 6 bedroom, 5 toilet mock Georgian mansions.

limklad wrote: »

Last Year I would have supported Barroso because I like Higgins less and did not like his Anti-Eu comments.

2010/2, After the way the EU screwed us and lack of Irresponsible of European Banks and ECB reckless lending to reckless Irish Banks and now the EU Screwed us the people in the Bail out (which is to save themselves with the Euro and) to save their banks and their own money because of their failure to accept capitalism in which the open and common Market is based on. They want all the positives and none of the negatives and with the Latest Barroso's comments and the EU poorly designed stress test behind the banks, I am fully 100% behind Higgins.

GO ANTI-EU HIGGINS!!!!

Ah, some people are anti EU no matter what.

Often seen it in Lisbon debates which I think you were involved.

The problem with the EU is nationalism. It keeps forgetting how powerful such an economic bloc is, rich, powerful and over 500 million people.

Instead of harnessing that and dictating to the markets, which it is in a position to do, it focuses on the petty nationalistic battles instead. There have been some great ideas on hedge funds for example and new laws enacted and Germany took action against short sellers. Problem is the likes of the UK oppose greater restrictions on the markets because their economy is very much based on financial markets.

Ideally, Ireland and Greece would have been used to flex muscles and fight the markets but political interests always win.

Nationalism will always hold it back. The same Nationalists who moaned about self determination and encroaching sovereign rights during Lisbon then moan about lack of EU intervention in other cases eg. it seems the guarantee wasn't endorsed by the EU at all and against their policies but Lenihan went of on a solo run there, cheered on my many the Euro Sceptic as sticking one to the man in Brussels.