The blame game... target EU!

squod · 10-04-2011 12:12AM

CommuterIE wrote: »

But there is evidence... the banks would've collapsed overnight...

Say's who? Some bankers? Some bankers mates? Seriously.......

southsiderosie · 10-04-2011 12:13AM

CommuterIE wrote: »

There was no alternative... the alternative would've been you and the entire population unable to withdraw cash from ATM's or branches, economical suicide and a breakdown of society

CommuterIE wrote: »

Sorry, but the banks were broke... there was no mention of a bank run?? Regardless of a run or not, everybody wouldn't have access to their cash... the banks were on the verge of collapse!

Do you have any actual evidence of this, or are you just going to keep saying it over and over again?

CommuterIE · 10-04-2011 12:14AM

sock puppet wrote: »

So what? No one's saying FF were not at fault. But central banks play a very important role in regulating the economy. You can't discount its influence just because it suits your argument. It's as dishonest as FF supporters blaming it all on the global financial crisis.

The regulator was working within his remit and regulation at the time, which was described by an FF politician before the bust as "He really doesn't have much to work with" The banks were allowed to run like it was the wild west

sock puppet · 10-04-2011 12:14AM

southsiderosie wrote: »

And the blanket bank guarantee was legal? If they had the leeway to do one (which is far more expansive), I fail to see how they could not have done the other.

I'm just saying that since bondholders and depositors are equal in Irish law would it not be illegal to guarentee deposits and not bondholders?

CommuterIE wrote: »

The regulator was working within his remit and regulation at the time, which was described by an FF politician before the bust as "He really doesn't have much to work with" The banks were allowed to run like it was the wild west

And?

CommuterIE · 10-04-2011 12:15AM

southsiderosie wrote: »

Do you have any actual evidence of this, or are you just going to keep saying it over and over again?

Thankfully I don't have evidence!

squod · 10-04-2011 12:18AM

Guaranteeing the deposits and any future loans was a more sensible plan. More to the point, I can remember people shock, hearing the news that Anglo was getting a 100% blanket bail-out.

CommuterIE · 10-04-2011 12:21AM

squod wrote: »

Guaranteeing the deposits and any future loans was a more sensible plan. More to the point, I can remember people shock, hearing the news that Anglo was getting a 100% blanket bail-out.

Anglo owned the majority of corporate leases and mortgages in the State, it was impossible to let it go bust... nobody wanted to bail them out but that was the stark reality

Craebear · 10-04-2011 12:22AM

Whole thing was deliberate, incompetence alone does cause a mess like this, there is intent in there somewhere.

Saila · 10-04-2011 12:22AM

we need to settle the legality of guaranteeing the bondholders as well as the deposits issue and the one and not the other situation before moving on, any sources about the legalities of both of those options?

squod · 10-04-2011 12:23AM

CommuterIE wrote: »

Anglo owned the majority of corporate leases and mortgages in the State,

So you're saying it wasn't possible for someone in the previous administration to negotiate with the appointed receivers about these corporate leases and mortgages?

Somehow, I don't believe you.

CommuterIE · 10-04-2011 12:26AM

squod wrote: »

So you're saying it wasn't possible for someone in the previous administration to negotiate with the appointed receivers about these corporate leases and mortgages?

Somehow, I don't believe you.

lmao, what recievers, who the **** would want a bank billions in the red??

squod · 10-04-2011 12:29AM

CommuterIE wrote: »

lmao, what recievers, who the **** would want a bank billions in the red??

You apparently.

CommuterIE · 10-04-2011 12:31AM

squod wrote: »

You apparently.

Lets not resort to stupidity here, ANGLO WAS TO BIG TO FAIL! Is there something you don't get about that fact

Ruu_Old · 10-04-2011 12:34AM

Is this the new RTE gameshow? I heard Derek Davis will present it.

squod · 10-04-2011 12:36AM

Saila wrote: »

if was was possible to guarantee the depositors without the bond holders then it looks like it was indeed a rash decision, so what would be the consequences of not guaranteeing the bond holders back then?

This was discussed ad-nauseum pre election like. All water under the bridge etc. The web seminars from the celebrity economists over on newvision.ie or the Peoples economy could have explained all this to you at the time.

People voted pro-austerity for the benefit of the bankers. That's what the people want.

squod · 10-04-2011 12:37AM

CommuterIE wrote: »

Lets not resort to stupidity here, ANGLO WAS TO BIG TO FAIL! Is there something you don't get about that fact

It's not a fact. You will supply no evidence to support your claim because there is none. Getting angry and using shouty capitalisation won't prove your point.

pragmatic1 · 10-04-2011 12:38AM

squod wrote: »

It's complete and utter bolloxology. The reason ''we'' bailed Anglo is extremely clear to everyone.

Did you watch the part where Jean Claude Trichet told lenihan that he must save Irish banks at all costs, the reason being they owed so much to European banks. People act like Ireland is the only country with corruption, the EU is one big giant corrupt entity.

Saila · 10-04-2011 12:40AM

squod wrote: »

This was discussed ad-nauseum pre election like. All water under the bridge etc. The web seminars from the celebrity economists over on newvision.ie or the Peoples republic could have explained all this to you at the time.

People voted pro-austerity for the benefit of the bankers. That's what the people want.

a little summary will do, if they were good points you would remember them, it was two years ago I cant go routing through the pages to find it!

squod · 10-04-2011 12:42AM

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Did you watch the part where Jean Claude Trichet told lenihan that he must save Irish banks at all costs, the reason being they owed so much to European banks. People act like Ireland is the only country with corruption, the EU is one big giant corrupt entity.

I'm sorry, who voted Jean Claude Trichet into government over here? I genuinely do not recall Trichet appearing in person on the tele making that remark.

pragmatic1 · 10-04-2011 12:42AM

CommuterIE wrote: »

I see a lot of posters are attempting to put the blame of our ills elsewhere. I think it's a disgrace and the Irish have nobody else to blame but ourselves: Ireland demanded a lot of autonomy... IRELAND RAN ITSELF INTO THE GROUND THROUGH ITS OWN FAILED POLICIES AND LACK OF OVERSIGHT. The EU had nothing to do with our fiasco, it was created by the Irish government. The EU has been generous to Ireland, and fundamental to getting the tiger going. I look back now and think, YES the EU should have had more say in our internal affairs, we wouldn't be in the ****ing mess we are today... and this will last a decade at least, young people will have no choice but to emigrate because we are effectively a failed state because of morons like Bertie Ahern

Its very simple. Banks are private institutions. When they make a profit they dont share it with the people, so why should we pick up the bill for foreign banks which made a fortune from this country and now expect us to pay for their stupidity. Thats not how capitalism works.

pragmatic1 · 10-04-2011 12:43AM

squod wrote: »

I'm sorry, who voted Jean Claude Trichet into government over here? I genuinely do not recall Trichet appearing in person on the tele making that remark.

No one. But he does seem to have a lot of power over our affairs these days doesnt he.

My name is URL · 10-04-2011 12:50AM

quantitative easing = http://www.businessinsider.com/ecb-allows-ireland-to-counterfeit-51-billion-euros-2011-1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwSrX6NPafk

Quantitative easing (QE) is an unconventional monetary policy used by some central banks to stimulate their economy when conventional monetary policy has become ineffective. The central bank buys government bonds and other financial assets, with new money that the bank creates electronically
[..]
Quantitative easing may fail if banks are still reluctant to lend money to small business and households in order to spur demands. Quantitative easing can effectively ease the process of deleveraging as it lowers yields. But in the context of a global economy, lower interest rates may contribute to asset bubbles in other economies.

^^Not my fault

squod · 10-04-2011 12:52AM

Saila wrote: »

a little summary will do, if they were good points you would remember them, it was two years ago I cant go routing through the pages to find it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBbgVZz7_YM

13.30 or so in to the video. David McWillaims discusses the options.

pragmatic1 · 10-04-2011 12:54AM

squod wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBbgVZz7_YM

13.30 or so in to the video. David McWillaims discusses the options.

Yep thats the one. Cant really be explained much better than that.

Saila · 10-04-2011 01:29AM

squod wrote: »

13.30 or so in to the video. David McWillaims discusses the options.

I actually saw that one at the time now that you mention it

I cant help but wonder though if it was as simple as the paraphrased "lock them in a room with liquidators" that it would have happened
there has to more to it than that

squod · 10-04-2011 01:37AM

Saila wrote: »

I actually saw that one at the time now that you mention it
I cant help but wonder though if it was as simple as the paraphrased "lock them in a room with liquidators" that it would have happened
there has to more to it than that

There is more to it than that. The people who advised the government before the blanket guarantee, came out a few months back and again re-iterated the fact that they advised against that blanket guarantee policy.

I don't see any confusion here. The guarantee was issued to provide the banks a window to sort their debts out. That never happened. The tax payer is now burdened with a bunch of private debt.

Saila · 10-04-2011 01:43AM

squod wrote: »

There is more to it than that. The people who advised the government before the blanket guarantee, came out a few months back and again re-iterated the fact that they advised against that blanket guarantee policy.

I don't see any confusion here. The guarantee was issued to provide the banks a window to sort their debts out. That never happened. The tax payer is now burdened with a bunch of private debt.

to the streets then! :pac:

squod · 10-04-2011 01:47AM

Saila wrote: »

to the streets then! :pac:

I'm perfectly happy to accept the democratic wishes of the people here. As I said. We just had a general election where people had the opportunity to vote down the austerity measures being imposed like.

People want austerity. People want us to pay reparations to the international banks. So be it.

K-9 · 10-04-2011 01:54AM

squod wrote: »

There is more to it than that. The people who advised the government before the blanket guarantee, came out a few months back and again re-iterated the fact that they advised against that blanket guarantee policy.

I don't see any confusion here. The guarantee was issued to provide the banks a window to sort their debts out. That never happened. The tax payer is now burdened with a bunch of private debt.

And the Brits, Germans and EU were pissed of at the extent of the guarantee as well.

That happens when you get a solicitor dealing with figures and a novice trying to make a name for himself, listening to MacWilliams and ignoring prudent civil service advice.

It could have worked as MacWilliams said and we'd be a hub for financial services right now, it didn't. We gambled on an out there opinion from a pop economist and lost!

squod · 10-04-2011 02:01AM

It's all over now anyways. Here's a hilarious video called the dream of every man to cheer us all up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGr3K9WRSUQ

The blame game... target EU!

Comments