What planet are they on ?

Liam Byrne · 29-11-2011 02:54PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well they are certainly speculators, and they refuse to accept their losses, making them greedy. I know that's a little simplistic, but there's truth in it.

"The value of your investment may go down as well as up" is a common caveat for all investments.

As for €100,000 being "more than enough" for a state salary — if the state is going to run enterprises such as banks and energy companies (which I don't agree they should be doing, btw) then they can't realistically expect the CEO of AIB to work for the same salary as a school principal. Simply, no banking executive worth his salt is going to accept a job as head of a major bank for €100,000.

A "major bank" ??? In Ireland ? You're joking me, right ?

And what other bankrupt company can afford to pay anyone ANYTHING ?

The ONLY reason that the state has to run the banks at this stage is because those running them were incapable of doing so - DESPITE half-a-million and more salaries.

People need to strike a balance between money and society in general, and that INCLUDES the likes of McDowell, bankers, politicians, libertarians and social welfare recipients.

Either that, or stop expecting us to foot the bill.

At the moment, they all seem to want it both ways.

If somewhere I'm working doesn't have cash to pay me - I'm hit.

If a bank or a bondholder or a politician doesn't have cash to do whatever the f**k they like - I'm hit.

It's pathetic.

jasonc5432 · 29-11-2011 02:59PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well they are certainly speculators, and they refuse to accept their losses, making them greedy. I know that's a little simplistic, but there's truth in it.

"The value of your investment may go down as well as up" is a common caveat for all investments.

A "major bank" ??? In Ireland ? You're joking me, right ?

And what other bankrupt company can afford to pay anyone ANYTHING ?

The ONLY reason that the state has to run the banks at this stage is because those running them were incapable of doing so - DESPITE half-a-million and more salaries.

People need to strike a balance between money and society in general, and that INCLUDES the likes of McDowell, bankers, politicians, libertarians and social welfare recipients.

Either that, or stop expecting us to foot the bill.

At the moment, they all seem to want it both ways.

If somewhere I'm working doesn't have cash to pay me - I'm hit.

If a bank or a bondholder or a politician doesn't have cash to do whatever the f**k they like - I'm hit.

It's pathetic.

Great post Liam

Dannyboy83 · 29-11-2011 03:01PM

seamus wrote: »

Most people would completely slash their motoring costs down to comparatively little if they explored realistic options, regardless of how uncomfortable they appear:

1. Sell the 05 car, buy a 95 car, look at bangernomics

I've saved a fortune this year (in the hundreds of euro so far) by changing from a 00 to a '11.

How does going the reverse save you money?
In my experience, it doesn't. It costs you.

My road tax is currently 1/6th of what it was (although it's due to increase by over 50% shortly).
I have 3 years warranty/free servicing.

Merely counting the money I saved on repairs and maintenance - the idea that changing to an older car will save you money doesn't compute.

It also looks very sloppy when you're ringing up your manager every other week, explaining you'll be late because your banger didn't start.

Add to this the fact that most people driving a car with larger engines probably bought them during the Celtic Pyramid, the depreciation alone will render the idea unworkable imo.

2. Move from a 1.8L engine to a 1L engine. Insurance, tax and fuel win.

Agree with this.

I changed from a 1.9L to a 1L this year. (I would have changed earlier but couldn't afford to)

28 year old male with full NCB etc.
Insurance dropped by €6 per month.
Old Rate: €700 Fully comp
Current Rate: €620 Fully comp

Not amazing, but every little helps!

Tax appeared to be a major win, but the government are now reneging on this. (but this is Ireland - is anyone really surprised?).

Also, the government increased the tax on private health insurance to 11% anyway, so the money saved on car insurance was offset by the mandatory increase in private health insurance.
Back to square one in terms of Tax really.

Fuel has been the major win - ( altho fuel costs have risen and will rise again substantially due to Vat increases and Fuel levies from December, so while I may not actually "save" money, I certainly won't be as screwed by the state as I otherwise would have been. )
But reduced fuel costs would certainly be the major reason I would encourage anyone to change.

Obviously downgrading engine size is going to have a dramatic impact.
Coming forward to a more modern car will also have a significant impact (not going for a '95 banger)

3. Do you really need two cars, or could you manage with one?

Do both people work?
As said - if you live outside Dublin, then public transport is not a viable option for most of the country.

My partner uses it regularly if the weather is bad - otherwise she'll walk - but it adds at least an extra 1 hour to her travelling time approx if uses public transport. (We live in Cork City Suburbs, so she must get a bus to the central bus station, then another to the other side of the city! LOL).
It's also quite pricey for the service offered.

There is no public transport to facilitate her on her return journey.
I am not prepared to take the risk of letting a woman walk home alone after dark in Cork City.
So, while I agree a family doesn't need two cars, a family does need one.

Having a car in almost every urban area in Ireland is a necessity, not to mind rural areas.
The government do not take this into account.

4. If the distance is less than 5km, make a conscious effort to not use the car.

This is one that I always struggle with the most.

Given the astronomical rates that Irish people pay for Road Tax/Insurance et al., Irish people should be trying to squeeze every last bit of value out of it.

You pay through the nose just to get on the road.

If you are then leaving the car at home in favour of walking/cycling everywhere - you're better off just selling it entirely and stop wasting so much money on a "service" you don't use.

It's like saying - you can reduce costs by only using your sky subscription at weekends - you'll save on electricity.
True - but that ignores the fact you're still paying for the subscription the other 5 days of the week, that's a huge loss of money. Instead of paying €1 per day for 7 days usage, you're now paying €4 per day for 2 days usage.

But most people won't do this. They still want to be able to upgrade their car every five years, have a large-engined monster that's the "main" car, as well as the 1.2L runaround that's "mammy's car", and drive absolutely everywhere, all the time.
I think the question posed by the OP needs to be asked of these people.

I've kissed the monster car goodbye. It's too expensive in a country like this where you are frequently punished for success.

People drive absolutely everywhere all the time in Ireland, because there is no alternative.
I was in Lithuania and in Spain this year.
I never needed use a car once.
I never wanted to use a car once - it was more convenient to use the public transport. And cheaper.

You cannot criticize people in this country for depending so heavily on cars when there is no alternative.

Comparing us to other countries in Europe is Apples & Oranges in my experience.

jasonc5432 · 29-11-2011 03:04PM

I have to say though, I think the reason Irish banks are underperforming is because the bonuses arent big enough.

If we paid the bankers bigger bonuses they'd do much better.

And if we made their basic salary several million they'd do even better again.

For an excellent example look at a major Irish bank named Anglo Irish Bank.

Try Nationwide too.

Oh wait, theres a few others.

The point is, if we pay bankers more money the banks do better. It's that simple. Empirical evidence proves it.

And all the right wingers who keep screaming about this should be applauded for their defense of this pillar of the banking system -- pay the banker more, the bank does better

Liam Byrne · 29-11-2011 03:08PM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Clothes are essential . . 'New clothes' are not essential . . I do not believe anyone in this country will have to walk around naked because a 3% increase in VAT means they cant afford a new pair of jeans . . do you ? ?

Let's stop muddying the waters and go back to the point of the thread.

VAT is charged on essentials, and essentials does not simply include basic foodstuffs.

Tin Foil Hat · 29-11-2011 03:10PM

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I can't see many people not being able to afford an €0.40 for jeans.

Some will, some won't. In this case most probably would. Your example would be a price increase from €24.20 to €24.60. Unusual looking price tags for jeans, you might say. You'd be right, and there's a good reason for that - psycological pricing. This is the reason you see so many prices like €9.99, €5.95 or €19.99, and you rarely see price like €20.25 or €7.09
A pair of jeans costing €19.99 at 21% VAT will rise to €20.32 at 23% VAT.
Even though that is only 33c extra, it crosses a psycological barrier at €20 and is exatly the type of transaction that will be affected by a VAT increase. Even if retailers absorb the increase then the will also reduce projected extra VAT raised from that transaction.

Most posple have a finite amount of disposible income. So even those who choose to pay the extra will have less money to spent in the next shop.
That's before we get into cross border shopping or the affect in increase in out already high prices wull have on tourism.

Lenny admitted that the 0.5% increase a few years ago was a massive mistake.
I'm going to call it right now. 12 months from now Noonan will be scratching his baldy head trying to figure out why the VAT take was less than he forecast.

howamidifferent · 29-11-2011 03:22PM

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

I'm going to call it right now. 12 months from now Noonan will be scratching his baldy head trying to figure out why the VAT take was less than he forecast.

Too true!

Permabear · 29-11-2011 03:41PM

This post has been deleted.

seamus · 29-11-2011 03:50PM

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I've saved a fortune this year (in the hundreds of euro so far) by changing from a 00 to a '11.

How does going the reverse save you money?
In my experience, it doesn't. It costs you.

Fair dues to you. But from reading your post, it would appear that the bulk of your savings have come from a reduction in tax and fuel, not repairs and maintenance. After all, I wouldn't expect to have any repair costs in an '11 car.
You also can't ignore depreciation. Your car's value will have dropped 20% by the time it's a year old, and about 10% per year after that. That's still a cost, even if it's intangible.

The concept behind bangernomics is that you're buying a vehicle which is cheap to run, that includes maintenance. If you find next year that you need to replace the clutch in your 2011 car, it'll probably cost the guts of €700 if you want to keep your warranty. Whereas a non-dealer mechanic will do the same for a '95 fiesta for €250.
With additional care and attention, there's no reason why an older car can't keep running smoothly. If you're late for work because your car keeps breaking down, it's because you haven't been paying enough attention to it

The aim is to save money, so a little more inconvenience is necessary.

I accept the gist of your post - for the individual it's about achieving maximum savings for minimum inconvenience. But you also have to consider that for most people, trading up isn't an option either. Few people buy cars with cash, let alone new cars with cash. If the difference between an old car and a new car is €13,000, but you need to borrow that €13k to make up the difference, interest and repayments on the new car will cost multiples of the maintenance cost on the older car.

To keep on the topic, as Liam prompts, the issue is about VAT on essentials. But VAT has always been payable on petrol, therefore it's either not an essential, or people accept that it's OK to be subject to VAT, therefore there's no reason why it needs to be exempt from VAT rises.

To put it in context, a 2% VAT increase on your €1.50/l of petrol is about 2.5c.

If a car gets 8.5l per 100km and the driver does 16,000km per year (the average), that's an additional €34 per year they'll have to pay in VAT on their fuel. This extra cost can be offset by driving just 6km less per week over the year. For most people that means probably walking once to get the sunday papers rather than driving down. Or getting the chinese delivered rather than picking it up. If €34/year is an issue for someone, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to make this minimal change.

I'm all for watching out for putting people on the breadline, but scales need to be considered. A 2% increase on VAT is not going to lose anyone their job because they can't afford to drive anymore.

Desire2 · 29-11-2011 08:34PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

since so much highlighting is going on,yes there was a time :pac:

So now you are taking issue with my description of AIB as a "major bank." Let's see -- New York Times: "Last week, the Irish government effectively nationalized a fourth major bank, Allied Irish, as required under the terms of its 67.5-billion-euro, or $89.1 billion, international bailout." So, the NYT calls it a "major bank," and yet you quibble.

You believe what you read in the papers.:eek:

If you really want to see a banking disaster, I would suggest putting banks under the control of people making €100,000 a year or less.

i agree with you on this but why are some of the worst minds in the Country STILL running our banks?

I'm a libertarian, and I've been perfectly consistent in my position throughout all of this. I want the government out of the economy. I don't want the government fleecing the taxpayer to run electricity companies, hospitals, forestries, banks, schools, or bus lines. I want a completely free economy with all services except policing and justice provided privately. So you can't accuse me of "wanting it both ways."

i would never have guessed that you are a Libertarian Permabear! but as a matter of interest,why are you a Mod when by definition the word means as little interference by the powers that be in others lives?:pac::D

Liam Byrne · 29-11-2011 09:01PM

seamus wrote: »

To keep on the topic, as Liam prompts, the issue is about VAT on essentials. But VAT has always been payable on petrol, therefore it's either not an essential, or people accept that it's OK to be subject to VAT, therefore there's no reason why it needs to be exempt from VAT rises.

I never said it had to be exempt (although it should be a fixed amount instead of the percentage, since they are AUTOMATICALLY getting 50% extra now than when petrol was 95c a litre)

I am just pointing out that a so-called "expert" who defends €100,000 a year hasn't got a clue!

seamus wrote: »

If a car gets 8.5l per 100km and the driver does 16,000km per year (the average), that's an additional €34 per year they'll have to pay in VAT on their fuel. This extra cost can be offset by driving just 6km less per week over the year. For most people that means probably walking once to get the sunday papers rather than driving down. Or getting the chinese delivered rather than picking it up. If €34/year is an issue for someone, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to make this minimal change.

Hmmm.....haven't bought a Sunday paper in years (they're tripe) and you do know that - assuming you can afford a Chinese once the extra unfair taxes are imposed - takeaways charge for delivery ?

seamus wrote: »

I'm all for watching out for putting people on the breadline, but scales need to be considered. A 2% increase on VAT is not going to lose anyone their job because they can't afford to drive anymore.

A 2% increase in VAT hits poorer people MUCH, MUCH HARDER - they have no choice but to pay out their income (no margin for saving) and the percentage of their income that is taken from them is far greater than someone on silly money.

€16K per year means that your car tax is 2% of your TOTAL INCOME, your TV licence is 1% of your income, and your property tax and water charges will also make up another minimum 2%......that's a direct 5% of your income gone RIGHT THERE.

Someone who's on €160K, on the other hand, those amount to less than one percent of their income, even allowing for the 50% that's gone in tax and supposedly makes them unlikely to work for less than €500 a day.

Liam Byrne · 29-11-2011 09:08PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ah yes - and look what happened when we stopped regulating.....private enterprise's greed took over and ran them into the ground.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

RELATIVELY speaking (i.e. within Ireland) yes.....in proper international terms, no (mind you, I wouldn't even call it a bank).

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Don't go there. Seriously. Idiots that lost a couple of hundred billion are going to ensure that you lose that argument.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

OK - so (aside from the bailout, which is a separate issue regarding the stupidity of well-paid greedy politicians) explain to me why the lack of regulation resulted in well-paid greedy idiots making a complete balls of everything ?

Permabear wrote: »

You're the one who keeps clamoring on about "society in general." But when the government claims that it needs to pay exorbitant social welfare rates or cave in to the Croke Park Agreement or keep the banks open at any cost because to do otherwise would be to the detriment of "society in general," you are impaled on the horns of your own illogical position — because politicians will always claim that their actions are in the public interest.

Politicians can claim what they like. I don't believe them. The fact that the rates and wages are exorbitant is indicative of pure greed, and I don't support that in any shape or form.

So my point is logical, it's the implementation of it by screwing ordinary people to the point where working (in Ireland) is almost no longer worth it to ensure that already-loaded people are protected from their crap decisions that I object to.

In fact, you're the one who supports the paying of silly money to the bankers.

Suryavarman · 29-11-2011 09:32PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ah yes - and look what happened when we stopped regulating.....private enterprise's greed took over and ran them into the ground.

OK - so (aside from the bailout, which is a separate issue regarding the stupidity of well-paid greedy politicians) explain to me why the lack of regulation resulted in well-paid greedy idiots making a complete balls of everything ?

Would you like to give an example of a regulation that was repealed that could have stopped this mess?

Liam Byrne · 29-11-2011 09:39PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Would you like to give an example of a regulation that was repealed that could have stopped this mess?

It wasn't repealed - it was just ignored by both companies (or more specifically, "certain" outfits like Quinn & Anglo), by an "appointed because he was my friend" so-called "regulator", and by politicians who wanted to buy the next election and believed their delusion.

Desire2 · 29-11-2011 09:48PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Would you like to give an example of a regulation that was repealed that could have stopped this mess?

Hi Suryarvaman,
Regulators were meant to regulate,they patently did not within the Banking sector.
They did not do their job,as a result we are almost on the Eve of destruction.
how can they,their political masters or anybody be cut any slack over this.
If i stole tin of beans tomorrow i would end up in Mountjoy.

The Bankers abused their power,the regulators were either not up to the job or were willing to turn the blind eye.

Incompetent or corrupt there is little in between for them to hide behind.

Suryavarman · 29-11-2011 09:48PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It wasn't repealed - it was just ignored by both companies (or more specifically, "certain" outfits like Quinn & Anglo), by an "appointed because he was my friend" so-called "regulator", and by politicians who wanted to buy the next election and believed their delusion.

Which regulation was ignored that would have prevented the crisis then?

R P McMurphy · 29-11-2011 10:01PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It wasn't repealed - it was just ignored by both companies (or more specifically, "certain" outfits like Quinn & Anglo), by an "appointed because he was my friend" so-called "regulator", and by politicians who wanted to buy the next election and believed their delusion.

Which regulation was ignored that would have prevented the crisis then?

The point is that the regulator should have kept a reign on the amount of capital Irish banks were borrowing on the international markets. Similar to how insurance companies function, the banks should have had a percentage assets to cover liabilities. Rolling over debt is fine in a period of sustained growth but the model was broken once reserves meant nothing. The regulator did little to nothing. If I remember correctly around 2004 the Swedish government argued we should be putting in place counter cyclical policies. Instead of this regulation was non existant.

hallelujajordan · 29-11-2011 10:35PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Let's stop muddying the waters and go back to the point of the thread.

VAT is charged on essentials, and essentials does not simply include basic foodstuffs.

I'm certainly not muddying the waters . . just responding to your ridiculous suggestion that someone may have to walk around naked because they cannot afford a new pair of jeans due to the proposed VAT increase :rolleyes:

Lets go back to "the point of the thread" .. you mentioned 4 different items that you believe are 'essentials' and where the VAT increase will have a damaging effect . .

- Clothes . . I think we have established that new clothes are optional. You could argue that childrens clothes are essential as they will grow out of their clothes but childrens clothes are VAT free
- Electicity and Heating . . are actually charged at the lower rate of VAT (13.5%) and unlikely to be impacted by any proposed increase
- Petrol to go to work . . I think others have dealt with this pretty comprehensively and demonstrated how this cost can be offset by using the car a little less often
- Insurance . . As mentioned earlier in the thread, insurance is VAT free.

Like I said in the beginning, a thread with no other purpose than to have a whinge.

Suryavarman · 29-11-2011 10:38PM

R P McMurphy wrote: »

The point is that the regulator should have kept a reign on the amount of capital Irish banks were borrowing on the international markets. Similar to how insurance companies function, the banks should have had a percentage assets to cover liabilities. Rolling over debt is fine in a period of sustained growth but the model was broken once reserves meant nothing. The regulator did little to nothing. If I remember correctly around 2004 the Swedish government argued we should be putting in place counter cyclical policies. Instead of this regulation was non existant.

If they kept a reign on what Irish banks were borrowing then where would all the money the ECB was printing have gone? Maybe the regulators wanted Irish banks to borrow all that money and may have even pressured the banks into borrowing that money.

Desire2 · 29-11-2011 10:58PM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Like I said in the beginning, a thread with no other purpose than to have a whinge.

Amazing then that so many people responded.

The reason there is no VAT on Childrens footware is that the late Jim Kemmy brought down Garret Fitzgeralds Govt when John Bruton tried to introduce it in a budget.
that was a previous recession,i thank some kind of a higher power that FG never received a majority or there would not be even a trace left of compassion in Irish Society.( mind you M Thatcher claimed "there is no such thing as society)

since when did objecting to what is going on in your Country become "Whinging"?

hallelujajordan · 29-11-2011 11:54PM

Desire2 wrote: »

Amazing then that so many people responded.

Only demonstrates that Liam is not alone in his desire to whinge.

Desire2 wrote:

The reason there is no VAT on Childrens footware is that the late Jim Kemmy brought down Garret Fitzgeralds Govt when John Bruton tried to introduce it in a budget.
that was a previous recession,i thank some kind of a higher power that FG never received a majority or there would not be even a trace left of compassion in Irish Society.( mind you M Thatcher claimed "there is no such thing as society)

Thank you for the history lesson although I am lost as to its relevance in this debate ??

Desire2 wrote:

since when did objecting to what is going on in your Country become "Whinging"?

When an objection is based on fact and when it is backed up by some alternative and realistic suggestions about how the deficit can be tackled then it is appropriate..

When it is objecting for the sake of objecting, factually less than accurate and not supported by any reasonable alternative suggestion then it is whinging.

Liam Byrne · 30-11-2011 12:00AM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Like I said in the beginning, a thread with no other purpose than to have a whinge.

Good to see that the old FF trait of not giving a crap about what real people have to endure is alive and well.

No-one proved anything in relation to petrol prices, because the FACT is that due to years of crap planning and buying and selling of land near were meant to be bypasses, it is impossible to survive without a car.

And the point remains re what McDowell said regarding necessities being zero VAT.

You can dismiss it all you want; you're wrong.

I have clearly shown how the new taxes are a massive proportion of a basic income, but I'm not exactly surprised that an FF member ignores real people - maybe I should follow your former hero's words and stop stating facts, so that you lot can ignore them again ? Look where that got us last time.

Liam Byrne · 30-11-2011 12:03AM

U

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Desire2 wrote: »

Amazing then that so many people responded.

Only demonstrates that Liam is not alone in his desire to whinge.

Desire2 wrote:

The reason there is no VAT on Childrens footware is that the late Jim Kemmy brought down Garret Fitzgeralds Govt when John Bruton tried to introduce it in a budget.
that was a previous recession,i thank some kind of a higher power that FG never received a majority or there would not be even a trace left of compassion in Irish Society.( mind you M Thatcher claimed "there is no such thing as society)

Thank you for the history lesson although I am lost as to its relevance in this debate ??

Desire2 wrote:

since when did objecting to what is going on in your Country become "Whinging"?

When an objection is based on fact and when it is backed up by some alternative and realistic suggestions about how the deficit can be tackled then it is appropriate..

When it is objecting for the sake of objecting, factually less than accurate and not supported by any reasonable alternative suggestion then it is whinging.

Alternatives are in short supply given your party's irresponsible f**kups re regulation, Croke Park, the HSE, the bank bailout and the "IMF are not coming" lies.

I guess I should stick to "facts" such as "the boom is getting boomier" and "I wan dat on de horsies" :rolleyes:

Accusations re "whinging" from the sidelines were trotted out by that corrupt idiot too, and you defended him at the time.

"Whinging", "bashing", "attacks" and "burning" - how many more words does the FF dictionary have to describe "valid objections" ?

hallelujajordan · 30-11-2011 12:38AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Good to see that the old FF trait of not giving a crap about what real people have to endure is alive and well.

No-one proved anything in relation to petrol prices, because the FACT is that due to years of crap planning and buying and selling of land near were meant to be bypasses, it is impossible to survive without a car.

And the point remains re what McDowell said regarding necessities being zero VAT.

You can dismiss it all you want; you're wrong.

I have clearly shown how the new taxes are a massive proportion of a basic income, but I'm not exactly surprised that an FF member ignores real people - maybe I should follow your former hero's words and stop stating facts, so that you lot can ignore them again ? Look where that got us last time.

Rubbish . . You have absolutely no reason to suggest that I do not care about what 'real' people have to endure. . . nor do you have any basis for your contention that you are closer to the 'real people' than I am . .(btw, thats an interesting concept . . what are the people who are not real ??)

I certainly do care about the country and the people (the real ones and the rest of us!!) . . however, the fact of the matter is that we have a deficit that has to be corrected. . . and in order to correct it we need to raise more revenue in taxes . . there are few palatable ways to increase tax revenue at the moment but increasing the higher rate of VAT which McDowell correctly identifies as applying largely to optional expenditure is as fair an increase as one can bring about right now. .

If you can suggest a better way of doing it, then lets debate it . . if not, your thread is little better than a whinge.

Permabear · 30-11-2011 12:55AM

This post has been deleted.

Dannyboy83 · 30-11-2011 11:59AM

R P McMurphy wrote: »

The point is that the regulator should have kept a reign on the amount of capital Irish banks were borrowing on the international markets. Similar to how insurance companies function, the banks should have had a percentage assets to cover liabilities. Rolling over debt is fine in a period of sustained growth but the model was broken once reserves meant nothing. The regulator did little to nothing. If I remember correctly around 2004 the Swedish government argued we should be putting in place counter cyclical policies. Instead of this regulation was non existant.

Figure 1. Bank lending to households and non-financial firms as a percentage of GDP (GNP for Ireland), 1997 and 2008

I fail to understand why it takes a professor from UCD to point out to these guys that there may be a slight problem.......................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
then again - does anybody remember Christian Pauls?

Lets recall the arrogance of Fianna Fail:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ireland-rebukes-scornful-german-envoy/story-e6frg6to-1111114439690
IRELAND is a coarse place with a sad history where the natives are obsessed by money. That, at least, is the view of the German ambassador to Dublin.

Christian Pauls earned a rare official rebuke from the Irish Government after he aired his opinions before a group of 80 German industrialists, many of whom were potential investors in the Celtic Tiger economy.

Mr Pauls poured scorn on Ireland's recent affluence and its Government, telling his audience at Clontarf Castle in Dublin that "junior ministers earn more than the German Chancellor" and that "20 per cent of the population are public servants" - neither of which is true.

He described the country's health service as chaotic, with hospital waiting lists that would not be tolerated elsewhere.

And he revealed his amazement that Irish doctors who were offered annual salaries of E200,000 ($330,000) to work in the public sector turned their noses up at what they called "Mickey Mouse money".

His comments, made in German and translated into English for the small gathering of Irish present, produced guffaws from the ambassador's countrymen but infuriated Gay Mitchell, a European parliament member for Dublin.

He was so alarmed by Mr Pauls' remarks that at one point he interjected, "Mr Ambassador, I am the next speaker", as a warning to him to moderate his comments.

Dermot Gallagher, secretary-general of Ireland's Department of Foreign Affairs, was ordered by Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern to issue a formal protest.

Government sources said Mr Gallagher had a frosty conversation with Mr Pauls late last week in which it was made clear that his comments were "inaccurate, misinformed and inappropriate at a public forum".

Mr Mitchell said the ambassador's performance had been appalling. "In my view, he did a number on Ireland and the Irish.

Liam Byrne · 30-11-2011 12:56PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What a ridiculous statement.

What the banks did in search of a quick buck proves point-blank that most commercial operations cannot be relied on to act ethically and fairly when left to their own devices, unregulated.

I wish that weren't the case, but it is.

The question of who should regulate them - given the corruption and self-interest that also exists in power - is a separate issue, but the fact remains that they cannot be trusted to act appropriately under their own steam, which you advocate as the solution to all evils at every opportunity.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ah yes - throw in the word "populist" at every opportunity when you don't want to acknowledge a fact. Just because lots of people can see something doesn't make it false.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

False. It wouldn't matter what policies the ECB had if the banks had copped themselves on and behaved.

A bank offered me twice what I could afford at one stage; I said no. The policy that someone else has is irrelevant because I behaved correctly.

You are just passing the buck.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You were talking about private banks - not sovereigns. Why change the subject ?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

At least we agree on something.

But likewise those in other ivory towers who contribute little to society also deserve a reality check.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sorry - if we don't pay competitive salaries to politicians or doctors they may go elsewhere too. And the banks - through their own stupidity and corruption - are now part of the public service.

So as I said earlier, you can't have it both ways.

The rules of your beloved capitalism imply that if you don't have the money, you can't pay.

The banks DO NOT have the money; they therefore - by your rules - cannot pay.

In fact, they banks are - to coin a phrase - on social welfare.

Tough for you to stomach, but - unlike most decent people laid off or with wages cut so that their CEO can still swan around in their Lexus and go golfing - it's their own actions that led them to this.

Permabear · 30-11-2011 01:38PM

This post has been deleted.

Godge · 30-11-2011 01:40PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Assuming that I'm working in the city centre, and ignoring a possible 25 mile commute.

Don't have a 05 car, despite the attempts to make taking out a loan to upgrade more appealing.

Don't have a 1.8L engine

Don't have 2 cars.

Distance isn't less than 5km.

So of your 4 points, despite your attempt to imply that you were looking for the norm and not the extreme exception, not ONE of your 4 points is relevant in my case. This is the dismissive attitude that I was referring to - normal people trying to have a life are being shafted in order to fund the unsustainable lifestyles of those at both extremes of the spectrum, and it's sickening.

I think the question needs to be asked of the likes of McDowell as to what they think a typical person is.....they certainly have no idea what life they're imposing on people.

.

Sell the house, rent closer to the job, that is what a German or Dutch person would do.

Because of our mania with property, people think that once they decide where they want to live, they should have an entitlement to live there in an affordable house with a job in reasonable access (or a car to get them to a job) and with all services provided free and local, no matter the cost or distance by the local authority, the health service and the postal service.

In the rest of Europe, you don't build a bungalow on the side of a hill in the middle of nowhere. You rent a house or apartment close to the job you have got (or close to public transport to get to that job) and close to the amenities and services that you want for you and your family, be it broadband, hospitals, schools, universities, parks etc.

The cultural shift required in Ireland is so great that there will be a lot of people who just don't get it.

dsmythy · 30-11-2011 02:45PM

jasonc5432 wrote: »

I have to say though, I think the reason Irish banks are underperforming is because the bonuses arent big enough.

If we paid the bankers bigger bonuses they'd do much better.

And if we made their basic salary several million they'd do even better again.

For an excellent example look at a major Irish bank named Anglo Irish Bank.

Try Nationwide too.

Oh wait, theres a few others.

The point is, if we pay bankers more money the banks do better. It's that simple. Empirical evidence proves it.

And all the right wingers who keep screaming about this should be applauded for their defense of this pillar of the banking system -- pay the banker more, the bank does better

Kind of like the increase in teachers' pay up to 2008 bringing about a poorer performance from our schools. Paying teachers more doesn't mean better performance so we should claw some of it back. Same goes for 'bankers'.

On the VAT I don't think increasing it helps us much at all although I'd like to see how the increase in the UK affected overall spending and VAt takes.

What planet are they on ?

Comments