nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Taoiseach speech in Davros

femur61

The Taoiseach has said in Davos the problem with our economy was that people went mad borrowing in a system that spawned greed, went out of control and led to the crash. What do people think of his statement? I for one do agree with it, he is getting a lot of flack about it but personally I think he spole the truth.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

quietriot

You're damn right, a government "saving for a rainy day" would have had no place in the days of borrowing, indulging, dealing with spending hangovers and hitting the banks to do it all again tomorrow.

If Bertie and Co hadn't been sniffing lines in jacks in Lillies and then going back to knock back Moet by the bottle full with the rest of the party nation back then, they'd have been called a bunch of dry shites and booted out to the coffers while a trendy new party willing to spend all the dosh would be crowned party king so the fun could go on forever.

You have to laugh though, at the last GE the electorate, their noses lined with the remnants of the coke party at Bertie's last night, looked up and went "Oh dear lads, I think we've went a bit too far, we'd better put someone in who's, eh, not so into the partying and who can fix this up a bit for us". FG start implementing things to get some money into the government and the party-hard nation suddenly start feeling the sting, with no easy credit money to pour towards the hangover cure, and start bitching again, wishing back the party-hearty-party.

They'll be back in a few years time although the country will still be broke so I presume the nation will be left to party on crack or something equally destructive.

Sully

Okay so we all know it wasn’t phrased very well but we also know two other things;

1) Its Enda! He is well known for mincing his words.

2) We are fooling ourselves in thinking that a large amount of people didn’t excessively borrow. Nobody is stupid enough to think its just the bank, fianna fail or the regulators fault. There are many at fault.

If I recall, people were going ape after the state of nation address because of what he said. It just seems we want to complain regardless. A lot of people were commenting on twitter last night it was exactly right and we even had Vincent Browne muttering an agreement!

antoobrien

fliball123 wrote: »

"why are we giving a loan to billy or joan of 400k whos on 30k a a year"

Bad example that actually supports Kenny's remark - the person in question should never have taken the loan. Why are people so quick to absolve the people receiving these loans of any responsibility when it was blindingly obvious that they couldn't afford them?

quietriot

antoobrien wrote: »

Bad example that actually supports Kenny's remark - the person in question should never have taken the loan. Why are people so quick to absolve the people receiving these loans of any responsibility when it was blindingly obvious that they couldn't afford them?

Exactly. The question should be:
"Why did someone earning 30k per year take out credit of 400k?".

The answer of:
"Because it was available to them"

Does not make it the banks fault, because they made credit available. It makes it the borrowers fault, because they clearly cannot control themselves or act in a rational, logical manner nor could they use common sense and employ someone who could. The bank is a business, they seek to make money and maximize profit. You are expected to manage your own financial matters.

Blaming the banks for people overextending themselves is ridiculous.

blackius

Sully wrote: »

Okay so we all know it wasn’t phrased very well but we also know two other things;

1) Its Enda! He is well known for mincing his words.

2) We are fooling ourselves in thinking that a large amount of people didn’t excessively borrow. Nobody is stupid enough to think its just the bank, fianna fail or the regulators fault. There are many at fault.

If I recall, people were going ape after the state of nation address because of what he said. It just seems we want to complain regardless. A lot of people were commenting on twitter last night it was exactly right and we even had Vincent Browne muttering an agreement!

+1

It must be a slow news week when the meeja are talking up this non story.
The FF cries of Enda being a traitor this morning were laughable..
Is anyone listening to them.

I would not hire Enda as either a speech writer or a spokesperson on my behalf because we all know what he's like.

I understood what he meant and I can see through the faux storm Sinn Féin and FF are blowing up about this.

The country did go mad end of.
Mad in prices,mad in wages asked,mad in wanting 10 times more than we had.
Not all of ye,most of ye that had economic influence.

I know a welder for example that was charging 100 euro's an hour for odd jobs and he was only 22...

timmy_mallet

quietriot wrote: »

Exactly. The question should be:
"Why did someone earning 30k per year take out credit of 400k?".

The answer of:
"Because it was available to them"

Does not make it the banks fault, because they made credit available. It makes it the borrowers fault, because they clearly cannot control themselves or act in a rational, logical manner nor could they use common sense and employ someone who could. The bank is a business, they seek to make money and maximize profit. You are expected to manage your own financial matters.

Blaming the banks for people overextending themselves is ridiculous.

No. It is almost entirely the banks fault in scenarios like this.

The bank knows what it is doing is wrong, they are in a postion to stop it.

Just like the barmen were in a position not to sell alcohol - http://www.eturbonews.com/22666/irish-barmen-charged-killing-tourist-too-much-booze

The argument of stupid people only having themselves to blame is ridiculous. People will always be stupid. The goverment/regulator/banks were in a position of responsibility to protect them.

meglome

kbannon wrote: »

Dec 2011:
"Let me say this to you all: You are not responsible for the crisis."

Jan 2012:
"What happened in our country was that people simply went mad borrowing"

It pee'd me off when he said "You are not responsible for the crisis". As a people we voted for FF and their polices three times in a row. We are responsible for what happened.

grumpymunster

UDP wrote: »

Why should I have to bail your bad debt out if it comes to that?

This is the problem, where do we draw the line on personal responsibility and bailing someone/something out?

Those who were greedy and bit off more than they could chew (both the person taking out the loan and the bank for giving it) now are relying on those who were not as greedy to bail them out effectively.

The problem is that because the government bailed the banks out (and give not enough in return) now where do we draw the line on who gets bailed out - it makes it unfair no matter what now.

I think they have been as good as it is possible for an Irish government to be since we the Irish are pretty bad at managing ourselves anyway.

I do think they should have had more balls to stand up to europe though and refuse to pay back unguaranteed debt.

You seem to see what you want to see UDP which is so typical of the narrow minded suckle up to the big house mentality in this country. You obviously did not see, care to read or indeed understand that I accept my responsibility. I know I made a mistake, I am prepared to pay for that mistake and I am paying heavily very month for that mistake.

You ignore the point I make with regard to other peoples mistakes such as bankers, developers, civil servants and politicans. You think it acceptable that I pay for their mistakes also?

How is this government doing well when they shy from the difficult decisions? Why have we still have an over bloated over paid civil service. Why are their advisors being paid more then the upper level they themselves suggested? When will they actually stand up for the ordinary people of Ireland rather than insult them with their mates in the Alps.

I suggest UDP you get a life.

antoobrien

timmy_mallet wrote: »

No. It is almost entirely the banks fault in scenarios like this.

The bank knows what it is doing is wrong, they are in a postion to stop it.

Just like the barmen were in a position not to sell alcohol - http://www.eturbonews.com/22666/irish-barmen-charged-killing-tourist-too-much-booze

The argument of stupid people only having themselves to blame is ridiculous. People will always be stupid. The goverment/regulator/banks were in a position of responsibility to protect them.

The converse of that is it's on the individual to protect the bank from being stupid - which is equally as ridiculous, the truth as always is between both stools.

The idea that the people that borrowed recklessly have no fault in the matter is just plain insulting (see the judgment against Mrs Quinn - ignorance is not a defense).

I wonder how many people that borrowed during the boom heeded the expression:

If it looks to good to be true, it probably is.

quietriot

timmy_mallet wrote: »

No. It is almost entirely the banks fault in scenarios like this.

The argument of stupid people only having themselves to blame is ridiculous. People will always be stupid. The goverment/regulator/banks were in a position of responsibility to protect them.

And what qualifies someone as "stupid" and in need of help by the government? Where do we draw the line then between stupid, who should get direct governmental interference in their daily life and personal decisions, and the "non-stupid" who are just left to fend for themselves?

If someone "non-stupid" messes up, can they claim it's the government's fault because they themselves feel they're thick and can't be held responsible for their own actions and decisions, so it's ultimately the governments fault?

No. Absolutely not.

Impulsive credit indulgence is the sole responsibility of the person sticking their hand out for the credit. They're given the terms of the credit and are made aware of the process should they breach them, and are trusted that they have made a decision they believe to be good.

It is not up to the government or the lender to moralize over who should get what based on a gut feeling of who'll pay. The risk of lending is assessed at HQ level within the bank and it is determined who they will lend to and under what terms. Lending agreements are not ambiguous or hard to read, they're very, very clear about who gets what and under what condition it's being given to them so being "stupid" doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid.

Just because you fall within the bracket of being able to be lent to, does not mean you must automatically go and take out a loan. Nay, the maximum loan you can, as a lot of people were doing. This is entirely the responsibility of the person going looking for the money.

swampgas

quietriot wrote: »

Exactly. The question should be:
"Why did someone earning 30k per year take out credit of 400k?".

The answer of:
"Because it was available to them"

Does not make it the banks fault, because they made credit available. It makes it the borrowers fault, because they clearly cannot control themselves or act in a rational, logical manner nor could they use common sense and employ someone who could. The bank is a business, they seek to make money and maximize profit. You are expected to manage your own financial matters.

Blaming the banks for people overextending themselves is ridiculous.

While I agree that people have to take personal responsibility for own finances, the reality is that if a bank or the government regulator takes away the safeguards that are there to protect people from themselves, you can be pretty confident that lots of people will go right ahead and dig a hole for themselves. And this is bad not just for those people, but for society as a whole if enough people get it wrong.

Economic cycles and property bubbles are not new, and the people at the top of the banks and in government must bear some responsibility at the macro level. The fact that lots of people, given the option to shoot themselves in both feet, would go ahead and do so, was entirely predictable.

stackerman

quietriot wrote: »

Impulsive credit indulgence is the sole responsibility of the person sticking their hand out for the credit. They're given the terms of the credit and are made aware of the process should they breach them, and are trusted that they have made a decision they believe to be good.

Does that same quote not apply to the Banks too ??
Taking "impulsive" and "indulgence" out of it naturally

Surely if I lend you money, and you cant pay it back to me, thats my tough.

Isn't that why interest rates are applied, to pay a profit, and to cover risk ? Would it not be up to me to do my Due diligence ?

Look, I think most reasonable people here are saying the same thing. If you borrowed a sum, its up to you to pay it back. BUT . . . .
- Surely if payment is defaulted, thats the Banks problem (Irish or European)
Thats their business
- Second, why should the Irish people shoulder the debt that was never theirs in the first place i.e. from outside our jurisdiction.

Hope you are all well, and believe me when I say, it will all pass. BUT it had better not "pass" onto the shoulders of the next generation a la Japan.

Shame on us ALL if that comes to pass !
(a lot of "pass's"but you get my drift;))

swampgas

quietriot wrote: »

If someone "non-stupid" messes up, can they claim it's the government's fault because they themselves feel they're thick and can't be held responsible for their own actions and decisions, so it's ultimately the governments fault?

No. Absolutely not.

Impulsive credit indulgence is the sole responsibility of the person sticking their hand out for the credit. They're given the terms of the credit and are made aware of the process should they breach them, and are trusted that they have made a decision they believe to be good.

It is not up to the government or the lender to moralize over who should get what based on a gut feeling of who'll pay. The risk of lending is assessed at HQ level within the bank and it is determined who they will lend to and under what terms. Lending agreements are not ambiguous or hard to read, they're very, very clear about who gets what and under what condition it's being given to them so being "stupid" doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid.

Just because you fall within the bracket of being able to be lent to, does not mean you must automatically go and take out a loan. Nay, the maximum loan you can, as a lot of people were doing. This is entirely the responsibility of the person going looking for the money.

The government should regulate finance to protect, at varying levels, the individual, and the state. Ultimately individuals are responsible for their own actions, however the government is responsible for the aggregate of those individual actions.

I suspect that part of the reason that some people got into trouble was that they honestly (and naively, stupidly) thought that they wouldn't be allowed to over-extend themselves by the banks - because in the past, that would have been true. Quite the betrayal of trust by the institutions on one hand, and a massive misplacement of trust by the individual on the other.

grumpymunster

UDP wrote: »

Why should I have to bail your bad debt out if it comes to that?

This is the problem, where do we draw the line on personal responsibility and bailing someone/something out?

Those who were greedy and bit off more than they could chew (both the person taking out the loan and the bank for giving it) now are relying on those who were not as greedy to bail them out effectively.

The problem is that because the government bailed the banks out (and give not enough in return) now where do we draw the line on who gets bailed out - it makes it unfair no matter what now.

I think they have been as good as it is possible for an Irish government to be since we the Irish are pretty bad at managing ourselves anyway.

I do think they should have had more balls to stand up to europe though and refuse to pay back unguaranteed debt.

quietriot wrote: »

And what qualifies someone as "stupid" and in need of help by the government? Where do we draw the line then between stupid, who should get direct governmental interference in their daily life and personal decisions, and the "non-stupid" who are just left to fend for themselves?

If someone "non-stupid" messes up, can they claim it's the government's fault because they themselves feel they're thick and can't be held responsible for their own actions and decisions, so it's ultimately the governments fault?

No. Absolutely not.

Impulsive credit indulgence is the sole responsibility of the person sticking their hand out for the credit. They're given the terms of the credit and are made aware of the process should they breach them, and are trusted that they have made a decision they believe to be good.

It is not up to the government or the lender to moralize over who should get what based on a gut feeling of who'll pay. The risk of lending is assessed at HQ level within the bank and it is determined who they will lend to and under what terms. Lending agreements are not ambiguous or hard to read, they're very, very clear about who gets what and under what condition it's being given to them so being "stupid" doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid.

Just because you fall within the bracket of being able to be lent to, does not mean you must automatically go and take out a loan. Nay, the maximum loan you can, as a lot of people were doing. This is entirely the responsibility of the person going looking for the money.

I agree with you Quietriot, now rationalise making private dept incurred by Anglo et al Sovereign debt. By that principle this should be their problem and not ours or more personally mine.

Dannyboy83

RichardAnd wrote: »

I know. It's a prime example of the big failing of any democratic system summed up by the words:

51% of people can vote to enslave the other 49%.

As it often the case, this translates into the prudent and innocent paying for the mistakes of the reckless.

Very accurate, as is the case with the new bankruptcy laws imho.

Dannyboy83

murphaph wrote: »

Ah look, can you honestly say you didn't pay over the odds for pints of a weekend? Or say "feck it" and fork over €15 for a Dominos pizza? Or €4 for a coffee etc? I would say I was fairly restrained but I wouldn't say I was a saint. I certainly went for pints with the lads in town and blew €100 of a night no problem. I couldn't imagine doing that now, but such small actions all fueled the boom and drove prices up, not just buying property directly.

Our politicians and banks and regulators failed us miserably, but we (not you Liam, before you hit the keyboard!) as a people mostly did participate to a greater or lesser degree in wasting money in some shape or form. If we can't recognise our mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them!

Would not agree with this personally.

The rents which people in Cork & Dublin continue to pay today in 2012 are obscene and are very damaging to the Irish economy, I think you have mentioned that rents in Dublin are considerably more expensive than Berlin?

Huge amounts of money are being wasted, but people do not have an alternative - what are they going to do?
Buying is not an option.
The other option is to be homeless.
.
.
.
.
The "we all partied" line is an unnecessary cop out in my honest opinion.
We don't say all Irish males have unusually high rates of heart disease, we say all obese males have.
We look at the demographics and identify the subset.

I maybe totally wrong about the specifics but in my opinion, anybody born after about 1981 was probably too young to have participated in the madness.
I'm just shy of 29 now and yet only 2 of my friends in my age group are house owners of which only 1 bought at the peak and the only reason he could is because he is a very well paid public servant - he was the only one who could afford to and he still meets his obligations himself.

I'm guessing that an entire Irish trend has been turned on it's head, with an entire generation of Irish people becoming renters, not property owners?

I don't have a problem with Enda's statement as such, I pretty much agree with him.
I just question why this no investigative work is ever done on this topc, unlike any other topic discussed on the forum.
e.g.
I cannot say all Public sector staff are overpaid because
A) It's not true and I will be pulled on it

It's a meaningless throwaway statement with no data to back it up

Morrisseeee

Sully wrote: »

2) We are fooling ourselves in thinking that a large amount of people didn’t excessively borrow. .

When you say "large", what do you mean exactly, have you a figure in mind, or a percentage ?? and "excessively", can you quantify that with a number ??

I'm asking you because I believe it's a minority, and the fact that most people have a loan/mortgage, but are paying it back ! and in no way contributed to the fall of Ireland.inc

............and Enda, thanks for the kick in the face, and you had to go out foreign to do it, you cowardly little fcekless gobsheen :mad:

quietriot

grumpymunster wrote: »

I agree with you Quietriot, now rationalise making private dept incurred by Anglo et al Sovereign debt. By that principle this should be their problem and not ours or more personally mine.

You're absolutely right and I personally cannot justify why Anglo & co were bailed out from the pocket of the taxpayer.

I'd love to hear the reasons and hope there are rational ones, but I'd have been happier to see them sink and foreign banks come in to provide retail banking to the Republic than the solution we have in place now.

It is abhorrent, from the outside looking in, that the public be made pay for the mistakes of private institutions. I just hope the last, desperate, scumbag acts of the dying government won't go forgotten although time seems to be proving that they will.

micropig

paddyandy wrote: »

Enda was correct and there was two to blame the borrowers and the lenders . Bertie was ignoring warnings too... so a trio ?

& the regulators

tayto lover

Enda is a priviliged hypocrite. To the apologists who say that he omitted the word "some", well I don't believe you. He said what he meant. His pre budget speech was for suckers to believe.

jased10s

my morgage in the uk was 200 a month and moved here and payed 500 a month to rent but that was 10 years ago, has to say how much this country overcharges.
morgage was on a 3 bed in the uk
rent was a top floor of a 3 bed so really a 2 bed in ireland.

Good loser

What is the difference between being ambitous and greedy?

Is the latter merely a pejorative twist on the former?

Seems to me before the event you are ambitous and after greedy.

Shakespeare had Macbeth guilty of 'Vaulting ambition that o'erleaped itself and fell on the other side'. Macbeth was greedy - but only when he failed.

Can we have one without the other? I agree with Enda in the context in which he used the word 'greedy' but it should be used sparingly.

I suppose enough and sufficient come into the reckoning; hard to decide on these for oneself without deciding for others.

coolshannagh28

timmy_mallet wrote: »

quietriot wrote: »

Exactly. The question should be:
"Why did someone earning 30k per year take out credit of 400k?".

The answer of:
"Because it was available to them"

Does not make it the banks fault, because they made credit available. It makes it the borrowers fault, because they clearly cannot control themselves or act in a rational, logical manner nor could they use common sense and employ someone who could. The bank is a business, they seek to make money and maximize profit. You are expected to manage your own financial matters.

Blaming the banks for people overextending themselves is ridiculous.

No. It is almost entirely the banks fault in scenarios like this.

The bank knows what it is doing is wrong, they are in a postion to stop it.

Just like the barmen were in a position not to sell alcohol - http://www.eturbonews.com/22666/irish-barmen-charged-killing-tourist-too-much-booze

The argument of stupid people only having themselves to blame is ridiculous. People will always be stupid. The goverment/regulator/banks were in a position of responsibility to protect them.

Agree absolutely ,to govern means to control by all means at their disposal the ebb and flow of the economy and society,there was an absolute failure to do this and a mania took hold

Liam Byrne

I'm responsible for debts that I ran up

Fair enough.

And because Kenny is wrong, those debts are manageable.

I'm not responsible for debts Ahern & Co ran up

I'm not responsible for debts Quinn & Co ran up

I'm not responsible for debts Fitzpatrick & Anglo ran up

I'm not responsible for debts that Kenny runs up by breaking his own pay cap and refusing to reign in waste

So I'll pay mine, Mr Kenny.

Anything else is your own responsibility. And if you can't manage to do the job you promised (burn bondholders, not raise taxes, lead with ethics, honesty and fairness) then shut up, resign and let someone who will do so have the job.

Wider Road

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm responsible for debts that I ran up

Fair enough.

And because Kenny is wrong, those debts are manageable.

I'm not responsible for debts Ahern & Co ran up

I'm not responsible for debts Quinn & Co ran up

I'm not responsible for debts Fitzpatrick & Anglo ran up

I'm not responsible for debts that Kenny runs up by breaking his own pay cap and refusing to reign in waste

So I'll pay mine, Mr Kenny.

Anything else is your own responsibility. And if you can't manage to do the job you promised (burn bondholders, not raise taxes, lead with ethics, honesty and fairness) then shut up, resign and let someone who will do so have the job.

Sound, I take it that FG is off your voting list.
Will you vote for Labour instead?

Liam Byrne

Wider Road wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm responsible for debts that I ran up

Fair enough.

And because Kenny is wrong, those debts are manageable.

I'm not responsible for debts Ahern & Co ran up

I'm not responsible for debts Quinn & Co ran up

I'm not responsible for debts Fitzpatrick & Anglo ran up

I'm not responsible for debts that Kenny runs up by breaking his own pay cap and refusing to reign in waste

So I'll pay mine, Mr Kenny.

Anything else is your own responsibility. And if you can't manage to do the job you promised (burn bondholders, not raise taxes, lead with ethics, honesty and fairness) then shut up, resign and let someone who will do so have the job.

Sound, I take it that FG is off your voting list.
Will you vote for Labour instead?

FG aren't making their decisions alone. So no.

[Jackass]

GET HIMMMM!!!

And once you get Enda, who are you going to go after?

Get a grip on reality people. Are we really at the point of dissecting every word uttered to try and find out how this is all Enda's / FG's / Labour's fault so we can boot them out of office and get, urm... someone else to run the country?

Alibaba

Enda Kenny is a Clown. He's not up to the job.

jank

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm responsible for debts that I ran up

Fair enough.

And because Kenny is wrong, those debts are manageable.

I'm not responsible for debts Ahern & Co ran up

I'm not responsible for debts Quinn & Co ran up

I'm not responsible for debts Fitzpatrick & Anglo ran up

I'm not responsible for debts that Kenny runs up by breaking his own pay cap and refusing to reign in waste

So I'll pay mine, Mr Kenny.

Anything else is your own responsibility. And if you can't manage to do the job you promised (burn bondholders, not raise taxes, lead with ethics, honesty and fairness) then shut up, resign and let someone who will do so have the job.

Maybe we should put you in charge Liam.

tayto lover

Enda on T.V. 3 News trying to back out gracefully. Two-faced wee upstart.