Suicide - Downturn in Economy

Are people actually siding with the bank over this?

That sort of subservient mentality is precisely why this country is in ruins.

Podge_irl wrote: »

So her issue is with whoever certified the building...

If a bank gave you a loan that you invested badly (for whatever reason) you wouldn't expect them to let you off.

But due to the complete balls of legislation, the self regulation that was brought in had no real penalties attached. I remember it being said at the time it would lead to problems in the long run and lo and behold.....


...an investment that involves risk usually makes that risk and its level entirely clear.

galwayrush wrote:

It's next to impossible to get a mortgage or even a stage payment without the
development being passed by a qualified and bonded engineer. If there's a
structural problem, it's down to the engineer's insurance.

....so some believed. Also mentioned was something about the architects, but I've never heard of anyone claiming off that either . However - and I'm open to correction on this - theres enough leeway in the regulations that very little inspection can be said to having been 'due diligence'.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Customer went to bank for a loan, bank decided that looking at their accounts etc that they qualified for a loan. Customer used loan to buy apartment. Apartment not fit for purpose. Customer decides not to pay back loan. In what world is it fair that the bank loses its money.

Customer goes to the bicycle shop and buys a bicycle. Customer goes out, cycles down the road and the bicycle falls to pieces.

The bicycle shop is responsible, because it's sold unwarrantable goods.

If a bank offered a loan for the bike, but only on condition that it could send out its own bicycle mechanic to test the bike first, I'd personally see a certain co-responsibility on its part. That bicycle mechanic, acting as the bank's agent, told the customer that he was safe to buy the bike and could be granted a loan to do so, and the bike turned out to be as bent as a clatter of spanners.

Sleepy wrote: »

I think there's a post-colonial aversion to taking responsibility for your own actions in this country. If modern republicans are anything to judge those of the past by (and in the past, they would have been a majority rather than a fringe group), every problem could be considered to have been caused by "de Brits".

Flash forward to our own time and you can pretty much substitute the banks and politicians for the British. Many homeowners don't want to admit that they played a large part in the creation of their own problems: whether that was exaggerating their earnings on their mortgage application, a failure to realise that their earning capacity could decrease (particularly if they were giving up educational opportunities to avail of those earnings), or simply were silly enough to agree with bubble-level property prices. Of course the banks irresponsible lending practices and government of the day's encouraging of the bubble and failure to regulate played major parts in our current problems, but it still takes two people to sign a mortgage agreement.

Even outside of the property market, you can see similar behaviour throughout Irish society: the "it's not my fault I'm fat, it's genetic / my (self diagnosed) overactive thyroid / just big bones" brigade; the legal system that regards intoxication as a mitigating rather than contributory factor to a crime; the women that regard violent or abusive outbursts as being excusable because it's "their time of the month"; the men who abandon their offspring because "she said she was on the pill / wouldn't go to England / she's a bitch" etc.

Choices have consequences and we need to teach our future generations to accept those consequences and not to feel too ashamed to simply admit to a failing and admit "mea culpa".

Except this problem is caused by finance/banks/government, through enormous economic mismanagement; the rest "takes two people to sign a mortgage agreement" is just whataboutery used to try and justify victim blaming.

No, people do not have a choice on what they pay on houses, when the entire market is overinflating and they don't want to put their entire lives on hold to wait for a downturn (which, considering the majority of all economists in the world didn't see it coming, the population can hardly be expected to), and when the rental market doesn't match European standards, and isn't a viable alternative for many people (especially those wanting to start families).

The Irish don't have a problem with personal responsibility (the entire topic of the thread, can be interpreted as the Irish being masochistically obedient/accepting, of being overburdened by others in financial responsibility), we have a problem with holding powerful people to account, to imposing responsibility onto them when they damage the economy/society.

All this talk of 'personal responsibility' is just an attempt at distraction/whataboutery from the real issues of corruption, which can be interpreted as: "don't look at the bankers/financiers/politicans responsible for the crisis, look to yourselves instead and stop complaining".
You portray it as others deferring responsibility onto politicians etc., when it is exactly you who are deferring responsibility from politicians/bankers onto the people.


People defending the banks, also don't seem to realize that the banks don't lend money from savings, the money they have loaned out (and which has gone into developers pockets) is actually created out of nothing, along with an equal amount of corresponding debt.

Sleepy wrote: »

We'll never agree on this. For a start, I don't see someone as a "victim" when they suffer the consequences of their own actions.

You can point at your dissatisfaction with the failings of our rental market in comparison to those elsewhere in the world, the high levels of financial illiteracy, the incompetence (and/or corruption) of the politicians, planners, regulators all you like (and I'll agree with you on most of it tbh) but it doesn't waive people's responsibility to accept the consequences of their own poor decisions.

We all make choices and follow them through with actions. Sometimes those have fantastic consequences (we meet the love of our life, have a child, get the job we always wanted, set ourselves on the path to whatever we define as "success" etc.) other times they don't work out so well for us (we vote for someone who doesn't represent our best interests, we find the car we've just bought is a lemon, we sell the shares a week before they skyrocket in value, we don't talk to the pretty girl in the bar, we forego a chance to educate ourselves further, etc.)

Part of being a grown up is accepting responsibility for your actions and it seems to me, a lesson that our parents failed to pass on to an awful lot of us...

Yes but they are not solely the consequences of ones own actions, but also of others actions.

Part of being a grown up is standing up for yourself and transform your victimisation into positive action, not just saying it was all my fault or all their fault, but being wise enough to gauge what you can do about it and accept what you can't. And then to further examine what you tolerate, and how your tolerance may enable further fraud and exploitation.

Nodin wrote: »

But that hardly applies to a situation where somebody has been deceived.

Right. It's like saying fraud victims are solely responsible for the con.

Nodin wrote: »

All the residents of these properties had them sold as certified up to standard.

Buyers should always organise an independent survey.