Regarding housing, there was an article in the Sunday Times this week about a probable housing shortage in Dublin. The figure quoted was a shortfall of 216,000 houses. It seems incredible that the overbuild of the last couple of years will not affect this future problem, as most of the overbuild is outside the capital. The problem will be further exacerbated by the infrastructure not able to cope with future demand--water, sewage, sewage treatmentroads, etc. Perhaps Dublin needs to accept that it needs to go up, and not out- to Kildare, Wicklow, etc.

I remember posting a similar topic on Politics.ie some time ago and getting lines and lines of Hahaha's in reply.

clareman51 wrote:

Regarding housing, there was an article in the Sunday Times this week about a probable housing shortage in Dublin. The figure quoted was a shortfall of 216,000 houses. It seems incredible that the overbuild of the last couple of years will not affect this future problem, as most of the overbuild is outside the capital. The problem will be further exacerbated by the infrastructure not able to cope with future demand--water, sewage, sewage treatmentroads, etc. Perhaps Dublin needs to accept that it needs to go up, and not out- to Kildare, Wicklow, etc.

I remember posting a similar topic on Politics.ie some time ago and getting lines and lines of Hahaha's in reply.

Me too clareman51 - I have a collection of bruises, squashed tomatoes and turnips to show for my efforts to warn on the serious housing shortage to come. It will affect some areas outside Dublin too. I posted about housing demand on the ISEQ thread this morning.

Any chance of a link to the Sunday Times article ?

Can't find a link on their website, probably bacause it's the Irish edition. Will have a look this evening when I get home, and send you the info--if herself hasn't chucked it.

clareman51 wrote:

Regarding housing, there was an article in the Sunday Times this week about a probable housing shortage in Dublin. The figure quoted was a shortfall of 216,000 houses. It seems incredible that the overbuild of the last couple of years will not affect this future problem, as most of the overbuild is outside the capital. The problem will be further exacerbated by the infrastructure not able to cope with future demand--water, sewage, sewage treatmentroads, etc. Perhaps Dublin needs to accept that it needs to go up, and not out- to Kildare, Wicklow, etc.

I remember posting a similar topic on Politics.ie some time ago and getting lines and lines of Hahaha's in reply.

How frustrating is a fact like that ?? It was a pain in the * trying to rent in Dublin in the late 90s and it infuriated me that a lot of the locals there who I knew were buying commuter-belt houses and that all the activity seemed to be happening in that zone outside the M50. I used to walk by the Ulster Bank across from the IFSC and wonder when that lovely trio of skyscrapers behind the Ulster Bank would be built - 22, 18 and 11 stories but it was refused planning permission and Sinn Fein were involved in the demonstrations against it. Maybe it would have started off a domino effect in the city whereby many more 30-storey fellas would be built thereby easing all sorts of pressures concerning renting, commuting and buying.

Patslatt over on p.ie entertains a conspiracy theory that Dublin is purposely commuter-belt-built and high-rise CBD areas actively discouraged. I used to believe it now I don't care. I hope Sean Dunne breaks the back of it but I fear he won't and nothing will be done. Anyway there's no water to build more houses. Maybe half of Dublin will end up in Limerick yet.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/business/mhqlqlidsnid/

AIG is in collapse. It is an insurer of the US and other finance system. We could be about to see the bottom fall out of the economic world.

Auditor #9 wrote:

clareman51 wrote:

Regarding housing, there was an article in the Sunday Times this week about a probable housing shortage in Dublin. The figure quoted was a shortfall of 216,000 houses. It seems incredible that the overbuild of the last couple of years will not affect this future problem, as most of the overbuild is outside the capital. The problem will be further exacerbated by the infrastructure not able to cope with future demand--water, sewage, sewage treatmentroads, etc. Perhaps Dublin needs to accept that it needs to go up, and not out- to Kildare, Wicklow, etc.

I remember posting a similar topic on Politics.ie some time ago and getting lines and lines of Hahaha's in reply.

How frustrating is a fact like that ?? It was a pain in the * trying to rent in Dublin in the late 90s and it infuriated me that a lot of the locals there who I knew were buying commuter-belt houses and that all the activity seemed to be happening in that zone outside the M50. I used to walk by the Ulster Bank across from the IFSC and wonder when that lovely trio of skyscrapers behind the Ulster Bank would be built - 22, 18 and 11 stories but it was refused planning permission and Sinn Fein were involved in the demonstrations against it. Maybe it would have started off a domino effect in the city whereby many more 30-storey fellas would be built thereby easing all sorts of pressures concerning renting, commuting and buying.

Patslatt over on p.ie entertains a conspiracy theory that Dublin is purposely commuter-belt-built and high-rise CBD areas actively discouraged. I used to believe it now I don't care. I hope Sean Dunne breaks the back of it but I fear he won't and nothing will be done. Anyway there's no water to build more houses. Maybe half of Dublin will end up in Limerick yet.

This high versus low density is a very interesting question. Does anyone know enough about the issue to start a new thread?

unaligned wrote:

This high versus low density is a very interesting question. Does anyone know enough about the issue to start a new thread?

Not really but I'd have plenty of enthusiasm about finding out so start a new thread away - I've started too many already.

There are plenty of people on archiseek and elsewhere who might be invited to join in a discussion - I'll pm patslatt too and maybe even dig out his old thread... I think the story would have a sad ending though - Dublin is running out of water so any higher density than there is already might be out of the question. Still, I'd argue that the density is high enough just the height is not high enough. Commuting could be cut out big time with a benefit accruing to the country?

Have you not started a thread yet, unaligned? And you one of our long-term posters and all

Is AIG "too big to fail" ? Looks like it might be getting an orphanage bed with Fannie and Freddie ...

Government Officials Said to Consider AIG Conservatorship Plan

As the economist on Prime Time this evening said, the Fed/Government will pick and choose which they want to save and which they will allow collapse.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Is AIG "too big to fail" ? Looks like it might be getting an orphanage bed with Fannie and Freddie ...

Government Officials Said to Consider AIG Conservatorship Plan

It seems to be on a knife edge. If this one goes they seem to expect a domino effect. It is hard to see how McCain could possibly be reelected.

AIG Nationalised

Fed to Give A.I.G. $85 Billion Loan and Take 80% Stake

Quote :

In an extraordinary turn, the Federal Reserve agreed Tuesday night to take a nearly 80 percent stake in the troubled giant insurance company, the American International Group, in exchange for an $85 billion loan.

The Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase had been trying to arrange a $75 billion loan for the company to stave off the financial crisis caused by complex debt securities and credit default swaps. The Federal Reserve stepped in after it became clear Tuesday afternoon that the banking consortium would not be able to complete the deal.

Without the help, A.I.G. was expected to be forced to file for bankruptcy protection.

The need for the loans became necessary after the major credit ratings agencies downgraded A.I.G. late Monday, a move that likely to have forced the company to turn over billions of dollars in collateral to its derivatives trading partners worsening its financial health.

Until this week, it would have been unthinkable for the Federal Reserve to bail out an insurance company, and A.I.G.’s request for help from the Fed of just a few days ago was rebuffed.

But with the prospect of a giant bankruptcy looming — one with unpredictable consequences for the world financial system — the Fed abandoned precedent and agreed to let the money flow.

Anorakphobia losing it as America slides into financial Totalitarianism

Quote :

If Microsoft spend the next 5 years making * siúcra * products and tehir stock falls to 2 bucks, should they be bailed out?
If Warren Buffett goes batty in his old age and makes a string of multi billion disastrous investmnet bets, should Berkshire Hathaway be bailed out with taxpayers funds?

AIG is a plc and no plc should be allowed to operate in the knowledge that if they fail they are indemnified with tax payers funds.

BTW
The last hour rally on Wall St has been compltely reversed now in after hours trading.
What a joke, an orchastrated hijacking to ensure newsapapers have a dow rally story tommorrow.
A complete fcuking joke, this is Indonesian style government market intervention.

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=161&t=41151

Auditor #9 wrote:

Anorakphobia losing it as America slides into financial Totalitarianism

Quote :

If Microsoft spend the next 5 years making * siúcra * products and tehir stock falls to 2 bucks, should they be bailed out?
If Warren Buffett goes batty in his old age and makes a string of multi billion disastrous investmnet bets, should Berkshire Hathaway be bailed out with taxpayers funds?

AIG is a plc and no plc should be allowed to operate in the knowledge that if they fail they are indemnified with tax payers funds.

BTW
The last hour rally on Wall St has been compltely reversed now in after hours trading.
What a joke, an orchastrated hijacking to ensure newsapapers have a dow rally story tommorrow.
A complete fcuking joke, this is Indonesian style government market intervention.

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=161&t=41151

He's right and the amount of government intervention is appalling. This should be left to sort itself out without the government charging in causing more havoc, generating mountains of moral hazard and bottling up even more distortions for the future. There should be more blood. We need to see casualties. A wash-out should be let happen. Let as many of these banks with unsustainable business models face their doom. It is only through the destruction of these companies that we can re-build our economies and emerge stronger.

Why bail out AIG? Why should they be any different to the the small builder or corner shop owner? Indeed more importantly why should the small builder and corner shop owner help pay for the intervention?

They are not bailing out AIG, they are bailing out those who AIG owe money to. Nobody gives a bollix about AIG or half a bollix about any of the AIG shareholders.

correct.

its not AIG that the govt cares about. its the policy holders, the holders of credit default swaps and holders of the leases etc.

imagine if 1/3 of all insurance policies in the US was void due to collapse of insurance company. there'd be carnage on the streets.

zakalwe wrote:

correct.

its not AIG that the govt cares about. its the policy holders, the holders of credit default swaps and holders of the leases etc.

imagine if 1/3 of all insurance policies in the US was void due to collapse of insurance company. there'd be carnage on the streets.

AIG insures the other banks against their losses. If AIG goes, they all go.

If I heard right last night on Primetime Allied Irish Bank has 110 billion loans out of which 60 billion are property/land loans. The blithe assumption that this could be bailed out by the Central Bank seems to be worrying.

I agree with Anarakphobia, that bailing out these firms that have been paying themselves vast sums to mess up is unacceptable. I have come to the view that the banks (all of them, not just the bankrupt ones) should be genuinely nationalised and brought, like Northern Rock, into public ownership.

cactus flower wrote:

I agree with Anarakphobia, that bailing out these firms that have been paying themselves vast sums to mess up is unacceptable. I have come to the view that the banks (all of them, not just the bankrupt ones) should be genuinely nationalised and brought, like Northern Rock, into public ownership.

I would prefer many of them acting as traditional Building Societies, Credit Unions or Friendly Societies, entities owned by the account holders and not operated for profit.

You need competition, and the thoughts of a State Bank fills me with terror.

I firmly believe in no bailouts. They paid themselves fortunes and screwed up. Privatise the profit and socialise the loss? No thanks. Neo-liberalist non-regulation created this mess and those who profited most from it should feel the greatest pain. End of.

in other news:

HBOS is in "advanced" talks with Lloyds TSB regarding a takeover (of HBOS!) and AIB shares are down 13% today.

also in other news:
4 winged horsemen were seen flying over france, the dead have arisen in africa and the sky has been raining fire over china. brian cowen was unavailable for comment, directing any questions to the NTMA, HSE and the Church.

Squire wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I agree with Anarakphobia, that bailing out these firms that have been paying themselves vast sums to mess up is unacceptable. I have come to the view that the banks (all of them, not just the bankrupt ones) should be genuinely nationalised and brought, like Northern Rock, into public ownership.

I would prefer many of them acting as traditional Building Societies, Credit Unions or Friendly Societies, entities owned by the account holders and not operated for profit.

You need competition, and the thoughts of a State Bank fills me with terror.

Certainly you have a point Squire. As you know, I find the Islamic "No Interest" banking option interesting too.

A problem I see though is that the Halifax, a very old Building Society, is in the process of expiring. Credit Unions also have to do something with the money passed over the counter to them, and their funds have been invested into the same maw as everyone elses... It is tricky, I agree a single State Bank sounds desperate. At the moment, we are getting closer to a single private bank every week courtesy of the Neoliberals.

Why should tax payers money go to bail out private gamblers? If the public fund a bank, we should own the bank.

cactus flower wrote:

Why should tax payers money go to bail out private gamblers? If the public fund a bank, we should own the bank.

I have absolutely no problem with that, but ownership and running are two different matters.

I often think that when Nationalisation raises its ugly head that the correct course would be to give everyone a percentage of the shares, but NO the government sells the assets off and pockets the money. So it is clear what the real motives are.

I also like the Islamic concept. Where I would disagree with you is the belief that Credit Unions etc must engage in the 'same old'. IMO the greatest failing in modern society is the locking out of large portions of society from access to meaningful resources. There is a mass of work that needs to be done and potentially lots of opportunities. One of the major problems is that unless you have backing it is very difficult to succeed and unless there are resources in a community it is very difficult to address the needs. Often in poorer sections of the community what money goes in simple goes back out, none of it 'sticks'. I have often wondered why LETS aren't more common.

http://www.letslinkuk.net/

Squire wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Why should tax payers money go to bail out private gamblers? If the public fund a bank, we should own the bank.

I have absolutely no problem with that, but ownership and running are two different matters.

I often think that when Nationalisation raises its ugly head that the correct course would be to give everyone a percentage of the shares, but NO the government sells the assets off and pockets the money. So it is clear what the real motives are.

I also like the Islamic concept. Where I would disagree with you is the belief that Credit Unions etc must engage in the 'same old'. IMO the greatest failing in modern society is the locking out of large portions of society from access to meaningful resources. There is a mass of work that needs to be done and potentially lots of opportunities. One of the major problems is that unless you have backing it is very difficult to succeed and unless there are resources in a community it is very difficult to address the needs. Often in poorer sections of the community what money goes in simple goes back out, none of it 'sticks'. I have often wondered why LETS aren't more common.

http://www.letslinkuk.net/

The point about ownership and running is very well made. Economic interests rule the world more than political ones. Should the boards and CEOs of banks be elected? Either by the whole population or by different regions, or work sectors? Are there any good precedents for this?

The main question to my mind is do we continue to be subservient to money or do we become the masters of money. Money in and of itself is worthless. It is merely means of transacting business. A convenient method of paying for good and services and measuring the amount of wealth a society creates. We could use dried beans just as readily as dollars, Yen or Euros to transact business or measure wealth.

Yet we somehow have come to believe that banks create wealth. They do not and never have and never will. They appropriate wealth from wealth makers through the use of interest. Banks also dillute wealth by printing excess money when the economy doesn't require the money for proper infrastructural investments.

Until we, the people who are supposed to be the ultimate arbiters of government policy through elective processes, wake up to these simple facts nothing will ever change. Banks have a small part to play in a well functioning economy. They are there to accumulate the excess wealth of the economy through deposits and lend the accumulated wealth in a prudent manner to ventures that create new wealth mechanisms in industry, infrastructure or satisfy the growth needs of an expanding population. That any government on this globe pays interest on its loans for infrastructural projects is plain stupidy.

We are loathe to let governments print money but we feel comfortable letting independent central banks print money whose final clients interest lies with the viability of commercial banks. Surely it is not too hard to enshrine concrete laws into existence which will prohibit govts from printing money unless it is used for productive investment purposes. And, again, laws which require money to be taken out of the system which cannot be used productively. Yet we believe that the "free" market's ability to print money through central banks and commercial loan issuance is somehow more efficient when clearly events over the past year and further back in history show us that the banking free market model is often inefficient and often downright pernicious for the long term interests of society.