Urgent call to stop Anglo Irish rescue

johnfás wrote:

It would have to be a two pronged approach. Something can be salvaged if land values go up but equally land values will only go up if the cogs of the economy start to rotate again, which is to a certain degree, although not exclusively, reliant on the banks. Thus, the Government needs a strategy to deal with toxic debts but to do so in a way which does not cripple the economy's potential to stimulate both. It is a difficult balancing act.

The problem is that we will have to repay the money (full price paid for the land/buildings plus interest) long before the lands might come into a better value. And we will be paying at a time when our economy is in anycase locally and internationally banjaxed. And the interest rates we will be paying at are going up as our credibility goes down.

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys has a point - we simply do not seem to know what the cost of this thing will be so why are we rushing into it ????
WE NEED TO EXAMINE THEIR BOOKS

Zhou and Cactus have the valid points and angles - get a rake of economists of all persuasions and put them in a room for 6 weeks if necessary to come up with something - we need to get this right, there's too much rushing.

johnfas and Aragon
I kind of agree with Aragon here though I feel sorry for those people who did gamble on the shares. In the end, it WAS gambling and it was gambling on value of property unseen before in this state. If anything, older people who presumably would have made the connection between shares and property were more than qualified with their age to be cautious about the crazy property values we saw.

They weren't though.

A lot of Anglo would be held by pension funds and credit unions - the person paying in wouldn't even know they were investing in Anglo in many cases.

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I think tonys points about Morgan Kelly's figures are a distraction, as the amount of information coming out is limited and peoples' grasp of the scale of the thing has improved, .

Thanks very much, sorry for having an opinion. Why don’t you just stand in front of a mirror and talk to yourself, you’re bound to find a measure of agreement there and it would save me a good deal of my time as well.

Well, have you not noticed that not only Morgan Kelly's but everyone's estimates have changed in the last six months? Most notably, Brian Cowen and Brian Lenihan's estimates of the soundness and viability of the Irish banks has clearly changed.

The term 'investment' should never have been used as a synonym for 'gamble'. Those who invested in bank shares (whatever the entry level) presumably understood that they were gambling their money on a company's performance. Similarly those who spent 400k + on a badly developed box in North Kildare took an enormous gamble, although they probably didn't know it at the time. I feel hugely sorry for 'the little guy' in all of this, but it was a gamble and personal responsibility has to enter the equation at some point.

Indeed. But it appears Cowen & tonys think it is Morgan Kelly who has destroyed the economy. Hard to see either of them stepping up to accept their responsibility. Anyone who voted FF in 2007 (long after Bertie's corruption was there for all to see) is repsonsible for this. As with the 1977 FF victory, the whole country will spend 20 years recovering from the catastrophe caused by handing the keys over to a bunch of incompetent gombeen men. When will we ever learn?

coc wrote:

Indeed. But it appears Cowen & tonys think it is Morgan Kelly who has destroyed the economy. Hard to see either of them stepping up to accept their responsibility. Anyone who voted FF in 2007 (long after Bertie's corruption was there for all to see) is repsonsible for this. As with the 1977 FF victory, the whole country will spend 20 years recovering from the catastrophe caused by handing the keys over to a bunch of incompetent gombeen men. When will we ever learn?

What was the alternative? Fine Gael, after showing that they knew Government was overspending then went into the election with an event bigger spending plan than FF.

unaligned wrote:

The term 'investment' should never have been used as a synonym for 'gamble'. Those who invested in bank shares (whatever the entry level) presumably understood that they were gambling their money on a company's performance. Similarly those who spent 400k + on a badly developed box in North Kildare took an enormous gamble, although they probably didn't know it at the time. I feel hugely sorry for 'the little guy' in all of this, but it was a gamble and personal responsibility has to enter the equation at some point.

The advice coming at people from all sides was that buying was the responsible thing to do financially - that renting was just throwing money down the drain. I don't have much sympathy for those who bought second and third homes though - dabbling in the buy to let arena. That was definintely gambling. But it's a bit much when people who simply wanted a roof over their heads are now being told they have behaved irresponsibly by buying their home.

coc wrote:

Indeed. But it appears Cowen & tonys think it is Morgan Kelly who has destroyed the economy. Hard to see either of them stepping up to accept their responsibility. Anyone who voted FF in 2007 (long after Bertie's corruption was there for all to see) is repsonsible for this. As with the 1977 FF victory, the whole country will spend 20 years recovering from the catastrophe caused by handing the keys over to a bunch of incompetent gombeen men. When will we ever learn?

Even now there's too much secrecy around Anglo and what's going on in there with the shareholder price etc. They are saying they can't be transparent because of legitmate market/business rules as if normal business rules were operating in this climate.

The government or opposition or greens or whoever need to get this up on the table today now rather than hiding it under the chair. There is a critical moment somewhere in all of this which will seperate the heroes from the villains and I believe it is that WE NEED TO EXAMINE THEIR BOOKS PUBLICLY.

Quote :

Anglo share decisions to be shrouded in secrecy

By Mary Regan, Political Reporter, Juno McEnroe and Geoff Percival
SHAREHOLDERS may not be entitled to a full explanation of the sum, if any, paid by the Government to compensate them for the takeover of Anglo Irish Bank.


Decisions by the assessor, who will be appointed by the Government to work out the value of the shares, will not have to be fully disclosed because of “commercial sensitivity”.

The draft bill giving effect to the nationalisation of Anglo is expected to be passed following just five hours of Dáil debate tomorrow, which will take place at the same time as the inauguration of Barack Obama as US president.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=ireland-qqqm=ireland-qqqa=ireland-qqqid=82295-qqqx=1.asp

I am increasingly in favour of a Government of national unity, as it would allow FF to share the blame. All 3 major parties were offering more freebies at the last election; in many ways, that of the current administration was the more conservative. They should all have known better, but a vote in the hand is better than 5 in the bush, 5 years later. Even now, Gilmore is on about stimulus plans when everyone and his dog knows we can't afford it. Half the NDP will go when they have to nationalise the banking sector. If we are lucky.

We the people were massively to blame for the property boom; the Governments from 1993-2008 and the banks should also share that blame. If the banks hadn't increased lending from 2.5x major salary + 1.5x minor, we wouldn't be in this mess. But who stood behind those changes?? Public demand for housing. And, since we vote in the politicians, they tend to give us what we want. Would the developers have bid such exorbitant amounts for land if the banks weren't lending 5 times joint salary??

The politicians were not as responsible for the boom as they would like to claim. Neither are they wholly responsible for the bust

Caveat emptor..... or should that be, caveat voter??

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I think tonys points about Morgan Kelly's figures are a distraction, as the amount of information coming out is limited and peoples' grasp of the scale of the thing has improved, .

Thanks very much, sorry for having an opinion. Why don’t you just stand in front of a mirror and talk to yourself, you’re bound to find a measure of agreement there and it would save me a good deal of my time as well.

Well, have you not noticed that not only Morgan Kelly's but everyone's estimates have changed in the last six months? Most notably, Brian Cowen and Brian Lenihan's estimates of the soundness and viability of the Irish banks has clearly changed.

No it hasn’t, the markets estimate has changed, based on very little new information at all & the only one to put these increasing figures on it is Kelly, again based on no new information, but heavily reliant on his own political leanings.

The fact that you have decided to swallow everything he has to say as Gospel has nothing to do with any information or evidence he has supplied to back up his assertions, but has everything to do with the fact that you like what you hear.

Sorry, tonys, but I don't accept by anymeans everything Kelly says and have said so on many occasions. If you feel the need to say that I do, it's a fabrication that suits your own point of view.

cactus flower wrote:

What was the alternative? Fine Gael, after showing that they knew Government was overspending then went into the election with an event bigger spending plan than FF.

That's a fair point, and one I hope any Blueshirts reading take note of. But my comment was not intended to establish an alternative, merely to point out that people whining about the unfairness of it all, in all probability voted FF. How many Dell workers in Limerick voted for Willie O'Dea? They have brought their misfortune on themselves. How many tradesmen and long distance commuters in Laois/Offaly who've lost their jobs and will soon lose their homes voted for Cowen et al? They have shat on their own nests. Literally. When we have 20% unemployment (possibly this year, the way things are going, how many people are going to honestly face the fact that they shot themselves in the head in 2007 and the wound is now proving fatal, due to MRSA contracted in the shitty hospital the HSE has run into the ground?

FF will do badly in the locals and europeans this summer, but they'll probably still secure north of 20% of the vote. That means than 1 in 5 of our fellow citizens are mental, an unacceptably high percentage of loopers to be wandering around unattended in my book. If we're looking for people to be shot, we could do worse than arranging a cull from that list.

I am tired of investors and people who bought houses being called gamblers. Investing in companies and investing in bricks and mortar is not the same is investing in pure chance on a roulette wheel.

Average people are not able to value things and are entitled to rely on those who are chargeed with such matters. Investment in companies is a crucial element of wealth creation. It is the equivalent to not burying your gold under a tree. You give it to people who are working and doing something on the basis that you get a share in the profits.

Calling investors gamblers is journalistic begrudgery. We are on the right track attacking the people in positions of trust who let us down and attacking the systems which were so fatally flawed.

Sh_tting all over the victims is born out of the simple jealousy of begrudgers who felt that those people shouldn't have had so much more money than the begrudgers in the first place. If you work for your money or innovate and employ and put it to work for others then you are a contributor not a gambler and are entitled to at least a modicum of sympathy. Sure, there is inequity in a meritocracy and market economy, but there is a lot of equity too. Painting all the "Haves" as feckless gamblers would be an unhealthy national mindset.

I think describing Celtic Tiger Ireland as a Meritocracy stretches things a little.

I don't know many lazy, reckless or intellectually dull people who have made large amounts of money in the last few years save for those that sold property which they owned since prior to the bubble. The people who bought at inflated prices and the investors are being unfairly characterised as gamblers.

I hope we can all agree that Seanie Fitz was reckless. I'm sure most of the Gombeen men can evade a charge of laziness, but I hardly think enthusiatic, driven and motivated corruption is something a well organised society should reward.

coc wrote:

I hope we can all agree that Seanie Fitz was reckless. I'm sure most of the Gombeen men can evade a charge of laziness, but I hardly think enthusiatic, driven and motivated corruption is something a well organised society should reward.

In a civilised country, Seanie Fitz would be facing charges. The fact that, as of now, he isn't, speaks volumes for the culture of corruption toleration in this society. It is revolting, sickening and debilitating.

I already said it was right to attack those who were in charge. Seanie Fitz falls into that category.

His actions are not a justification for calling all shareholders and homeowners gamblers.

Also, in a civilised country Seanie Fitz would be investigated by independent bodies and would be afforded due process and equality under the law. The lynch mob has no place in a civilised society.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

I don't know many lazy, reckless or intellectually dull people who have made large amounts of money in the last few years save for those that sold property which they owned since prior to the bubble. The people who bought at inflated prices and the investors are being unfairly characterised as gamblers.

You are right it is totally incorrect to categorise most people who buy a home as reckless gamblers. They bought a home, and at the time could see no alternative to the price being asked. They are the victims.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

I already said it was right to attack those who were in charge. Seanie Fitz falls into that category.

His actions are not a justification for calling all shareholders and homeowners gamblers.

Also, in a civilised country Seanie Fitz would be investigated by independent bodies and would be afforded due process and equality under the law. The lynch mob has no place in a civilised society.

I agree that the lynch mob has no place in a civilised society. Having said that, a civilised society would have enforceable legislation governing the behaviour of officers of a company, especially one in the banking sector, and would effectively prevent somebody take €84 million from the company in a PERSONAL loan with no audit trail to check that.

Everybody should be afforded due process. However, our pathetically weak legislation governing corporate malfeasance has been shown up in ruthless fashion and demands drastic reform.

Slim Buddha wrote:

In a civilised country, Seanie Fitz would be facing charges. The fact that, as of now, he isn't, speaks volumes for the culture of corruption toleration in this society. It is revolting, sickening and debilitating.

If Ireland wants to have a prosperous business sector it need to ruthlessly address this problem. We keep coming back to this. Ethical standards need to improve and you need to address the problems related to cronyism. There is a prevailing attitude that it is OK , or that you have to defend because well because he is one of ours. That attitude has to change. The 'ours' have to develop standards of conduct.

Slim Buddha wrote:

coc wrote:

I hope we can all agree that Seanie Fitz was reckless. I'm sure most of the Gombeen men can evade a charge of laziness, but I hardly think enthusiatic, driven and motivated corruption is something a well organised society should reward.

In a civilised country, Seanie Fitz would be facing charges. The fact that, as of now, he isn't, speaks volumes for the culture of corruption toleration in this society. It is revolting, sickening and debilitating.

In a civilised country, to face charges, you have to have done something illegal. What Mr. Fitz was involved in was all sorts of things, including extremely reckless, but not apparently illegal. There are countries who over the years have tried another way, one in particular quite close to where you live now, it usually doesn't end well.

tonys wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

coc wrote:

I hope we can all agree that Seanie Fitz was reckless. I'm sure most of the Gombeen men can evade a charge of laziness, but I hardly think enthusiatic, driven and motivated corruption is something a well organised society should reward.

In a civilised country, Seanie Fitz would be facing charges. The fact that, as of now, he isn't, speaks volumes for the culture of corruption toleration in this society. It is revolting, sickening and debilitating.

In a civilised country, to face charges, you have to have done something illegal. What Mr. Fitz was involved in was all sorts of things, including extremely reckless, but not apparently illegal. There are countries who over the years have tried another way, one in particular quite close to where you live now, it usually doesn't end well.

A case then, tonys, for adequate and sufficient regulation, rigourously enforced. The market does NOT regulate itself, that much is clear.