[quote="_TL, post:550, topic:1523"]
This idea that Fitzpatrick and Anglo brought down Ireland is bollocks by the way. Successive governments assuming the debts of Anglo, and other banks, is what fucked us.
[/quote]Spot on @_TL
[quote="_TL, post:550, topic:1523"]
But it shouldn’t have mattered, it was a private bank and the shareholders should have took the hit.
Anyhow. Urge to kill is rising so I better leave off.
You called this from early doors, and I disagreed with you vehemently at the time… I was wrong and I apologise Tom. The truth is I was blinded by a certain political regime, and I couldn’t see beyond it. So apologies @_TL
I’m off to set fire to a pitchfork and march on Leinster house a-la Simpsons!
Might dust off my own pitchfork!
Disgusting cynical to release news about Fitzpatrick today, deliberately, with other significant news out there.
A judge decided he should be acquitted of all charges … why it took him 126 days is another matter …
I don’t agree with the narrative that the bailout screwed us. As part of Europe and the Eurozone I don’t think we had a choice. We couldnt exactly do an Iceland and for all the noise out of Greece those poor people are screwed without external aid.
What screwed us what deregulation and hopeless exposure to a fall in property prices which was intrinsically linked to lending laissez-faire policies. Our future was hedged on one horse who fell and was put down before the finish. That in my view was where the criminality lay.
What utter nonsense. Sorry but it is. Most of that post is simply untrue. There was no ‘bail out’. We were used as a line in the sand for French and German banks. We were forced to do this. None of our politicians had the balls to refuse
Have a look at Argentina and come back then …
Might want to stay there. In fairness Argentina has massive resources
And if they had refused?
Our pilar lending institutions were insolvent and recapitalised by the state. I’d call that a bail out.
I don’t agree with the logic, that in order to repair the damage of one mistake we had to compound it by committing an even bigger mistake.
The deregulation and ensuing madness did create an economic monster but we did more than recapitalise pillar institutions, we bailed out utterly bankrupt ones too. There was no logical reason to do this, it was argued against by economists, and we in effect bailed out foreign investors, some that even bought in after the crash.
True, the EU forced us, in so much as you can only do something against your will if you agree to it, and as Maxi queries, who knows what would have happened if we refused, but seeing how intricately linked the banking systems are I assume France or Germany or an EU-wide solution would have been arrived at. We’ll never know.
The last I heard we pay upwards of €8 billion in interest annually on our sovereign debt, the vast majority of which is made up of the debts assumed from the banks.
I think the reason why we bailed out foreign investors was because they owned the mortgage debt of the pilar institutions who were bankrupt. I’m not saying I agree with that, in fact they took a gamble and should of paid a price for that, but at the time mortgage debt was assumed to safe.
We were told 'a bomb would go off if we did not pay up.
We should have counter-threatened them with the Ra.
I’m not sure if that’s entirely correct. The way things have developed in terms of cross-securitisation etc, as explained in The Big Short, meant there were a number of different investors exposed - remember the talk of credit unions and pensions being exposed? But in terms if Anglo etc it’s argued that wasn’t the case, they weren’t systemic.
Perhaps all these golf outings and dinners influenced the decision.
And I appreciate you are merely arguing the case, that it is possible to do so without agreeing with the decisions.