• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

46 economists call on Government to reconsider NAMA


PaddyJoe McGillycuddy

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
206


Hal

Active member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
164
He asked 250 hoping for 200, he got 46.

Alan Ahearne's point on quoting 30 billion when they can't know what the true figure is, is a telling one.
 

ang

Active member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
156
Ummm very telling considering FG have been slated on another thread for not having a figure.
 

Hal

Active member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
164
Ummm very telling considering FG have been slated on another thread for not having a figure.
The good professors are guessing at someone else's plan, Kenny couldn't even guess at his own.
 

irishpancake

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
17,837

PaddyJoe McGillycuddy

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
206
He asked 250 hoping for 200, he got 46.

Alan Ahearne's point on quoting 30 billion when they can't know what the true figure is, is a telling one.

So how many economists have got together to defend NAMA as it it stands? Besides Peter Bacon and Alan Ahearne of course.
 

Fr. Hank Tree

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
5,902
Paddy, any chance you could edit your opening post to include the link to the article itself?
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,343
So how many economists have got together to defend NAMA as it it stands? Besides Peter Bacon and Alan Ahearne of course.
Probably all those who think they might ever need a job from an Irish bank...
 

ang

Active member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
156
Thought I heard some NAMA supporters say Karl Whelan approved. I see he is one of the 46 on the list.
 

PaddyJoe McGillycuddy

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
206

Fr. Hank Tree

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
5,902
Surely the plan as it stands has been dealt a mortal blow by this piece: 46 academic economists? Below the waterline i hope.
 

PaddyJoe McGillycuddy

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
206

ang

Active member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
156
We can only hope that they are going to listen to this advice. But you have to remember we are dealing with FF here and they seem hell bent on doing it their way. They seem to have a problem admitting they've got it wrong. Lets see what tomorrow brings. Mr Ahearne still seemed to be saying the economists were wrong.
 

ang

Active member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
156
Last edited:

HanleyS

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
817
Alan Ahearne's point on quoting 30 billion when they can't know what the true figure is, is a telling one.
Doesn't Prof Lucey's article say "closer to EUR30 Billion" as opposed to the figure of close to 60 Billion quoted by some government sources? Why is it reasonable for government sources to publish estimates (leaked anonymously or otherwise)but not Prof Lucey?
Nama to write off €30bn of debt - Times Online
 

PaddyJoe McGillycuddy

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
206
Surely the plan as it stands has been dealt a mortal blow by this piece: 46 academic economists? Below the waterline i hope.
The only people who support NAMA publicly in its current form are the cabinet and government advisers. Green Party and FF backbenchers are starting to feel the heat and are asking questions of their leadership. Gov. is in for a torrid time over the next few weeks. Difficult to see how they can push it through it in its current form.
 

Kensington

Active member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
149
I was getting worried that no economists were coming out against the plan. Now that they have, i will be fully supporting the plan. If we have learned anything, it is to do the exact opposite of what the economists suggest. The credibility of NAMA has just shot up by a factor of 46. Hopefully a few more will come out against it and give the plan even more credibility.
 

Simbo67

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
572
He asked 250 hoping for 200, he got 46.

Alan Ahearne's point on quoting 30 billion when they can't know what the true figure is, is a telling one.
Yup, and how did the bould Alan do with his email? You want to show me a list of independent academic economists who are supporting NAMA?

At no point do you deal with the substantive points raised in the article.

I think one of the most damning quotes is Bacon's own description of the pricing strategy as "mark to hope":

"Instead, it will, in the memorable phrase of Dr Peter Bacon, “mark to hope”."

Which, as they say, flies completely in the face of all international evidence of property bubble bursts (for which some of these economists were laughed at for raising in 2006/2007).

Another interesting point they make that has been largely overlooked is that, in addition to the final cost, NAMA is going to expose the taxpayer to a large and ongoing annual loss.

They are also clear that the shareholders and bondholders have to take a significant loss (as they should be expected to). In contrast to the NAMA defenders here, they also call for the bondholders to take a significant loss by letting the guarantee expire (interestingly, the don't raise the specter of Ireland becoming an international pariah as has been suggested by the Namaistas).

Its a damning indictment of NAMA. This government is going to make the biggest economic decision of our lifetime, they have not been able to create a political consensus and now its clear that the academic economists are clearly against them too. It can not be allowed to progress.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top