Boyd Barrett stumps Dan O'Brien

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,356
I enjoyed listening to Richard Boyd Barrett on Today with Pat Kenny just before 12pm.

Richard made the point that the Government are borrowing money at 6.5% lending it to the Banks at 0% while the Banks in return hold on to the money and investing, not in small businesses, but in Government Bonds where they are guaranteed a profit by the taxpayer.

Dan O'Brien was flummoxed and said he didn't understand the question when Pat put this point to him. ... he muttered in posh tones meaningless nothings.

Then Richard went on to make the point that Ireland should have set up a State Bank to lend directly into productive activity not dead, failed, private institutions.

Again Dan O'Brien muttered in posh tones and couldn't counter the points of Richard Boyd Barret.

Richard, 3 cheers for you my Boy!
 


TradCat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
1,989
When RBB grows up and joins the Labour Party he will be an asset for them
 

jpc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
4,252
Yep! it was an elegant showstopper all right.
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,356
Yes, for it is he who was born with the unique and awsome power of hindsight. :rolleyes:
I really don't understand your point.

Boyd Barrett was talking about the present.

What I don't understand is why isn't the ECB lending to Ireland at 0% for productive activity?
 

barrym

Active member
Joined
May 4, 2004
Messages
226
IMO, it is a great pity that RBB has such a poor image, he certainly asks the right questions and this case, the Kenny thing, is a good example. O'Brien has form, he worked for the Economist, a publication which is bred out of the 'markets' and their role(s). In another thread a while back, I commented that the banks and their subsidiaries in the IFSC are part of the problem, since the Reagan/Thatcher economics era and big bangs.

RBB wants to go back to an era before that, fine, in theory. In practise the 'City' of London, the IFSC, a significant part of Wall St., hedge funds, Indian and Chinese dealers, and sundry others, control what happens in 'the markets' O'Brien, who is too intellectual in his commentary for his own good, reflects the reality. You cannot 'auction' bonds and then decide who shall have them. We have no control any more over our basic financial policy, we knew that when we went into the €., it was widely discussed at the time, but we were bamboozled by Bertie et al.... nuff said.
 
B

Boggle

Yes, for it is he who was born with the unique and awsome power of hindsight. :rolleyes:
I know the point you are making and I agree.

However, there were posters on here, myself included, who at the first mention of NAMA said the exact same thing (that if you want to guarantee credit to busines then you should do it directly, not indirectly). We didn't need hindsight to understand the obvious so why have more people not publicly questioned the scam?
 

barrym

Active member
Joined
May 4, 2004
Messages
226
What I don't understand is why isn't the ECB lending to Ireland at 0% for productive activity?
'Cos if they did it would be seen as subsidy.... the ECB is a BANK, acts like a bank, has shareholders like a bank (germany principally), etc. The main difference is that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of politicians, and we know, to our cost, what they know.....

I seem to recall the RTE economics guy saying that the ECB is the largest bond holder in Anglo Irish, FFS.

Bye, Barry
 

hmmm

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
2,831
Richard made the point that the Government are borrowing money at 6.5% lending it to the Banks at 0% while the Banks in return hold on to the money and investing, not in small businesses, but in Government Bonds where they are guaranteed a profit by the taxpayer.

Dan O'Brien was flummoxed and said he didn't understand the question when Pat put this point to him. ... he muttered in posh tones meaningless nothings.
O'Brien was probably flummoxed because the question made no sense. Lending what at 0%? Borrowing what at 6.5%? No and no.
 

KingKane

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
2,323
Website
www.danielsullivan.ie
Twitter
kingkane
I enjoyed listening to Richard Boyd Barrett on Today with Pat Kenny just before 12pm.

Richard made the point that the Government are borrowing money at 6.5% lending it to the Banks at 0% while the Banks in return hold on to the money and investing, not in small businesses, but in Government Bonds where they are guaranteed a profit by the taxpayer.

Dan O'Brien was flummoxed and said he didn't understand the question when Pat put this point to him. ... he muttered in posh tones meaningless nothings.

Then Richard went on to make the point that Ireland should have set up a State Bank to lend directly into productive activity not dead, failed, private institutions.

Again Dan O'Brien muttered in posh tones and couldn't counter the points of Richard Boyd Barret.

Richard, 3 cheers for you my Boy!
Where are we lending to the banks at 0%?
 

Thac0man

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
6,444
Twitter
twit taa woo
I really don't understand your point.

Boyd Barrett was talking about the present.

What I don't understand is why isn't the ECB lending to Ireland at 0% for productive activity?

You posted this, so you can't claim to have missed it:

Then Richard went on to make the point that Ireland should have set up a State Bank to lend directly into productive activity not dead, failed, private institutions.
Which neatly also side steps the issue of the immediate fall out of banks collapsing. Our economy is fecked, true, but a domino of banks imploding, starting with Anlgo, would have wiped out almost all personal savings, private pensions and every private business in Ireland. No State bank could have been established quick enough to offet set the results of such a banking sector implosion.

No one is happy with the current situation of pouring borrowed cash into the fractured banking system, but equaly no one has come up with an alternative. Score one for Boyd Barret? Not likely, he has only demonstrated his ability to blow bubbles from his pipe while Rome burns. Barret has a proven track record as a critic, but for a politician thats nothing to write home about and neither is a qualification for office of any kind.
 

Thac0man

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
6,444
Twitter
twit taa woo
Where are we lending to the banks at 0%?
If government bails outs, already repackaged as investments, are further repackaged as loans, then perhaps. I have to agree with some posters here, it is Boyd Barrets ability to talk waffle is what has flummoxed people, not his financial insight.
 
B

Boggle

Which neatly also side steps the issue of the immediate fall out of banks collapsing. Our economy is fecked, true, but a domino of banks imploding, starting with Anlgo, would have wiped out almost all personal savings, private pensions and every private business in Ireland. No State bank could have been established quick enough to offet set the results of such a banking sector implosion.
Have we any evdence to support that - outside of the words of vested interests?
 

Bill D Gallows

Active member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
219
Yes, for it is he who was born with the unique and awsome power of hindsight. :rolleyes:
There were plenty of us who had foresight to see what the government was doing would end badly, its just we were ridiculed and laughed out of the place when we tried to object.

We also objected to the bank bailouts, were told by FF that they knew better, were told by the media it had to be done, now look were we are.

We said if they took money out of the economy, they'd turn a recession into a depression. Again we were told we knew nothing by the likes of Cowen and Lenihan. Guess what ? Its turning into a depression.

We're now saying the bondholders who took a punt on Anglo and lost have to bear some if not all of the losses their gamble, in order for us to protect our essential services.

Guess what ? Cowen and Lenihan are saying we don't know what we're talking about.

Anyone see a pattern ?
 

Thac0man

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
6,444
Twitter
twit taa woo
There were plenty of us who had foresight to see what the government was doing would end badly, its just we were ridiculed and laughed out of the place when we tried to object.

We also objected to the bank bailouts, were told by FF that they knew better, were told by the media it had to be done, now look were we are.

We said if they took money out of the economy, they'd turn a recession into a depression. Again we were told we knew nothing by the likes of Cowen and Lenihan. Guess what ? Its turning into a depression.

We're now saying the bondholders who took a punt on Anglo and lost have to bear some if not all of the losses their gamble, in order for us to protect our essential services.

Guess what ? Cowen and Lenihan are saying we don't know what we're talking about.

Anyone see a pattern ?
Hmmm. Your right, there was alot of objecting. My point was and is there was no viable alternatives put forward by those objectors, including myself. Fianna Fail had a nice little period of respite for themselves chasing oppostion figures around the media demanding to know what their alternative was. They seem to have run right past Richard Boyd Barret who was in no way inclined to stand up and draw attention to himself then.

In the end I plummed for NAMA for the lack of any other option and a banking collapse being a real and then imminent possibility. If there is a pattern it is this; those who sat on the fence then, sit on the fence now. They had their chance.

Everyone including me is a critic, but lets not pretend that without a viable opinion that has any value what so ever in the recent past or current climate. The differance between you, me and RBB is that RBB is a politician with ambition. His 'theory of an alternative universe economy' does not relate to either solutions for our current crises or demonstrate that he has any real grasp of what has already happened and what the alternatives and consequences would have been. RBB is looking for cheap kudos, but in this day and age nothing is free, so he can stick it up his hole.

As for government decisions, we have not seen "how that has ened' because we are still very much in the midst of the process of extracation from both recession and debt management. When NAMA and Anglo are both winded up we will then see how this ends.
 
Last edited:

realistic1

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
11,253
Was impressed by RBB lets hope he is not using 'People before Profit' as a springboard for a move to the Labour party.
 

Thac0man

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
6,444
Twitter
twit taa woo
Have we any evdence to support that - outside of the words of vested interests?
Locate your wallet and look in it. If it contains a bank card that still works and belongs to an Irish bank that has not collapsed, then Irish Banks are still in business. If you are with AIB then your bank has weathered this share price tumble:



... and amazingly is still operating. We are not out of the woods yet.
 
B

Boggle

Hmmm. Your right, there was alot of objecting. My point was and is there was no viable alternatives put forward by those objectors, including myself. Fianna Fail had a nice little period of respite for themselves chasing oppostion figures around the media demanding to know what their alternative was. They seem to have run right past Richard Boyd Barret who was in no way inclined to stand up and draw attention to himself then.

In the end I plummed for NAMA for the lack of any other option and a banking collapse being a real and then imminent possibility. If there is a pattern it is this; those who sat on the fence then, sit on the fence now. They had their chance.

Everyone including me is a critic, but lets not pretend that without a viable opinion that has any value what so ever in the recent past of current climate. The differance between you, me and RBB is that RBB is a politician with ambition. His 'theory of an alternative universe economy' does not relate to either solutions for our current crises or demonstrate that he has any real grasp of what has already happened and what the alternatives and consequences would have been. RBB is looking for cheap kudos, but in this day and age nothing is free, so he can stick it up his hole.

As for government decisions, we have not seen "how that has ened' because we are still very much in the midst of the process of extracation from both recession and debt management. When NAMA and Anglo are both winded up we will then see how this ends.
Here's a viable option - Let the banks sink! Feck it, even if some or all people ended up losing some of their money then so what - these same people are among the idiots who voted the crooks in!

Instead, we try and protect the guilty and prefer to ply the debts onto inncocent children.

People care about little else than money so maybe a tragedy like this would get them to wake up and think about how the coutry is run.
 

Tombo

1
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
5,302
The question indeed made no sense.

We aren't lending anything. We are pouring equity capital into the banks. Bank regulations require that they hold significant amounts of safer assets, not just lend out every Euro they get coming in the door in the form of captial (deposites, bonds, shareholder equity).

So Barret is a buffoon. Even his "state bank" would still need:

  1. The same amount of taxpayers money poured into it in order to recapitalise
  2. The same amount of capital to be invested in government bonds to meet statutory capital ratios.

Perhaps what Barrett meant was that he wanted to be able to use the banks, propped up by taxpayers capital to be used as little Commie piggy banks where ideally he could bestow wasteful sums on pet projects.

Yeah, sure.

Next time you go to a mental assylum and somewone walks up to you with a bizarre unanswerable question, don't consider yourself "stumped".
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top