Former Taoiseach Brian Cowen seriously ill in hospital



Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,130
after all these years you are still in denial HBAP? Will you every face reality and come to terms with the circumstances and the fallout of the past?

hbap is like that chap Mercurial - likes to play on the skirts between semantic greyness and downright lies. In political circles they like to call it spin.

The answer you might receive if you asked him to explain how they were not bailed out could be amusing.
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,130
It's funny, I don't remember anyone from those parties shouting loudest about the housing crisis now saying that FG's policies to create jobs and get the economy growing would be so successful that we'd now have a housing crisis. In fact they were saying the opposite.
Hilarious. When things are going badly the mantra is "politicians don't create jobs" now they do according to you.

Its also hilarious how you are invoking the Bertie Ahearn defence of "nobody told me".

A third very hilarious thing about the above post is how, prior to the recession, FG in opposition were shouting for even greater spending and fiscal loosening than what FF were implementing.
 

Levellers

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
13,972
God be the days when a Minister could grant a mining license to a company he didn't realise he had 1,000 shares in. Arcon, the company which benefited, was 'embarrassed'.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,193
after all these years you are still in denial HBAP? Will you every face reality and come to terms with the circumstances and the fallout of the past?

Neither your post nor your link contradicts my point, which is that the taxpayer, via NAMA or anything else, did not bail out developers.
 

belcoo666

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Messages
656
It's funny, I don't remember anyone from those parties shouting loudest about the housing crisis now saying that FG's policies to create jobs and get the economy growing would be so successful that we'd now have a housing crisis. In fact they were saying the opposite.
We have a housing crisis because less houses are been built than at any time with a recovery and a jobs boom which is mainly Dublin centred , nothing to do with the "success" of Fine Gael policies.
Perhaps you should keep your blueshirt spinning to a more relevant section of the forum
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,193
We know how very badly the ECB handled the recession, so rules made in fair weather times don't apply in a disaster.

Ask germany, who bent the rules in 2002-04. Nobody minded. Ask greece, that fibbed endlessly.
Actually the ECB handled the recession very well. The ELA programme ensured that no bank collapsed, and thus nobody lost their savings, nor did any country suffer the economic catastrophe of a retail bank closing down.

Compared to these - and others - ensuring that insolvent banks are closed down, and the staff punished is essential. But, most families needed to eat, and so some cash dispensing by fiat was the best route. And cheapest!
The problem with ensuring that insolvent banks are closed down is that in doing so you hurt the people you're trying to protect. The fact that you mention fiat suggests you've some knowledge of the system, and some understanding of how banks are financed. And the key thing to prevent is everybody looking for their money at the same time, yet you're proposing exactly that. As for "punishing the staff", by all means punish those who broke the law, but there weren't many of them, and it's not like they reduced bank balance sheets by running off with all the money, so punishment doesn't solve the financial problem. It does act as a deterrent, but more important is propor regulation, which has been put in place across the EU since the crash in terms of oversight, capital levels, etc.

Sorry but if we are to stay in the export with trade finance games, we have to punish villains very publicly.
See above.

Take the Madoff scandal, costing "clients" 60 billion, about the same as our bank crash bill, where he got 150 years in the slammer. None of our bankers got even 15 years. Why? Because Public money is seen as cheap.
No, the key difference is that what Madoff did was clearly and egregiously illegal. There was nothing illegal about Irish banks borrowing 1-year money and lending it out for 30,35 and 40 years on the assumption they could keep rolling that debt over each year. Whether that should have been illegal is another matter, but you can't prosecute people for things that weren't illegal when they did them, or for things that you think should be illegal, but aren't.

However the knock on effect has cost us hundreds of lives, which is more important imho compared to an inadequate rule book.
Well as I posted earlier in this thread, I don't buy the argument that governments are responsible for suicides.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,193
We have a housing crisis because less houses are been built than at any time with a recovery and a jobs boom which is mainly Dublin centred , nothing to do with the "success" of Fine Gael policies.
Perhaps you should keep your blueshirt spinning to a more relevant section of the forum
If you want to comment on the government that's fine, but please do so on the basis of the facts. The recovery and jobs boom is not "mainly Dublin-centred", it's nationwide. There is virtually full employment nationwide now. As for the housing crisis, I've already made the very point you've just made about it, so why are you repeating it back to me?
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,193
A slight auto-correct mishap. Here is the corrected auto"correct"

Oh Christ almighty. Way to downplay some very very serious issues for many people which FG have simply exacerbated. You're something else.
What serious issues have I downplayed, that FG have exacerbated?
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,193
Hilarious. When things are going badly the mantra is "politicians don't create jobs" now they do according to you.
Governments create the conditions and environment that are either conducive, or not, to job creation. I'm sure you know that.

Its also hilarious how you are invoking the Bertie Ahearn defence of "nobody told me".
You know full well I'm not saying that. The reality is that nobody predicted a housing crisis back when the economy was down the toilet, and indeed the parties on the populist left were saying that FG's economic policies would increase emigration, thus reducing demand for housing even more. Do you accept that on that point, they were WRONG?

A third very hilarious thing about the above post is how, prior to the recession, FG in opposition were shouting for even greater spending and fiscal loosening than what FF were implementing.
I remember Cowen trying to make that point to Sean O'Rourke when he was Taoiseach, and he was very politely told that a government with a majority isn't beholden to the opposition, and should do what it thinks is right, not what the opposition says it should do. Anyway FG in opposition were calling for different spending, not more spending, which does matter - some spending is sustainable when things turn bad, some isn't. FF focused on unsustainable spending increases like pay and welfare.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,193
hbap is like that chap Mercurial - likes to play on the skirts between semantic greyness and downright lies. In political circles they like to call it spin.

The answer you might receive if you asked him to explain how they were not bailed out could be amusing.
I'll answer right now, if you like. When developers' loans were bought from the banks for an amount far below their book value (on average about 60% below) and put into NAMA, the developers' liability didn't change. They were still liable for the book value of their loans.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,416
Twitter
No
Actually the ECB handled the recession very well. The ELA programme ensured that no bank collapsed, and thus nobody lost their savings, nor did any country suffer the economic catastrophe of a retail bank closing down.

//
You may think so, but comparing the growth of asia and the Usa since 2010 to the EU, we are far behind.

Our share of global trade has dropped, and we are mainly a tourist destination. Ireland has come out quite well, because of FDI, but the Med area is still unhappy.

You cope with a recession by printing money, and you hope to inflate some of the bad debt away. That is not rocket science. But Merkel and the ECB sat on their hands for about 6 years, and wouldn't allow any eurozone bank to fail. So too much of the printed money went to bad bank debts, not productive industry.

As well as hundreds of deaths - not suicides, but from poverty and neglect - we also saw thousands of educated busy people emigrating.

I have met BC a couple of times and like him as a person, but he followed bertie mostly because he had no enemies.

When the banks said they were illiquid, when they were in fact insolvent, that to me is just as bad as madoff. It is a confidence trick. That may not be a crime, but surely the state can withdraw a licence when it has been lied to.
 

Round tower

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
7,202
It was Lenihan Snr who rang the Aras and the objective was to have the President refuse to grant a dissolution.

A perfectly reasonable thing to do. It only became controversial when Lenihan chose to lie about it for reasons which he took to the grave.
Yes and i doubt that he did not just decide himself to ring wthout CJH knoledge.
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,130
Governments create the conditions and environment that are either conducive, or not, to job creation. I'm sure you know that.



You know full well I'm not saying that. The reality is that nobody predicted a housing crisis back when the economy was down the toilet, and indeed the parties on the populist left were saying that FG's economic policies would increase emigration, thus reducing demand for housing even more. Do you accept that on that point, they were WRONG?



I remember Cowen trying to make that point to Sean O'Rourke when he was Taoiseach, and he was very politely told that a government with a majority isn't beholden to the opposition, and should do what it thinks is right, not what the opposition says it should do. Anyway FG in opposition were calling for different spending, not more spending, which does matter - some spending is sustainable when things turn bad, some isn't. FF focused on unsustainable spending increases like pay and welfare.
My point on job creation was you guys run as fast as you can to distance yourself from job creation/losses when things are bad. But when employment is good, you run as fast as you can toward it hailing how great you are at creating jobs....or as you called it, job creation policies.

I know full well what you are attempting to say and it was pretty much along the lines of Berties "Nobody told me". FG in opposition were asking for more spending but you go ahead and try to rewrite history ya shill. Its contemptible really.

And I'm not quite sure what point you are attempting to make on the housing v emigration matter. It does however smack of some form of running away from responsibility or deflection toward oppositions failings.
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,130
I'll answer right now, if you like. When developers' loans were bought from the banks for an amount far below their book value (on average about 60% below) and put into NAMA, the developers' liability didn't change. They were still liable for the book value of their loans.
OK. And where is that liability now? Care to say anything about the up to 200k salaries NAMA were paying developers?
 

Round tower

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
7,202
i'm afraid that you don't know your history as well as you think.
mr Haughy had little or no influence on the 1977 FF Manifesto.
he was persona non grata in FF at that time.

Jack Lynch was Party Leader, O'Malley, Gibbons & Co. had the influence.
Martin Donoghue is credited as the author of the 1977 Manifesto.
those most closely associated with the manifesto were those most instrumental in setting up the late, unlamented PDs a few years later.

of course the 1977 GE is best remembered for the attempt by FG/Lab at gerrymandering the constituencies.
happily, their attempt rebounded spectacularly on them.
& a new English language term was coined, namely 'TULLYMANDER'
Tully was the Labour Minister credited with the gerrymander.
He was still part of that Gov.

It waas bought by FF and which this country is sstill paying for.
 

Round tower

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
7,202
Interesting you should consider Haughey's attempt (it was Brian Lenihan actually) to frustrate a dissolution of the Dáil as a black mark against him.

Some genius on this thread has suggested that Brian Cowen should have suspended the Constitution
Yes but i ddoubt the BL Snr ddid not do it without the knoledge of CJH, they thought that Hillery who was the president at the time and being ex FF would agree to their request.
 

YouKnowWhatIMeanLike

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
7,170
Last edited:

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,193
The two mentioned in the post to which you had responded - homelessness and waiting lists. But you knew that already and are merely debating dishonestly.
How have Fine Gael exacerbated either of those?
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top