How some Yanks view our crisis - Don’t Pay - Walk Away



needle_too

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
918
Are you saying that isn't a viable option?
Clearly its not.

Walking away from your creditors solves one problem but causes many more.

Who, for example, would fund the current ~20Bn deficit?

Are you suggesting that 1/3 should be cut from public spending immediately? Because thats what burning them means.

Even if you can find someone mug enough to loan you money after youve burnt the previous lenders, what interest rate will they charge?
The markets say it will be in the region of 10%.

The alternative is to borrow from the IMF/EU who are attaching onerous terms to any 'bailout'.

Its finished. Its done.
There is no 'easy' or 'quick' way out of this.

I find it astounding that people still dont get this.
 

LongShanks

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
644
Borrow 85b at 6.7% to bailout the gamling banks or borrow 20b at 10% from the market to fund the fiscal deficit?

Burn the bondholders.

We could use some of the NPRF and borrow less.

We could borrow at 3.5% from the IMF (and live with their conditions which we have to do anyway). Or we could take a leaf from Iceland and borrow at 2.78% (having rejected a rate of 5.8% in a referendum, but that would require democracy).

This is about privatising profits and socialising losses, and protecting the euro at all costs.
 
Last edited:

McDave

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
13,520
Clearly its not.

Walking away from your creditors solves one problem but causes many more.

Who, for example, would fund the current ~20Bn deficit?

Are you suggesting that 1/3 should be cut from public spending immediately? Because thats what burning them means.

Even if you can find someone mug enough to loan you money after youve burnt the previous lenders, what interest rate will they charge?
The markets say it will be in the region of 10%.

The alternative is to borrow from the IMF/EU who are attaching onerous terms to any 'bailout'.

Its finished. Its done.
There is no 'easy' or 'quick' way out of this.

I find it astounding that people still dont get this.
A lot of people are very angry at being stiffed over Fitzpatrick and Fingleton. And rightly so. The instinct is to walk away from these Official Ireland insiders and their political buddies.

Until FF are removed from government, a sense of inchoate rage will prevail. When they are replaced some of us may be more receptive to a compromise where a portion of bondholder debt is re-attached to its actual owners - particularly the foreign funders of Anglo/INBS. Until then keep the heat on FF any way you can...
 

Luigi Vampa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
3,225
Clearly its not.

Walking away from your creditors solves one problem but causes many more.

Who, for example, would fund the current ~20Bn deficit?

Are you suggesting that 1/3 should be cut from public spending immediately? Because thats what burning them means.

Even if you can find someone mug enough to loan you money after youve burnt the previous lenders, what interest rate will they charge?
The markets say it will be in the region of 10%.

The alternative is to borrow from the IMF/EU who are attaching onerous terms to any 'bailout'.

Its finished. Its done.
There is no 'easy' or 'quick' way out of this.

I find it astounding that people still dont get this.
The 20 Billion sovereign deficit is not the problem, its the 100 Billion ++ of private speculators debt that the Irish taxpayer is being forced to pay that is the problem.

What's actually astonishing is the fact that (a) We nationalised this private debt into taxpayers debt, and (b) we are not going to re-privatise it and just concentrate on paying our sovereign debt.
 

McDave

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
13,520
The 20 Billion sovereign deficit is not the problem, its the 100 Billion ++ of private speculators debt that the Irish taxpayer is being forced to pay that is the problem.

What's actually astonishing is the fact that (a) We nationalised this private debt into taxpayers debt, and (b) we are not going to re-privatise it and just concentrate on paying our sovereign debt.
In my book, forcing the Irish taxpayer to bail out Irish speculators obtaining money from casino banks to pay Paddy Prices for trophy projects is an act of treason.

Putting aside the fact that regulation should never have allowed that kind of borrowing to take place, the government should have ring-fenced those loans and informed the ECB that the state was not responsible for all of them. I've argued on other threads that Ireland's negligence in not regulating the casino banks exposes the state to a certain liability for the actions of Anglo and INBS. However, we should have had all along a bottom line which should at the very least be that the Irish state will not take responsibility for the lending of foreign banks to Anglo and INBS.
 

needle_too

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
918
The 20 Billion sovereign deficit is not the problem, its the 100 Billion ++ of private speculators debt that the Irish taxpayer is being forced to pay that is the problem.
I take your point but you've avoided the question.
Defaulting will cause the deficit to become a problem.

How would that be addressed?

Further, most students of realpolitik understand that support was given to the banks to stop them foreclosing on their loans and bringing huge pain to the general populace.

Besides, I'm not sure that listening to Americans opinion on these things is such a great idea; they aint in great shape themselves.
I'd like to hear what they'd have to say if asked, 'Are you prepared to take a loss for Ireland to walk away?'

I think the answer would be very different.
 

myhonorisloyalty666

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
304
It's a choice between being vaginally raped and a three way gangbang.

The ECB/IMF/EU deal is the vaginal rape.

Defaulting is the oral/anal/vaginal combo.
 

Luigi Vampa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
3,225
I take your point but you've avoided the question.
Defaulting will cause the deficit to become a problem.

How would that be addressed?
You mean our public spending cannot be reduced by 5 billion a year over 4 years ? No political party claims that, and if the "markets" don’t like it, well you cant steal the knickers off a bare arse. You mean our public spending cannot be reduced by 5 billion a year over 4 years ? No political party claims that, and if the "markets" don’t like it, well you cant steal the knickers off a bare arse.
 


New Threads

Top