Solutions to all this mess.

JohnBlake

Active member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
269
Why not stop countries going to the market for bond sales. Instead the ECB buys our bonds and then ECB in turn offers bonds at a single rate to the markets.

Any thoughts?
 


Dreaded_Estate

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
3,718
Long term it would be a disaster.

The countries that are not fiscally well run would not suffer higher interest rates. Therefore there would be no consequences for bad behavior.

This is in essence the situation that has existed since the start of the euro. All the EU countries credit risk was considered essentially the same.

The proposal by Merkel where those lending to countries would lose money if a country got into trouble is exactly what needs to happen for long term stability.

That way countries that are not well run, like Ireland, would face higher interest until they got their house in order.
 

adrem

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
924
Why not stop countries going to the market for bond sales. Instead the ECB buys our bonds and then ECB in turn offers bonds at a single rate to the markets.

Any thoughts?
Thats kindof where we are now - the EU/IMF make our required funds available to us rather than us having to go to the market. Problem is you have to hand over full budgetary control in order to avoid moral hazard issues.

btw separate but related - the IMF will not stand by and watch a banking system collapse despite what some are saying on other threads/sites.
 

Dreaded_Estate

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
3,718
Thats kindof where we are now - the EU/IMF make our required funds available to us rather than us having to go to the market. Problem is you have to hand over full budgetary control in order to avoid moral hazard issues.

btw separate but related - the IMF will not stand by and watch a banking system collapse despite what some are saying on other threads/sites.
The IMF has always said that insolvent banks should be closed.

We have an insolvent banking system, not sure what they think will be worth keeping open.
 

hibernian56

Active member
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
111
Park a large van outside the ECB with a huge electro magnet in it and wham...

Its all pretend money anyway, where is the €100Bn in silver / gold or are they just going to "wire transfer" it..

Liars and frauds, Banksters and their politician gimps...
 

Illustro

Active member
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
252
The only real solution is to put debt free money into circulation. Anything else is pissing in the wind. You can elect whoever you like; but unless we have control about the quantity of money in circulation then it will never result in a solution.

We must remove the privatisation of monetary control. You cannot drink yourself sober, you cannot also borrow your way out of debt. It is the complete opposite of sound reasoning.

Continuing on the current path will lead us to complete economic enslavement. We will be indentured servants to private moneterists.
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
The only real solution is to put debt free money into circulation. Anything else is pissing in the wind. You can elect whoever you like; but unless we have control about the quantity of money in circulation then it will never result in a solution.

We must remove the privatisation of monetary control. You cannot drink yourself sober, you cannot also borrow your way out of debt. It is the complete opposite of sound reasoning.

Continuing on the current path will lead us to complete economic enslavement. We will be indentured servants to private moneterists.
+1

No more money multipliers from Fractional Reserve Bankers.
 

KENNY POWERS

Active member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
149
The team currently "negotiating" with the IMF guys can't be trusted to get us a good deal - talk is of an approx 6% int rate on the loan- sorry bailout. This is simply unsustainable in our poxy little economy, and ultimately will result in default (the int repayments alone would be approx €14 billion per annum ).
As Paul Summerville et al were advocating on Tonight with Vincent Browne, we should be negotiating a 1-2% int rate, using the threat of our nuclear option, i.e. if they dont play ball with us we will default right now.
 

cocopoppyhead

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2010
Messages
52
The team currently "negotiating" with the IMF guys can't be trusted to get us a good deal - talk is of an approx 6% int rate on the loan- sorry bailout. This is simply unsustainable in our poxy little economy, and ultimately will result in default (the int repayments alone would be approx €14 billion per annum ).
As Paul Summerville et al were advocating on Tonight with Vincent Browne, we should be negotiating a 1-2% int rate, using the threat of our nuclear option, i.e. if they dont play ball with us we will default right now.
thats exactly how i see it..
 

cocopoppyhead

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2010
Messages
52
skip forward to the stage after we restructure, and hopefully default. kick out the government and set it up correctly, so qualified people become our leaders, not family members and teachers.
We need to grow as an economy again, and we need to pay off the debilatating debt.
So, how do we do it? yea, we continue with our exports which are currently growing very well, but we need more, and i presume this has been discussed in here previously, but on my searches i could not find any reference...

We have natural Oil and Gas by the bucketload, we are all aware of whats happening at Corrib, and how the Government gave it away!!!

but, we have about hundreds of billions of oil which we can use overtime to pay off this debt, will the government ever claim a huge stake in these reserves and stop giving them away?

This, From Indymedia...

Who is to blame?
The point of this article is not to let the politicians off the hook but rather to point out that it wasn’t just one bad egg or corrupt party who got us in this dire situation. It is highly unlikely that Dick Spring or Dessie O Malley were corrupt. Rather they followed the rules of capitalism – they facilitated those trying to accrue capital. Neither is it written to lump all the blame Shell totally. As one Shell to Sea campaigner commented on the Shell/ Corrib scenario“if you put a lion in a cage with a sheep you can’t give out to the lion when it tries to eat the sheep”.

What the terms throughout the years seem to indicate is that the much used analysis of blaming corrupt politicians is wrong. To say no corruption was involved may be excessive but it seems unlikely that it wasn’t the prime factor. There are three possibly more influential reasons as to why the people of Ireland now find themselves with their in resources in the hands of multinational corporations.

The first is right wing ideology is and has been hegemonic over the Irish political spectrum. Keating seems to have been one of the few in favour of a State oil company. Dessie O’Malley was fervently against it and effectively stopped any future moves by establishing a very limited oil company the INPC. Future moves to maintain the resources oil Ireland for the people of Ireland were absent. The political will to do so didn’t exist in any of the main political parties. It was Labour through the auspices of Dick Spring got the ball rolling on the issue in 1985.

The second reason seems to have been a genuine fear of the oil companies. This seems to have been real and if we look at Keating’s comments to primetime (cited above) there was a genuine fear that the companies would leave altogether. Strangely at the time no one seems to have asked the question “what were they contributing”? Courage seems to have been lacking, but also while Keating may have had some progressive ideas he was in a coalition with Fine Gael and the idea of standing up to international capital which is what was needed would obviously be horrifying. Politics for public interest in Ireland is treated like a nice idea but not something politicians are really interested in.

The third and possibly most important reason was we had no control over our national resources. We were and are looking from crumbs off our own table. This was fuelled by the fear of the companies and international capital by the few in favour of nationalisation even in a limited whilst there was a willingness to support private capital by the vast majority . They held all the cards and the politicians would not or more accurately did not want to stand up and tell them to pay up or get out. Unfortunately they stayed and now we must fight them for fields about to go into production.

The fourth and final reason supplements the first two is that the state was not carrying out any independent test the drilling by the multinationals. This then led the state to be in a position that all its information was coming from oil companies. It was obviously in the oil multinationals’ interest to down play what they found and in fact Dick Spring’s terms (introduced in 1985) must have only encouraged it where the smaller the field, the better terms the companies received .

What we can see is that the Irish state allowed itself to be hoodwinked. This situation must have been obvious to successive energy and finance ministers since 1988 at the latest. Since then as free market ideology dominates there was no political will to challenge it.

The blame for this situation lies with the entire political establishment and system. All the major parties have been in power (except Sinn Fein and The Socialist Party and the Greens) since 1988. They facilitated this as they allowed it to continue. The past politicians allowed themselves to be hoodwinked in some cases (did they honestly think they could believe be the likes of Shell, Marathon and Exxon?), as it appears they didn’t have the will to rock the boat. They sold our resources in some cases for ideological reasons. The current politicians are possibly more to blame. They are aware of exactly what happened. They can see the unbelievable surge in productivity in exploration in 1987. They are probably muted by the fact that very prominent politicians took bribes at some point or were facilitated or thanked for introducing legislation. Why Bertie Ahern introduced more favourable legislation in 1992 is quite strange.

The nominal parties of the left, Labour and the Greens are equally compliant. Pat Rabitte is desperate to prove to big business that Labour can be trusted with the economy of the rich so will never challenge Exxon or Shell even to the extent Justin Keating was willing to. The Greens still have to state their policy which means they’ll blow with the wind and in Ireland it’s blustering right towards continued privatisation.

The future
However this is changing rapidly. The Corrib Field is between 6-11TCF (trillion cubic feet the equivalent of well 1.4 billion barrels of oil). In the average scenario the field is worth in the region of €50 - €60billion. The Dunquin field is probably worth at least around €400 billion. Opposition has a very limited time to rectify the legalised theft of our resources. Exxon and Providence will attempt to pump the gas and oil in Dunquin in the next ten years, Shell will pump Corrib once they realise an inland refinery is not a runner. In thirty years they will potentially have pumped 500 billion euros out of the country. And there are other potentially valuable fields off Donegal, Wexford and in Cavan/Leitrim. The question for the next twenty years is whether the people of Ireland will act or do our usual moaning when it’s too late to act.


in addition, there are these articles too..

Gas valued at €420 billion off the west coast of Ireland, while Fianna Fáil speeds us towards the IMF


[from the shell to sea campaign]

Just a quick post to highlight the Shell to Sea factsheet, that there is €420 billion worth of natural gas of the coast of Ireland - all of which has been given for free to Royal Dutch Shell, Statoil, Exxon Mobil.

Ministers Ray Burke and Bertie Ahern changed Irish law in 1987 & 1992 so that multinational oil companies:
• own 100% of the oil and gas they find under Irish waters;
• pay no royalties on it;
• can write off 100% of their costs against tax, even costs incurred in other countries;
• have profits taxed at 25%, compared to an international average of 68% for oil-producing countries;
• can export the oil or gas outside Ireland;
• can sell to Bord Gais at full market rates.
Green Party minister Eamon Ryan has continued to issue licences to multinationals on these terms.

*The figures in detail

€420 billion is a lot of money. However, the true value of Ireland’s gas and oil is probably much higher. Our figure is based on the estimate, issued by the Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources (DCENR) in 2006, that the amount of gas and oil in the Rockall and Porcupine basins, off Ireland’s west coast, is 10 BBOE (billion barrels of oil equivalent). Based on the average price of a barrel of oil for 2009 of $60, this works out at $600 billion, or €420 billion. This does not take account of further oil and gas reserves off Ireland’s south coast. The total volume of oil and gas which rightfully belongs to Ireland could be significantly higher. The DCENR has also published much higher estimates at various times. Also, as the global price of oil and gas rises in the coming years, the value of these Irish natural resources will rise further.

++++++++++++++

A better deal is possible

Several countries have recently changed their laws to reclaim a greater share of gas and oil wealth

Even supporters of the Corrib Gas project rarely try to defend the outrageously generous terms of Ireland’s gas exploration laws in public. Instead they rely on the myth that the deal, once done, cannot now be changed. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The existing deal already allows Ireland to halt work on the Corrib Gas field. The licensing terms state: “The Minister may … require that specified exploration, exploitation, production or processing activities should cease … in any case where the Minister is satisfied that it is desirable to do so in order to reduce the risk of injury to the person … or damage to property or the environment.”

In fact, there is a worldwide trend of governments reclaiming ownership of privatised gas and oil reserves. In 2006 in Russia, the state-owned Gazprom took back control from Shell of the largest integrated oil and gas field in the world, Sakhalin-2, after Shell was accused of breaking environmental laws.

Bolivia nationalised its entire gas industry in 2006. At first, the reactions from the corporations and international markets in both cases were furious, with dire warnings given about how the countries would suffer from lost investment. But these warnings came to nothing: in the end the oil giants simply went along with these changes when they realised there were still enormous profits to be made.

There are many examples of successful nationalised oil and gas industries. Norway is one of the best examples of state-controlled extraction of gas and oil. Ironically, a significant chunk of the Corrib Gas profits will benefit the Norwegian people through Statoil, as it is majority-owned by the Norwegian government and has a 36% stake in Corrib.

Venezuela has begun nationalising the industry within the past two years. Most Venezuelans lived in degrading poverty throughout the 20th century, while enormous revenues from oil and gas went to foreign companies and a tiny Venezuelan elite. The government has redirected oil wealth into public spending, bringing health, education and dignity to the poor.

Even if Ireland’s gas and oil fields were not nationalised, hundreds of billions of euro could be raised if Ireland took a similar share in its own gas to that which applies in other countries.

heres another: Giving away the Corrib gas – Royal Dutch Shell plc .com
 

Odyessus

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,890
Long term it would be a disaster.

The countries that are not fiscally well run would not suffer higher interest rates. Therefore there would be no consequences for bad behavior.

This is in essence the situation that has existed since the start of the euro. All the EU countries credit risk was considered essentially the same.

The proposal by Merkel where those lending to countries would lose money if a country got into trouble is exactly what needs to happen for long term stability.

That way countries that are not well run, like Ireland, would face higher interest until they got their house in order.

Yes, and Germany is so well run that they allowed their banks to pump hundreds of billions into Irish and Spanish Banks to fuel a property boom.

Now they lecture us on being reckless. :rolleyes:
 

Tea Party Patriot

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
11,468
Long term it would be a disaster.

The countries that are not fiscally well run would not suffer higher interest rates. Therefore there would be no consequences for bad behavior.

This is in essence the situation that has existed since the start of the euro. All the EU countries credit risk was considered essentially the same.

The proposal by Merkel where those lending to countries would lose money if a country got into trouble is exactly what needs to happen for long term stability.

That way countries that are not well run, like Ireland, would face higher interest until they got their house in order.
Too little, too late from Germany to save the Euro.
 

Padraigin

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
628
Use the Constitution - make this a matter for referendum

Time to get back to basics. Refresh your memory about the Irish Constitution:

Article 5
Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state.

Article 6
All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.

Reference of Bills to the People
Article 27
This Article applies to any Bill, other than a Bill expressed to be a Bill containing a proposal for the amendment of this Constitution, which shall have been deemed, by virtue of Article 23 hereof, to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
1. A majority of the members of Seanad Éireann and not less than one-third of the members of Dáil Éireann may by a joint petition addressed to the President by them under this Article request the President to decline to sign and promulgate as a law any Bill to which this article applies on the ground that the Bill contains a proposal of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained.
2. Every such petition shall be in writing and shall be signed by the petitioners whose signatures shall be verified in the manner prescribed by law.
3. Every such petition shall contain a statement of the particular ground or grounds on which the request is based, and shall be presented to the President not later than four days after the date on which the Bill shall have been deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.


Comment: Use the Constitution. Make the decision to solve this mess by either (1) refusing the IMF "help" (control) or (2) accepting the IMF "help" (long term exploitation by the imperial EU) a matter to be decided by the Irish people themselves. The politicians have betrayed everybody and every foundational principle of the Irish Republic, but DeValera left you a Constitution. Use it.

All it takes to set this in motion is a majority vote by the Seanad and one-third of the Dail. Those votes are there. Making this a matter for referendum takes fewer votes than a no-confidence vote. Make this happen and slam on the brakes.

What the current government is proposing is absolutely "a proposal of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained."
 
Last edited:

ONQ

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
476
"Serfs ye were and serfs ye remain."

Now you know the truth of it.

Jim Corr is right.

ONQ.
 

Armchair Activist

Well-known member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
2,032
Default on loans.
Withdraw from euro zone
Tight control on inflation that would then arrise
Tolerate the hunder pain for a few years
Limitations on free trade concerning products and services we at home are capable of producing.
Develope R&D facilities and highly developed technologies within our resourceful capability.
Huge efforts to attract science and medical research ventures into the country.
Development of state enterprise (publically owned privatly run) no reason why they cannot be managed and run in the same way as a private one is, so long as incentive exists within the managment structure to preform effiecently.

Standardise education institutes as the best in the world, huge effort to attract foreign students and contract them to the country.
Likewise with domestic population, education loans to be granted by state.. either work on behalf of the state enterprise for x amount of years or pay the loan of in full as buy out clause.

Development of Sports Accademys where aspiring talents are engaged in full time training as well as working towards a degree in many sports related disiplines such as coaching, managment, business aspects, marketing, science etc etc. When qualified they are offered full time employment by institute to work in either the global development market on behalf of the state enterprise. Incentives exists for bonuses, commisions etc. Or to pursue a professional career if deemed good enough, or work as a educater and developin sister accademys.

Likewise with Arts and culture, medical and science etc.. the key is for the institutes to retain the talents and utilise them. Thus generating profits that can then go back into further business development and the national ecconomy.

Only a few of what I'm sure are many ideas concerned with solving the mess we were dragged into by idiots.
 

darkknight

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
3,853
Jeff Randall on Sky:

Ireland: "A huge banking crisis with a small country attached"



However it is done, the problems of the small country MUST be uncoupled, as far as possible, from the problems of the banks.

The banking crisis is not, and never was, an exclusively Irish problem.
Ireland certainly contributed, with its disastrous lack of regulation, incompetent public officials, greedy bankers/property speculators, and treacherous politicians.

But the failure was at the European level also. Both the EU and the ECB bear a huge share of the blame. It is a bit late in the day - and a bit rich - to have Rehn, Trichet & Co. forcing us to surrender a huge chunk of our national sovereignty, far beyond anything we signed up to, when the instituions that they represent are largely responsible for the crisis.

We most certainly should NOT agree to sink the small country in order to save the Irish, German, British and other banks (including the ECB) whose irresponsibility and greed make them - not us - the primary culprits in this monumental mess.
 

Squire Allworthy

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,404
The only real solution is to put debt free money into circulation. Anything else is pissing in the wind. You can elect whoever you like; but unless we have control about the quantity of money in circulation then it will never result in a solution.

We must remove the privatisation of monetary control. You cannot drink yourself sober, you cannot also borrow your way out of debt. It is the complete opposite of sound reasoning.

Continuing on the current path will lead us to complete economic enslavement. We will be indentured servants to private moneterists.

Those sentiments do appeal to me.


Darkknight.


That distinction is crucial.

There are two separate issues that need to be decoupled.


The first is sovereign debt accrued by normal government activity. That obligation should stand and the country should negotiate with its bondholders etc if it cannot pay back that debt.


The second problem is the utter mess that has been allowed to build up by poor regulation of the financial sector. It is a problem right across the Eurozone and it is unreasonable to expect any one country to shoulder that burden.

Some serious Quantitative Easing is required. I can't see any other way of addressing a problem of this scale. Inflation targets then need to be raised and gradually tightened back and as a consequence the Euro will lose some value so everyone including bond holders will share that loss.

However the above needs to be in conjunction with a framework that ensures that there is consistent and effective regulation, and controls on money supply, across the Euro zone otherwise the problem will simply resurface. What you then do about countries that constantly spend more than they accrue is another matter that needs addressed as does the future structure of banking.
 


New Threads

Top