If the farmer then buys bank shares. for 10 million and now these shares are only worth 2 million then where is the 8 million gone?If a farmer's land is zoned, and he then sells it for 10m, and the property developer borrows another 20m to build houses, but subsequently goes bust, then the farmer still has the original 10m on deposit
If the farmer then buys bank shares. for 10 million and now these shares are only worth 2 million then where is the 8 million gone?[/IMG][/URL]
If a farmer's land is zoned, and he then sells it for 10m, and the property developer borrows another 20m to build houses, but subsequently goes bust, then the farmer still has the original 10m on deposit
If the farmer then buys bank shares. for 10 million and now these shares are only worth 2 million then where is the 8 million gone?
Last night's programme was dreadful. In a triumph of style over substance it was like the director had been let loose in an edit suite for the first time.
And McWilliams jetted all round the world to do a series of long walking shots before stating the bleedin' obvious.
The programme took so long to make that by now it looked horribly outdated.
Christ knows what they spent but McWilliams must have a lot of air miles racked up.
This is a serious problem.
People ask now why did we not listen to the economists who warned of the housing bubble and the economic crash? And I think that this is part of the reason. Their warnings were dressed up in such stupid, sensationalist language, that it would have been like taking the economic forecasts of the Sunday World seriously.
In today's Sunday Business Post Mc William's headline is "NAMA is Highway Robbery". I am just not going to read a sensationalist article like this, so I might be missing some valid points.
[broken link removed]DMcW August 3 said:Think about it. In the event of a crash, Irish banks would see their loan books decimated. This would affect their ratings, their share prices, and ultimately their ability to raise new funds.
We, the public, would be in negative equity territory, so would be both unwilling and unable to borrow.
Traditionally, in such cases, the central bank of the afflicted country would slash interest rates dramatically to kick start borrowing. But we could not do this, as our interest rates are set in Frankfurt and might actually be rising.
Do you think the ECB would cut rates to bail out Ireland -1 per cent of the EU’s population? No, I don’t think so either!
The only thing that we could do is let the state borrow enormously by issuing Irish banking bonds to international investors. This cash could then be given to the crippled banks in the form of a 30-year swap, on the condition that the increased liquidity be squeezed into the system, preventing a credit crunch from taking hold.
But who would pay for this? Well, we would, because a special tax would have to be levied initially to pay the repayments of the bonds until the banks’ balance sheets recovered. It is a scary prospect and one that the 100 per cent 35-year mortgage brokers or the guys involved in 'Irish pricing’ dare not contemplate.
This is a serious problem.
People ask now why did we not listen to the economists who warned of the housing bubble and the economic crash? And I think that this is part of the reason. Their warnings were dressed up in such stupid, sensationalist language, that it would have been like taking the economic forecasts of the Sunday World seriously.
In today's Sunday Business Post Mc William's headline is "NAMA is Highway Robbery". I am just not going to read a sensationalist article like this, so I might be missing some valid points.
But in 2005 he did predict the arrival and consequences of an Irish banking crisis cause by a credit crunch and predicted that NAMA would be set up to deal with it. He was spot on.
[broken link removed]
"We all knew it couldn't last" "Nobody could have seen it coming"
These two statements are irreconcilable. You can take one position or another, you can't take both. Choose which sort of fool you were...
You have to ask yourself if you would dismiss this article so out of hand if any picture other than David's was presented beside the copy under the said headline. The language is colorful but the copy is actually quite an interesting article from the point of view of a non-financial person reading the post for some insight.In today's Sunday Business Post Mc William's headline is "NAMA is Highway Robbery". I am just not going to read a sensationalist article like this, so I might be missing some valid points.
Brendan said:People ask now why did we not listen to the economists who warned of the housing bubble and the economic crash? And I think that this is part of the reason. Their warnings were dressed up in such stupid, sensationalist language, that it would have been like taking the economic forecasts of the Sunday World seriously.
How many phone calls would you think McWilliams has received from the government asking for advice? I would say exactly zero.
His advice was sought by government ministers including Lenihan and Gormley several times in the lead up to the blanket guarantee scheme.I would say exactly zero.
You would know this if you read the article.Stiglitz said:‘‘No, this is the kind of highway robbery which we see happening all over the world, with guns pointing at the heads of the political leaders and the bankers claiming the sky will fall down and the economy will be devastated unless they get this money.”
Wasn't his work on the Global Economic Forum closely associated with not only government but some of Irelands biggest minds and leaders globally?
His advice was sought by government ministers including Lenihan and Gormley several times in the lead up to the blanket guarantee scheme.
"We all knew it couldn't last" "Nobody could have seen it coming"
These two statements are irreconcilable. You can take one position or another, you can't take both. Choose which sort of fool you were...
[broken link removed]I've never heard this mentioned before and doubt it very much. The Sunday before the bank guarantee scheme McWilliams published the idea of guaranteeing all bank deposits in the SBP. In a radio interview a few days later he made no indication that he had been consulted when asked how ironic it was that his idea was implemented very shortly after, almost as if the Brians had read the paper on Sunday on said "let's do that".