Why does the discussion of the Irish banking crisis always seem to deliberately ignore the experience and knowledge available globally?
There is no attempt to argue for particular policies (NAMA, nationalisation, the blanket guarantee, regulatory reform) with reference to how such policies worked in similar situations in the past internationally.
There seems to be an axiomatic belief that Ireland's case is different, unique or unusual. The reality is that nothing could be further from the truth if you care to read a little about the history of banking crises.
For example, a few years ago the World Bank published a comprehensive study on 113 systemic banking crises which have occurred since the 70s. In it they examine the cost and outcomes for the various policies that governments have tried. Nothing in the current situation in Ireland and the surrounding debate is unusual or unprecedented.
The discussion here is becoming repetitive and unproductive because it is impossible to properly debate the merits of a particular policy when the claimed outcome is based on conjecture and opinion rather than reference to history or empirics.
For example, in another post, I asked for evidence to support the belief that the creation of NAMA will increase credit supply to the wider economy but there was no responses at all. (I asked this prompted from what I've understood from reading that section of the World Bank study which suggests that the bad bank approach is not effective in this regard.) I would have thought that without strong evidence that such an approach delivers benefits to the wider economy, that debating micro aspects of NAMA would be pointless. Also those who suggest "letting banks go the wall" are generally dismissed as not having thought about things even though this has been identified as being an important part of any successful resolution to a banking crises. The discussion which involves any sort of international dimension seems to die pretty quickly - for example the thread on what could be learned from the Swedish response. In the Swedish case, everything I read from commentators and the parties involved named the the previous cases of banking crises they had looked at to guide policy.
I've come to the conclusion that I don't see much point in debating the crisis on this goldfish bowl basis even though the decisions being made are some of the most important nationally for decades.
There is no attempt to argue for particular policies (NAMA, nationalisation, the blanket guarantee, regulatory reform) with reference to how such policies worked in similar situations in the past internationally.
There seems to be an axiomatic belief that Ireland's case is different, unique or unusual. The reality is that nothing could be further from the truth if you care to read a little about the history of banking crises.
For example, a few years ago the World Bank published a comprehensive study on 113 systemic banking crises which have occurred since the 70s. In it they examine the cost and outcomes for the various policies that governments have tried. Nothing in the current situation in Ireland and the surrounding debate is unusual or unprecedented.
The discussion here is becoming repetitive and unproductive because it is impossible to properly debate the merits of a particular policy when the claimed outcome is based on conjecture and opinion rather than reference to history or empirics.
For example, in another post, I asked for evidence to support the belief that the creation of NAMA will increase credit supply to the wider economy but there was no responses at all. (I asked this prompted from what I've understood from reading that section of the World Bank study which suggests that the bad bank approach is not effective in this regard.) I would have thought that without strong evidence that such an approach delivers benefits to the wider economy, that debating micro aspects of NAMA would be pointless. Also those who suggest "letting banks go the wall" are generally dismissed as not having thought about things even though this has been identified as being an important part of any successful resolution to a banking crises. The discussion which involves any sort of international dimension seems to die pretty quickly - for example the thread on what could be learned from the Swedish response. In the Swedish case, everything I read from commentators and the parties involved named the the previous cases of banking crises they had looked at to guide policy.
I've come to the conclusion that I don't see much point in debating the crisis on this goldfish bowl basis even though the decisions being made are some of the most important nationally for decades.
