nationalise the banks now say economists

[Dios]

Nationalisation would be a disaster for me. You can trust my opinion as I too am not an economist.

Fixed that for you.

[iartaoiseach]

Brazen it out indeed! Wonder what Eamon Ryan thinks of it all ? Dirty sell out!

*Oooh im sorry eamon , didnt mean to hurt you . Just wait till you get your pension and you will feel better .Afterall you have done your best !

now now Eamonn knows better than all these experts coz he was a captain of industry before his calling to preach to us all. he knew better than brian lucey(a professor of finance) on newstalk this morning. honestly if there is anyone in ireland less smug than this eejit i've yet to hear them. a waffler par excellence.

[geri]

I can't help but feel there is something more to it than what we are seeing. I mean they might upset a lot of shareholders, but they were already pretty upset...

What other vested interest could FF have to be going through these contortions to keep the banks private? It couldn't be something as simple as senior party members having large shareholdings in the banks could it?

Sounds plausible. Once they would become public entities, isn't that when we would find out about all the skeletons in their closets also? Maybe AIB and BOI are not as far removed from the likes of Anglo-Irish as the govt would have us think...

[Simbo67]

It's a well known fact that if all the economists in the world were laid end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.
I'm sure there is probably an equal number of economists out there on either side of this argument, with both groups outnumbered by the remainder who can't decide.

And where is their statement in support of NAMA versus nationalisation?

[Schuhart]

20 academic economists say this today in the IT
Nationalising banks is the best option - The Irish Times - Fri, Apr 17, 2009

The banking system is widely perceived to have seized in terms of lending, and whether correct or not this perception needs to be addressed.

I've highlighted the bit that I still don't really get. If the seizing in lending is only a false perception, I don't see the justification for nationalisation.

Fair enough if there is genuinely a problem with SME lending - although presumably there are solutions to that which don't involve nationalising all our banks. I don't see why a necessary part of Government lending funds on a commercial basis to solvent SMEs is to take on €90 billion of dodgy property loans.

Again, if the issue is just that the Government guarantee stitches us up and we now can't get out of it, fair enough. But then lets at least set the context correctly. Instead of 20 economists pretending that the banking system needs to be nationalised because maybe there's a problem with lending, could they not say 'because of the Government's hasty and over-generous bank guarantee, come hell or high water the Irish taxpayer will have to fork out for debts that otherwise could have been avoided. Hence, because there is no legal way of wiggling out of the guarantee, the only question is what is the cheapest way of the taxpayer getting skinned.'

Then at least we'd be taking about where we are, and not about some fantasy land where all this money is meant to be doing us some good.

[TradCat]

Originally Posted by The Brains Trust
We consider that nationalisation will ... produce a more efficient ... solution to our banking problems.

But can we trust the Brians?

[turdsl]

They should have given heed to Joe Higgins 6 months ago now they will have to do it anyway, must be hard for some people to admit Joe was right.

[politicaldonations]

The cost of buying all the banks has risen several fold in less than six weeks. Some people know whats going on and are profiting hugely from insider information. Using share options/spread betting people with info could profit without their names being on share register. FF cronies benefiting no doubt.

[Libero]

I actually know another of the names on the list and, although I haven't met him in a couple of years, I'm still very surprised to learn he's an economist.

That's the cutest shooting of the messenger I've read in some time...

[BodyofEvidence]

I've highlighted the bit that I still don't really get. If the seizing in lending is only a false perception, I don't see the justification for nationalisation.

Fair enough if there is genuinely a problem with SME lending - although presumably there are solutions to that which don't involve nationalising all our banks. I don't see why a necessary part of Government lending funds on a commercial basis to solvent SMEs is to take on €90 billion of dodgy property loans.

Again, if the issue is just that the Government guarantee stitches us up and we now can't get out of it, fair enough. But then lets at least set the context correctly. Instead of 20 economists pretending that the banking system needs to be nationalised because maybe there's a problem with lending, could they not say 'because of the Government's hasty and over-generous bank guarantee, come hell or high water the Irish taxpayer will have to fork out for debts that otherwise could have been avoided. Hence, because there is no legal way of wiggling out of the guarantee, the only question is what is the cheapest way of the taxpayer getting skinned.'

Then at least we'd be taking about where we are, and not about some fantasy land where all this money is meant to be doing us some good.

think theres a bit of selective quotation there tbh. The thrust of the article, beyond the second sentence, is somewhat broader than you imply