Originally Posted by BertieInExile
Nobody nows anymore! Private vs public is completely mucking fuddled. If private ownership is so great/efficient etc, then why the capital injections and taxpayer guarantees? If Public sector is so great, then why are bacis services such as heath so terrible, are we to expect our banks to be run in the same manner as the hospitals if nationalisation were to go ahead?
...what's the punch line again?
The love of equality in a democracy, limits ambition to the sole desire, to the sole happiness, of doing greater services to our country than the rest of our fellow citizens - Montesquieu
Sp - u seem conflicted here.
hence the post,
seriously, Daniel Bell in the End of Ideology noted the demise of State Communism, and put it down to an unbarable aderance and commitment to ideology. I wonder if the same could be now said for capitalism and or FF?
The love of equality in a democracy, limits ambition to the sole desire, to the sole happiness, of doing greater services to our country than the rest of our fellow citizens - Montesquieu
well, it comes down as ever to the GP : what will they do........
Is there any hope this government will go now,they are a terrible failure, 4 failed attempts,things getting worse, money down the drain,shareholders next if there is any cent left
In fairness, I find the article is fine in calling a spade a spade once we accept the principle that the Government should be doing something about the banks. My problem is seeing the clear reason why the Government should bother.
I mean, the article is very clear in saying the Government is the only entity likely to bail out the banks. I don't see where it clearly states why the Government should want to bail them out - apart from the statement I highlighted which, as far as I can see, is hedging on whether there is a real seizure in lending, or just a perception of one.
Now, very honestly, all I want to do is understand the issues at stake. If I'm missing something in this article, or generally in my understanding, I'll be very happy to have it pointed out. If the situation is simply that the taxpayer is irreversibly committed to paying for bank losses because of the guarantee, and the only question is how this can best be done, then I'll accept the rest of the article follows very logically from that fact.
I'd just like to see clear public acknowledgment that this is the situation, and the source of the problem. Because otherwise I'm just plain confused over why we would see a need to take on these enormous risks if the shortage of credit to business is only a perception, and not a reality.
However, banks know they have a duty of care to their clients and I'm sure that this should prevent them lending irresponsibly.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Schulart : i didnt want to rile you, but the article to me seems to state the bleedin obvious. If we assume that we want functoning banks, whatever the cause of the problem, then its nationalisation. Etc etc.
Anyhow : sure cowan says that INBS is systemically important, so these academics what do they know
Wouldn't be 100% on teh rights and wrongs of the nationalisation argument.
What did strike me was the amount of bloodly economiusts that we have in 3rd level.
All on-over inflated salaries etc compared with UK compatriots.
Hard for the government to justify ignoring their views seeing as they were responsible for the 3rd level wage bill being packed with the likes of these economists.
- Agree and nationalist and justify their existing on the public wage bill
- Ignore their views and you'd have to ask -w hy these people hold these positions and regardless, why we have so many of them?
Play Ball! (not man/woman)....
Tell me , what party do you vote for when you arent shooting messangers?
Not riled at all - I'm genuinely interested if there's something I'm missing. (Although I know some of my posts on other topics have cause folk to compare me to Hannibal Lector).
I just find the clear entry point to these obligations we're taking on to be missing. I mean, I expect the sentence I highlighted was probably just a throwaway. I'd guess the guarantee probably does mean we're tied in regardless, so maybe they didn't see a point in delaying over it. But I would expect, at a minimum, that we should at least be clear as to whether there is a real problem or just a perception - this might seem pedantic, but I feel the lack of precision is worrying when we're talking about such a considerable financial undertaking.Indeed, this is the worry. Our Government come out with so much patently false comment that it provokes scepticism about the whole package. I mean, if INBS is being asserted to be systemic, it leaves very little confidence in how rigorously NAMA will be valuing the loans it takes on.
However, banks know they have a duty of care to their clients and I'm sure that this should prevent them lending irresponsibly.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote