Derren Browns best stuff was when he was at the dog track and getting paid out on losers.
[quote=âfarmerinthecityâ]Nationalising the banks is frought with danger though. The message that this would send out to the market would be catastrophic. Ireland is a country that is fucked. I am not sure who the economy is meant get going again with such a situation.
What is the difference between NAMA (essentially is the bad bank) and the second proposal above? Do you mean keep the bad bank in private ownership? There could be some justification in that I.e. much of the risk is removed from the tax payer. However you may as well let that bank go bust now.
As for the third one I am not sure what that will achieve. Is it not better having two or three good banks instead of one dominant good bank?
I think we are agreed that adjustments are needed to be made to the banking system. Outside of nationalisation, there is no way of not rewarding the reckless. The bad loans must be taken off the balance sheets to allow credit to flow again.
I also disagree with you on the regulatory point. But it needs to be implemented worldwide as this is a worldwide problem.[/quote]
That market perception is an argument you hear a lot of against nationalistaion but I donât think it stands up. What market are your talking about? Is it the market for stock in AIB/BOI? That wonât be there anymore. Is it about protecting existing shareholders? They took a risk, they lost. You are advocating using failed systems to kickstart the economy instead of doing something innovative.
The second proposal I suggested was to consolidate the existing banks into one bad bank (i.e. no more AIB/BOI/Anglo) - wasnât very clear from my wording.
What the third proposal achieves (that the current NAMA wonât) is a change in the ownership and management structure of the continuing bank. I have a fundamental problem with allowing the failed banks access to public money and then allowing them to continue unchecked into the same cycle of problems weâve just bailed them out of.
You disagree with me on the regulatory point but offer nothing to support your disagreement. What youâre saying is that we have this NAMA bailout and then we get tougher from a regulatory point of view to stop the banks from taking us for a ride again. I think thatâs grossly naive at best.
You cannot rely on regulation alone to turn around a deeply corrupt system. Regulations work on functioning systems to keep them in line, they will be hugely ineffective in changing the stragegies of these banks if they are not accompanied by changes in ownership, changes in management and a direct managerial (not overseeing) role from the state.
The one with the horse racing was good as well.
I am talking about the perception of Ireland as a whole on the international stage. If you were a foreign company looking at investing here and saw the banks nationalized, it does not really give a good impression of the country as a whole. It gives the impression of a failed economy. Also if we do nationalize then we are looking at massive costs to the taxpayer, even above that which NAMA will cost.
What the third proposal achieves (that the current NAMA wonât) is a change in the ownership and management structure of the continuing bank. I have a fundamental problem with allowing the failed banks access to public money and then allowing them to continue unchecked into the same cycle of problems weâve just bailed them out of.
Are some of the new provisions in NAMA not concerned with this very point i.e. the removal of the complete Board of Directors in every bank?
You disagree with me on the regulatory point but offer nothing to support your disagreement. What youâre saying is that we have this NAMA bailout and then we get tougher from a regulatory point of view to stop the banks from taking us for a ride again. I think thatâs grossly naive at best.
You cannot rely on regulation alone to turn around a deeply corrupt system. Regulations work on functioning systems to keep them in line, they will be hugely ineffective in changing the stragegies of these banks if they are not accompanied by changes in ownership, changes in management and a direct managerial (not overseeing) role from the state.
I agree with your last line here. But I think NAMA allows for these changes. The State already has a large shareholding in each of these banks. NAMA provides for changes in management which, due to the shareholding of the State, will be mainly based on their representations. The direct managerial role is also essential but I dont see why you need to nationalize to do that. The State already has a large shareholding. This is where the regulation comes in. Banks should be under a constant requirement to report on its activities to the State, and the State should have a few representatives on the Board.
You may well be correct there farmer, at least this would be my understanding of a major drawback of nationalisation. The more important issue though is should we as a nation continue to be led around by the nose by the international markets? There are fundamental questions being ignored in the wider discourse to do with the underpinnings of our economic philosophy. That it is being ignored isnât that surprising because the economists and financial analysts who dominate the debate do not want to admit that the system they worship does not work, nor are they trained to even begin to question that system. They are only trained to work it.
I was at this ISSP (Irish Social Sciences Platform) thing during the summer, and a major point that kept coming up was the total monopolisation of the debate on the crisis we are facing by the economists. Itâs not something that would have happened before and such is the power of the financial sector, their huge failures have not prevented people turning to them to offer the solutions to any crisis which may occur. What seems to be happening is that the old system is getting a lick of paint and a new carpet, and before long itâll be back to business as usual.
[quote=âWatch The Breakâ]You may well be correct there farmer, at least this would be my understanding of a major drawback of nationalisation. The more important issue though is should we as a nation continue to be led around by the nose by the international markets? There are fundamental questions being ignored in the wider discourse to do with the underpinnings of our economic philosophy. That it is being ignored isnât that surprising because the economists and financial analysts who dominate the debate do not want to admit that the system they worship does not work, nor are they trained to even begin to question that system. They are only trained to work it.
I was at this ISSP (Irish Social Sciences Platform) thing during the summer, and a major point that kept coming up was the total monopolisation of the debate on the crisis we are facing by the economists. Itâs not something that would have happened before and such is the power of the financial sector, their huge failures have not prevented people turning to them to offer the solutions to any crisis which may occur. What seems to be happening is that the old system is getting a lick of paint and a new carpet, and before long itâll be back to business as usual.[/quote]
Excellently put.
The economists failed. The markets failed. Weâre in a dreadful financial position and rather than changing our thought process fundamentally, weâre trying to see how to best avoid upsetting those markets. And the economists are explaining to us how we should do this.
I think any changes to the banks as a result of NAMA will be entirely superficial. We are still behoven to the very market that has failed us.
[quote=âtipptops*â]Derren Browne last night.
http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/blog/article/246254/[/quote]
this was well publicised, why didnât the BBC delay the draw for a few minutes to fuck it up for him(or fuck it up for Channel 4).
it does them or more importantly Camelot no favours having someone on another station predicting the numbers, or does it?
[quote=âHBV*â]this was well publicised, why didnât the BBC delay the draw for a few minutes to fuck it up for him(or fuck it up for Channel 4).
it does them or more importantly Camelot no favours having someone on another station predicting the numbers, or does it?[/quote]
Heâll show people how its done, more people will play the lotto, more people will tune into BBC to watch the draw. How can they lose?
Primetime now, Barry Andrews floundering under sustained questioning from Mark Little.
Resorting to the usual Orwellian doublespeak, hiding behind the HSE, stats and the rest.
Well done Mark Little, stick it to him. Thatâs what happens when you start hitting public service pay.
Plus thereâs always Miriam to look at. Iâd love to see those things unsupported. Down around her knees iâd say.
Road to Croker on RTE 2 at 7 p.m will have a piece about palacial Clonlara and footage and interviews with the 6 lads below in Cloonlara
Not to be missedâŚDunph, make this a sticky
Is Trish going to be interviewed Puke? You cant go to Clon without interviewing Trish, sheâs an institution.
TV3 now. Johnny Adair profile thing.
Nice to see C coy reformed in Dresden
This is the wierdest shit ever.
Two arse bandits
anyone see how derren brown did the numbers didnt get chance to see itâŚ
just watching padraig harrington ,who was leading the competition, looking for his golfball on the 18th holeâŚcommentator reckons its hit a tractor and gone out of boundsâŚ
Derrell Brownâs horseracing âpredictionâ was the worst shit Iâve ever seen. How did the lotto thing go for him?
It looked good the first time he showed it though. The method behind it was bollox though.
Watching the end of the lotto shit here. Only caught the end of it though so Iâm at a bit of a loss.