Your right, and I withdraw the charge

Seriously, this is a great thread with plenty of tackles, plenty of shin, but mostly on the ball.

We might find that sending out armies to Anglo we ignore the greater enemy having consumed all our resources.

I was a course recently where we had to practise first aid triage for multiple incident casualty sites. Quite intense, people screaming for attention, fighting, mock deaths etc.
Surely we needed a form of financial triage…

( yes, that was,for now, a joke..)

+1 . Anglo is a done deal. It has been systemic in terms of its crippling impact on state finances. AIB is systemic in a Main Street sense and it’s going to be the battlefield for the state.

@ Eoin
This boom was created trying to make money from the most fundamental human need to have a home. The boom arose because we became addicted to the idea of economic growth despite the fact that there was not enough new goods or services to drive it. So we got the growth of the oldest business in the book - plain and simple moneylending disguised in bondmarket speak and corporate claptrap. The real snakeoil salesmen were on the Youtube link I posted.
That’s all this is - we’ve been suckerpunched by moneylenders. As you rightly point out there’s no point in blame do don’t you start blaming ordinairy people for wanting a place to live

My last word. Agree with your obs on CF and the Watermelon’s twisted sense of morality.

I would also make this point. Anglo is done and out the gap. It is going to cost us collectively 25-35billion due to massive hubris on the part of the Taoiseach & failure on the part of the public admininistration.

There is an another big problem coming over the hill in the form of AIB. I am that Policy makers are complacent on the scale of losses there. The saving grace will be that there are assets to sell & more equity to write down so it should not be another Anglo. I would prefer a debate on the option we have if AIB is in real trouble.

Selling off the institution lock stock and barrel, including the Irish ops with the NPRF taking a strategic stake in the buyer has to be considered. I am thinking of the Fortis/BNP deal as a model.

The complacent policy making that took place around Anglo can not be repeated.

if you don’t feel you have anything to add by doing a piece on this in the op-ed could you write a letter to the Irish Times along the lines of your post at 4.34pm?

The system as exists (as opposed to your ideal) considers that banks of systemic importance cannot be allowed to fail. That is the case in Ireland, Germany, Britain and the USA.

thats some mighty fine analysis, and i pretty much agree with all of it.

Moreover, you say that “the State or political system is capable of solving its economic problems” - i’ll go one further and suggest that the state or political system, indeed most of our society in one way or another, was responsible for much of the mess we now find ourselves in, so this is why we have to take a large amount of the responsibility for the problems themselves.

But the country has made enormous social progress in the last 50 years in terms of social welfare, pension provision, education and even our health system has improved in recent years. But that is a different thread.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/0120/anglo.html

Now by any standards that is some deterioration in 20 months!

“It is time to seek to place ourselves in the hands of people who can run the State effectively – and in the long-term interests of the citizens. Political or indeed national pride should not stand in the way of this.”

He has clarified this by saying that he does not necessarily mean “FG/Lab/SF”.

Professor Lucey’s position is basically that the State has failed and is incapable of solving its economic problems. His position is ideological or prior to the facts. He seizes on every adverse movement in CDS or Irish bond spreads to support his thesis. Every silver lining (recent sale of Irish Treasury bills) must have a cloud. Any economic set back is recorded with glee. Signs of economic recovery as outlined by JTO are scoffed at contemptuously. I notice in an earlier thread Lucey ridiculed JTO’s ideas for celebrating the 1916 Rising (putting the Abbey in the GPO).

Lucey can take a rather cavalier attitude to reneging on the guarantee – in effect a sovereign default – because the sovereign or State is worthless in any case.

Eoin, Tull and others take – for want of a better description – a republican line. Although the government might have made mistakes (Tull would like a FG led government), the State or political system is capable of solving its economic problems. For the likes of the “republicans” a sovereign default is therefore a very serious matter indeed. In my view it would involve leaving the Euro zone and returning to the Sterling zone.

Tull has alluded to the role of the Irish Times. For historical reasons it is sympathetic to Lucey’s line. However, in recent years it has realised that the economic consequences of this political line (not least for itself) are very serious. It will be interesting to see that newspaper’s accounts due to be published next month. It appointed Sarah Carey (“impeccable FG pedigree”) as an antidote to Fintan O’Toole. At least as significant is its recent appointment of Dan O’Brien.

Like Brian Woods II I am finding the debate amusing. But the impressive armoury of technical expertise cannot hide the fundamental division which is political and not economic.

and as for those lads in milwuakee
http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2010/04/19/daily84.html

nonsense…sure you cant sell deposit books.

Pointing out the hypocrisy and cant of that particular cabal of political whores is fair game. In the end we all have opinions on the Bank guaratee etc but Mr Gormley did not even bother getting out of bed on that fateful night.

Although I suspect when his mythical govt takes power, Tull, Eoin B, all the JTOs will be put up agin the wall and shot. I would not give much for John McHale’s chances either. Karl Whelan should also remember what happend to Trotsky.

Keep eating the dinners.

I note that Eoin has packed a few lead bars into his handbag, contributing to my heightened enjoyment.

I am not going to censure him for that. You are very quick to go ad hominem, or another ploy is to accuse people of basely exploiting some personal misfortune in your family. You gave me the same treatment once when I totally innocently invoked Bertie Aherne’s suicide quip.

This thread is breaking all records. Is it time to close it?

i am being careful, hence the reason why im asking pretty fair and innocuous (in my view) questions. Given that you routinely question the motives of people posting on here, i would’ve thought you’d readily understand why people would question yours in this situation. But if you’re answer is simply “No comment”, then we’ll leave it at that.

given the opportunity to clarify, you decided not to. Fair enough, its a free world, but we’re now free to think or suggest what we want.

In my opinion future op-eds or media appearances should not just refer to you as “Brian Lucey, Professor of Economics”, they should also include a mention of your professional consultancy and avisory services. That’s all im saying. People can then make up their own mind on your motives, and won’t have to resort to rumour and innuendo like you use on here about some of us.

As regards the letter on CF, i have no quibble with your argument - CF is a horrible disease and i only have sympathy for you and your family members for having to endure it. In a perfect world we’d have unlimited resources to deal with it. However, we don’t, and your letter was seemingly written in a professional capacity (you use both your title and address at Trinity). As such, its fair game to analysise both this and previous run ins with the Green Party in terms of your overall role and effect on public/economic policy in this country.

by the way, can i get some clarity on Tull’s pronouncement that you met bond fund managers on Thursday? If so, was it in a paid advisory role? If so, is there not a ridiculous conflict of interest here? Do you not have quite a substantial amount of skin in the game, by writing in the leading newspaper in the morning advocating policies affecting bonds, and then advising bondholders in the evening? The two are massively interrelated. You are not quite as independent as many people would view you.