Actually Mick Wallace has criticising the government for years, even at the height of the boom. I’ll try and dig it up but he wrote a column a few years back attacking greedy builders and bad planning. He’s all right, Mick.
He’s not all right if he doesn’t intend to honour his commitments.
He’s as much a part of the black hole in the banks as Sean Dunne is at that rate.
Wexford Youths might be a great project but that’s another €5m down the swanee and guess who it looks like will be picking up the tab…
I get a kneejerk sense here.
The point is having third level qualifications or not is irrelevant to the question of whether they’d want the prices of properties to be higher. In business - and any MBA shark will tell you this - the objective is to charge the highest possible price that the market will bear. The builders are no different to computer manufacturers in that respect and I believe the head honchos in Microsoft all have high level qualifications. So too did the people who ran a few companies to the ground, including people in charge of Lehmans, for example.
The builders are competent to some extent We didn’t regulate them enough to force sustainability to be less expensive than unsustainable developments.
As for banks/banking regulation it has not been adequate.
You can defend him. He may well be one of the better of the building crew and yes, the Italian quarter is about as nice a piece of development in the city as you’ll find. But that still doesn’t necessarily mean he has no vested interest in writing a deflectory piece in a national newspaper of record.
No no. Green Bear told us that entrepreneurs are interested in the realignment of productive forces. Presumably with some altruistic endgame in mind, obviously they are a bit slow in revealing their plan to date…
Did he? Damn I missed that post.
Still think it’s lies. Highest price the market will bear, that’s where it is. If they were interested in realignment of productive forces they’d shiimy up on the means of production and not jealously guard it all to themselves.
Aside: (assuming GB is a dude)
Interesting as his thoughts are, and I’m sure he’s a grand fella, what Mick should be writing about is how he is planning to deal with the large debts that he, Mick Wallace, owes.
Will he be using his savings and selling all his assets in an effort to clear them or will the taxpayer, via NAMA, be picking up the tab?
Wallace Construction borrowed from banks not the taxpayer.
Wallace Construction did not ask the government to guarantee the banks or bail out the banks.
The Govt did not buy the banks for Wallace Construction’s benefit.
Wallace Construction entered into a commercial arrangement. The Government stepped in because Wallace Construction and thier ilk could not pay. Going into a moral tirade against Wallace Construction for not being able to pay is a bit stupid imho. I also note there is no mention of the taxes paid by Wallace Construction in the past, the tax revenue generated by Wallace Construction or the employment provided by Wallace Construction.
Unsustainable will always be cheaper in virtually all endeavours. So yes, if sustainable developments are a good thing, planning and regulation is needed. Not 100% sure what you mean by sustainable, I guess houses you can live in for lifetimes, walk to work, etc… want that 100%
But we have had tribunals showing how the regulatory system has been corrupted by the very people we appoint and pay well to protect our interests.
Who will regulate the regulators?
Again, why? Its not through lack of spend. Since the euro was introduced, we have spent hundreds of millions on financial regulation with zero effect. The whole saga of regulation in this country particularly has been of stupidity, incompetence, cronyism, corruption, collusion in fraud and lazyness on behalf of individual regulators. There have been systematic problems also but lets tell it like it is, there have been a lot of individual failures.
Again, Who will regulate the regulators?
Absolutely, the guy has an interest, probably a vested interest. So do a lot of other people writing an opinion piece, whether its a banker economist, a trade union economist, a public servant, a private PAYE worker etc.
We correctly point out the Dan McLoughlins of this world have had a role in the property bubble by pimping to suit their employers short term interests. In many ways the property crash is yesterdays festering problem… OK the consequences have still to play out and will affect us for generations, but it’s done. it cant be undone.
Todays festering problem is the mis-management of the country and thievery of its assets and capital at the start of the 21’st Centurys Great Depression, at a time when the country needs to manage every cent wisely. That thievery is being led by banksters and crooked politicians which is what I took from the article.
Also I would go further and say it is being facilitated by regulators, and being ignored by the people we pay well to manage and provide public services on our behalf.
Take one comment from the article
Now its fair to say Mick probably hasn’t had a lard sandwich in a while. And has made a lot of money in the boom under this government. But so have lots of people from ‘tax dodging entrepreneurs’ to some servants of the public. But the second part of the article looks like a call for a more equal society where people like Mick will have to contribute more.
He could be up to something or he could have identified todays festering problem. It certainly doesnt read like an article from a major Dublin builder.
There are some good points here on Mick’s own financial situation, his debts and where his income is/will come from. Thats fair analysis, it should be applied to everyone who is contributing a public opinion.
Having written a moral tirade against neoliberalism, corporate governance & politics in Ireland in his article, I sure hope Mick Wallace/Wallace Construction does not come up with this legalistic defence if he/they are asked about this.
That would be pretty hard to stomach.
That is not a legalistic defence. That is a moral defence to a moral charge which has been levied against Mick Wallace.
mod edit xman: personal attack and subsequent tit for tat go bye bye
Wallace is by no means a typical Irish builder and his selfless investment in Wexford football is admirable.
The Guardian had a profile about him the other day primarily to do with his role as Kevin Doyle’s agent, but some interesting quotes from the man which are relevant to this thread.
“We can see Italy’s problems because we’ve a step back looking on it, but in fairness to the Italians they see that corruption triumphs over there, we don’t. We have very fancy notions of ourselves.”
I don’t see how Wallace is better than other developer who is leaving the taxpayer to pick up the tab?
It has been argued that Seanie Fitzpatrick created jobs too.
He might have built nicer developments, but we still going to end up getting stung for them.
Sir Allen Stanford selflessly invested in English cricket too.
Should we ignore that he couldn’t actually afford it?
In fairness to Wallace, when he said he wasn’t paying his interest and didn’t think any other builder was either, he explicity said that he was not insolvent. He could cover his losses and repay everything if push came to shove. He just didn’t see why he should lay off all his workers and sell everything to clear the debts when he could manage them indefinitely and keep a load of lads in work building good quality developments. It doesn’t to me sound like he ever bit off more than he could chew.
He cannot be lumped in with the likes of Dunne or Carroll or all the other cowboys who dived into the slurry pit and now expect the rest of us to fish them out. Let the bastards drown in shite I say.
Dunne/Carroll have both employed loads of lads as well and have presumably generated tax revenue for the state.
Wallace seems a much nicer chap than these two but if we end up paying off a large portion of his debts then, by definition, he has bitten off more than he can chew.
To paraphrase Negative Covenant.
Liam Carroll/Sean Dunn borrowed from banks not the taxpayer.
Liam Carroll/Sean Dunn did not ask the government to guarantee the banks or bail out the banks.
The Govt did not buy the banks for Liam Carroll/Sean Dunn’s benefit.
Liam Carroll/Sean Dunn entered into a commercial arrangement. The Government stepped in because Liam Carroll/Sean Dunn and thier ilk could not pay. Going into a moral tirade against Liam Carroll/Sean Dunn for not being able to pay is a bit stupid imho. I also note there is no mention of the taxes paid by Liam Carroll/Sean Dunn in the past, the tax revenue generated by Liam Carroll/Sean Dunn or the employment provided by Liam Carroll/Sean Dunn.
I am not a fan of Dunne or Carroll but I think that is a fair paraphrasing.
Mick Wallace freely admitted that he wasn’t paying interest on his debts.
But it’s all the bankers’ faults.
BUT LOOK AT HIS HAIR… HE’S SOME MAN EH? WITH THE HAIR AN’ ALL.
From what I know Ulster Bank financed Sean Dunne he is not a good example