Eddie Hobbs George Lee and David McWilliam on Miriam O’Callaghan shortly (EEEH I mean on her show not actually on her, now I would pay my licence fee to see that )
How about we rename it Goldilocks and the 3 bears
Is that Eddie “Hard Soft Landing” Hobbs ?
doffs cap to discostu
now online for your surfing pleasure
I was hoping we would ‘get real’ but no. This is just a fluff piece with a little bit of light sabre rattling, but no killer thrusts. The three boys almost being publicly embarrassed for being so right, and having to defend themselves - ‘no miriam, i’m not a doom monger’.
I believe we’re going to need a televised blood and guts, bone crunching, broken teeth D-Day type watershed to burst this bubble.
“Why is my 100% mortgaged shoebox worth 40% less than what I paid for it, if I could even find someone to buy it? I don’t remember anyone pointing out that was a possibility when I was being brow beaten into buying it.”
With the Dans and the Austins and the Toms and the Kens in the dock to explain how this all came about.
People in Ireland aren’t long about whinging to Joe Duffy if they think they were charged too much for a meal in a restaurant, but we have an entire generation who have been ripped off for their life savings and possibly their career earnings and there isn’t a fucking murmur of discontent to be found anywhere. It’s disturbing.
If you complain to Joe about getting ripped off for a dinner then you’re going to look like a a great lad with the balls to push back at a restaurant and demand better value. If you’ve just made yourself into a wage-slave for life then you’re going to look like a sap. And therein lies the difference.
We need to blame somebody else for the problem and the fellas who said all along that there was a problem are afraid that somehow they’ll be made the scapegoats. This is some dysfunctional stuff and no doubt.
In fairness… I saw the repeat of the show last night, it was never set up as a debate on the economy.
Just an interview with 3 guys who we are seeing a lot more of on our screens.
In that fact it might actually do more good as you see that George Lee is just a guy doing his job as he says… and not some prophet of doom and gloom.
I think the victims of the Celtic Tiger credit bubble either do not realise they are victims yet, or they won’t publicly acknowledge it.
They may still be labouring under the illusion that they are Canny McSavvy, like they were told by the VIs, despite all available evidence pointing to the contrary. And the meeja is doing it’s level best to cater for it’s primary demographic - the denialistas - with an endless barrage of soothing flatulent puff pieces like these
You could fill a telephone directory with the amount of inane, nonsensical guff that has been foisted onto people under the guise of ‘journalism’ over last couple of years.
Oh I agree. Its a little from column A and a little from column B. And its important to them that they never admit “I made a huge mistake”. And if they can’t admit it to themselves they definitely can’t admit it to Joe.
If there was some way they could blame it all on somebody else then they could ring Joe and complain that they’d been sold a pup. But that would mean admitting on the airwaves that they were massively in debt for a rapidly-depreciating asset. And no matter how you spin that as being somebody else’s fault you still come off looking like a bit of a sap. And nobody wants to admit that on-air (I certainly wouldn’t).
Now its partially their fault and its partially not (groupthink, peer-pressure etc). But I don’t think we’re going to wake up in the morning to a huge section of the population admitting in public that they made a big mistake. There will be an entire range of public and private admission that this is at least partially their own fault. But publicly its going to come out as anger and woe betide anybody who looks smug about being proven correct. So I can’t blame the three bears for being careful about their comments. I know I would be.
Just watching the show now and it seems to me that the lads were warned.
Anytime they get close to talking about anyone in power who might have contributed to the current economic situation, they stop just before they cross the line.
But that just can’t happen. There was no hard sell which could leave anyone open to the possibility of being accused of mis-selling. In fact, often there was hardly any sales pitch necessary at all. People were climbing all over each other to get a slice of the action.
There’ll be no dramatic moment of revelation, more like death by a thousand cuts.
Just watched it, man that was pure fluff, content rating 2 out of 10.
There may have been no hard sell but there was a control of supply to buiild up demand and a loosening of credit facilities by the banks to allow people to aim much higher and borrow more than they would have been able to aim in the past.
Subtle advertising (and some not so subtle e.g. shagging on the kitchen table in darndale) added to a message being put out that property only ever goes up and scare mongering as in if you dont get on the ladder you’ll miss your chance. This is herd management of the sheeple, if people dont want to name names or accuse people/ companies/ EAs or such for fear of legal action then pressure should be put on TDs to bring this up in the Dail and name and shame these people/ companies under parliamentary privilage thus forcing it into the open for debate.
No argument there. And I think the worst thing was that you’d have your own family trying to convince you to buy. Massive peer pressure. The EAs didn’t have to sell properties at all - they sold themselves.
And I think that is exactly Persius’ point: that because there was no hard sell it is impossible to legally lay the blame on anybody. There is going to be a lot of blaming of various groups over the next while but it seems impossible that anybody will be convicted of any actual wrong-doing that would require fines or prison-sentences.
Not sure about this. There was a brief period (months) when the market had stalled and probably already heading down when i think people were being agressively mis-sold houses. “its always a good time to buy”, “they will start to rise again in two months time” etc etc. anyone who knows how markets work already knew the game was up at that stage.
young people needed to hear that “prices can fall as well as rise” but instead they were ruthlessly preyed on by vested interests.
a class action suit would stand good chance IMO. could be a career defining move if there are any enterprising (non-gombeen) lawyers out there. the data on the pin (quotes, dates etc) could be invaluable to a legal case.
its all here, documented and time-stamped.
Anyone with access to inside information (Banks, EAs, possibly journalists) who have publicly made bullish statements about residential property in Ireland since June 2006 (approximately when the bubble burst) and today potentially has a case to answer imho.
I’m thinking particularly of some of the shrill VI reaction to “Future Shock” which was broadcast when the crash was already well underway.
And some highly suspect smart ballsy type feature articles that appeared in the national meeja throughout 2007…
And bucketloads of very dodgy ‘chief economist’ stuff.
You couldn’t sue somebody for pumping property when it was going gangbusters. But if they were pumping it when they knew the arse had fallen out of it, that’s a different matter.
There is a lot of useful information on this site.
See below the “General priciples” of the FR’s Consumer Protection Code. Under this banks & financial institutions must prove that they offer consumers objective advice, even if they are just advising you on where to deposit a few hundred euro.
Meanwhile, EAs are free to peddle ill-founded advice on investing hundreds of thousands of euro in property here & abroad, promising fictious returns, overestimating rental returns, underestimating running costs etc…
Shifting the burden of regulation to these guys now would be just shutting the stable door… but better late than never.
Under the general principles of the code, firms must:
✓ treat you honestly, fairly and professionally;
✓ act in your best interests when providing
products or services to you;
✓ give you the information necessary for you to make
an informed decision; and
✓ handle any complaints you have about the firm’s
dealings with you quickly, efficiently and fairly.
Firms must not:
✗ mislead you, on purpose, about the advantages
and disadvantages of any product or service;
✗ put you under too much pressure or use too
much influence on you to persuade you
to buy a product or service; or
✗ prevent you from getting access to basic
financial services (such as a bank account).