The type of people who support Trump in the USA are out in force on this thread.
Don’t like the uncomfortable truths eh Daniel, post up a few smiley faces and keep playing your violin looking for the sympathy vote.
I suppose the entire public sector deserves a pay rise because our bond yields are so low.
Don’t be a fool. Nobody thinks the banks getting out of control to the point that they did; lending with such reckless abandon that, as they were feeding the biggest property bubble in economic history, they were also endangering the entire economic sovereignty of the State; was, as you hilariously put it “a prime example of the system working fine”.
You’re just married to your adolescent Randian based theories, and you stick your head in the sand to protect them, popping up every once in awhile to squawk something utterly inane like “the market will take care of it”.
I’ve no iron in this fire, but to be fair to the poster, you’re egregiously misquoting him.
disagree – you can’t separate the banks going bust from what they did to make themselves go bust, they’re one and the same thing;
the banks should never have been allowed to become the reckless mess that they were in the size that they were – and they’re an example of why Randian free market, anti regulation, nonsense like this should be shouted down at every opportunity.
saying all that, this is an important point being communicated by this young teacher, so I won’t distract from the original subject of the thread again
So, if a company is poorly run (and by this standard, most if not all banks were poorly run; absent various local and international bailouts and other assistance, the whole system would have collapsed), then it should just go to the wall, no matter how essential? Realistically, companies collapse all the time, whole sectors come close to collapse from time to time (see the dot-com bubble collapse, for instance, or the shambles that is the remains of the Irish construction industry). This is how it goes in the world of business (certainly in poorly regulated spruces; the deregulation of the banking industry was a mistake). I’d prefer to see essential services provided by something a little more robust.
If anything, this sounds like an argument for state-run high street banks; realistically, if the independent ones fail due to their own incompetence the state will rescue them anyway, so why not cut out the middleman?
Absolutely. Private businesses have proved themselves incapable, so essential infrastructure should be in public hands. This at least means, in the case of banking, day-to-day accounts and the payment mechanisms. If the provision of credit really is essential in a modern economy (as the liberal economists tell us), then that too should be in state control.
I’ve done the sums on the public service pension breakeven point before. For those on the old final salary pension scheme, it takes 7-9 years after retirement to make back what you paid in.
Obviously lots of variables at play like your final salary, how many years service you finish with, how long the Pension Levy remains, how much State Pension Contributory is when you retire.
New entrants whose pension will be based on average wages over 40 years will get far less and probably take a decade to earn back, so talking 75+ years old, ignoring inflation and opportunity costs.
No no no.
The one and only problem at the moment is the central banks have become slaves to the government - they are in bed together, the money supply is practically under state control. It has been a slow transition and it goes back to Greenspan.
The only reason central bank interest rates are so low is to keep governments (and their enormous debt) solvent. This nonsense the Fed has a “dual mandate” to keep employment low and price stability is a joke at this stage. Employment is at 4.9% in the US (according to unreliable government stats), lets see how quick they raise them, especially in the next few months when the market realises the Fed will backtrack, commodities, including oil are going to rise. They will continue to rise and the Fed wont be able to raise rates - this is the corner the Fed has put itself in.
Ben was recently questioned about his interview ^^^ in 06, his response was it was the right thing to say for the *administration *(i can’t find the exact quote right now). These guys are a joke at this stage. Central banks are meant to be apolitical and their only concern is focusing on the money supply.
My point, and I could go on all day - is the government has to much of an influence on interest rates. It’s meant to be vice versa.
In relation to the teacher, she should cheering for Donald Trump, if he becomes President, he will take advise from Carl Icahn, who advises to raise interest rates. He also sees the storm brewing.
Donald Trump - house prices come down (“anti establishment” as they say)
Hilary Clinton - more of the same money printing, house prices increase.
- Yes it should go to the wall, a commercial bank is not essential (no matter what bankers tell you, whos job just so happens to be on the line).
- Central banks should raise interest rates and stop creating bubbles - this would in turn prevent commercial banks from taking ALL of the wrath for investors taking more risk in search for yield.
The Central Bank is the drug dealer, the commercial banks are the junkies. Stop selling them drugs and watch them sober up. Or stop flooding the market with money and watch the economy return to normal. The detox/capitalism is a painful process.
Trump seems to be the only one with a back bone who can take on this task.
Lol, you are an absolute fruitcake.
Capitalism, true capitalism, flushes out the shite and allows well run businesses to flourish.
The running of the business and how it goes bust is another story.
The system worked beautifully. The problem is intervention/socialism.
But wasn’t the lobbying for and ultimate abolition of Glass Steagall part of the system too. Did the system work beautifully on that decision.
Is the fact that there’s no transparency on derivatives trading part of the system? Are Derivatives Traders secret interventionist socialists
Capitalism exists within, depends upon and is constrained by a socio-political framework.
That framework won’t tolerate the failure of all major retail banks, not without revolution anyway.
It’s pointless to say that the framework is the problem, when it’s what allows capitalism to exist.
It’s behind a paywall so haven’t read it myself
Teacher, nurse, average earner – what house could they buy in 1995, what can they buy today?
From D4 to D 24: In 1995, a teacher could have bought a two bed terrace in Dublin 4; now shrinking affordability means that they’re restricted to a two bed in Tallaght
irishtimes.com/business/per … -1.3507227
That sure is strange, I wonder how it could happen?
Terrible, lazy article tbh: takes average wages then vs now and compares to median house costs. No mention of teacher or nurse salaries