# NY Times - Eating the Irish



## Murt10 (26 Nov 2010)

Op-Ed article by Paul Krugman

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/opinion/26krugman.html?_r=1


----------



## pudds (26 Nov 2010)

That sums it all up perfectly for me and thats a view from the outside. 



> But Ireland is now in its third year of austerity, and confidence just  keeps draining away. And you have to wonder what it will take for  serious people to realize that punishing the populace for the bankers’  sins is worse than a crime; it’s a mistake.




The two B's have led us down this road and continue to do so   "Shame" .........they don't even know the meaning of the word.


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Nov 2010)

pudds said:


> That sums it all up perfectly for me and thats a view from the outside.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Couldn't agree more - the people of this state are being forced to pay for the sins of the Bankers.


----------



## dmos87 (26 Nov 2010)

I felt embarrassed reading that article... 

... and here comes the anger


----------



## Artois (27 Nov 2010)

That Paul Krugman article perfectly sums up the bulk of the cause of our public debt financial catastrophe.

It looks clear that default is the only way out. We need to put the two Brian's and their friend out of office.


----------



## tiger (27 Nov 2010)

also in today's times
[broken link removed]


----------



## bluemac (27 Nov 2010)

that syas it all

"But at this point Iceland seems, if anything, to be doing better than  its near-namesake. Its economic slump was no deeper than Ireland’s, its  job losses were less severe and it seems better positioned for recovery.  In fact, investors now appear to consider Iceland’s debt safer than  Ireland’s. How is that possible?        "


----------



## Bob_tg (27 Nov 2010)

What mandate did Brian and Brian have to make this decision for us and commit us to this path?  Why didn't the president step in and dissolve the Dail a number of months ago when there was still a chance to change direction and it was clear that this dysfunctional administration has no public support?  Surely we should have a difference mechanism other than taking to the streets (which will happen in the coming weeks, I would think).


----------



## Artois (27 Nov 2010)

Bob_tg said:


> What mandate did Brian and Brian have to make this decision for us and commit us to this path?  Why didn't the president step in and dissolve the Dail a number of months ago when there was still a chance to change direction and it was clear that this dysfunctional administration has no public support?  Surely we should have a difference mechanism other than taking to the streets (which will happen in the coming weeks, I would think).



Mandate or not they have consistently got it wrong. They have taken every step possible to ensure we will have to pay for the mis-management of the banks for generations to come.


----------



## Bob_tg (27 Nov 2010)

Artois said:


> they have consistently got it wrong



Correct.  And this has been apparent now for quite a while.  

Surely, there has got to be a mechanism to get rid of them as soon as this becomes apparent, without having to wait for normal 5-year election cycles.


----------



## tiger (27 Nov 2010)

tiger said:


> also in today's times
> [broken link removed]


And the indo
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/a...-than-a-crime-its-a-real-mistake-2438197.html


----------



## serotoninsid (27 Nov 2010)

So once more - trying to understand this.  If folks have said here in the past that McWilliams is just playing to the gallery in suggesting the bondholders could have taken the hit, is this guy wrong too?

Can it still be done?


----------



## Chris (27 Nov 2010)

Artois said:


> Mandate or not they have consistently got it wrong. They have taken every step possible to ensure we will have to pay for the mis-management of the banks for generations to come.


The banks were not "mis-managed". The mistake was made when the banks' debts were nationalised, putting the taxpayer on the hook. If this had not been done, then we would have one short and sharp correction like Iceland, and now be on the road to recovery.



Bob_tg said:


> Correct.  And this has been apparent now for quite a while.
> 
> Surely, there has got to be a mechanism to get rid of them as soon as this becomes apparent, without having to wait for normal 5-year election cycles.


I absolutely agree that there should be a mechanism. This is something that is at the core of Direct Democracy Ireland's message: [broken link removed]

I am not affiliated to them, but the more information I read on their website, the more I find myself agreeing.


----------



## Chris (27 Nov 2010)

serotoninsid said:


> So once more - trying to understand this.  If folks have said here in the past that McWilliams is just playing to the gallery in suggesting the bondholders could have taken the hit, is this guy wrong too?
> 
> Can it still be done?



Default is always an option and at this stage anything short of a significant default will cripple the country. What is often commented is that the EU/ECB will not allow it, but it is not up to them to decide. I saw an interview with a German politician about a year ago, who kept saying that default was not an option or even allowed within the euro. The interviewer eventually got it out him that there is no such clause in the euro membership contracts.


----------



## DerKaiser (27 Nov 2010)

Chris said:


> Default is always an option and at this stage anything short of a significant default will cripple the country. What is often commented is that the EU/ECB will not allow it, but it is not up to them to decide. I saw an interview with a German politician about a year ago, who kept saying that default was not an option or even allowed within the euro. The interviewer eventually got it out him that there is no such clause in the euro membership contracts.



If the EU's idea of helping us is Angel Merkel effectively ending any hope of us raising money independently and then trying to make us pay 6.7% to borrow money they can raise at less than 3%, then screw them.

Take their money and default.  

6.7% is a sub prime rate, if that's how we are to be treated then let's behave as if we were a sub prime risk and default.

Enough is enough at this stage.  It's one thing our incompetent government borrowing at this rate but if the EU are happy to screw us over in this way that is very sinister.


----------



## Chris (29 Nov 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> If the EU's idea of helping us is Angel Merkel effectively ending any hope of us raising money independently and then trying to make us pay 6.7% to borrow money they can raise at less than 3%, then screw them.
> 
> Take their money and default.
> 
> ...



But Ireland *is* sub-prime, there is absolutely no denying that!


----------



## Time (29 Nov 2010)

I wonder how long it will take the US to withdraw visa free travel from Ireland? The tide of immigrants will be unstoppable if things keep going the way they are.


----------

