Who IS Kevin Cardiff and why was Nessa Childers threatened?

RonanC said:
Sunny, I am in no way defending Kevin Cardiff's actions or his role in the decisions made over the past 10 years, but he took over as Secretary General of the Dept. of Finance in Feb 2010. It appears from the bits that have come out that the Department were very much against a bank guarantee. In the end, the blanket bank guarantee was scrutinised and approved by the houses of the oireachtas and not the Dept. of Finance. If anything, those elected to the Dail and Seanad were much more responsible than Kevin Cardiff was. We also must remember why the guarantee was put in place. The banks met with Lenihan and Cowen, told them of their serious issues and that they would go bang and bring the country with them unless Government stepped in. The banks also lied about their financial situation and I'd imagine if Lenihan knew the full picture as we do now, a blanket bank guarantee would have been the last thing he would propose.
Click to expand...

But its not just the Guarantee. Before he became secretary general, wasn't he in charge of taxation and financial services in the Department. I don't know what his record is exactly but he must have been involved in the reckless taxation policies of the boom years and I presume he was involved in the reckless regulation of banks. Now I am sure he can wash his hands and blame politicians and the regulator but the simple fact is that he was there earning a huge salary. He has questions to answer especially if he wants a job in Europe. Also his performance the other week in front of the Dail Committee was awful.

Like I said, he has probably done the State some great service and maybe it is very harsh but the simple fact is that the Government want him out of the Department of Finance for some reason. My problem is that if they think he has done something wrong or hasn't performed, it should be dealt with here instead of just transferring him to a plum job in Europe just so they can avoid holding a senior civil servant to account.
 
Wasn't it nice of Kevin to 'liberate' the Stock Exchange from the pain of a tiny commission, and free up Sean Quinn to go hell for leather on his greedy high-risk CFD attack on Anglo.

[broken link removed]

Hope it was a nice lunch.
 
Complainer said:
Wasn't it nice of Kevin to 'liberate' the Stock Exchange from the pain of a tiny commission, and free up Sean Quinn to go hell for leather on his greedy high-risk CFD attack on Anglo.

[broken link removed]

Hope it was a nice lunch.
Click to expand...

The existence of CFDs or whether the tax system fails to discourage them are relatively indirect issues compared to the reckless behaviour of Quinn in his investments, Anglo in its lending and the regulator in his supervision.

Quinn borrowed to invest, the means by which he did this was made more efficient by the existence of CFDs, but banning/discouraging CFDs for this reason would be akin to not granting planning for high buildings in case people threw themselves off the top.
 
DerKaiser said:
Quinn borrowed to invest, the means by which he did this was made more efficient by the existence of CFDs, but banning/discouraging CFDs for this reason would be akin to not granting planning for high buildings in case people threw themselves off the top.
Click to expand...

So what do we do to stop another Quinn/Anglo/CFD happening?
 
Complainer said:
Wasn't it nice of Kevin to 'liberate' the Stock Exchange from the pain of a tiny commission, and free up Sean Quinn to go hell for leather on his greedy high-risk CFD attack on Anglo.

[broken link removed]

Hope it was a nice lunch.
Click to expand...

20/20 Hindsight is a great thing.
 
Complainer said:
So what do we do to stop another Quinn/Anglo/CFD happening?
Click to expand...

The likes of Quinn can do what they want with their own money be it CFDs or whatever else. The problem was he used someone else's money, and that someone else was an "institution of systemic importance". So we identify every "institution of systemic importance" and properly regulate their risk controls. There might be other reasons to tax CFDs but not to indirectly compensate for lack of decent regulation.
 
I disagree with the principle that people "can do what they like with their own money", if that means moving it out of Irish accounts and putting the rest of us taxpayers further in debt.
 
onq said:
I disagree with the principle that people "can do what they like with their own money", if that means moving it out of Irish accounts and putting the rest of us taxpayers further in debt.
Click to expand...

Do you think the state should have the right to stop people moving their own money to another country?
 
No.

Not when its costing the taxpayer billions in a recession in increased borrowing to recapitalize the banks
Not when the only reason the money-movers money remained "safe" in the first place was the state guarantee - again backed by taxpayers.
How do these people repay the taxpayer?
By forcing the state to borrow more.

With freedom comes responsibility.
People are quick to trade on the former
Precious little of the latter being shown these days.

Pay your debts, honour your commitments and support those who have supported you.
Its a fairly clear line to follow and those who don't will sooner or later feel the flat of the blade.
 
onq said:
No.

Not when its costing the taxpayer billions in a recession in increased borrowing to recapitalize the banks
Not when the only reason the money-movers money remained "safe" in the first place was the state guarantee - again backed by taxpayers.
How do these people repay the taxpayer?
By forcing the state to borrow more.

With freedom comes responsibility.
People are quick to trade on the former
Precious little of the latter being shown these days.

Pay your debts, honour your commitments and support those who have supported you.
Its a fairly clear line to follow and those who don't will sooner or later feel the flat of the blade.
Click to expand...

So we should keep money here to fund debt forgiveness:
> Resolving the mortgage arrears crisis > ONQ's proposal for Universal Debt Forgiveness

Sign me up.

Moving money creates liquidity problems at best, it doesnt add to the deficit nor does it add to the national debt.
 
onq said:
No.

Not when its costing the taxpayer billions in a recession in increased borrowing to recapitalize the banks
Not when the only reason the money-movers money remained "safe" in the first place was the state guarantee - again backed by taxpayers.
Click to expand...
Actually savings were protected before the state guarantee - up to €100,000.

Also the state guarantee was introduced for Fianna Fail's benefit - not for the benefit of the savers. (And if you are being generous - for the benefit of the state).

Thirdly the cost of recapitalising the banks is due to Fianna Fail's decision to guarantee bondholders - and especially existing bondholders, for their own reasons.

EDIT:
If you accept that the guarantee allows the government now to have additional rights regarding citizens' deposits, then surely by the same logic, if I stand outside your house all night long (unasked for), I can then claim the keys to your house in the morning. You benefited from having me there in front of your house all night after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top