When Irish Eyes Are Crying

The bank bailouts made very little sense, the biggest toxic bank, Anglo Irish Bank, was not a retail bank. They specialised in property financing. Letting them go under would not have resulted in the Irish Government having to cover huge amounts of deposits. The current majority party (Fianna Fail) has a history of connections to property developers and this connection is what a lot of people though spurred the saving of Anglo. Now more information is bubbling up about the exposure of European banks to Anglo and the other Irish banks. Europe (especially Germany) wants this mess cleaned up because if the Irish Government drops the guarantee then their own banks will have a huge hole in their finances. These were essentially risky investments made by foreign banks that the Irish taxpayer is now being forced to pay back.<p>Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Bank were profitable (extremely so in the context of the Irish economy) and if kept in government hands would eventually make back their losses. Anglo made it's profits on the back of the property bubble, not something that will be repeated any time soon.<p>This is the perspective of an Irish economist on the debacle: <a href="http://www.ronanlyons.com/2011/01/18/the-irish-bank-sandwich-time-for-the-eu-to-face-up-to-reality/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ronanlyons.com/2011/01/18/the-irish-bank-sandwich...</a>

Anger is certainly an appropriate reaction in circumstances like this, but I find articles like this really gloss over the nature of the shared responsibility for what happened.<p>Yes, banks and governments (including the US! - we just haven't felt the full brunt of it yet) engaged in many unsustainable and downright fraudulent practices. Asset bubbles are breeding grounds for such things. On the other hand, no one forced homebuyers to take on loans they knew they could not afford, or spend borrowed money at unpayable rates.<p>Now, everyone wants a bailout. Neither banks nor consumers should get them. Iceland actually did the right thing by taking its banks into receivership and breaking them up. The banks screamed bloody murder and threatened national chaos, and the Icelandic economy did grind to a halt for almost a year. Now, they seem to be on a road to sustainable recovery. This is not true in either the rest of Europe or the US, where the bailouts came fast and generous. Look at today's job report. Is that the sign of economic growth?<p>While the decisions were justifiable at the time, TARP, TALF, and the like need to be admitted as mistakes and corrected. If this means recognizing all of our largest institutions as insolvent, so be it! The nation requires a banking system, but not any individual bank. It will hurt badly, just as it hurt in Iceland, but the alternative is Ireland and Greece.

Pardon if I deviate a bit from the main topic.<p>I live in Ireland, and it was quite disheartening when the last budget cuts appeared. Taxes were increased across the board. If you were earning 25,000 Euros a year, you would pay an extra 1000 Euros in tax (and surprisingly enough, this low earner class was the worst beaten income group by hike in tax in percentage terms - 4+% more tax!).<p>Since its general consensus that banks, govt. etc are at fault (to which I agree), I want to say something which generally is ignored, just a theory. The Celtic Tiger years, due to low Corporation Tax rates, have had the similar impact on the economy as Resource Curse (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse</a>). Ireland got rich so fast with all the incoming money that lots of careless spending by government as well as people was ignored. The property prices went up crazy, things became awful expensive etc etc. When nobody cared about how much govt spent or how much banks are landing real estate developers, this was bound to happen IMHO. If Ireland had gotten rich slowly and on its own (by increasing exports, productivity etc), such rackless spending bubble economy would probably never have manifested itself.

As someone currently living in Ireland, I found the subtitle of this article particularly appropriate: "Where's the rage?". The Irish government bankrupted the country many times over by putting the debts of the banks on the backs of the people. But, unlike France, for example, where people have taken to the streets and brought the country to a halt to be heard, in Ireland there is nothing like the level of activism that one would expect given the depth of the economic quagmire.<p>I find it quite sad to see how a country that was once such a hotbed of political unrest has become so passified by the recent wealth that it experienced. My guess is it has to do with people having the feeling that they are stakeholders in the system now, with mortgages and fungible assets, and so they are less willing to want to subvert the system itself rather than muddle along even with unsatisfactory political solutions.

It's interesting to compare Greece and Ireland.<p>Greece was profligate, openly cooking the books since at least 2002 (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Financial_Audit,_2004" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Financial_Audit,_2004</a>) whereas Ireland was doing the noble thing by imposing austere measures on itself.<p>Yet both needed bailouts by the EU recently, and both will probably wind up defaulting.

One of the few positive things to have come out of the financial crisis of 2008 is that it has probably killed any prospect of Scotland becoming independent - we used to be promised that we could share in the same kinds of success as Ireland and Iceland if only we had the courage to go it alone!<p>I doubt if many people have the appetite for being stuck in a small country with a financial monster like RBS or HBOS.<p>[NB I am a reformed Scottish Nationalist]

"Which way entire nations jumped when the money was made freely available to them obviously told you a lot about them: their desires, their constraints, their secret sense of themselves. How they reacted when the money was taken away was equally revealing."<p>So true, for countries <i>and</i> people.

Here's the previous article in what seems to be a series: <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/10/greeks-bearing-bonds-201010" rel="nofollow">http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/10/greeks-b...</a>

Wow, great to see Michael Lewis, one of my favorite authors, coming to little ol' Ireland and do such an in-depth piece on us. I had no idea that the insane decision to bail out Anglo Irish was so directly linked to Merrill Lynch's 'advice'.<p>Interesting fact: I was sitting less than 50m away from the heroic egg-thrower when he went for the kill. Wasn't in the same room unfortunately. We were warned to hide our bank ID badges that day going in and out of work :-)

One fundamental problem we have in Ireland is the way in which we elect our Dáil (parliament).<p>There's a 4 minute section in this video (43m45s onwards ) <a href="http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1090239" rel="nofollow">http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1090239</a> which explains better than I can, but here goes:<p>In short: 1. There are multiple seats (often with a few candidates running from the same party) per constituency. 2. It doesn't take many votes to get elected (Any more than 8,000 votes got you elected in my constituency of 86,000 people).<p>Politicians don't compete on the differences between their parties because they're also competing against another locally running party member. Instead, they wage very local personality based campaigns. Since they only need a few thousand votes, they can and do call door-to-door to chat with everyone they can. Pothole need filling? Let your local candidates know and by god it'll be fixed immediately.<p>This means that the people who end up making important decisions on whether or not to take on 100s of billions of euros worth of debt are the people who came across best on a few thousand house calls.

Completely off topic, but the ?printable=true in the url is a very nice touch

Australia also has had a long, rolling property boom, with bank lending behind it all.<p>It didn't pop when expected because our economy was propped up by mineral/metal prices, due to China's demand and surprisingly little supply from other countries. Both may change.

some previous discussion on this: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2171381" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2171381</a>

Banking seems a lot like a gambling except that it's heads you win and tails they lose.<p>Lend big into a property bubble and you'll be rewarded with colossal bonuses.<p>The bubble bursts, loans go bad and the share price collapses.<p>However the main banks banks are considered too big to fail and the taxpayer has to bail them out.<p>Bonuses (smaller ones) for exceptional performance continue to be the norm, rolling heads the exception.<p>Why don't the shareholders get rid of their employees, the bankers who have overseen the collapse of their asset?<p>The shareholders are Pension funds who, while they ostensibly have the little peoples'interests to preserve, are actually run by people from the same gene pool as the bankers themselves.<p>These people sit on one anothers remuneration committees.<p>Dog does not eat dog.