Well Done For Being So Slippery, Says IMF

 Posted by on December 19, 2009  Add comments
Dec 192009
 

Congratulations to us Paddies once again. We don’t actually achieve anything real, but we talk a great game.

According to documents released to  the Irish Times, Yehudi Lenihan’s notion of long-term economic value is “masterful”.

Masterful now.  You got that?  Masterful.

A concept designed to  swindle the Irish taxpayer out of at least €20 billion is masterful.

Who says so?  A character by the name of Steven Seelig, an adviser at the IMF.

It is both sufficiently specific and sufficiently vague to allow appropriate flexibility, says his email. I hope you can retain this language.

What does this mean in English?  Well, you’re not a fool and I won’t insult you by stating the obvious. Clearly, two-faced crookery isn’t confined to Ireland.

NAMA — meaning you, the taxpayer — will buy the banks’ debts for at least €7 billion more than they’re worth.  This is a nett transfer of at least €7 billion from you, the taxpayer, to the banks’ shareholders and bondholders.  However, in reality, the cost to you and me is likely to be far more than €7 billion — more in the order of €20 billion.  To make sure that the banks’ owners don’t suffer any inconvenience arising from their dishonesty and stupidity, Irish people with little or no income will be squeezed, in some cases into  the grave.

The fiction supporting this move is called Long Term Economic Value.  It means that in ten years time, the land and buildings on which the bad loans were made will have recovered their value to account for the difference in price being paid by the government.  This assumption is based on no information whatever.

I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

Now we have confirmation that the IMF are in agreement with this piece of nonsense.

We’re doomed.

______________
Other NAMA stuff on Bock

 Tagged with:

  3 Responses to “Well Done For Being So Slippery, Says IMF”

Comments (3)
  1.  

    We are far from doomed.
    Nama will accelerate the collapse of the Irish economy. The system is rotten to the core. The sooner we have economic meltdown the better. We can then concentrate our efforts at building up an alternative system.
    Any half baked collapse will only result in the ruling elite hanging on to power and making the suffering of the masses last for more than one generation.
    Anyone who believes that things will improve should consider the other ailments with which Ireland is afflicted.
    I won’t list them here as they are well covered in this blog.
    The ailmnets which are not covered here include;
    – The pension timebomb
    – Peak oil
    – Global food crisis next year, caused by credit crunch and weather http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/12/2010-food-crisis-for-dummies.html
    – corrupt and inefective legal system
    – rising crime rate and lawlessness
    – Listowel attitudes

  2.  

    What’s so frustrating here is that you are wholly correct. The frustration for me stems from the undeniable fact that all of this is well known to every member of Dáil Eireann.

  3.  

    In Irish political/economic discourse, I’ve noticed two phrases bandied about, which are worth deconstructing. 1) “keeping the markets happy” – this means that even though citizens are the only people who can vote – “markets” – ie that sector of society that lives, parasite-like, off the rest of us who work (if we can), just so happen to get a vote that is always slightly larger than that of the rest of the citizens put together. (How do they do that?) Our leaders are clearly frightened to death of anything that will make markets unhappy. On the other hand, they will never be able to make the markets completely happy, as that would involve transforming us into a generation of people who are so grateful to have somewhere warm to go everyday, that we wouldn’t actually want to be paid for working.

    2) “commercial sensitivity” – this is a truly bastard phrase, and it is designed to conceal the extent to which public money gets siphoned into private pockets. The latest example is the “commercially sensitive” deal whereby, if insufficient numbers of cars drive through the tollbooths on the new M3, the Irish government, ie you and me, will fork out an unnamed sum in compensation. Why can’t we find out how much we will be compensating a private company for not providing a large enough number of cars for them to privately tax? Because it is “commercially sensitive.” And another one – I just read that the amounts paid, and any increases in salaray, to staff at commercial semi-states cannot be revealed to us who pay these salaries – why? Because that information is “commercially sensitive.” Well, here’s a thought – how could there be anything, paid for by the taxpayer, that is too commercially sensitive for the taxpayer to find out how much?
    How can we get rid of this mealy-mouthed excuse for concealing the sight of private vultures ripping chunks out of the public purse from us?

 Leave a Reply

(required)

(required)