Edward Lowe
Posted on 7 Oct 2009 11:06 pm (Report this comment)

I've been keeping up to date with NAMA and have heard many arguments for and against. I understand that it is effectively a so called, "bad bank". The idea is quite noble, but I see a couple of fundamental flaws. One is in the whole public debate on it and one is in the way it will operate.

1.) We havn't had such a public debate on the alternatives to NAMA. There is an imbalance in the understanding and general public perception of NAMA. I think all options should be debated with as much intensity so the public can clearly make reasonable judgments.

2.) Running the high risk of paying much more than the possible market value of the property in question is very risky for the taxpayer. Added to this problem is the presumption that developers actually will have the money to repay their loans. Seems like a stretch of the imagination in our current situation.

So i think what Brian Lenihan and his team should do is, slow down, think and listen. It's not necessarily in the interest of the country to rush something like this. Sometime you can get into a certain way of thinking and when you think you have solved the problem, you may find that you are wrong. This is economic science which requires substantial research, before coming to a course of action.

Edward Lowe.

steve white
Posted on 8 Oct 2009 8:20 am (Report this comment)

I would like to re-iterate my sincere apology for any offence caused by my inadvertent use of the term �employees� when referring to the women who worked in the laundries.


hmmm,what can you say