Actually, that’s pretty much spot on. For me, NAMA is completely logical. It is the indigenous Irish monied class closing ranks and protecting itself. It makes sense, because it is how they have treated this country since 1922.

“you gave above of the property market, which is very much a “neo-classical”/”right-wing”/mainstream economic analysis using concepts of supply and demand.”

For this, though, I’d suggest that you need to read a bit of Marxist economics. The only two Irish economists I know of who have a background in Marxist economics are Michael Taft and Michael Burke - and in general when Irish economists talk about Marxism it’s a bit like Pat Kenny talking about football. No offence but I’m guessing you haven’t read much Joan Robinson or David Harvey, or even volumes 1-3 of Capital. when it comes to analysing the present mode of production, there is a richness in Marxist economics which is completely overlooked by the mainstream. Not always, though. For an example of a mainstream economist using Marxism to make sense of what is going on with the international economy, have a look of this. It’s a short video by Cliff Bowman, Professor of Strategic Management at Cranfield University School of Management, and he’s explaining the current crisis via Marxist economics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e8rt8RGjCM

You really could do worse Ronan than buy a copy of Karl Marx’s Capital and read it through. It’s tough-going but I found the accompanying online lectures by David Harvey to be a Godsend in reading Capital. They are available here.

http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/

“Any such economist, such as Dan O’Brien or David McWilliams, with his senses still working during the bubble would and did use the exact same terminology to describe the bubble as you did and to highlight the exact same problems.”

Ugh! Ronan, I don’t know why you bother with O’Brien or McWilliams. I really don’t. They’re both snake-oil merchants. when I said earlier on that I don’t reject your analysis it is because I can’t simply reject it, because, unlike those two, what you say is based on facts. It doesn’t mean I agree with you but it’s empirical, you know? Those two, ugh! Jesus wept! I mean, how does “The Generation Game” explain the Ringsend Bottle Bank, or Anglo Irish? It’s a joke.

As for O’Brien, well, here, give yourself a laugh.

http://dublinopinion.com/2009/05/19/dan-obrien-cut-minimum-wage-fuck-yeah/

Not true. Good discussion.

Any such economist, such as Dan O’Brien or David McWilliams, with his senses still working during the bubble would and did use the exact same terminology to describe the bubble as you did and to highlight the exact same problems.

I would totally agree, though, that the back-stories that you or they/I would have for the (long-run) period leading up to and indeed surrounding and after this event are probably completely different. Here’s a go at the simplistic version: you regard NAMA as a continuation of the ongoing problem, I regard it as an idiotic solution.

“The property bubble was not a left/right issue, it was dumb/smart issue and an insider/outsider issue.”

Ronan, I completely disagree with that statement. It is totally against everything I have said and written on Dublin Dublin over the past three years. It is a fundamental difference between us.

As an example of where I am coming from, and the difference between us, there’s this post from last month. I think if you read that you’ll agree that any similarities between us regarding property and NAMA are entirely superficial.

http://dublinopinion.com/2010/07/25/what-the-hell-has-cattle-got-to-do-with-nama/

Now, we don’t HAVE to agree. Neither am I putting this forward as “I’m right/you’re wrong.” debate is good. It is healthy. And nobody has a monopoly on answers or analysis. and although I think I’m right, it’s certainly not a case of I know I’m right, if you know what I mean.

But, let’s be clear here. Your analysis and mine are a million miles from each other.

now, that can be a good thing as it opens up fresh eyes for each other, but I am using conceptual frameworks to analyse Irish economic and social history over an 80-yr perspective that are Marxist in approach and methodology. And a class analysis of Irish economic and social life - the dynamics of class and how they played out within Irish society over the period - lies at the heart of that approach.

And again, that’s doesn’t mean I automatically reject what you have to say - because I don’t reject it - but where I’m coming from, it’s not about right or wrong, it’s about class and how that played out within the history of this State of ours.

I was not being sarcastic - I was annoyed at yet another irrelevant poke at tired left wing/right wing politics which I took (rightly or wrongly) from your “I know that the right-wing will still make out that the property bubble was all about residential houses…”

The property bubble was not a left/right issue, it was dumb/smart issue and an insider/outsider issue. I have no intention to turn it into a left/right issue now, hence my annoyed first comment as I have absolutely no idea how you have done so and my apologies to the general readership for fuelling the fire with my first [annoyed, not sarcastic and certainly not sneering] comment.

(PS. Apologies if this comment appears more than once - seem to be having some technical issues.)

I was not being sarcastic - I was annoyed at yet another irrelevant poke at tired left wing/right wing politics which I got (rightly or wrongly) from your “I know that the right-wing will still make out that the property bubble was all about residential houses…”

The property bubble was not a left/right issue, it was dumb/smart issue and an insider/outsider issue. I have no intention to turn it into a left/right issue now, hence my annoyed first comment as I have absolutely no idea how you have done so and my apologies to all the other readers for fuelling the fire with my first comment.

your first comment on this post, though, was a sarcastic point about right-wing and banks and NAMA. As far as I was concerned you set the tone by doing that, so don’t start coming on about ad hominem when your first comment was a sarcastic one.

As far as ghost estates go, I have broken my bolicks over the last three years analysing the residential property market, the supply of housing, and the demand of housing, prices going back to the 1970s, construction going back to the 1920s, and I’ve charted it and put it up for anyone who wants to read it. The analysis has been anything BUT superficial, and I’ve sourced everything I’ve said. I produced an analysis of the section 23 madness in the Shannon area back in 2007, when the national press in this country was calling for stamp duty to be cut as a way of saving the property market. I wrote about how the Irish property market was in collapse in 2008, and I said what a crazy idea the bank guarantee was when it was passed by the Dáil.

And now you’re saying that my analysis of NAMA is superficial because I’m asking why all the talk about ghost estates, followed by a chorus of “all youse left-wingers” etc, etc, etc.

Ronan, if you want to comment and disagree, great, I’ll learn something and maybe you’ll learn something, but you can p**s off if you think I’ll put up with sarcasm. I’m just being honest here.

It’s your call. You’re welcome to comment, I would appreciate it, but not if you’re here to sneer. I won’t stand for it.

My “burying head in the sand” remark was because the title of your post is “why all the talk about ghost estates?”. The reason people talk about ghost estates is because our oversupply in residential property is at least as worrisome as in other segments of our property market. From what we can tell, there is as much residential property in NAMA as commercial property. Much more residential property in trouble will go under the radar of NAMA, due to NAMA’s thresholds.

I have spent as much time as I can analysing any numbers that NAMA deigns to give us, its shareholders. I find it odd that Google would return a post not about NAMA given I’ve written so much and I have no idea how, when I write “properties”, you infer “residential properties” as if I was somehow ascribing all our worries to the residential segment. Anyway, if you are at all interested, you can view any or none of my thoughts on the subject of NAMA here: http://www.ronanlyons.com/?s=nama (with more posts in the “Older Posts”)

To close, I will just reiterate one very important point: the first two tranches are not random samples from the NAMA portfolio, they are anything but.

“For the vast majority of the fifty years since T. K. Whitaker convinced Seán Lemass that Ireland was better off embracing rather than shunning the world economy, Ireland as a whole has been acutely aware that, as a small open economy, whether it thrives or not depends on its ability to sell on world markets. The only time we seem to have forgotten this was in the last days of the Celtic Tiger, when we convinced ourselves we could get rich selling properties to each other.”

now, apart from the fact that you need to look at Ireland’s economy 1922-1957 BEFORE you start making statements about the closed nature of that economy - as well as the fact that the core policy of the first programme for economic expansion was more cattle exports, the moves to embrace foreign investment having started in the early 1950s - it’s the last sentence which gets me - the one about how we convinced ourselves that we could get rich selling properties to each other.

Now, what I say in this post is that the right-wing would have us believe that the property bubble was all about residential houses - and that is what you say in your post.

http://tinyurl.com/382f7kf

Huh? I already said I’m not interested in inter-right wing spats. I don’t see how a couple of right-wingers arguing over the finer details of NAMA and the banks suddenly makes one of them David Harvey.

“but to pretend that there is no problem in residential property is truly to have one’s head buried in the sand.”

I agree, and it would be great if you can show me where I’ve done that even once since 2006 or where I have suggested that we should do that. I was charting oversupply when others had their head in the sand and were talking in 2007 about “renewed confidence” in the residential property market and how, even as late as 2008, the collapse in the market was due to potential buyers “postponing” purchases as prices were falling.

“The investment properties that have been moved over are NAMA’s trophies, not its millstones.”

48 hotels? Land banks? You mean it’s going to get worse?

Ronan, if you ever need a trophy, please, please, give me a call. I’ll do you a special price. No problem.