LoP Guest  Wrote:

http://www.businessinsider.com/olafur-ra...ernational

As everybody knows now, we did not pump public money into the failed banks. We treated them like private companies that went bankrupt, and we let them fail. Some people say we did it because we didn’t have any other option, there is clearly something in that argument, but it does not change the fact that it turned out to be a wise move or whatever reason. Whereas in many other countries, the prevailing orthodoxy is you pump public money into banks and you make taxpayers responsible for the banks in the long run, and somehow treat the banks as if they are holier institutions in the economy than manufacturing companies, commercial companies, IT companies, or whatever. And I have never really understood the argument: why a private bank or financial fund is somehow holier for the well being and future of the economy than the industrial sector, the IT sector, the creative sector, or the manufacturing sector.

So if you add all of this together and throw in the devaluation of the currency as well, it’s clear that what some people have called the Icelandic model includes a number of measures and approaches that have not been adopted in other countries. On the contrary, it includes some methods in the process that go directly against what has been adopted in other countries. But the outcome is the Icelandic economy is recovering faster and more effectively than any other econom

Yep scary as it is too some there are alternatives to what we have now. Not pointing any elbows but you gotta admit your sources are playing this down Rich. and FYI myth busters lies sometimes.

[quote='UcDat' pid='3196493' dateline='1334601205']
[quote='LoP Guest' pid='3195833' dateline='1334595169']


http://www.businessinsider.com/olafur-ra...ernational

As everybody knows now, we did not pump public money into the failed banks. We treated them like private companies that went bankrupt, and we let them fail.

See that comment? True because the Brits were payed from the bankrupt banks assets, just as happens with private companys. therefore there was no debt for the Icelanders to pay. It was a dopey ( and expensive) referendum on a non issue.

Richard Eldritch  Wrote:

[quote='UcDat' pid='3196493' dateline='1334601205']
[quote='LoP Guest' pid='3195833' dateline='1334595169']


http://www.businessinsider.com/olafur-ra...ernational

As everybody knows now, we did not pump public money into the failed banks. We treated them like private companies that went bankrupt, and we let them fail.

See that comment? True because the Brits were payed from the bankrupt banks assets, just as happens with private companys. therefore there was no debt for the Icelanders to pay. It was a dopey ( and expensive) referendum on a non issue.

yep and no

the referendum was triggered when the guy put a stop to the bail out that triggered the referendum then they voted it down
so it was pretty relevant yes?

and yes the statements absolutely true but only because of the referendum

Old Whatshisname  Wrote:

The Icelanders repaying their loans early is a smart move, but how is that "ending legal plunder"? The IMF loans them money, and they're paying it back early which means less interest accruing.

I don't see much difference between that and my repaying my car loan early or doubling up on my mortgage . That's not "ending legal plunder", because a bank loan isn't "legal plunder", in the first place.

IMF loans require that the collateral presented upon receipt of the loan proceeds is the very sovereignty of the nation itself. While the car-loan example is apt, it is the magnitude of the collateral which makes the difference.

Generally, IMF loans are last-resort options to those nations that wish to continue to play in the illusion called global finance. But they are tar-babies, designed to all-but fail, thus consigning the host countries to destitution while granting the global banking institutions which arranged the financing the assets and future labor of said nation into perpetuity.

Thus, it is a form of "legal plunder".

Well first things first, if something similar was to be executed in America, we would first need a commission that would conduct a fair and impartial investigation that, at the core, WAS COMPRISED OF PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY GAVE ONE OR MAYBE EVEN TWO f*cks ABOUT THEIR OWN COUNTRY.

That would be the START, followed by a grand cascade of arrests and further investigations of our mafia run criminal corpratocracy. But you need to assemble a group of people that both care about the country and are not afraid to die (and it goes without saying they have to be above bribery, that is why they must not fear death, as that will be the alternative to a bribe).

I guess it helps living in a country where they all know each other by first name makes it a lot harder to insert vested constituents.

UcDat  Wrote:

LoP Guest  Wrote:

http://www.businessinsider.com/olafur-ra...ernational

As everybody knows now, we did not pump public money into the failed banks. We treated them like private companies that went bankrupt, and we let them fail. Some people say we did it because we didn’t have any other option, there is clearly something in that argument, but it does not change the fact that it turned out to be a wise move or whatever reason. Whereas in many other countries, the prevailing orthodoxy is you pump public money into banks and you make taxpayers responsible for the banks in the long run, and somehow treat the banks as if they are holier institutions in the economy than manufacturing companies, commercial companies, IT companies, or whatever. And I have never really understood the argument: why a private bank or financial fund is somehow holier for the well being and future of the economy than the industrial sector, the IT sector, the creative sector, or the manufacturing sector.

So if you add all of this together and throw in the devaluation of the currency as well, it’s clear that what some people have called the Icelandic model includes a number of measures and approaches that have not been adopted in other countries. On the contrary, it includes some methods in the process that go directly against what has been adopted in other countries. But the outcome is the Icelandic economy is recovering faster and more effectively than any other econom

Yep scary as it is too some there are alternatives to what we have now. Not pointing any elbows but you gotta admit your sources are playing this down Rich. and FYI myth busters lies sometimes.

See that comment? True because the Brits were payed from the bankrupt banks assets, just as happens with private companys. therefore there was no debt for the Icelanders to pay. It was a dopey ( and expensive) referendum on a non issue.

UcDat  Wrote:

Richard Eldritch  Wrote:

[quote='UcDat' pid='3196493' dateline='1334601205']
[quote='LoP Guest' pid='3195833' dateline='1334595169']


http://www.businessinsider.com/olafur-ra...ernational

As everybody knows now, we did not pump public money into the failed banks. We treated them like private companies that went bankrupt, and we let them fail.

See that comment? True because the Brits were payed from the bankrupt banks assets, just as happens with private companys. therefore there was no debt for the Icelanders to pay. It was a dopey ( and expensive) referendum on a non issue.

yep and no

the referendum was triggered when the guy put a stop to the bail out that triggered the referendum then they voted it down
so it was pretty relevant yes?

and yes the statements absolutely true but only because of the referendum

There was no bail out, the Landsbankis' assets were used to pay creditors. The Icelanders didn't owe us anything else? am I missing something DC?

Bed  Wrote:

Second to war is an un-dieing financial enemy.

I still get the impression that Britain and Iceland are in bed together, as evidenced by the current on going discussions of building an interconnector between Iceland and Britain, paving a way for Iceland to supply Britains power needs via their abundant geothermal resources.

Which is not going to come cheap, considering the one covering the short hop to the Netherlands cost £500m in 2011, and I very much doubt that Iceland will be able to foot that bill.

There must be some confidence on both sides to enter into these discussions.

LoP Guest  Wrote:

Bed  Wrote:

Second to war is an un-dieing financial enemy.

I still get the impression that Britain and Iceland are in bed together, as evidenced by the current on going discussions of building an interconnector between Iceland and Britain, paving a way for Iceland to supply Britains power needs via their abundant geothermal resources.

Which is not going to come cheap, considering the one covering the short hop to the Netherlands cost £500m in 2011, and I very much doubt that Iceland will be able to foot that bill.

There must be some confidence on both sides to enter into these discussions.

There's contagious behavior in denying intelligent design to support the masses, n'est pas? They come up with designs to control and monitor but why not support?

I've always wondered why pipelines providing cooling/heating water wasn't used to supply neighborhoods. There is a cooling system in the US which goes deep into the ground and circulates hot and cold water for enclosed temperature control for individual units, but it could be redesigned for larger areas.