Iceland Declares Independence from International Banks

reply to post by budski


Too bad Ireland didnt do the same. They so got screwed.


It made me sad after their long fight for independence, that they finally won, they got enslaved by their own politicians to the international bankers for debt that should NEVER have been nationalized.

reply to post by acrux


Id fight for Iceland if they tried it.

Im sick of international gangsters raping sovereign nations. It needs to stop, and we the worlds people need to insist it does, and help those few nations who are standing up for national sovereignty.

reply to post by Mike_A


I do find it sad that the bank deposits are picking up the bill on this on. Having a bank account is pretty much mandatory these days, interest rates are pitiful and quickly chewed up by charges. But your money is meant to be safe and allows for transacting within society.

It is with the investors that this should be falling on. Investments are risky, that is why there are generally better returns but if you lose, tough, that is the game. The global response to this GFC has been quite disgusting, it saw the problem coming, let it happen, those involved benefited and it does have a strong taint of premeditated deception to capitalise on the confusion. No accountability has arisen from the fallout while trillions in toxic assets still float around the system while many governments are on the verge of bankruptcy.

From what I see over time, at least Iceland is trying to put some accountability into the system as far as it can. Also staying away from the IMF is also in the national interest as austerity measures generally follow the honeymoon period with privatisation of national resources, increased taxation and a decreased GDP. There is a lot that is not adding up with the global economy. While I am not fully versed on exactly what steps Iceland has taken to balance the books, from what I have seen it is trying to do it with some integrity and avoid a bigger debt trap.

Originally posted by kwakakev

From what I see over time, at least Iceland is trying to put some accountability into the system as far as it can. Also staying away from the IMF is also in the national interest as austerity measures generally follow the honeymoon period with privatisation of national resources, increased taxation and a decreased GDP.

Amen. At least ONE government somewhere is acting in the interests of its people and the nation.

Originally posted by kwakakev
There is a lot that is not adding up with the global economy.

It actually does add up, just not when you listen to the line of bullslip they sell us in the press. The world economy is a Ponzi scheme that is crumbling, and they are looking for someone to pawn the responsibility off onto. And, like in Irelands case, they have their eye on the little people of the world to bear that burden.

When you realize it has been a pyramid scheme all along, it adds up perfectly.

reply to post by kwakakev

It is with the investors that this should be falling on. Investments are risky,

But these aren’t investments they’re deposits in current and savings accounts.

Who are these investors that are supposed to shoulder the burden? Icesave’s assets have already been stripped to pay back some of these depositors but only Icelandic depositors. There’s no one left to pay for this except the Icelandic government which is legally obliged to do so. That unfortunately means that ordinary Icelanders will have to pay up but then they are the ones who elected their government, their economy did benefit from Icelandic banking practices and they have benefited from membership of the European Economic Area. If it’s a toss up between Icelanders paying or British and Dutch taxpayers then I think Icelanders bear the greater responsibility and should therefore be the ones to pay up.

From what I see over time, at least Iceland is trying to put some accountability into the system as far as it can.

I don’t see how not covering the deposits they said they would constitutes putting accountability into the banking system.

The people who they aren’t paying are not those who caused the crisis; all this action will do, aside from save Iceland some money in the short term, is make people very wary about dealing with the Icelandic banking system.

from what I have seen it is trying to do it with some integrity and avoid a bigger debt trap.

They’re certainly avoiding debt but not standing by treaty obligations doesn’t show much integrity imho.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Amen. At least ONE government somewhere is acting in the interests of its people and the nation.

And so is the UK and the Netherlands by demanding that Iceland complies with agreements that they signed.

It is currently the British and Dutch people who are losing out because of Iceland’s refusal to cover foreign deposits; it is in their interest for Britain and the Netherlands to push this issue.

It sounds like some people believe that this is the interests of ordinary Icelanders against those of rich fat cats; it’s not this is British and Dutch taxpayers interests against Icelandic taxpayer interests. Who is right will be decided by the EFTA.

Good on them, and wishing the rest of Europe had bigger recreational spherical sphears.

Good on Iceland. Wonder when we'll invade them lol

So bear with this uneducated internet forum guy. Some Dutch and British people deposited their money, much like a savings or chequing account in a few banks in Iceland? And so the official story is Iceland spent other people's money and don't wanna pay it back?

I wanna hear the story about the tooth fairy, and how santa watches us, and maybe how the grinch stole christmas..

reply to post by Mike_A


I dont believe debt should be socialize unless profits also are.

The whole point of these big "remove all the barriers to trade" unions and movements are, to facilitate capitalism. Not socialism.

They arent national banks. They are owned by private concerns. The people should not be on the hook for their failings, and the fact that some EU agreement makes the people responsible for the failings of private companies should not be honored. IMHO. They had some fund to cover lost deposits, and it has been exhausted. The remaining deposits really shouldnt come out of the pockets of citizens who did not earn any profits from those banks, despite the legal fine print. Its just wrong, regardless whether or not it is legal.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by budski

 

Too bad Ireland didnt do the same. They so got screwed.


It made me sad after their long fight for independence, that they finally won, they got enslaved by their own politicians to the international bankers for debt that should NEVER have been nationalized.

I appreciate the sentiment, but the Republic has been Independant for nearly a century.

The power sharing agreement in the (still) troubled North is another matter entirely.

Having said that, the people of the republic would do well to take a leaf out of Icelands book.

The problem is that politics in the Republic is so corrupt that it will never happen.

The "austerity" measures are quite severe there - my Dad is losing all sorts of benefits, including having his pension cut - so as ever it's the little people that suffer.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I dont believe debt should be socialize unless profits also are.

You can make that argument for the future but in this case it’s academic because depositors placed their money with Icesave on the basis that Iceland would insure at least the first €20,000.

It’s unfair to tell a population that they must pay for a banks mistake but it is equally unfair on depositors to sucker them in with guarantees of protection and then go back on those terms.

The people should not be on the hook for their failings, and the fact that some EU agreement makes the people responsible for the failings of private companies should not be honored. IMHO. They had some fund to cover lost deposits, and it has been exhausted. The remaining deposits really shouldnt come out of the pockets of citizens who did not earn any profits from those banks, despite the legal fine print. Its just wrong, regardless whether or not it is legal.

Would you be saying that if you had your life savings with Icesave? Or if you were a Dutch or British taxpayer who had to pay up because Iceland was not honouring their treaty obligations?

There are three possible solutions;

The first is to make Icelanders pay.
The second is to make Dutch and British taxpayers pay.
The third is to tell depositors, who deposited with the understanding that their savings would be protected, that they will not get any of their money back.

Why is the first unfair but the second two are fair?

Remember also that the banks funds have been exhausted paying back Icelandic depositors exclusivley, this included Iceland stripping Icesave assets from other countries to do so. Surely that isn’t fair is it? Couldn’t Iceland have used these funds to pay back a portion of all deposits and not just Icelanders’?

Also if you think the responsibility of this should be borne by the financial sector, Iceland could honour the EEA treaty and pay for it by placing a levy on Icelandic banks. Wouldn't that be the fair solution?

Those who think this is an example of a people sticking it to greedy bankers, it isn’t, it’s an example of a people sticking to British and Dutch taxpayers. If anything they are letting the Icelandic financial sector off very lightly.

reply to post by causal
Thats bloody ridiculous, but funny too.





reply to post by IllusionsaregranderShhh, or you will be considered an enemy combatant, taken to a certain little prison on the coast of Cuba, anal-probed for 5 years & then finally interviewed.

reply to post by budski


The austerity measures arent Icelands fault. I know whats going on hurts the poor the most. And they should all take a cue from Iceland and just refuse to play the game of the IMF and World bank. Globalism was never intended to benefit your dad, or any of the common people. It was a way to make it easier for the wealthy to extract wealth by removing national protections from workers, and turning all of the world into one big pool of labor, (because supply and demand set the price of labor.)

It was always a race to the bottom for the first world, except for the lucky few who would profit from it. It is a way to bring third world labor costs to the first world, which cuts costs overall by lowering shipping costs, and results in more profit.

The problem with the scheme is that the wealthy never realize, ever, not historically, not now, that when you tear down the bottom levels of society too thoroughly, you undermine the foundation you yourself rest upon. If you are ticks, for instance, you cant bleed the dog you ride on too fast and too often. Or you lose your meal ticket if it dies. The wealthy are delusional because of their greed, and how long it takes to collapse a healthy dog. They always think they have found a way to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs and still get an egg every day, and they havent.

Austerity measures were coming because of globalization no matter what Iceland did or did not do. It just might have taken longer if that economic collapse hadnt occurred when it did. You cant blame them for whats happening to your family. Its not them. Its the whole scheme. Globalization is not viable, and its worse for the worlds common people than nationalism. Its just better in the short run for the rich.

Iceland is trying to do whats best for Iceland, and honestly, ALL the nations in debt should tell the banks and others holding them hostage to piss off and protect themselves. Because if they dont, they arent going to save the system, its not workable, all they would be doing is delaying the inevitable and allowing globalism to become more prevalent, damaging and entrenched.

reply to post by acrux


Lol. I like boogie boarding, but I dont think I would enjoy water boarding.

reply to post by Mike_A

The people who they aren’t paying are not those who caused the crisis;

We can agree on this, a few people started it but many are paying for it. Banks, governments and other financial institution's have been falling since they started standing. Lots of reasons why so regulation has developed over the many years to help address these threats. The system is not perfect yet so problems continue.

There’s no one left to pay for this except the Icelandic government which is legally obliged to do so.

When you say this you mean the Icelandic people as this is where the costs will finally fall. With the government stepping in it does provide a buffer effect for the cost trickle down but the final payment still rests with the population as the IMF steps in.

Who are these investors that are supposed to shoulder the burden?

This is a big complex messy one, the 'too big to fail' have avoided a lot of the hard questions from the public arena and are strong suspects for the cause of all this mess. Here in Australia we have had local councils and all sorts of other investors lose out when the storm hit. Our government was prepared to safe guard the bank accounts but it sounds like they missed a lot of the chaos due to their regulation.

They’re certainly avoiding debt but not standing by treaty obligations doesn’t show much integrity imho.

We can also talk about the rating agencies that grossly failed to measure the level of risk and toxicity associated to a lot of these investments to begin with. The global financial system does need a bloody hard kick up ass to get its integrity back in order before the whole lot falls over. These are tough, complex issues with many interactions going on and ways to deal with the problems.

As for Iceland's obligations to the UK and Netherlands. I am not aware of too many individuals that store money in other countries bank accounts and sounds more like corporate funds, just trying to get a better understanding of the situation. The UK and Netherlands defiantly have a right and a strong argument to take to Iceland in terms of their lost balances. But with Iceland unable / unwilling to support its own people on this one it is a tough argument. With Iceland missing out on the extra debt and the IMF pull down it is a nation that is going to recover a lot quicker than many others that have been affected by this crisis. Iceland will be in a better position to provide some repatriation if this issue does put strain on international relations. But the discussions will be long, the courts may be involved and it will take some time. Ultimately it is a problem that comes down to these nations to sort out.

reply to post by kwakakev

When you say this you mean the Icelandic people as this is where the costs will finally fall. With the government stepping in it does provide a buffer effect for the cost trickle down but the final payment still rests with the population as the IMF steps in.

Yes the people of Iceland would be the ones to ultimately pay but as I said earlier Iceland could also raise some of the money by placing additional levies on its financial sector. Landsbanki, which owned Icesave, still exists under government ownership so they could find some of the funds from there.

This is a big complex messy one, the 'too big to fail' have avoided a lot of the hard questions from the public arena and are strong suspects for the cause of all this mess. Here in Australia we have had local councils and all sorts of other investors lose out when the storm hit. Our government was prepared to safe guard the bank accounts but it sounds like they missed a lot of the chaos due to their regulation.

I’m not sure how this relates to the Icesave situation. You said that the liability for Icesave deposits should fall on investors but who are these investors?

We can also talk about the rating agencies that grossly failed to measure the level of risk and toxicity associated to a lot of these investments to begin with.

Maybe so but in terms of the question of who pays Icesave depositors it’s irrelevant since they hold no liabilities.

As for Iceland's obligations to the UK and Netherlands. I am not aware of too many individuals that store money in other countries bank accounts and sounds more like corporate funds, just trying to get a better understanding of the situation.

Icesave operated in the UK and Netherlands, depositors placed their money with local branches of the Icelandic parent. There certainly were ordinary people who had deposits with Icesave but whether that’s the case or not it doesn’t change the EEA treaty which guarantees the first €20k regardless of who the depositor is nor does it change the fact that someone had to cover deposits; either the Iceland government or the British and Dutch governments.

But the discussions will be long, the courts may be involved and it will take some time.

The matter has already been referred to the EFTA, I can’t find anything about when a ruling is expected though. Personally I expect it to rule against Iceland but I’m not sure what will happen then, I imagine it would put the Icelandic government in a very precarious position having allowed two referenda on the subject.

reply to post by Mike_A


With Landsbanki still standing there is still a capacity for it to be involved with the obligation on the unresolved 20K guarantee. For any organisation to lose a bank from its portfolio it does create a lot issues and takes time to sort out. I am not aware of its available resources and it may have fallen as well if it tried to cover this obligation in a timely manner. With some time to sort the mess out it does provide better capability to address these ongoing problems.

Some similar case here involved Alan Bond who messed up big. After some jail and many years he ended up paying about 10 cents in the dollar owed to eventually end the conflict. Christopher Skase is another in this league but he skipped the country and died as a fugitive.

As for who the investors are. When a company declares bankruptcy the order of priorities of who generally gets paid out is something like: executives, high priority shareholders, workers, creditors, low priority shareholders. The actual order maybe different and expanded but it should at least be defined in the company charter, otherwise it is up the national law to set the standard. With the multinational reach of many of these companies perhaps some global standards would be a good thing.

As for when banks have fallen in the past it did land with the account holders to pick up the bill. It is good to see that there has been some global coordination to try and end this and improve the banking reputation by providing 100% safe guarantees. This is coming with some costs in how it is implemented within the money cycle and is presenting a lot of challenges.

We can also talk about the rating agencies that grossly failed to measure the level of risk and toxicity associated to a lot of these investments to begin with.

Maybe so but in terms of the question of who pays Icesave depositors it’s irrelevant since they hold no liabilities.

This is where I disagree. With the technical legalities of the law you are right, but with the core responsibly of who kicked off this chain of dominoes there is still a lot of responsibility and accountability lacking in the system. Without the full story and chain of events exposed, any resolutions are just band aids and will ultimately fail again. The main investor responsible is the one that purchased the toxic credit default swaps. But as a consumer they are entitled to a certain level of consumer protection which failed. This in turn places the burden of responsibility onto the seller of the toxic credit default swap, as it is a fairly clear cut case of fraud and misrepresentation in the way it was portrayed.

The legal system is about conflict resolution, it has a long history and has learnt many mistakes along the way. The current system of strict adherence to the rule of law with lengthy prison sentences does not produce good results and in fact more detrimental with the creation of career criminals. Not everyone is able to be rehabilitated, but open and frank discussions that include all the shareholders and get to the heart of the matter are much more effective when looking at the rates of re-offensives. This current system of limited liability and non disclose is building a wall around the truth, and without that we are all just wasting our time.

reply to post by kwakakev


You make some interesting points but imo they can only really inform future practices, the situation faced with Iceland must be dealt with according to the agreements, standards and customs of the time otherwise you risk damaging the credibility of any current or future rules. You might be right about where ultimate responsibility lies but right now I don’t think we really have a way of actually holding them to account in this instance.

That said the Icelandic government can’t be absolved of all blame either, Landsbanki and the other major Icelandic banks failed because they were leveraged to the hilt. That was Landsbanki’s fault but the Icelandic government could have stepped in at any time but they didn’t.

Anyway, I’m looking forward to seeing what the EFTA has to say.

reply to post by Mike_A


I acknowledge I may be a bit idealistic with my reasoning, I am just trying to get to the main point on the issue. Individually Iceland, UK and the Netherlands have limited capability to get to the heart and they will be focused more on how they clean up their part of the mess for a while. Leveraging, derivatives, regulation, different national rules, a maze of agreements and the structure of the money cycle are all part of the problem. As more of the situation becomes clearer and the more critical repercussions under control there is a potential for these and other countries to band together and take on the deeper issues surrounding this. How EFTA decides to respond will be interesting and important.

To be realistic about the situation, when looking at where it all leads some familiar names associated to 9/11 do start to surface. I am not sure where you sit on this, but the best suspect list I have come across so far for the inside job is at whodidit.org... . Considering the hostilities surrounding this, the capabilities of the legal system is secondary to the military. I have been noticing support building for a UN commission to confront all this corruption, but the power behind it is strong and only time will tell if the rest of the world is strong enough.

reply to post by kwakakev

I acknowledge I may be a bit idealistic with my reasoning

Not necessarily idealistic but it’s a bit like being burgled and instead of just wanting to get your stuff back you want to eradicate crime. There’s nothing wrong with that goal but at the end of the day it doesn’t help you get your stuff back. With Iceland, changing the system to reduce the risk of future crises is a noble aim but someone still has to cover those depositors in the meantime.

As far as 9/11 goes I can’t say I’ve been convinced of the conspiracies surrounding that.