OT: Iceland

Page 3 of 8  


Interesting point.. You could argue that Britain and the Netherlands did the same thing as the sub-prime lenders here! Where did they get off lending 5 billion to 350,000 people? 9about 15,000 a head!)
shelly
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 8, 4:59 pm, snipped-for-privacy@stny.rr.com wrote:

Exactly. And that 15,000 per head includes 1 week old babies and 88 year old people.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No. SOME of the Icelanders, a handful, absconded with the fruits of the Dutch and British banks' greed. Fukkum and repo all the toys from those who benefitted from the scam. Sorry banks, that's all there is. What those banks are trying to do is to convert a business loss into a tax on those people who did not participate actively in the business decisions. It's extortion. And there is always somebody who tries to carry the banner "Steal what you can from the serfs."
And then to threaten that they are losing a chance to participate a full-time raping by the EU, is just nuts.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Didn't the Icelandic government guarantee the bank's solvency? If so, the public DID have a say when they elected the rascals who approved the deal.
Plus there were all those Icelanders (at least twelve) who profited for many years on the insanely high interest rates and dividends paid by the banks to their depositors and shareholders.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

Yes they Did , they also encouraged the bank to trade aggresively as it was bringing in substantial revenue for the country .
The way i see it if they wish to be part of the EU , and trade with the rest of europe they need to pay the debt back , without europe as trading partners they are well and truely stuffed .
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:16:03 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

Yes, they did. It would appear that Iceland is on the hook for the money, but wouldn't it be nice if they seized the assets of all the politicians and bankers responsible? Might not make much of a dent, but it sure would make the rest of the country feel better.
Come to think of it, why didn't we? Instead of them getting bonuses.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/7/2010 12:57 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

Were the "ones responsible" the ones who got "bonuses"? I thought that was salesmen getting contractually obligatory compensation for work performed, with the contract using the word "bonus".
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/7/2010 11:57 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

Because Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are excessively powerful and won't stand for being held accountable for their misdeeds.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How many million-dollar donations have you made to the political parties? None? Me neither. I guess that explains why the politicians do what the lobbyists want rather than what the people want.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin wrote:

You're taking a proletarian view of both lobbyists and large donations.
First, it is the lobbyist who is intimately familiar with the venue subject to legislation. It is he who can inform, educate, and help craft laws that the average legislator is ill-equipped to understand. Who would you rather have setting the rail tarrif on hydrogenated yak-fat - your average representative or a yak herder?
Second, "special interests" are a foil to the fickle insistence of the unwashed masses. They are the voice of sanity when compared to the pitchforks and torches crowd.
For example, recent polls say 63% of the public is opposed to the current renditions of healt-care plans. Very many (most?) of the Congress are moving contrary to the uneducated and evidently uneducatable mob. In so doing, they are obviously listening to a handful of their better informed, but largely unknown, betters.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

At first glance I completely agree. However, the lobbyist doesn't do this crucial work for the betterment of society, but for his boss, who wants an advantage over his competitors and a "better" tax rate. It should be the duty of the unwashed legislator to choose between what is better for society or for the company paying the lobbyist. But then there is this thing called running for reelection ...
If I sound like I doubt that the real reason is betterment of society, you are very perceptive ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, imagine thinking the people matter more than corporations, I must be a radical socialist or something.

You are using a false dichotomy, it isn't a choice between ignorant legislators and greedy lobbyists. Members of Congress have staffs, and the various federal agencies have staffs, both capable of researching the hydrogenated yak-fat issue and advising members of Congress. The notion that only industry knows enough about industry to write laws regulating industry is Alice In Wonderland stuff. And Lord haven't we seen what happens when lobbyists write laws, oh yes we have.

You're one of those guys who assumes if he'd lived in days of yore he'd have been a member of the aristocracy, aren't you. Lord Heybub, Duke of Windbaggery. Rather more likely you'd have been an apprentice dung-piler like all the rest of us.

A short time ago the majority of the voters were in favor of the "public option," and even today the majority are in favor of most of the components of the current health legislation, they just get the shakes over the whole package. Members of Congress are divided between those motivated entirely by the desire to overturn the results of the last election, and those afraid of losing their seats--no wonder the lobbyists have such easy pickings getting legislation twisted to their liking.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 17:57:38 +0000 (UTC), the infamous Larry Blanchard

In that case, the people owe it. <grrr>

Amen to that.
-- The blind are not good trailblazers.
-- federal judge Frank Easterbrook
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because "They" have the best government they could Buy.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 09:02:56 -0800 (PST), Robatoy

I wouldn't want facts to get in the way of a good story but that's not exactly how it went down. The"Icesave" Internet bank owned by Iceland's Landsbanki did business with the English and the Dutch. In order to do business in those countries they had to participate in the those government's bank deposit insurance programs. Basically the same as our FDIC. They did that by enrolling Iceland's bank deposit insurance program with the English and the Dutch. This was required so that Iceland's deposit insurance would cover British and Dutch deposits made to Iceland's bank. This was all done with Iceland government approval so that the Icelandic bank could do business in those countries. This is also standard practice with foreign banks operating within the EU and not at all out of the ordinary. When the Iceland banks went broke in 2008, the Iceland deposit insurance program went broke too after it paid the Icelanders back for their deposits in that bank and paid depositors of two other failed Icelandic banks. Now, since Iceland's deposit insurance program had no money, the English and the Dutch governments both covered their domestic depositors (with the Icelandic bank) with their own bank deposit insurance programs. Now, they want that money back from Iceland. Even Iceland's Chancellor says they will get it but it's a matter of how much and when. The original agreement which was vetoed by the President (and caused the referendum) was 5.5% interest over 14 years with the first 7 years interest deferred. The whole public vote was a political move to show the lack of support for the original agreement and put Iceland in a better negotiating position. What the President is looking for here is a better deal. He'll get it, Parliament will agree to it, the President will sign it and the public likely won't get to vote on it next time. They will however still get to pay for it...or at least some of it.
Mike O.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thanks for the history lesson behind it all, although it still clear that the Icelanders have no taste to participate in a proposal shoved down their throat by a government which will be hard put to get itself re-elected. The next president will get elected based on the platform that the Icelanders are not going to pay, so they'll repeal whatever legislation the current idiots will sign. This is not about whether or not they should pay, it is about WILL they pay? 10cents-on-the-dollar maybe? Even that would be a bitter pill to swallow. There is only 320,000 of them for chrissakes and all they got is some fish and Bjork.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

If they refuse to pay they will be signing thier economic suicide note , Britain and Holland have already said publicly that if they dont pay they will veto any entry to the EU , and as the UK has influence with the imf , its unlikely iceland will get the bail out it needs without agreeing to pay up
There is also the issue of trade , Iceland needs the EU markets , the EU markets dont need Iceland
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

What about the BEST Icelandic lutefisk? How will you ever go without?
Iceland would make a nice launch pad for those new Iranian missiles.
You get them vikings pissed off enough to start building longboats again.
I think the biggest problem is that the whole island isn't worth 5 billion... and yet the Dutch and British banks thought it was safe? With adequate collateral?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Lutefisk is only for enslaved Vikings. No one else will touch it

Won't work

From what? Concrete, or iceshavings?

Iceland has apparently some very nice people, drinks, and other touristic attractions. They'll have to make do wth that. I wouldn't mind visiting them.
Icelanders (at least some) made contract(s) with Ukkies and Dutch. They better keep their promises. It's too bad that not all Icelanders were consulted beforehand, but they are still all in it. Same here in the US. We all are going to pay for the financial meltdown, whether we took advantage of it or not. The bandits did get away with it.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 11:27:30 -0800 (PST), Robatoy

They must have SOME money. Have you ever tried to buy something from 66 degrees North? ;-)
Mike O.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.