Why Iceland Should Be in the News, But Is Not

By Deena Stryker

Date posted: 15 August 2011
View this article online here: http://sacsis.org.za/site/article/728.1

An Italian radio program's story about Iceland’s on-going revolution is a stunning example of how little our media tells us about the rest of the world. Americans may remember that at the start of the 2008 financial crisis, Iceland literally went bankrupt. The reasons were mentioned only in passing, and since then, this little-known member of the European Union fell back into oblivion. . .

http://sacsis.org.za/site/article/728.1

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

If people are unaware of this is because they aren't making the effort. I've known of and followed the story for years.

I also (though, probably for different reasons) have adamantly contended that the media is inept. However, I contend that it is because the public either prefers or accepts it that way. Trust me if people wanted more content in their life the market would respond.

You (typically) quite a biased source. Turning to wikipedia (not the most objective source) one finds a more dispassionate analysis -

1. Private banks engaged in absurd practices while protected from the consequences of their actions by government guarantees.

Find one libertarian in the room who supports this practice anywhere.

2. There was a time that the folks of Iceland were content with the satus quo. They sat back and allowed their protected banks to offer return on investments that were 10% higher than other nations.

3. When the markets collapsed the banks couldn't pay and turned to their guarantor, the government.

4. The people complained.

Well the voters picked the folks in office, allowed the programs to go forth and until the collapse thought they were hot stuff.

They screwed up. Sorta like Americans allowing federal bank insurance and FHA loans to unqualified borrowers.

People have authority. They simply don't wish to be held accountable when their choices don't work out well.

They will make good on their debt, they need to just seize some bankers assets to pay for it.

This is why income tax in this country on salaries over $1m needs to be 80% of more. It discourages such short term behavior, by these guys.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

Nope. Just need to stop protecting everyone from the consequences of their actions. What the bankers did made sense. You let me engage in risky business but protect me when I make a mistake (which is what was done) and you get these results.

The fault is the protection for the banks that was originally offered. It is not the guy who worked within the structure that existed.

Once again, folks like things when they work out but don't like them when they don't.

On that level the individuals are not personally liable, if the business fails it fails, they don't care. Most of them probably would have preferred to go under than to have the fed bail them out since federal money wasn't cheap.

The only way to stop this is to make the individuals running these companies have a long term vested financial interest in them. By taxing those income levels instead of taking a $10m salary, and $20m in stock options the CEO would be forced to take a $1m salary and keep the rest in the company, where they can trickle it out, but its going to be their for a long time.

This discourages short term behavior. Up until the 80's really this was common and it worked pretty well.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

Agreed but the government signed on as a guarantor.

Folks can't walk away. It's their government.

I have NO sympathy for big banks/financial interests.

I know that they will hurt me every chance they can get.

Kerry just started this with "no one knows" (I did) and the people are fighting back. sheez, the people voted for the guys and let them do what they wanted. They only started to belly-ache when it didn't work out well.

Childish behavior on the electorate; but secular humanism has 'I'm a victim' as one of its central tenets.

It would be as if people decided they did not want to pay the ## trillions we owe the Chinese and said, "it was those guys in Washington, we don't have to pay it."

Well, the electorate put them there and now they get to pay the bill.