Iceland refuses to honour international agreements

The issue is not whether there will be repercussions. There are always repercussions...consequences foreseen and unforseen that flow from policy choices. The question is which consequence is better for the Icelandic people who have to make the policy choice. The U.K. and Holland made the policy choice to socialize the default of the ice save accounts by making a small minority of hot money speculators whole on the back of all the taxpayers who never made the speculation. That decision has its own consequences. It is not like countries have never defaulted before...you would think that no one remember how the U.S. bailed out Mexico and Brazil in order to socialize the loss from Chase and Citi Bank speculaiton in latin foreign debt. Its like no body has any memory...countries have been defaulting all through history..this is not new....and today everyone wants to lend Brazil money like they never ever defaulted before.
 
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:
The same government. Clearly, the only people responsible for a decision are those who agree to be responsible for it. In this case, that means the individuals in the government who contracted the deal. Not the next government, and definitely not the people as a whole.
More...
So you're effectively saying that democracy doesn't work?
Whilst there is a pragmatic rationale for honouring debts incurred by prior administrations, there is no moral obligation or a legal one. States are sovereign, that's why they are called sovereign states. So caveat emptor - if you don't have gunboats and tank divisions, then you are shit out of luck if your sovereign debtor gives you the finger. If dumb investors choose to underprice the risk of being stiffed in a sovereign default - well, maybe they should do better analysis and research next time eh?
More...
Of course, I am not suggesting there's some sort of a moral or legal obligation. I am simply stating that Iceland refuses to abide by the set of EEA rules that it finds punitive now, while it happily benefited from the same rules in the past. That should have implications, up to and including expulsion from the EEA.
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:
Why should it have repercussions? You are assuming that the Icelandic people had the first clue about what that meant or what might happen. Retrospective punishment for accidental omissions is nonsensical. There must be ill intent or dereliction of duty for something to be wrongdoing.
More...
Frankly, I don't see why the fundamental legal principle of "ignorance of the law excuses no one" should be discarded in this case.
The consequences should be inflicted on those whose duty it was to know better. And that duty was not on the Icelandic taxpayers, it was on their finance ministry (a tiny handful of individuals), the EU bureaucrats who wrote the reckless, immoral, fraudulent deposit insurance scheme onto the books, and slept while ludicrous amounts of risk built up, and the various banking institutions who participated in the madness. Thus, they are the ones who should be held responsible. Many EU officials, and bankers in the private sector, need to be jailed for life without parole before even a single Euro can be morally extracted from the Icelandic taxpayer.
More...
Well, we're gonna have to disagree on this one, I guess... I just don't see anything immoral or fraudulent about deposit insurance.
 
Maybe they should split the difference...

After all, what about the "sophisticated investors" (why are they always sophisticated until they fuck up?) who took on the risk - it has consequences too.

Do better due diligence.
 
Quote from fundjunkie:

And so if the Icelandic people won't pay it'll be the British people that pay, right, given that the Govt and the people are the same when it comes down to counting out the money. My point is that Iceland will pay a price, and a not insignificant one too, should it renege on what it agreed to. The tone of many of the comments in this thread has been that there will be no repurcussions worth worrying about. I think that's a naive point of view.

I do find it very interesting too that Iceland's President justifies his actions on the basis that the people's voice must be heard. When has the people ever voiced its opinions on issues of sovereign debt other than at a general election? Would the icelandic president be rushing so eagerly to hear the people's voice if the tone of that voice weren't quite so convenient. I doubt it. These claims of "democracy in action" are just a thin veneer for what is a stance being taken in a political game with Europe.
More...

the issue is money not politics.
to say that the viewpoint of no repercussions is naive is worthless if you don't offer points to the contrary.
 
i cant understand the discussion...
why the icelandic people should pay for debts from a private bank?

a shout in the asses of the people who was accepting high interests without taking on the risks and a nice "sorry"; THATS IT :-)))

every other country should do the same
 
Quote from morganist:

Actually the income per capita in Iceland is one of the highest in the world. They have revenue from fish.
More...

They have a decent income per capita, but the capita is pretty damn small.
 
it appears that the masses are being held responsible for the machinations of a few. which isn't logically or morally right



<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GUNpIbhaY1Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FoUtDnoeYlo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Whf_wWkgQBY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0gwP7-v5IcY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Vp2-mpILDIE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lHk-UYZuXE4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Quote from morganist:

Actually the income per capita in Iceland is one of the highest in the world. They have revenue from fish.
More...
True, but some of the fish is stolen from norwegian zones. I think Norway could bail them out, if they promised to never steal fish again.
 
Quote from antitrust:

it appears that the masses are being held responsible for the machinations of a few. which isn't logically or morally right
More...

Well, it looks like the "masses" in Iceland are saying "No".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top