Iceland to grow by 3% this year

Quote from zdreg:

without any additional facts from you your remark is not only disingenuous but it shows hubris on your part.
More...

What is he expected to say in response to remarks made that are equally absent of fact? Please get in their faces and accuse them of hubris too.

Now let's have a reality check here. Iceland allowed it's bank's to go down cos it could. It's less than a minnow in the grand scheme of things. It's hardly an engine of global growth.

Maybe Ireland could have done the same. Who knows. But why would it not? It is closely intermeshed economically with Great Britain. Trashing it's banks could well have ben tthe coupe de gace to Britain's Bank network and shattered the European banking system before it eventually happens anyway (if that's how you see things going).

So, I suspect that Ireland looked at it's position in a European (and implicitly world) context. Ieland's future was and is tied to the Eurozone and Britain. Seen in that context it's decisions, I think, make much more sense. Theoly similarities btween Ireland and Iceland are that their names begin with I!


Thx
D
 
Quote from zdreg:

not true for Germany and a few other countries.. the german mark would appreciate substantially. if pegged against the euro.
More...

Of course it would. The euro would fall like a stone if Germany bailed out. In fact it might collapse completely; whch suggests you believe germany is an economic island utterly immune to any turmoil that might embroil Europe or elsewhere.

And because the mark "was" strong doesn't mean it "will" be strong. Labels mean nothing. Economic reality is what matters. And Gemany is not what it once was either. Times change...


Thx
D
 
Quote from Swan Noir:

BTW ... not sure how adults could be foolish enough to think a currency union could work without political union.
More...

I agree but not becau I think it is literally true. But for it to be workable practically the changes required take you to the brink of political union anyway.


Th
D
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:
to a: iceland did so because they believed (correctly, in my opinion) that there was massive fraud on the part of the big banks that got them to where they were. they felt cheated, so they cheated back. quid pro quo.
More...
As I said, maybe this way we can justify cheating back the people that cheated them, but that's not what happened. They reneged on their promises to the little guys. It's like a kid who gets beaten up by a bully and then goes and smacks a little girl around to make himself feel better. Furthermore, it's the job of Iceland's democratically elected govt, on behalf of its people, to regulate the banks and protect depositors to the minimum degree that's enshrined in their own law. Whose fault is it that the govt failed to do its most basic duty? And whose responsibility is it to pay for the mistakes of a democratically elected govt?
to b: ireland can simply say, adios, EU. no longer interested. bring back the punt. are their legal aspects to it? probably big ones. but they can pull an iceland (albeit more complicated in doing so) and get away with it. whats the EU going to do? invade ireland?

only politicians and banksters see otherwise.

there is simply no-way-in-hell that ireland could repay the loan they were given. greece, too. as a previous poster said - they're cooked. game over for at least a decade.
More...
Well, I am neither a politician nor a bankster, but I think it's naive to think that Ireland can simply say goodbye to the EMU, without paying a price. Moreover, it's not clear which way the price is lower. And yes, maybe Ireland has to restructure, but, if they want to remain in the EMU, it's likely that this potential restructuring will happen on the terms that are set by the EMU, rather than by the Irish. That's what happens when you're in a ccy union.

Again, I am not saying I know how it's going to turn out, 'cause I sure as hell don't. I also don't know what the right thing to do is. But the mere fact that we're debating it means that the issue is far from simple.
 
Quote from Swan Noir:
I don't think everyone should do what Iceland did but an economy the size of Ireland's can't recover in a reasonable amount of time protecting the debt holders. They are now buried for decades.

It is one thing for taxpayers to shoulder a reasonable burden that will protect a nation's viability in its international dealings but quite another to shoulder a burden that is beyond its capacity.

My guess is Irish government debt will take a haircut within the next 3 to 5 years; and quite possibly a few more restructurings after that. They are cooked.
More...
Maybe so... However, they are part of the EMU. Who knows, maybe what is undoubtedly a curse today can actually turn out to be a blessing a few years down the road.
 
Quote from Swan Noir:
BTW ... not sure how adults could be foolish enough to think a currency union could work without political union.
More...
Well, it worked out for the US of A eventually, didn't it?
 
Quote from fundjunkie:

What is he expected to say in response to remarks made that are equally absent of fact? Please get in their faces and accuse them of hubris too.

Now let's have a reality check here. Iceland allowed it's bank's to go down cos it could. It's less than a minnow in the grand scheme of things. It's hardly an engine of global growth.

Maybe Ireland could have done the same. Who knows. But why would it not? It is closely intermeshed economically with Great Britain. Trashing it's banks could well have ben tthe coupe de gace to Britain's Bank network and shattered the European banking system before it eventually happens anyway (if that's how you see things going).

So, I suspect that Ireland looked at it's position in a European (and implicitly world) context. Ieland's future was and is tied to the Eurozone and Britain. Seen in that context it's decisions, I think, make much more sense. Theoly similarities btween Ireland and Iceland are that their names begin with I!


Thx
D
More...
the OP in the 1st post gave a link to a fact filled article. If martinghoul felt that not enough facts were presented he should have availed himself of the opportunity to give additional facts. my response critiquing his response to the op's first post stands unchanged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top