Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
copydude

Time To Torch The Banks?

Recommended Posts

New Protests As Icelanders Asked To Make Sacrifices For Bent Banksters

A comprehensive agreement was announced between Iceland’s government, trade unions and employers’ organisations, containing plans for sharp public spending cuts and tax hikes.

Presented as an agreement for “shared sacrifice,†it will facilitate the bail-out of the financial elite at the expense of the working class. Finance Minister and party leader Steingrimur J. Sigfússon insisted “this is a hard choice but unavoidable.â€

Another key demand of the IMF taken up by the government is the prompt removal of capital controls, which were enacted after the financial crash to defend the krona. When capital controls are lifted, the value of the krona is set to plummet, which will have a devastating impact on working people through increased inflation.

A plan is to be drawn up preparing the way for the re-privatisation of Iceland’s banks, which are currently in state hands. New Kaupthing, New Landsbanki and Islandsbanki (formerly Glittnir) will be under private control within five years according to the government, with special consideration given to foreign investors wishing to obtain a stake in the institutions.

The measures amount to a commitment from the government to impose the massive debts incurred by the financial elite on working people, before handing the debt-free institutions back to private interests.

Negotiations over the reimbursement of those owed money from IceSave accounts have been concluded with a deal which will impose the entire bill on the Icelandic state. Nearly ten months after Landsbanki’s collapse, its UK assets remain frozen by the British Financial Services Authority.

Protests have re-emerged in Reykjavík to voice opposition to the IceSave settlement.

Related:

Iceland's special investigator says company offices are searched in criminal probe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People are ultimately going to down tools over this.

...

Why?

Every other time in history that ordinary people have been screwed over by the rich they have failed to do anything about it. At best bringing people like Stalin to power. I see no logical reason to belive this time will be any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why?

Every other time in history that ordinary people have been screwed over by the rich they have failed to do anything about it. At best bringing people like Stalin to power. I see no logical reason to belive this time will be any different.

We can hope that Iceland sets a new precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why?

Every other time in history that ordinary people have been screwed over by the rich they have failed to do anything about it. At best bringing people like Stalin to power. I see no logical reason to belive this time will be any different.

In the past significant chunks of the population had not really experienced being well off before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why?

Every other time in history that ordinary people have been screwed over by the rich they have failed to do anything about it. At best bringing people like Stalin to power. I see no logical reason to belive this time will be any different.

Er no, actually.

We have the unparalled prosperity that we do because of things like general strikes, civil disobedience, suffragettes, the guilotine, pushing for the vote, rosa parks moments etc etc

If they could rule by open force you'd already have a number burned into your forearm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't they tell the IMF to f2ck off, and live on fish for a bit?

The prescription is to hollow them out economically, with all their assets going to foreigners for nothing; and the locals paying for all the losses of the banks.

Why not just say"no", let the banks go bust, keep capital controls, and only repay locals who lost money?

I simply can't understand why the politicians are agreeing to something so clearly against the interests of their own citizens.

Nor, for that matter, why the locals aren't killing the politicians. Why on earth don't they guillotine their elite and burn their houses down?. Or just shoot them at the lights? Or just burn their cars and second homes? Or just assault them every time they show their faces in public? It's Bastille Day after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I simply can't understand why the politicians are agreeing to something so clearly against the interests of their own citizens.

It's worse. The Trade Unions are going along with the 'shared sacrifice' too. As is the new, so-called, 'Left Wing Green' Government.

Like New Labour, the Government and its Union lackeys are entirely in the bankers' pocket and about as socially aware as Mr. and Mrs. Marcos.

I predict a fresh round of 'Econoriots' in the Autumn when all the IMF measures bite in Iceland, Hungary, Latvia and so on . . .

As Bob Dylan used to say, 'when you ain't got nothin', you got nothin' to lose'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We can hope that Iceland sets a new precedent.

They have a certain amount of history there. Like, arguably[1] the world's first democratic parliament (the Þing). Perhaps after 11-12 centuries, it's time for another first ;)

[1] depending on esoteric arguments, like whether you credit ancient Athens with being democratic :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the past significant chunks of the population had not really experienced being well off before.

Fair (and interesting) point. I would counter that most people are still relatively bad off compared to the wealthy, but in terms of sheer possessions and ability to buy food/housing etc you're right.

The next generation may well be the first in many to experience a falling standard of living. I too am curious to see what the reaction is, but I hold out little hope it will favour the many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have to dance to the IMF's tune, because basically that's the only thing keeping the country afloat.

Much though "ARGH SCREW THE BANKSTERS" seems like the top strategy here, the fact is that the Icelandic country owes the rest of world as a result of their banks overstretching themselves, and they will have to work off the debt. If people in Iceland don't like it, they can leave - there are no constraints on PEOPLE leaving, only CURRENCY. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They have to dance to the IMF's tune, because basically that's the only thing keeping the country afloat.

Much though "ARGH SCREW THE BANKSTERS" seems like the top strategy here, the fact is that the Icelandic country owes the rest of world as a result of their banks overstretching themselves, and they will have to work off the debt. If people in Iceland don't like it, they can leave - there are no constraints on PEOPLE leaving, only CURRENCY. :lol:

Countries don't exist.

They are merely arbitary fictions for the bankers to pile their mad debts onto.

Your position is both illogical and evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the banks over leant, and they go bust. That has nothing to do with the people paying subsidies to the bankers. Why should they?

True, the IMF would like the population to leave, because it's the raw materials they're after. But the banks debt is not a good argument for that. It's like saying because my neighbour the City boy has gone bust, I've got to sell my home (and give him the proceeds).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Er no, actually.

We have the unparalled prosperity that we do because of things like general strikes, civil disobedience, suffragettes, the guilotine, pushing for the vote, rosa parks moments etc etc

If they could rule by open force you'd already have a number burned into your forearm.

Scarily, I completely agree.

I also think the Icelandic people might do something about it soon enough. Did you know that Iceland has no standing army?

Who is going to stop the angry peasants with pitchforks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Countries don't exist.

They are merely arbitary fictions for the bankers to pile their mad debts onto.

Your position is both illogical and evil.

+1 - somebody fetch the ginger syrup FFS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scarily, I completely agree.

I also think the Icelandic people might do something about it soon enough. Did you know that Iceland has no standing army?

Who is going to stop the angry peasants with pitchforks?

I think the US military had a base on their during the cold war, can't be ar5ed to google and find out if they still do.

Edit to add: the US left their Keflavik base in 2006

Edited by Soon Not a Chain Retailer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Countries don't exist.

They are merely arbitary fictions for the bankers to pile their mad debts onto.

Absolutely. This is where Icelanders and Eastern Europeans are way ahead of the UK on the learning curve to this truth.

They have had the luxury of elections during the crisis and turning out incumbents. Only to discover their spleen was 'vented in vain'. The next lot are no better than the last lot. In fact, if you look at Hungary, Czechia and Iceland, all the really bad news only kicked in with the supposed saviours.

Exactly as it will happen in the UK in a year's time. Everyone will vote for chamber of horrors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd definitely be up for torching a bank. If for no other reason than the number of books I have stacked by the bed to read and never find the time for. Spell at Her Maj's pleasure would be quite welcome.

I often think if it becomes a human right to have broadband in every prison cell I'II never pay council tax again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They have to dance to the IMF's tune, because basically that's the only thing keeping the country afloat.

Much though "ARGH SCREW THE BANKSTERS" seems like the top strategy here, the fact is that the Icelandic country owes the rest of world as a result of their banks overstretching themselves, and they will have to work off the debt. If people in Iceland don't like it, they can leave - there are no constraints on PEOPLE leaving, only CURRENCY. :lol:

There are plenty of examples of countries owing the rest of the world and saying, "sorry, we can't afford that"; why should Iceland (or any country) not have that option?

The trick is to ascertain whether paying, or not paying, brings the optimal outcome. For most countries in most times, the dislocations to credit and trade that follow default are not worth it. For Iceland at the moment ... who, from the outside, can judge?

And as you say, those who don't like the consequences of default can leave (emigration = foreign remittances + more indigenous resources for those who remain; these should help the country survive the hard times and get back on its feet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the US military had a base on their during the cold war, can't be ar5ed to google and find out if they still do.

Edit to add: the US left their Keflavik base in 2006

But they are still in NATO.

Russia can't invade them without starting world war 3 and US/UK can't invade them without tearing up nato and causing all sorts of problems to 'world stability'.

They don't have enough assets to justify the fallout of an invasion for anyone, worst case scenario living off the free hydro thermal energy and eating lots of fish when the limp wristed sanctions get put in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But they are still in NATO.

Russia can't invade them without starting world war 3 and US/UK can't invade them without tearing up nato and causing all sorts of problems to 'world stability'.

They don't have enough assets to justify the fallout of an invasion for anyone, worst case scenario living off the free hydro thermal energy and eating lots of fish when the limp wristed sanctions get put in place.

Agreed ... What would the putative invader do, confiscate 60 billion euros worth of fish?

There won't even be "punitive" sanctions, just the market sanction of trade partners not being prepared to extend credit for a while.

Many national defaults; hardly any corresponding invasions. Germany is the only one of which I'm aware, when it defaulted on WW1 reparations, which is a different case being a military response to the breaking of a peace treaty. Others, anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed ... What would the putative invader do, confiscate 60 billion euros worth of fish?

There won't even be "punitive" sanctions, just the market sanction of trade partners not being prepared to extend credit for a while.

Many national defaults; hardly any corresponding invasions. Germany is the only one of which I'm aware, when it defaulted on WW1 reparations, which is a different case being a military response to the breaking of a peace treaty. Others, anyone?

Good point, I think you could say it played a part in Brits vs Napoleon (he stopped paying his debts to our banks we got miffed, he sold America to the Americans, we had a big dust up, we won and erected a column in Trafalgar square)

Otherwise I can't think of anymore modern cases.

Default for Iceland it is then, can you tell the angry mob to start burning stuff please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I simply can't understand why the politicians are agreeing to something so clearly against the interests of their own citizens.

When have politicians ever done anything else, unless their interests happened to coincide with their citizens?

I can't understand why anyone would expect politicians to do things that are in the interests of their citizens, rather than the interests of said politicians. Most politicians are power-crazed psychopaths, after all... who else would want to make a living telling other people what to do and backing it up with armed thugs if people refuse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They have to dance to the IMF's tune, because basically that's the only thing keeping the country afloat.

Much though "ARGH SCREW THE BANKSTERS" seems like the top strategy here, the fact is that the Icelandic country owes the rest of world as a result of their banks overstretching themselves, and they will have to work off the debt. If people in Iceland don't like it, they can leave - there are no constraints on PEOPLE leaving, only CURRENCY. :lol:

Why should teh Icelandic peopel pay for the criminal acts of a few banksters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   296 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.