porca misèria Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 Ask yourself this, why are British and Dutch tax payers currently on the hook for bailing domestic Icelandic depositors? Because that's what the present situation is. Because Messrs Brown and Darling decreed it should be so. Same as with Northern Rock et al - except that in the latter case they had a commitment in respect of up to £35k per depositor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 A few of them benefitted. Just as a few Brits benefitted, and we're all just so happy about bailing out Fred Goodwin's pension, aren't we?As for 4 wheel drive vehicles, they're not a consequence of the banking boom. Iceland has basically only one paved road, and at certain times of year even parts of that get challenging to navigate. There's more justification for an Icelander to have a 4wd than for a Brit to have any car whatsoever. Of course there will be those who benefitted and those who didn't. I'm saying that Iceland as a whole benefitted. Before going into investment banking, Icelanders were largely subsistence cod fishermen. My post was in response to another poster who suggested that the Icelanders did not benefit at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 Of course there will be those who benefitted and those who didn't. I'm saying that Iceland as a whole benefitted. Before going into investment banking, Icelanders were largely subsistence cod fishermen. My post was in response to another poster who suggested that the Icelanders did not benefit at all. Theres no such thing as "the icelanders" in this case. Some benefited, some didn't - there are records so use those. Why everyone has to suffer for a handful of ******wits I await a cogent response to. It's only paper anyway, end the legal tender laws and everyobne will be where they should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 Because Messrs Brown and Darling decreed it should be so. Same as with Northern Rock et al - except that in the latter case they had a commitment in respect of up to £35k per depositor. Oh I see so it was Brown's fault that Iceland cheated the Icesavers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 No, I'm advocating closing both governments - which will solve the problem entirely. +1. Our Westminster government is a colossal waste of space and more. And Iceland - perhaps they're small enough to revive the true democracy of the Þing of over 1000 years ago! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 No, I'm advocating closing both governments - which will solve the problem entirely. Good. Sounds like you lost the argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 (edited) The position we are in now is that the UK and Dutch Governments have made good the losses of the Icesavers. We are where we are. So the choice is either the UK taxpayer foots the bill or the Icelandic taxpayer foots the bill. Unless you are advocating that the Government take the money back off the Icesavers. Remember that the money itself in the form of cash deposits never went bad as such, it was simply washed around the Icelandic banking system to make good their own losses. The money is still in their system in the form of domestic Icelandic deposits or foreign assets, their loan losses should have come in the form of haircuts for Icelandic depositors or landed on the Icelandic tax payer, or both, the same way HBOS losses are landed on the British tax payer. It doesn't matter how you cut it, it's comes down to wanting to have your cake and eat it. So the tax payer doesn't see why they should bail out a formerly private owned bank, yet at the same time fail to see the contradiction that their savings now enjoy a sovereign guarantee and wouldn't exist at all if it wasn't for their government plundering on their behalf. Edited August 29, 2009 by sillybear2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 Yes, I find that odd given that Injin doesn't believe in the concept of countries, why should savers and tax payers in a geographically labeled 'British' street be forced to bail out a street full of fraudsters in 'Iceland'? Obviously Injin's circular logic didn't think that far. Don't expect a reply to that.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 Good. Sounds like you lost the argument. I don't think we had an argument. Just a misunderstanding. You thought we were talking about who should be stolen from - I don't advocate stealing at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 I don't think we had an argument. Just a misunderstanding. You thought we were talking about who should be stolen from - I don't advocate stealing at all. I think you have. The common theme of your posts is that it is ok to steal - as long as you are Icelandic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 (edited) Because Messrs Brown and Darling decreed it should be so. Same as with Northern Rock et al - except that in the latter case they had a commitment in respect of up to £35k per depositor. True, the British government was culpable to a degree because the FSA should never have authorised banks with flawed and unfunded compensation schemes to advertise and operate in the UK market. Maybe we were stupid enough to assume that all EEA members would play by the rules. Nevertheless the Icelandic banks still took in the assets so the countervailing liability remains. Edited August 29, 2009 by sillybear2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 I think you have. The common theme of your posts is that it is ok to steal - as long as you are Icelandic. Nope, don't think so. Why would you think that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 Oh I see so it was Brown's fault that Iceland cheated the Icesavers! Perhaps Brown and Darling should reimburse victims of Nigerian 419 scams too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 Perhaps Brown and Darling should reimburse victims of Nigerian 419 scams too. I think we already did in the form of Bradford & Bingley's BTL loan book for Thamesmead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.