The Eagle Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) http://www.bloomberg...h-deposits.html Iceland's President Olafur R. Grimsson will give his country's voters the final say onrepaying about $5 billion in debts owed to the U.K. and the Netherlands to cover depositor claims. Grimsson's announcement yesterday that he won't sign adepositor accord struck between the three countries' governments in December follows lawmaker approval of the bill. He toldreporters he was responding to popular demand for a referendum after more than 42,000 of Iceland's 318,000 inhabitants signed apetition asking him to block the accord. Forty-four of the Reykjavik-based parliament's 63 lawmakers voted for the bill onFeb. 16. "There is support for the view that the people should once again, as before, act together with the parliament as thelegislator in this matter," Grimsson said. Yesterday's announcement marks the second time Grimsson has rejected an agreement designed to compensate the U.K. and Netherlands for depositor losses stemming from the October 2008 failure of Landsbanki Islands hf. His Jan. 5, 2010, refusal to sign a prior accord prompted Fitch Ratings to cut Iceland's credit grade to junk. Moody's Investors Service and Standard &Poor's give Iceland's debt the lowest investment grade. Grimsson's decision threatens to sour relations with the U.K. and Netherlands after Iceland's government persuaded the two countries to negotiate a new deal following last year's rejection of the previous accord. [...] What I find noteworthy is how the rating agencies junk grade Iceland because Iceland does not want to take on the Bankster debt, while in reality this would be a reason to raise their rating since without the Bankster debt they have a much lower debt burden, so are more likely to be able to repay it. But obviously the junk rating is a punishment for the Icelandic rebellion again the Banksters. Edited February 21, 2011 by wise_eagle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Yogi Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) What I find noteworthy is how the rating agencies junk grade Iceland because Iceland does not want to take on the Bankster debt, while in reality this would be a reason to raise their rating since without the Bankster debt they have a much lower debt burden, so are more likely to be able to repay it. But obviously the junk rating is a punishment for the Icelandic rebellion again the Banksters. Your logic is of course, flawless. By any objective reasoning Iceland would be a better credit risk going forward if it now refused to pay the Bankster debt. In the same way a person who has gone bankrupt could well be an excellent credit risk, as he has no existing debt burden to service. At all levels bad credit ratings are given as a punishment for bucking the system, rather than being an accurate reflection of the risk of future default. If I was Iceland I would just call their bluff tell the UK and Holland to fook off. Living without credit for a few years would undoubtedly be easier than servicing this debt, which was caused after all by a handful of bankers rather than the Icelandic people as a whole. Edited February 21, 2011 by Mr Yogi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 If I was Iceland I would just call their bluff tell the UK and Holland to fook off. Living without credit for a few years would undoubtedly be easier than servicing this debt, which was caused after all by a handful of bankers rather than the Icelandic people as a whole. Quite, I'd just tell the UK that they need to look at the small print of the Icelandic govt's bank guarantee and that við munum ekki borga svo rÃða burt doesn't mean what they think it means so get lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellow Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I wonder which way they will vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Eagle Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 In the same way a person who has gone bankrupt could well be an excellent credit risk, as he has no existing debt burden to service. Actually it's worse. It's like your (hypotetical) evil brother-in-law runs up loads of debt, then goes bankrupt, and now the credit rating agencies are punishing you with a low credit score because you refused to take on and pay back your brother-in-law's debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekking Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Your logic is of course, flawless. By any objective reasoning Iceland would be a better credit risk going forward if it now refused to pay the Bankster debt. In the same way a person who has gone bankrupt could well be an excellent credit risk, as he has no existing debt burden to service. At all levels bad credit ratings are given as a punishment for bucking the system, rather than being an accurate reflection of the risk of future default. If I was Iceland I would just call their bluff tell the UK and Holland to fook off. Living without credit for a few years would undoubtedly be easier than servicing this debt, which was caused after all by a handful of bankers rather than the Icelandic people as a whole. +1 The banks that failed were private banks, not state owned. It will make people think about where to put their cash for safe keeping. The bankers should be thrown in gaol for financial terrorism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timak Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Why that is only £16,700 per person to recompense capitalists who don't understand that they can lose as well as win when making bets. Why not make it £2b a head so they learn never to mess with us again. Seems those evil Icelandic road sweepers and shop keepers are being let of very lightly for those banks they funded and ran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekking Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 What I find noteworthy is how the rating agencies junk grade Iceland because Iceland does not want to take on the Bankster debt, while in reality this would be a reason to raise their rating since without the Bankster debt they have a much lower debt burden, so are more likely to be able to repay it. But obviously the junk rating is a punishment for the Icelandic rebellion again the Banksters. No doubt, the very same rating agencies gave all the Icelandic banks AAA just before they failed. Maybe the rating agencies should be downgraded to junk status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Eagle Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 +1 The banks that failed were private banks, not state owned. It will make people think about where to put their cash for safe keeping. The bankers should be thrown in gaol for financial terrorism. What I'm surprised about is that the Irish fell for the exact same bankster scam and didn't rebel at all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedDweller Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 What I'm surprised about is that the Irish fell for the exact same bankster scam and didn't rebel at all... I do wonder what the Irish would do .. IF they had the choice .. and sure as hell they will not get the choice .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 What I'm surprised about is that the Irish fell for the exact same bankster scam and didn't rebel at all... Guilt. Catholic ireland is built on it and it's probably a near infinite well to draw from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobson Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 What I'm surprised about is that the Irish fell for the exact same bankster scam and didn't rebel at all... In Iceland they still have a sense of community. The Irish have went pretty much the same way as us. Fragmented and self-seeking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 The rating reflects not just ability but also willingness to pay and honour debts. Precisely. This isn't just about the banksters. No-one forced the Icelandic government to nationalise its failing banks: they could have just let them, and their creditors, sink. They did choose to nationalise, because they wanted to keep the party going. That has consequences. These nationalised banks took cash deposits from British and Dutch savers and effectively pissed them away. While there's an argument for saying that anyone who invests in shares, property etc. does so at their own risk, retail cash savings products are by their very nature supposed to be guaranteed: that's why they pay so little interest. So if the Icelandic government does effectively say: 'We took your money and lost it all, so fook you, goodbye and goodnight', they should expect some serious consequences as the countries they screwed put measures in place to protect themselves against anything else happening in future. In such a scenario I would hope our government would put a blanket ban on any Icelandic business operating in the UK and any Icelandic citizen from carrying out any financial transaction in the UK, other than buying things as a tourist. I would also revoke the visas of all Icelanders currently living and working in the UK: if these people are going to screw our economy, they shouldn't expect to be allowed to participate in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Precisely. This isn't just about the banksters. No-one forced the Icelandic government to nationalise its failing banks: they could have just let them, and their creditors, sink. They did choose to nationalise, because they wanted to keep the party going. That has consequences. These nationalised banks took cash deposits from British and Dutch savers and effectively pissed them away. While there's an argument for saying that anyone who invests in shares, property etc. does so at their own risk, retail cash savings products are by their very nature supposed to be guaranteed: that's why they pay so little interest. So if the Icelandic government does effectively say: 'We took your money and lost it all, so fook you, goodbye and goodnight', they should expect some serious consequences as the countries they screwed put measures in place to protect themselves against anything else happening in future. In such a scenario I would hope our government would put a blanket ban on any Icelandic business operating in the UK and any Icelandic citizen from carrying out any financial transaction in the UK, other than buying things as a tourist. I would also revoke the visas of all Icelanders currently living and working in the UK: if these people are going to screw our economy, they shouldn't expect to be allowed to participate in it. What money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Eagle Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 The rating reflects not just ability but also willingness to pay and honour debts. The question is: WHOSE DEBTS? Why should the Icelanders or the Irish be responsible for the private Bankster debts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Eagle Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) No-one forced the Icelandic government to nationalise its failing banks: they could have just let them, and their creditors, sink. Yeah right. You know as well as everyone else here on HPC that governments don't work for the people anymore, they works for the Banksters, so if anything the Icelanders should have trialled the government that nationalised the banks for treason (as should have happened in the UK and in Ireland). These nationalised banks took cash deposits from British and Dutch savers and effectively pissed them away. The banks were nationalised after the fact, not before. The Banksters had long left with the ill gotten gains. Edited February 21, 2011 by wise_eagle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 The question is: WHOSE DEBTS? Why should the Icelanders or the Irish be responsible for the private Bankster debts? Because they issued a government guarantee for their banks. They willingly assumed the risk - both of them. It was the most stupid thing they've ever done, but they did it and must live with the consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Because they issued a government guarantee for their banks. They willingly assumed the risk - both of them. It was the most stupid thing they've ever done, but they did it and must live with the consequences. Piffle. Some guy says you are responsible for some others guys debts because you are mystically joined together based on location in time and space? ****** him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Eagle Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 Because they issued a government guarantee for their banks. They willingly assumed the risk - both of them. It was the most stupid thing they've ever done, but they did it and must live with the consequences. First of all the guarantee wasn't for any amount, but limited and then the same thing as stated previously by me applies: You know as well as everyone else here on HPC that governments don'twork for the people anymore, they works for the Banksters, so ifanything the Icelanders should have trialled the government thatnationalised the banks for treason (as should have happened in the UKand in Ireland). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Eagle Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 Piffle. Some guy says you are responsible for some others guys debts because you are mystically joined together based on location in time and space? ****** him. Well put. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekking Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 The question is: WHOSE DEBTS? Why should the Icelanders or the Irish be responsible for the private Bankster debts? Quite. If a private business went bust, say frozen food suppler Iceland, there would not be a government bailout. Private banks are private businesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 First of all the guarantee wasn't for any amount, but limited and then the same thing as stated previously by me applies: You know as well as everyone else here on HPC that governments don'twork for the people anymore, they works for the Banksters, so if anything the Icelanders should have trialled the government thatnationalised the banks for treason (as should have happened in the UKand in Ireland). The people elected the governments and thereby delegated power to those governments to make deals on their behalf. Therefore a pledge made by the government is binding on the people. That's democracy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 The people elected the governments and thereby delegated power to those governments to make deals on their behalf. Therefore a pledge made by the government is binding on the people. That's democracy! It's logically piffle. Also, even if you do accept thsi representative horseshit it says in the icelandic constitution that anything and everything the government does can be kicked into touch via referendum. So someone isn't reading the large print, never mind the small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdman Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Precisely. This isn't just about the banksters. No-one forced the Icelandic government to nationalise its failing banks: they could have just let them, and their creditors, sink. They did choose to nationalise, because they wanted to keep the party going. That has consequences. These nationalised banks took cash deposits from British and Dutch savers and effectively pissed them away. While there's an argument for saying that anyone who invests in shares, property etc. does so at their own risk, retail cash savings products are by their very nature supposed to be guaranteed: that's why they pay so little interest. So if the Icelandic government does effectively say: 'We took your money and lost it all, so fook you, goodbye and goodnight', they should expect some serious consequences as the countries they screwed put measures in place to protect themselves against anything else happening in future. In such a scenario I would hope our government would put a blanket ban on any Icelandic business operating in the UK and any Icelandic citizen from carrying out any financial transaction in the UK, other than buying things as a tourist. I would also revoke the visas of all Icelanders currently living and working in the UK: if these people are going to screw our economy, they shouldn't expect to be allowed to participate in it. What are you talking about? It was private Icelandic banks that took those deposits. The nationalisation was part of a process to resolve those insolvent institutions once they came crashing down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 What are you talking about? It was private Icelandic banks that took those deposits. The nationalisation was part of a process to resolve those insolvent institutions once they came crashing down. That process being entirely voluntary on the part of the Icelandic government. They accepted responsibility for those banks' debts. If they're now going to renege on those obligations, they shouldn't be surprised if other countries no longer want to do business with them. 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.