Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit truthlover's column >>

TRUTHLOVER

Thinking is important but not enough!
Articles Posted: 65  Links Seeded: 1462
Member Since: 3/2008  Last Seen: 5/18/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Iceland did not bail out the banks or the bank investors and its economy is thriving, proving that the the US-Irish model of bailing out the banks with taxpayer money was harmful unless you were a wealthy bank investor

Seeded on Tue Feb 1, 2011 5:24 PM EST
Read ArticleArticle Source: Bloomberg.com
world-news, banks, bailouts, iceland, taxpayer-money, irelanld
Seeded by truthlover
Advertise | AdChoices

On his second day as head of Iceland's third-largest bank, Arni Tomasson faced a crisis: The bank was out of cash. "Everybody was panicked -- depositors, creditors, banks around the world."

Unlike other nations, including the U.S. and Ireland, which injected billions of dollars of capital into their financial institutions to keep them afloat, Iceland placed its biggest lenders in receivership. It chose not to protect creditors of the country's banks, whose assets had ballooned to $209 billion, 11 times gross domestic product.With the economy projected to grow 3 percent this year, Iceland's decision to let the banks fail is looking smart -- and may prove to be a model for others.

three banks had become the largest companies in Iceland, creating thousands of well-paid positions and controlling the top trade associations, says Oddsson, who oversaw the privatization of Iceland's state-owned lenders as prime minister. Their headquarters were the largest buildings in Reykjavik, dwarfing the parliament.

"Nobody wanted to listen when the party was on," says Oddsson, 63, now editor of Morgunbladid, one of the largest dailies in the country, with a circulation of about 50,000.

It was Oddsson's decision not to build up the central bank's foreign currency reserves from 2005 to 2008 that made a bailout impossible.

"They were collecting debt in such a fast pace, it would be stupid for us to build a mountain they could lean on if they failed," Oddsson says. "The creditors that were lending to the banks recklessly had to face the losses."

"Iceland did the right thing by making sure its payment systems continued to function while creditors, not the taxpayers, shouldered the losses of banks," says Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, an economics professor at Columbia University in New York.

Van der Knaap, who has advised Iceland's bank resolution committees:. "Even Irish banks aren't too big to fail."

Today, Iceland is recovering. The three new banks had combined profit of $309 million in the first nine months of 2010. GDP grew for the first time in two years in the third quarter, by 1.2 percent, inflation is down to 1.8 percent and the cost of insuring government debt has tumbled 80 percent. Stores in Reykjavik were filled with Christmas shoppers in early December, and bank branches were crowded with customers.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

  • truthlover's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: 112th United States Congress, American Progressives, American_Politics, Bar Room Debates, Brave New World, Breaking News, Centervine, Corporate Watchdogs, Corporatism, Das Krapital, DemGuys, Democracy, Democrats, EconVine, Eurovine, FIRED UP DEMOCRATS!, Focus on Finance, Free Market, Free Thinkers, GOP Watch , Grey Boomers, Unite!, Gut Check America, Happy with Corporate America?, Heated Debate, LaborVine, Left of Center, Living with Less, Media Outrage, Newsvine International, Newsvine Optimist Club, Nightly News (Old), Obama Supporters, ObamaExpress, Obamaholics Anonymous, ObamaVine, Open Minded, Outraged Americans For Justice, Political Analysis, Positive Economic News, RepubliCON Watch, Respectful Debate, Seeders and Posters w/ Manners, Soapbox, The Great American ReEducation, The Newsvine Tea Party, To MSNBC, uk-news, US News and Views , World News 1, World News and Views
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (99)
truthlover

Absolutely. Why should the citizens take a hit for investments which would have failed? The citizens would not have been given any of the profits had the investments succeeded. The day of citizens backing up with tax dollars the investments of rich people that go awry needs to end. It makes for lousy financial institutions, enriches those who took bad (if not fraudulent) risks, and makes the nation and the taxpayers poorer.

  • 19 votes
#1 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 5:27 PM EST
Rob-LVNevada

"The creditors that were lending to the banks recklessly had to face the losses."

Amen.

  • 11 votes
#1.1 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 6:46 PM EST
CliffDogg

Iceland, seriously? While I'm no fan of the bank bailouts, we can hardly compare the US to Iceland.

  • 10 votes
#1.2 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 6:56 PM EST
American Idle

truth, the post is interesting, but that headline....geez. Sometimes oirginal headers are badly written and need clarification, but what you've got here is a full statement. Sorry, it's a pet peeve. Also, I thought, a Newsvine no-no.

  • 7 votes
#1.3 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 7:08 PM EST
MinnieApolis

Dear American Idle -- I agree. I like pithy headlines. I resent the ones that go on and on, sometimes with two dozen words. Pithy is it. Brevity is an art.

  • 5 votes
#1.4 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 7:40 PM EST
oldecrankyman

I'm sure that the people of Iceland are happy that their money is worth about half of what is was a couple of years ago.

Great plan.

  • 9 votes
#1.5 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 8:15 PM EST
Libertarian y2k

Agreed. I was against this idea of "too big to fail" from the start. Bush through Obama I hated the idea. The free market is about survival of the fittest. If they know that they have the taxpayer as a safety net what will keep them from walking the tightrope again? Sometimes there has to be a reckoning. Then we will learn from the lessons of past mistakes. I wonder how many made it at the expense of someone else because they received a bail out? How many opportunities were missed by businesses that were waiting to fill the void of inefficient giant competitors. We propped up businesses that should have failed if need be. The void would have been filled by a new improved one.

  • 10 votes
#1.6 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 8:34 PM EST
Z1P2

Iceland, seriously? While I'm no fan of the bank bailouts, we can hardly compare the US to Iceland.

Yeah... didn't their government collapse as a result? I'm not saying we should have done the bailouts that we did... but Iceland truely is a bad example here. For the author to have picked Iceland as an example to follow really shows a lack of understanding of the mechanics or history of the two countries and their recent economic problems.

  • 4 votes
#1.7 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 9:46 PM EST
Buckeye Voter

Yeah... didn't their government collapse as a result?

Their currency did. I contemplated a vacation there - things got really cheap there quickly.

  • 5 votes
#1.8 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 9:50 PM EST
mountainmike-1199289

I hate to make generalizations from Iceland, because it is like one huge extended family. A very civil, close knit and nice culture.

  • 1 vote
#1.9 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 11:04 PM EST
economics101

what does iceland's size have to do with the basic banking model? The main difference is that the USD is the global reserve currency - making such a failure global....

  • 3 votes
#1.10 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 12:41 AM EST
FrJackHackett

There are only 350,000 people living there in a monoculture. That's one tenth of one percent of our population and almost none of the political and culture contentiousness. In almost any other country in the world, a catastrophe such as it went through (mostly due to buying fraudulently packaged and sold CDSs from US banksters) would have led to major political and social turmoil, if not riots. How anyone can compare Iceland to the U.S. and not expect to get laughed off the planet is beyond me.

  • 5 votes
#1.11 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 10:22 AM EST
Jimster

This just in:

Iceland isn't the United States.

  • 3 votes
#1.12 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 10:56 AM EST
FrJackHackett

what does iceland's size have to do with the basic banking model? The main difference is that the USD is the global reserve currency - making such a failure global....

Is it just possible that the dollar being the GRC has something to do with our size (economically speaking)?

    #1.13 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 11:09 AM EST
    retired military ex republican.

    Is Iceland's money worth nothing now. I doubt it the Rich in America would ever have allowed politicians abandoning the banks and Wall Street. Bush leaped in quickly to save the millionaires and billionaires. With the amount of money I have in the bank at any one time no sweat no big loss.

    Years ago I had a considerable amount of savings but helping family member have a roof over their heads and food to eat isn't free health care and medicine as well.

    • 1 vote
    #1.14 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 11:18 AM EST
    Rixar13

    “Iceland did the right thing by making sure its payment systems continued to function while creditors, not the taxpayers, shouldered the losses of banks,”

    The way it should have been done in the U.S...

    Our grandparents took the lessons of the Great Depression to heart. Too bad we forgot them.

    nakedape-2467044 - #2.2

    • 2 votes
    #1.15 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 2:32 PM EST
    Sebbydad

    that action resulted in a massive devaluation of thier currency and the need to get a huge loan from the IMF. It that what we should have done?

    • 3 votes
    #1.16 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 3:10 PM EST
    economics101

    The main difference is that the icelandic currency could be devalued without a global event - if we are talking about the dollar, yen, euro, even the Canadian / Australian dollar, the yuan or rubble would have caused a major problem.

    However, this is not cause for concern, what it should demonstrate is that having commercial banks run by crooks control not only our currency, but the fate of the global economy is a bad idea. But, then again no one is talking about that.... The real problme is where money comes from, and who controls the creation and price of it .... this makes the CDO and MBS issue irrelevent. Americans need to understand that 95% of the "money" in this country is created by private banks, not by the government. And when we combine this with the same guys controling the relative price of currency, we understand why Iceland was punished.

    Now if the US had done the same thing, what would have happened? would they have wiped out the USD, Euro or Yen? In fact, the Japs did this in the 90s and did not see a wholesale devaluation ... so obviously the devaluation was punitive and intentional. Remember all money is created out of thin air. Whether a bank or government creates it, it is based on debt, and has no value beyond the debtor's ability to pay it back.... And you wonder why the Chinese refuse to allow these scumbags to trade their currency???

    • 4 votes
    #1.17 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 11:34 PM EST
    Reply
    Sebbydad

    Iceland also did not have a housing bubble burst and double digit unemployment. I also agree that the banks should have had to eat thier losses, but as we have been shown our economy runs on revolving credit and when the banks won't loan, businesses do not make payroll.

    How Iceland did survive was by the government taking over the banks in all but foregin debt. Raising interests rates to as high as 18% - they are currently 7%. They have also borrowed money from the IMF and their currency has been incredibly devalued.

    As a result, the government that did not bail out the banks was removed from power. Many people left the island and the investigation calls for greater oversight of banks.

    Maybe not the best way to go.

    • 10 votes
    #2 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 6:00 PM EST
    truthlover

    The real estate bubble in the US caused the banking collapse which the Feds put on the backs of the taxpayers rather than the wealthy investors. It was the banking crisis--or bubble if you like--that was the problem. If real estate crashed and people stayed in their houses, had jobs, and could pay off loans on houses that weren't worth it, there'd be no crisis. What caused the crisis was the banking crisis.

    The banking crisis also hit Iceland (actually very early) and only later Ireland. Here's a relevant quote:

    Unlike other nations, including the U.S. and Ireland, which injected billions of dollars of capital into their financial institutions to keep them afloat, Iceland placed its biggest lenders in receivership. It chose not to protect creditors of the country’s banks, whose assets had ballooned to $209 billion, 11 times gross domestic product.

    and another:

    The crisis almost sank the country. The krona lost 58 percent of its value by the end of November 2008, inflation spiked to 19 percent in January 2009 and GDP contracted by 7 percent that year. Prime Minister Geir H. Haarde resigned after nationwide protests. With the economy projected to grow 3 percent this year, Iceland’s decision to let the banks fail is looking smart -- and may prove to be a model for others.

    “Iceland did the right thing by making sure its payment systems continued to function while creditors, not the taxpayers, shouldered the losses of banks,” says Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, an economics professor at Columbia University in New York. “Ireland’s done all the wrong things, on the other hand. That’s probably the worst model.”

    Maybe these quotes aren't fully addressing all your concerns but I believe they address some of them. Unfortunately, I have to be off the net for quite a while. Thanks for the comment.

    • 8 votes
    #2.1 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 6:17 PM EST
    nakedape-2467044

    Well, we DID bail out the banks, and they are STILL not giving out credit. So much for that theory.

    Sometimes lessons need to be learned the hard way. Our grandparents took the lessons of the Great Depression to heart. Too bad we forgot them.

    • 10 votes
    #2.2 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 6:59 PM EST
    Sebbydad

    It was not the real estate bubble, the real estate bubble was a symptom created by unrestricted derivative exchange. Without the ability to bundle mortgages and sell and resell them there is no incentive to push the housing market a result being inflated housing prices. This was wall street and the banks looking to make the fastest biggest buck with what they knew to be a highly risky product and with no regard to long term consequences. The reforms that were wanted including the banks setting up funds for a bailout should it be needed again so taxpayers would not be on the hook, were gutted by- you guessed it- conservatives on the excuse that there were far to many regulations already. There need to be real regulations to prevent the market from building artificial bubbles for thier own profit and damn the consequences.

    • 8 votes
    #2.3 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 8:14 PM EST
    Stu-4803409

    It was not the real estate bubble, the real estate bubble was a symptom created by unrestricted derivative exchange. Without the ability to bundle mortgages and sell and resell them there is no incentive to push the housing market a result being inflated housing prices. This was wall street and the banks looking to make the fastest biggest buck

    And they still are with no repercussions while the middle class keeps on paying the tab.

    • 5 votes
    #2.4 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 9:43 PM EST
    Sebbydad

    I agree. Some need to go to jail and there need to be harsh penalties assessed. The easiest I can imagine are restoring capital gains taxes and increasing taxes on income over $500k. They earn that money on the backs of the country and actually provide no benefit for that wealth.

    • 5 votes
    #2.5 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 10:24 PM EST
    economics101

    real estate and derivitives are symptoms of the problem. You are missing the point, banks have #1 challenge to their business model, and only one. They don't worry about capital, or costs, just managing risk - thats it. So when they can't even do that???

    • 1 vote
    #2.6 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 12:44 AM EST
    Sebbydad

    Profit, profit and more profit that is the banks business model. If it were risk management they would not allow for overdrafts, but overdrafts become a source of revenue when you can charge the fees that go with them, to the point of ordering transactions to maximize those fees. There was no risk involved in the derivatives market, the bailout was set. They aren't loaning because the profit margin on it isn't high enough.

    • 6 votes
    #2.7 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 12:54 AM EST
    economics101

    they are loaning, just not to regular people - look at the stock market .... mosrt of the gains in the last 1.5 years are leverage!

    • 3 votes
    #2.8 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 12:56 AM EST
    jawill11

    Sebbydad is spot on. The real estate bubble was just the fuel for the fire. If it had not been real estate, it would have been something else. Look at the commodities markets to see other bubbles related to derivatives trading. Our food and gas prices have skyrocketed because all the traders switched to gambling on them in the derivatives market since real estate collapsed.

    The biggest thing we screwed up in our response to the financial collapse was not severely restricting the derivatives market. That market is over 10 times the size of the world economy, over $600 trillion dollars. They have been and still are leveraging and gambling all of us into massive collapse.

    • 7 votes
    #2.9 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:27 AM EST
    krounded

    Sebbydad is spot on. The real estate bubble was just the fuel for the fire. If it had not been real estate, it would have been something else

    This is correct. If every home owner in trouble defaulted, it would never have reached the amount of money lost by the greedy inept banks due to over leveraging, speculation, and associated credit default swaps.

    These morons were borrowing 30 times the cost of the actual mortgage, using the money to bet on the derivative market and insuring against potential losses. This action ballooned the mess far past the value of the loans alone.

    Every time I hear people trying to blame the mess on defaulting home owners, I want to scream. This was not the cause of a problem of this magnitude.

    Much of the money has been repaid to the tax payer now. I'm not sure comparing Iceland to to the US is legitimate. As others have pointed out, the US is much larger, more connected to the world and the USD is the standard reserve currency.

    • 2 votes
    #2.10 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 12:58 PM EST
    jawill11

    These morons were borrowing 30 times the cost of the actual mortgage, using the money to bet on the derivative market and insuring against potential losses. This action ballooned the mess far past the value of the loans alone.

    More than that, they were betting on 3rd party mortgages in which they had no stake, the so-called naked CDS's. The derivatives market has become nothing but a giant casino with the exception that there is no danger of losing, you will just get bailed out by the taxpayer.

    • 4 votes
    #2.11 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 1:08 PM EST
    krounded

    More than that, they were betting on 3rd party mortgages in which they had no stake, the so-called naked CDS's.

    Yep. I'm sure there's more crazy financial "tools" these jokers were using. It does not hurt to point them all out as contributing factors.

    I think the "naked" term refers to shorting trades when you don't actually have the money to pay off your side of the trade should it go against you. There's been a lot of discussion about outlawing that practice. I'm not sure if they actually did it permanently.

    • 3 votes
    #2.12 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 1:23 PM EST
    krounded

    I agree. Some need to go to jail and there need to be harsh penalties assessed. The easiest I can imagine are restoring capital gains taxes and increasing taxes on income over $500k. They earn that money on the backs of the country and actually provide no benefit for that wealth.

    Amen Sebbydad. Someone needs to go to jail for this mess. These banks are guilty of malfeasance. They are no longer serving the public good. I would not be opposed to an Egypt styled protest to take out these feckless parasites.

    • 4 votes
    #2.13 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 1:41 PM EST
    Stu-4803409

    I think it is pretty funny in our country you can steal $50 and get a year in jail but you steal a billion and there is no penalty at all.

    • 4 votes
    #2.14 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 2:12 PM EST
    Carol-99

    I think it is pretty funny in our country you can steal $50 and get a year in jail but you steal a billion and there is no penalty at all.

    Some of those scumbags stole billions and then got a bonus.

    • 3 votes
    #2.15 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 5:17 PM EST
    Sebbydad

    and have a lower tax rate than most of us.

    • 3 votes
    #2.16 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 6:28 PM EST
    jawill11

    I think the "naked" term refers to shorting trades

    The naked term refers to derivatives trading on items in which you don't own. For instance, person A buys mortgage backed security from person B. The standard derivative would be for person A to place a bet that his own security will fail to hedge his bet.

    A naked derivative would be when person C bets person D that person A's security will fail. Neither party has any stake in the security at all. It has no economic value whatsoever. That type of trading is harmful enough, but when you add in their ability to leverage 30x, 100x, etc., it becomes a recipe for certain disaster.

    Of course those people don't care if they blow up because they are not trading with their money. They got their bonuses and commissions for making those trades with pension money, or with bank money that will be bailed out by the gov't when they fail.

    Shorting trades is also bad, but I don't know the term used for it other than just shorting.

    • 2 votes
    #2.17 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 7:59 PM EST
    Reply
    madvargr

    But Iceland's banks weren't the cause of the mess, our banks were. There is no way that any economy would survive the $60 trillion in made up paper of CDOs that our banks would be on the hook for. It still may very well bring down the entire house of cards, but they need to wait a few more years till I can finish my degree...

    • 6 votes
    Reply#3 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 6:24 PM EST
    Sebbydad

    no one forced their banks to acquire the assets they did and leverage themselves so far into debt.

    • 6 votes
    #3.1 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 8:21 PM EST
    Rich-365548

    I would still like to know how we would have fared without TARP. Funny how after Obama started attaching strings to the TARP bailouts, the banks all started saying they didn't want it in the first place, they didn't need it, Hank Paulson forced them into it. I have a hard time believing that people in powerful financial positions are that easily coerced. Would you say no if the Treasury Secretary called you up and said he demanded you accept a $45 billion bailout at 0% interest, no rush, pay us back whenever you feel like it? Put it into oil futures and you could pay it all back a year later and still be set for life.

    • 4 votes
    #3.2 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 11:35 PM EST
    krounded

    no one forced their banks to acquire the assets they did and leverage themselves so far into debt.

    Boy Sebbydad....I've seldom seen someone posting on NV that has the grasp of the issue that you do. Good job. Finally, someone that agrees with my take on the financial collapse.

    • 4 votes
    #3.3 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 1:02 PM EST
    Carol-99

    I would still like to know how we would have fared without TARP.

    Me too. I have often thought that we might be better off in the long run. The CEO's over banks that failed would no longer be in business, and future CEO's would be much less likely to take on unreasonable risks if they knew that they could not depend on the government to bail them out.

    • 1 vote
    #3.4 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 5:21 PM EST
    Sebbydad

    definitely better off in the long run, in the short run our currency would have likely collapsed and any business depending on revolving credit comes to a halt.

    • 3 votes
    #3.5 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 6:31 PM EST
    Libertarian y2k

    So maybe this buy gold pitch out there now isn't such a bad idea?

    • 1 vote
    #3.6 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 10:05 PM EST
    Sebbydad

    Sure, if you want to keep driving up the price so the people who run the scam can continue to reap billions. Knock yourself out.

    • 4 votes
    #3.7 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:04 AM EST
    FrJackHackett

    I can't wait until gold speculators sell massively overnight and a bunch of Becknuts are wiped out. I'd almost want to watch Beck's show the next day and see if he's got the chutzpah to keep pushing the scam.

      #3.8 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 8:31 AM EST
      Reply
      ffeineandsugar

      And of course, what is the reaction to this information on CNN, Fox, CBS, et. al?

      (>cue crickets<)

      • 4 votes
      Reply#4 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 6:32 PM EST
      MinnieApolis

      In some ways we are comparing apples and oranges. True, Iceland did not have the complications of the horrendous mortgage collapse, or high unemployment (as far as I know). But still, I feel that it was wrong to bail out superbanks just because they were big. I have to add that some financial companies WERE allowed to go out of business (altho they were just bought up at pennies on the dollar) -- Bear Stearns and Lehman.

      To me, the model used with the auto companies was the best and most successful one employed by the Obama administration. The companies reorganized and returned to profitability. It was a happy ending for all concerned.

      I am disturbed that with the financial companies, Wall Street and the banks and the mortgage companies, that the crooks are still in charge. You go to Countrywide for a home loan, and nothing is changed, really - is it? Sure Countrywide was bought up by another company, but they did not get rid of the crooks or change the business practices. Tell me if there is any evidence otherwise.

      • 3 votes
      Reply#5 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 6:57 PM EST
      Rob-LVNevada

      Seek the biggest donors to both parties in recent elections...and the answers will unfortunately start to reveal themselves to us...sigh A lot of that donor activity originated in lower Manhattan - and goes to both sides of the aisle.

      The companies reorganized and returned to profitability. It was a happy ending for all concerned.

      Other than the former bond owners and shareholders...they didn't exactly get that "happy ending".

      • 6 votes
      #5.1 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 7:02 PM EST
      Libertarian y2k

      Right Rob. In my job it would be called taking a bribe or extortion. In politics its called lobbying and donating. We have a serious ethics in government problem today. We need campaign financing reform asap.

      • 6 votes
      #5.2 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 9:13 PM EST
      retired military ex republican.

      Rob we need a miracle. No politician wants the lobbying to stop. Their election hopes are driven by huge donations from Corporations and billionaires.

      • 2 votes
      #5.3 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 11:26 AM EST
      Rob-LVNevada

      I couldn't possibly agree more. The system will never change itself, that's against thousands of years of evolution and development of human nature. Campaign finance reform, term limits, and publically financed elections. I think the answer lies somewhere in this direction, but somehow 300 million Americans have just about a zero percent chance of changing 535 minds inside the beltway...sigh.

      • 1 vote
      #5.4 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 1:10 PM EST
      Reply
      hsquared-1401940

      I guess the author was advocating nationalizing the banks, which Iceland did. Even with that the Icelandic economy contracted nearly 15%, even with 18% interest being charged by the nationalized banks. There is no escaping that the citizens of Iceland paid dearly over the bank collapse. Only during 3rd quarter of 2010, did the economy show positive numbers, but still pending is that 2nd review of the data. That would be important, as each of the past 10 quarterly reviews has had the data revised downward.

      • 7 votes
      Reply#6 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 7:34 PM EST
      AmyEmilia

      A postage stamp country with hardly 300,000 inhabitants is a role model?

      Anyway aren't the Icelanders living off fishing and survival agriculture?

      • 2 votes
      Reply#7 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 8:48 PM EST
      oldecrankyman

      They are now.

      • 4 votes
      #7.1 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 8:55 PM EST
      Reply
      socialjustice

      Iceland has an economic policy.

      We have economic dependence on debt, thanks to tax cuts for the top 2% who get interest on the debt when they buy it with the tax cuts.

        Reply#8 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 8:54 PM EST
        FrJackHackett

        Iceland did the "right thing" because it was the only option it had and it cost them dearly. And if you're going to use bank profits as a measure of success of a bail out plan, the U.S. has to be the far and away all time winner on that score. The banksters here started making record profits almost immediately and have never looked back. Iceland may have stopped falling but it has hardly climbed out of the hole yet. Putting Ireland and the U.S. in the same barrel just shows how idiotic this article is.

        • 3 votes
        Reply#9 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 9:03 PM EST
        RumWalker

        Iceland didn't bailout their banks because Russia did it for them.

        To compare the economic policies of two vastly different countries is not a fair comparison at all.

        • 4 votes
        Reply#10 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 11:04 PM EST
        Rickeroo

        Indeed, I found this as well:

        http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/oct2008/gb20081021_416349.htm

        • 2 votes
        #10.1 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 7:31 AM EST
        Reply
        Yearning

        I can't even entertain the thought that the bailouts were necessary. They were a bipartisan sell out.

        One day, in the last days of his presidency, George W came on television and said he needed an absurd amount of money... but that he couldn't accept the money unless no one knew what he did with it.

        Within days, Congress obliged him...there were no dissenting voices of consequence.

        Then Obama takes office, and he wants it too... what was different was that we could know where the money went.

        Well heck... he did campaign on change...and I guess that was change...and within days, Congress handed over the money... no dissent, no debate, no politics, just "here's the cash".

        Obviously this was all planned out and scripted well in advance. Palms were greased, plans were made.

        The market just hit 12k today.... It was 12k before all this happened, too.

        The thing is, those folks who sold low lost their retirements and their homes.

        It's like the corporations were too in debt, so you crash the market, they buy back their stock, and things rise again.

        Hooray for us.

        • 5 votes
        #11 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 12:13 AM EST
        58rose

        oh how true what ya say yearning how true it is. once again the little guy pays for the rich ones screw up. but don't ya know that is what we are here for. worker bee's is what we are.

        • 5 votes
        #11.1 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 12:51 AM EST
        Randy McMurphy

        The best way to rob a bank... is to own the bank.

        • 7 votes
        #11.2 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 4:02 AM EST
        FrJackHackett

        Only our new breed of banksters have figured out a way to rob the U.S. Treasury as well. Hail, our Galtian Overlords....Hail.

        • 2 votes
        #11.3 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 10:24 AM EST
        Yearning

        That's the attitude! I was afraid folks would be resentful.

        We've just barely less than two years before we have to vote these guys back in... and this just isn't the time for vindictive finger pointing... lest the other side get power.

        The DemocratsandRepublicans are doing a bang up job representing the will of their campaign donors, and I'd hate to see them voted out of office just because their carefully gerrymandered districts and absurdly partisan base weren't suitable defense against the chaos of reason and rationality.

        • 1 vote
        #11.4 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 11:37 AM EST
        FrJackHackett

        Whether it was true or not, I don't know, but in late September, 2008, we were told that there was a possibility of collapse of our banking system, with all of the biggest banks, investment and regular along with many other giant corporations (AIG) going bust resulting in the complete collapse of the stock market -- leading to a complete world economic failure. I can't really blame politicians that much for wanting to do something to avoid that. To not have acted and take the chance of such a catastrophe would have been the economic equivalent of deciding not to abort an accidental massive ICBM launch. We will never really know whether it would have been as bad as imagined but that's knowledge that may be better never to have to have. Now that we know that even if the bail out did not accomplish all of its goals (the banksters decided to use the money to enrich themselves rather than inject it into the economy) at least the worst did not happen and all but $25 bn of the $750 bn is being paid back (plus the government will make a profit in the end on the sale of its shares in these banks). In retrospect, it seems like a pretty damn good move, all things taken into consideration. I personally would like to see more banksters go to jail and, or the very least, the tax codes change to collect some of the windfall incomes that they reaped over the past three years while most of the country was on its knees (WSJ article today states that the total compensation/bonus packages for the top execs in the big banks for 2010 came to $135 bn--a record). But it seems doubtful that Republicans will ever stop wanting to reward these crooks not matter what ravages they visit on the country, and as always, there are not many but just enough Democrats to help them out.

        • 2 votes
        #11.5 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 11:53 AM EST
        Carol-99

        We will never really know whether it would have been as bad as imagined but that's knowledge that may be better never to have to have.

        I have to wonder if there weren't a few folks who knew that there would not be a collapse of the entire stock market without the bailouts, but that they were just protecting their own interests.

        • 2 votes
        #11.6 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 5:31 PM EST
        FrJackHackett

        I'd be suspicious of any claim of certain knowledge that things weren't as bad as advertised.

        • 1 vote
        #11.7 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:11 PM EST
        Carol-99

        I'd be suspicious of any claim of certain knowledge that things weren't as bad as advertised.

        Me too . . . but then, I'm also suspicious of the claim that the economy would have certainly collapsed if not for TARP . . .

        • 1 vote
        #11.8 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:29 PM EST
        Yearning

        Well, "the economy" did collapse for many individuals....and given different policies, it may have collapsed for different individuals.

        Exactly how would I be hurt if the bank holding my mortgage was forced into bankruptcy?

        • 1 vote
        #11.9 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 5:51 PM EST
        Carol-99

        Exactly how would I be hurt if the bank holding my mortgage was forced into bankruptcy?

        Good question.

        • 1 vote
        #11.10 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 6:01 PM EST
        FrJackHackett

        If enough banks and the biggest ones go belly up, it has the potential for an economic shutdown of the country. Like 'em or not (and I don't) banks keep money flowing in the economy. If no money flows there is no economy. Nobody buys, nobody sells. Even if suddenly no one held your mortgage and you got to live in your house for free, I don't think there'd be much heat or food in it.

        • 1 vote
        #11.11 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 8:39 PM EST
        Carol-99

        Like 'em or not (and I don't) banks keep money flowing in the economy.

        I figured that they must be good for something. :-)

        • 1 vote
        #11.12 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 10:33 AM EST
        FrJackHackett

        As long as there's a short leash, and there hasn't been--and still isn't as far as I'm concerned.

        • 2 votes
        #11.13 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 11:08 AM EST
        Carol-99

        How many melt-downs do we have to go through before we tighten that leash?

        • 1 vote
        #11.14 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 11:21 AM EST
        FrJackHackett

        It seems like a 20-30 year cycle (which also happens to coincide with Republicans getting too much control--must be a coincidence). It seems the public memory for Republican failure is very short.

        • 2 votes
        #11.15 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 3:50 PM EST
        economics101

        Actually, banks do not keep money "flowing" in the economy, they actually create the money in the economy - this is why they are so indepensible. The big question is why we have a system where banks create all the money and hold the rest of us hostage to their demands (and interest) on a daily basis - because without the willing cooperation of government, banks could not operate. Iceland demonstarates that banks need not be allowed to run amok ....

        “This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash, or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defect remedied very soon.” R Hemphill Credit Manager federal Reserve bank of Atlanta

        • 2 votes
        #11.16 - Sun Feb 6, 2011 1:14 AM EST
        Reply
        Lisafrequency

        I personally would like to see more banksters go to jail

        Me too

        At one time Iceland was ranked the 5th richest nation in the world. Below is a video series that I found to be a fascinating account I of one of Iceland's citizens who was elected to their Parliament to help fight the banks and the EU.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wca0-2HGu-I

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIQ9Cj4GagA&feature=related

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDUIPVGKKzw&feature=related

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exMnPR5J1l0&feature=related

        • 3 votes
        Reply#12 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 1:50 PM EST
        58rose

        just how many millionaire's do ya think are now billionaires after just over the pass 2 years. we all should pat our self on the back WE DID IT!

        • 2 votes
        Reply#13 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 7:03 PM EST
        Lisafrequency

        I wish we had stood up to the banks the way Iceland did that's for sure.

        • 3 votes
        Reply#14 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 7:11 PM EST
        Carol-99

        We're still not standing up to the banks. They're still too big to fail.

        http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/01/26/133238907/still-too-big-to-fail

        What's more, Barofsky points to S&P's plan to change the way it rates the biggest banks, to explicitly take into account the likelihood of government bailouts. He quotes this sentence from a recent S&P report:

        We believe that banking crises will happen again. We expect this pattern of banking sector boom and bust and government support to repeat itself in some fashion, regardless of governments' recent and emerging policy response.

        • 2 votes
        #14.1 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 7:20 PM EST
        FrJackHackett

        We can thank Republican blocking of really strong bankster reform enabled by several prominent Democrats (Dodd and some others). When it comes to serving their corporate masters, there really isn't a lot of difference (much as it pains me to say) between Dems and Reps.

        • 1 vote
        #14.2 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 8:58 PM EST
        Sebbydad

        They didn't stand up to their banks, the government took them over domestically, let them fail internationally, & blew up their own currency. Then they had to borrow money to keep the country going. Is that really what you wanted the US to do?

        • 3 votes
        #14.3 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:11 PM EST
        Lisafrequency

        Then they had to borrow money to keep the country going. Is that really what you wanted the US to do?

        I don't guess you realize how far in Debt we are to China....

        • 1 vote
        #14.4 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:15 PM EST
        Sebbydad

        China purchased T-Bills, but that debt did not come from the recession, it came form the off the books funding of Iraq and Afghanistan an preceeded the financial collapse.

        • 3 votes
        #14.5 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:05 AM EST
        FrJackHackett

        The Bush Legacy was the Perfect Storm of mismanagement, corruption and greed. Lax regulation, profligate government spending (meaning when the economic collapse happened the government was to be in the weakest possible condition to handle it) and a response that was geared toward protecting the strongest and letting the weakest rot. It's odd that a lot of right wingers reject evolution but heartily cling to the bizarre and completely self-serving deformed offspring, horribly known as social darwinism.

        • 2 votes
        #14.6 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 11:12 AM EST
        James Woods-2930647

        Still blaming bush in 2011. Imagine that.

        • 1 vote
        #14.7 - Sun Feb 6, 2011 12:28 AM EST
        Lisafrequency

        Our economic crisis could have nothing to do with Clinton giving our jobs away though or allowing the pentagon to "misplace" $2 trillion , or balancing the budget with SS.

        • 2 votes
        #14.8 - Sun Feb 6, 2011 7:20 AM EST
        economics101

        Or bush cutting taxes and allowing banks to gamble our economy in a big casino called derivatives - how about Bush Sr and Reagan while we are at it - but we all know its JFKs fault right? He should have nuked Cuba when he had his chance (and not tried to cut out the banksters)

        • 2 votes
        #14.9 - Sun Feb 6, 2011 1:19 PM EST
        Lisafrequency

        Hey I am not taking up for Bush by any stretch the imagination. The Presidents are all working together to bring on the NWO.

        • 1 vote
        #14.10 - Mon Feb 7, 2011 6:26 PM EST
        Rob-LVNevada

        NWA > NWO. For the win...:)

        • 1 vote
        #14.11 - Mon Feb 7, 2011 8:43 PM EST
        FrJackHackett

        Our economic crisis could have nothing to do with Clinton giving our jobs away though or allowing the pentagon to "misplace" $2 trillion , or balancing the budget with SS.

        It's hard to know where to start with this pile o' crap. Twenty-two million jobs created during the Clinton years. The biggest drop in military spending since the end of WW II. And using SocSec to balance the budget--that's just too absurd to even have to respond to. Where does all this bull@!$%# get generated? Silly question, of course. The right wing puke funnel gushes this out by the tanker full by the minute, right?

        • 2 votes
        #14.12 - Tue Feb 8, 2011 12:16 PM EST
        Reply
        DirtClod88

        Uh...we NEED to compare ourselves to Iceland a little more often. This is the country that supplies all of their OWN energy from the steam captured underneath their ground. This is the country that healed their economy on their OWN. It's also a country that tends to mind it's OWN business instead of jumping into barfights they don't belong in.

        • 1 vote
        Reply#15 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:20 PM EST
        FrJackHackett

        It's economy is still in the toilet. But I like the idea of alternative energy. Of course, the entire country sits on top of a volcano, so it's a bit more convenient for them but still, we have plenty of inexhaustible non-polluting energy sources to work with here.

        • 1 vote
        #15.1 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:10 PM EST
        DirtClod88

        Right Jack, it's not "paradise" but I like the way they use their minds and actually DO SOMETHING once in a while. LOL

        • 1 vote
        #15.2 - Sat Feb 5, 2011 3:09 PM EST
        FrJackHackett

        I lived in Tucson for almost a year recently. Maybe it was there but I didn't recognize it but there didn't seem to be much solar receptors anywhere, commercially or residential. I just don't understand how a city like Tucson or Phoenix hasn't long ago started plastering the entire urban landscape with photovoltaic receptors in every possible shape and size.* Yeah, it costs a fair bit for start up but over the long haul, but I'd imagine well within 50 years, the savings over continued fossil fuel use would be immense. We just don't seem to want to plan or think big in this country anymore. We want our tax cuts right now and that's about it. This seems to be the stasis that has brought down all great empires.

        *while writing this it occurred to me that a lot of their energy is probably hydroelectric, but I suspect the cost of building and maintaining solar energy sources is no more than that for dams and much less disruptive of the environment.

        • 2 votes
        #15.3 - Sun Feb 6, 2011 2:04 PM EST
        Reply
        Chris-735081

        False. That's based on the logical fallacy that one solution working out in one instance must mean the alternative solutions to the problem cannot work in other instances.

        That doesn't prove anything. At best it proves that economies similar to Iceland's are resilient to banking collapse.

        The U.S. has a much bigger, much more powerful economy with different banking laws and regulations. You are comparing apples to oranges.

        Your economy-fu is weak.

        But since you are apparently a fan of Economic models other than Keynesian such as Chicago School or Austrian econ, perhaps you can point out a successful nation that uses either one as it's primary economic strategy? I'll save you the time. You can't, because they don't exist.

        • 1 vote
        Reply#16 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:50 PM EST
        Paul Scipio

        I was never a big fan of the bank bail outs especially because they knew better, but when you had the US Congress strong arming thenay-sayers who were warning everyone back in 2006 about giving government back mortgages to those who could not afford, have sufficient credit rating or sufficient income. Citi Bank, Countrywide, Washington Mutual & Indi Mac were some of the most egregious and should have been left to fail just like Lehman Brothers. Lehman Brothers was one of the original financial companies who invented packaged CDO's & Mortgage Back Securities wrapped up into a AAA rated security, this company got what it deserved and so should a lot of these banks, but unfortunately they were bail out It's good to see Iceland is getting it's economic health back together and hopefully they will learn from their past greedy mistakes. Some how I just don't see the US learning vary much especially with the jackals and fools in the Democrat party, the current administration and some Republicans also.

        • 2 votes
        Reply#17 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 6:46 PM EST
        DirtClod88

        And I never agreed with bailing out "Fast Freddie's FanniePack" either. Let it die. Nothing but a large piece of bureaucratic crap whose author didn't eat enough fiber.

        • 2 votes
        Reply#18 - Sat Feb 5, 2011 3:11 PM EST
        James Woods-2930647

        Perhaps in Iceland the banks and politicians didn't go to such extremes as they did in the US by telling people who held mortgages and loans that if the banks didn't get bailed out they needed to pay in full or their property/items would be taken.

        We have proven that bailing out the banks and bankers only leads to more debt and crisis but don't tell that to our government as they only continue to spend.

        Spend spend spend spend until daddy takes the checkbook away. Unfortunately for us there is no daddy it's all children in government that for the most part could never balance a checkbook.

        • 2 votes
        Reply#19 - Sun Feb 6, 2011 12:26 AM EST
        FrJackHackett

        It just continues to be amazing that right wingers who voted for the previous president and all his republican goons in congress could think that anyone should pay the slightest bit of attention to their tired old worn out and 100% hypocritical whining. The actually VOTE the morons into office who continually ruin the economic and fiscal well being of the nation and then attack the ones who come in to clean it up. It doesn't get lower than that.

        • 1 vote
        #19.1 - Tue Feb 8, 2011 12:19 PM EST
        Reply
        Leave a Comment:
        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
        You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
        (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
        Newsvine Privacy Statement
        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
        FUN STUFF:
        • Leaderboard |
        • E-Mail Alerts |
        • Top of the Vine |
        • Newsvine Live |
        • Newsvine Archives |
        • The Greenhouse |
        COMPANY STUFF:
        • Code of Honor |
        • Company Info |
        • Contact Us |
        • Jobs |
        • User Agreement |
        • Privacy Policy |
        • About our ads
        LEGAL STUFF:
        • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
        • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
        • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com