So, Iceland says "sod off you cant have your money back"
Discussion
Dangerous2 said:
The Icelandic people were asked if they thought tax payers should be billed when private companies, who incidentally make big profits when things go well, screw up.
If I could own a business where I kept the profit, but was insulated from any risks by the magic hand of government, I'd be delighted.
Is it a surprise they said no?
But who is the existing debt being repaid to? Not all of the bank was toxic, and there is plenty of money out there that was lent to businesses across Europe that is being repaid back. Where is that money going?If I could own a business where I kept the profit, but was insulated from any risks by the magic hand of government, I'd be delighted.
Is it a surprise they said no?
Right now, it looks like Iceland have bust a bank and made themselves the beneficiaries of a lot of loans in Europe (especially the UK), and don't want to pay a penny of that back to the investors.
In other words, Iceland has knowingly helped itself to £3.5bn of UK savers money without any intention of repaying it.
=
Look, we could pull the same deal if we wanted. Pull the legs of Citibank UK, tell all the international investors to sod off, and then pay all the money that Citibank UK lent out to HMG. Job done.
tinman0 said:
In other words, Iceland has knowingly helped itself to £3.5bn of UK savers money without any intention of repaying it.
Who is 'Iceland'?Well it's actually three sets of people:
1) The government
2) The populace
3) The financial sector
I can guarantee the people who have seen none of this money are 2) the populace. Yet that's the one's that we want to pay this money??
This is the whole crux of the issue, the wealthy bankers having risk free fun at the expense of populations around the world. Taxing those populations is not going to solve the problem - because that _is_ the problem.
Globs said:
I can guarantee the people who have seen none of this money are 2) the populace. Yet that's the one's that we want to pay this money??
This is the whole crux of the issue, the wealthy bankers having risk free fun at the expense of populations around the world. Taxing those populations is not going to solve the problem - because that _is_ the problem.
This is the whole crux of the issue, the wealthy bankers having risk free fun at the expense of populations around the world. Taxing those populations is not going to solve the problem - because that _is_ the problem.
Globs said:
I can guarantee the people who have seen none of this money are 2) the populace.
Was MEW an illusion? Didn't people "make" lots of money when their houses went up in value?Globs said:
the populace. Yet that's the one's that we want to pay this money??
The majority of them have been bailed out by ultra low interest rates. Many bankers are angry at effectively bailing out joe publicGlobs said:
This is the whole crux of the issue, the wealthy bankers having risk free fun at the expense of populations around the world.
That's around 20% of the problem. There are many other culprits, Job Public being oneGlobs said:
tinman0 said:
In other words, Iceland has knowingly helped itself to £3.5bn of UK savers money without any intention of repaying it.
Who is 'Iceland'?Well it's actually three sets of people:
1) The government
2) The populace
3) The financial sector
I can guarantee the people who have seen none of this money are 2) the populace. Yet that's the one's that we want to pay this money??
This is the whole crux of the issue, the wealthy bankers having risk free fun at the expense of populations around the world. Taxing those populations is not going to solve the problem - because that _is_ the problem.
The bank that was broken had a lot of good debt on it's books. That debt is now with a new bank owned by the Iceland Government. Therefore, the Iceland taxpayer is sitting on a loan book worth several billion that they have swindled out of UK savers essentially.
The Iceland Government could easily do a deal with HMG to pay £3.5bn-£170m in compensation and the Iceland taxpayer wouldn't be a penny out of pocket, whilst HMG could easily swallow £170m to close the matter once and for all.
tinman0 said:
Therefore, the Iceland taxpayer is sitting on a loan book worth several billion that they have swindled out of UK savers essentially.
This news may come as a surprise to many Icelandic people, who were probably unaware they were even running a bank, let alone swindling people.I think you are talking about the financial sector again aren't you? Exactly how much control do you think the average Icelander has over the financial sector?
About as much control as we have over RBS?
Randy Winkman said:
NoelWatson said:
That's around 20% of the problem. There are many other culprits, Job Public being one
Joe Public is/aren't privy to any of the financial information they would need to judge the sustainability of the banks. And even if they were - why is that for them to do?Globs said:
tinman0 said:
Therefore, the Iceland taxpayer is sitting on a loan book worth several billion that they have swindled out of UK savers essentially.
This news may come as a surprise to many Icelandic people, who were probably unaware they were even running a bank, let alone swindling people.I think you are talking about the financial sector again aren't you? Exactly how much control do you think the average Icelander has over the financial sector?
About as much control as we have over RBS?
tinman0 said:
Globs said:
tinman0 said:
Therefore, the Iceland taxpayer is sitting on a loan book worth several billion that they have swindled out of UK savers essentially.
This news may come as a surprise to many Icelandic people, who were probably unaware they were even running a bank, let alone swindling people.I think you are talking about the financial sector again aren't you? Exactly how much control do you think the average Icelander has over the financial sector?
About as much control as we have over RBS?
petemurphy said:
Dixie68 said:
What grips my s
t about the whole fiasco is that UK councils were banking millions with them & it's all just disappeared. That's taxpayers money, in the form of council tax etc, that instead of being spent on the roads or schools was stuck in a bloody foreign bank. Tits!
bet none of the ft about the whole fiasco is that UK councils were banking millions with them & it's all just disappeared. That's taxpayers money, in the form of council tax etc, that instead of being spent on the roads or schools was stuck in a bloody foreign bank. Tits!kers got sacked over it tooCouncil's have surpluss... nope set a budget for the current year and spend it. IF there are underspends then cut next years budget. The only reason they had this bunce was the fact there are always year on year rises and they wanted to bank it.
Why they invested in anything other than National Savings is beyond me... clearly they must have had many investment teams checking out best rates etc rather than looking at what their role is to deliver public services. It is not to be investing the money.
I guess the other thing is does anyone have a split on which parties represented the councils & why did Broon & Darling permit that sort of behavious in local councils? If they knew about it why didnt they cut the central govt subsidy by the same amount to force them to use the money and stop hiding away provsions.
Imagine if that cash was paid into the State pension account (sorry ponzi scheme)
Welshbeef said:
Why they invested in anything other than National Savings is beyond me...
That's a very good point. In fact it should be compulsory, it might even make us think of them more as public servants than mere corporations with local monopolies (and a token 'democratic' councillor group to make it seem legitimate) - which is essentially what they are.Ozzie Osmond said:
NoelWatson said:
Many bankers are angry at effectively bailing out joe public.
Highlighting once again their complete lack of understanding of both their own businesses and the outside world.NoelWatson said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
NoelWatson said:
Many bankers are angry at effectively bailing out joe public.
Highlighting once again their complete lack of understanding of both their own businesses and the outside world.And if so, did they realise it was with their own money?
Globs said:
How did Joe Public get bailed out?
With ridiculously low interest rates, so everyone can pretend that the debt levels are not an issueGlobs said:
And if so, did they realise it was with their own money?
Their money is worth a lot less now if they try to buy anything due to devaluation - can't have it both waysNoelWatson said:
Globs said:
How did Joe Public get bailed out?
With ridiculously low interest rates, so everyone can pretend that the debt levels are not an issueGlobs said:
And if so, did they realise it was with their own money?
Their money is worth a lot less now if they try to buy anything due to devaluation - can't have it both waysWith a government issued currency the money supply is regulated simply by spending and taxes, with a central bank in charge it's regulated by loans and interest. As far as I can see this interest is simple theft.
The BoE is charging us 0.5% for what exactly - the bill from Rymans for the paper they print the notes on - or the ink?
Welshbeef said:
If the USA defaulted with no intention of paying any debt back what would happen? They need not import at all they could be self sufficient.
Pros take out china big time
cons unethical and would possibly stop capitalism
Why would it take out China? They would still have 90% of the world to trade with.Pros take out china big time
cons unethical and would possibly stop capitalism
Welshbeef said:
I never understood this one.
Council's have surpluss... nope set a budget for the current year and spend it. IF there are underspends then cut next years budget. The only reason they had this bunce was the fact there are always year on year rises and they wanted to bank it.
Why they invested in anything other than National Savings is beyond me... clearly they must have had many investment teams checking out best rates etc rather than looking at what their role is to deliver public services. It is not to be investing the money.
I guess the other thing is does anyone have a split on which parties represented the councils & why did Broon & Darling permit that sort of behavious in local councils? If they knew about it why didnt they cut the central govt subsidy by the same amount to force them to use the money and stop hiding away provsions.
Imagine if that cash was paid into the State pension account (sorry ponzi scheme)
Very good points.Council's have surpluss... nope set a budget for the current year and spend it. IF there are underspends then cut next years budget. The only reason they had this bunce was the fact there are always year on year rises and they wanted to bank it.
Why they invested in anything other than National Savings is beyond me... clearly they must have had many investment teams checking out best rates etc rather than looking at what their role is to deliver public services. It is not to be investing the money.
I guess the other thing is does anyone have a split on which parties represented the councils & why did Broon & Darling permit that sort of behavious in local councils? If they knew about it why didnt they cut the central govt subsidy by the same amount to force them to use the money and stop hiding away provsions.
Imagine if that cash was paid into the State pension account (sorry ponzi scheme)
I can see a need to keep a small amount back for cash flow purposes in paying for services. But beyond that....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff