Well should they? I don't think they should. It seems its OK for our government to bail out bankerwankers for hundreds of billions but its not OK for them to give a little slack to a country really trying to get out of even worse doldrums than us. I say Write the debt off or at least defer it.
I say they should.
Their Parliament voted to pay it but the President, with only 25% of people backing the move, vetoed it.
Seems somewhat unbalanced and unconstitutional, if the reports are true.
thats a lot of packets of party snacks!
lp
I think of it this way.
Iceland the country didnt lend the money, banks who happen to be in Iceland did.
Organisations that chose to deposit money in these banks presumably chose the investmnet after considering the risks and returns associated with the investment. For the most part they were professional investors, acting on behalf of local authorities and financial institutions.
You pay yer money and you take your choice. If it goes tits up I cant see any moral imperative for government to bail out the banks or their investors.
answer :- where did the money go ? follow the money........ get it back off those who stole it from the icelanders, the british, the americans, the rest of the europeans and for that matter, the rest of the worlds taxpayers. and while your at it, arrest their stooge politicians who are covering up for them and committing our hard earned cash to their bonuses for a few pieces of silver in the form of expenses. why should the icelanders or anyone else have to pay for the criminal ponzi scheme of a tiny few ? arrest them ! their collapsed scheme will cause poverty, desperation, starvation and death around the planet. they are guilty of genocide and if they had got away with their carbon tax scam, half the worlds population would have been condemed to death.
The icelandic banks should repay. I'm not sure if the icelandic government underwrites bank losses in the same way and amounts that ours does, but whatever the situation in force at the time the banks were trading should apply - i.e. if the icelandic govt had an underwriting scheme, then they too are liable.
In the absence of any of the above, then investors were obviously foolhardy in placing their funds there. Thus, if the icelandic banks go bust, then that's the investors tough luck, as it is with any investment.
Financial Services compensation schems typically cover the first £100k or so in the Uk depending on the kind of investment. Dont apply to instititions or professionals or overseas investors though. Dunno about Iceland, cant imagine its much different.
So like I said I cant see any legal or moral imperative.
They weren't investing overseas, they were investing in a British branch of an Icelandic bank albeit represented on the internet in a lot of circumstances.
If Iceland doesn't cough up like the rest of worlds governments have had to then they will be asked not to take part in the global financial markets and their application to join the EU will be in jeopardy.
I wouldnt have a problem with that compensation but those who choose to invest outside of the UK (rather than those who relied on the advice of a uk financial adviser)took a risk for a higher return. Why should anybody comepensate them?
There's been so much said and written on this topic but it really boils down to one fact for me:
A debt is a debt - pay up. For whatever reasons our banks had to pay up and it was our governments decision to bankroll them. if iceland wishes to do the same then fine, but their banks must take the rough with the smooth - as all other banks globally have.
If the refuse to do so then i believe we and other European countries (remember there's more than our country demanding) should practice a trade and finace embargo. This will cripple them as they are forced to import so much other their goods, including food.
I can't remember the exact details but didn't we trade the shetlands and orkneys and iceland with the vikings at one time? so mabe its time we took iceland back, and they can stop exporting crappy bacon from denmark to us.
And another thing (whilst in rant mode) why did the banks go down?
Toxic mortgages...why where the mortgages toxic...because of Joe Public in the states refusing to honour their debts.
OK so they had real good low interest offers put in front of their noses to entice them to sign up, but hey they weren't brainwashed/coerced in to doing it. They entered into those agreements under their own volition then defaulted.
I reckon most people see the reason in the "Banks bail out" by our government. What they don't see the reason in is thev massive wages and bonuses paid to illigitimate, unqualified, gentleman's club, old school tie head bankers. OK it maybe that overall these amounts are as nothing compared to the debts overall and the amounts that are going to have to e covered by Joe Public but they are the currupt face of what to the ordinary guy in the street views as a corrupt industry ans still see as having been let off.
Actually our compensation schemes aren't funded or formally underwritten by government, they are funded by the industry.
I take your point LP and tbh Im not sure the fall out from allowing a few banks to go to the wall would be quite as horrendous as you describe. I do think that if government has to intervene to rescue private firms to ensure economic stability then those private firms should become an asset of the people who rescue them ie the government as our representatives. But then I was always a fan of clause 4.
