Isn't it fabulous to see democracy in action

K-9 · 10-04-2011 11:59PM

phasers wrote: »

this is probably a stupid question, but i've always wondered... What would happen if all this international debt was just written off? This money doesn't actually exist a lot of the time anyway, which is why i've away struggled to understand the whole bailout thing...

A lot of pension funds and various other investment funds would be wiped out.

jackiebaron · 10-04-2011 11:59PM

CommuterIE wrote: »

Hmmm, I really don't think the Icelandic electorate quite understand the implications of such a move (possible sanctions, economic isolation etc)

And if they do, they have some balls!

What are the implications? They said FOAD....end of story! What are you gonna do about it? Cry foul? Bitch? Moan? Complain?
You set someone up in a game and then they refuse to pony up to the gamble, and now you cry? Haha!
Fair balls Iceland! They let their banks collapse....the way it should be. Cool heads, IMO.

11-04-2011 12:00AM

You guys shouldn't argue with Biggins. I'm fairly sure that he is the Government.

phasers · 11-04-2011 12:06AM

K-9 wrote: »

A lot of pension funds and various other investment funds would be wiped out.

So that's why old people keep their life savings in their mattress!

muckwarrior · 11-04-2011 12:10AM

Biggins wrote: »

I'm conversing with someone that wants to go off with their own agenda and a chip on their shoulder to boot.

Seemed to me that he was making a valid and pertinent point.

Biggins wrote: »

I'm not dragging this thread off point so you can go off on a self-indulgent rant. Bye.

Cop out.

Biggins · 11-04-2011 12:21AM

muckwarrior wrote: »

...Cop out.

Sorry, I'm not biting - but happy Easter anyway.

K-9 · 11-04-2011 12:31AM

phasers wrote: »

So that's why old people keep their life savings in their mattress!

Softens the springs I suppose!

The whole thing is a ponzi scheme to me but people in their 30's and 40's have money stowed in pension funds too, on a computer somewhere in London or the IFSC I think.

giggsy664 · 11-04-2011 12:36AM

Hang on a second. Isn't that just artificial debt that shouldn't exist in the first place? Since the UK and the Netherlands decided to "bail out" Landsbanki/Icesave, doesn't that mean they should foot the bill?

Also, fair play to the Icelandics.

Guy:Incognito · 11-04-2011 12:40AM

Why is a vote that is nothing to do with and EU/IMF bailout or renegotion or default of same being dressed up as one by people with a certain agenda?

pragmatic1 · 11-04-2011 12:40AM

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Cue the inevitable "Let's default" posts...

Lets default. Seriously though. Bankers all around the world are trading money speculating when, not if.

pragmatic1 · 11-04-2011 12:49AM

I think the only way we'd ever get the government to listen to us would be a national strike and as many people as possible downing tools and marching to Dublin. They would have no choice then. I'd love it to happen.

deise go deo · 11-04-2011 12:54AM

Something I wanted to know when I was hearing about this on the news. What Courts would a case like this be heard in? And what legal system would cover it?

Biggins · 11-04-2011 01:21AM

deise go deo wrote: »

Something I wanted to know when I was hearing about this on the news. What Courts would a case like this be heard in? And what legal system would cover it?

...The issue will now be referred to an international court, the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13029210

AskMyChocolate · 11-04-2011 05:05AM

phasers wrote: »

this is probably a stupid question, but i've always wondered... What would happen if all this international debt was just written off? This money doesn't actually exist a lot of the time anyway, which is why i've away struggled to understand the whole bailout thing...

There used to be money. It represented,the work that your parents and your grandparents did. They used to save a little bit each week. This money could then be loaned to you.It would enable you to have a house, while looking after their investments (you), while also you would be paid a living wage. This would enable you to look after the next generation and save a little bit each week.
Unfortunately, the people who understood this were squeezed out.
Niall Fitzgerald was replaced with Dermot Gleeson.
Greed took over.
Men and women who knew how to play the long game were derided.
Short term profits were lauded above the long term welfare of a company.

Justice went to hell. Peter Sutherland was fawned upon by RTE.

The interests of Goldman Sachs became more important than the interests of the people. And it became vital to convince the people that the interests of Goldman Sachs were vital to the future of the people if they were to have any future.

Then World War Two happened. And we started all over again, just like we have done since the time of Spartacus and before.

We'll never change. Although you have to love Einstein.

"I have no idea what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones"

"If you can't explain it simply then you don't understand it well enough".

The man was a fooking legend.

Edit: Oh yeah, Phasers. Don't ever posit reasonable questions towards people who are "far better educated" than you. At best, they'll sneer at you, and convince the masses that you're a foolish child. At worst, they'll sneer at you and fail to convince the masses that you're a foolish child. Then it's sedition, and you're in Michael Collins territory. And then you're in real trouble.

steddyeddy · 11-04-2011 09:26AM

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

There used to be money. It represented,the work that your parents and your grandparents did. They used to save a little bit each week. This money could then be loaned to you.It would enable you to have a house, while looking after their investments (you), while also you would be paid a living wage. This would enable you to look after the next generation and save a little bit each week.
Unfortunately, the people who understood this were squeezed out.
Niall Fitzgerald was replaced with Dermot Gleeson.
Greed took over.
Men and women who knew how to play the long game were derided.
Short term profits were lauded above the long term welfare of a company.

Justice went to hell. Peter Sutherland was fawned upon by RTE.

The interests of Goldman Sachs became more important than the interests of the people. And it became vital to convince the people that the interests of Goldman Sachs were vital to the future of the people if they were to have any future.

Then World War Two happened. And we started all over again, just like we have done since the time of Spartacus and before.

We'll never change. Although you have to love Einstein.

"I have no idea what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones"

"If you can't explain it simply then you don't understand it well enough".

The man was a fooking legend.

Edit: Oh yeah, Phasers. Don't ever posit reasonable questions towards people who are "far better educated" than you. At best, they'll sneer at you, and convince the masses that you're a foolish child. At worst, they'll sneer at you and fail to convince the masses that you're a foolish child. Then it's sedition, and you're in Michael Collins territory. And then you're in real trouble.

Great post. I worked hard since I was young I took pride in my work and was happy with the few bob I got from my job and no way do I feel obligated to pay debts that I didnt benifit from, 10% of anglos profits were accumilated from fraud, do I feel I have to pay? Not a chance, fair play to these icelanders.

Fratton Fred · 11-04-2011 09:57AM

giggsy664 wrote: »

Hang on a second. Isn't that just artificial debt that shouldn't exist in the first place? Since the UK and the Netherlands decided to "bail out" Landsbanki/Icesave, doesn't that mean they should foot the bill?

Also, fair play to the Icelandics.

It's not artificial debt, it is real money owed to real people. It wasn't the banks that were bailed out, it was the average person who had their money in savings accounts.

The only exceptions are local authorities who placed money in icesave deposit accounts as a "safe bet".

sbsquarepants · 11-04-2011 10:40AM

hatz7 wrote: »

Iceland will be able to buy some valuable time in the courts.
A case of this magnitude is going to be one delicate operation.
They will have to pay the money back,
But it is the right course of action,

Will they have to start giving out the names of the bondholders? somebody has to sign for them, somebody has to own them.

Some cool court case,

I bet ya the solicitors from the tribunals here will be sending out the cv's to the British and Dutch banks, another gravy train fot the legal profession if ever there was one

I don't see why?
The icelandic government, unlike our own shower of gobshítes didn't guarantee every cent their crooked friends owed out. The english and the dutch took this action of their own accord, they should view it as a costly lesson and only allow banks who's deposits are 100% guaranteed and insured to operate in their jurasdiction in future.
There is no reason why the people of iceland should pay for this and fair fúcks to them for standing up for themselves. It's a pity we don't have the backbone for it.

steddyeddy · 11-04-2011 10:41AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It's not artificial debt, it is real money owed to real people. It wasn't the banks that were bailed out, it was the average person who had their money in savings accounts.

The only exceptions are local authorities who placed money in icesave deposit accounts as a "safe bet".

There are allegations of dodgy dealings in the icelandic banks fred and the people dont feel like they have to pay it back, I get that the dutch and the british are angry though.

Fratton Fred · 11-04-2011 10:48AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't see why?
The icelandic government, unlike our own shower of gobshítes didn't guarantee every cent their crooked friends owed out. The english and the dutch took this action of their own accord, they should view it as a costly lesson and only allow banks who's deposits are 100% guaranteed and insured to operate in their jurasdiction in future.
There is no reason why the people of iceland should pay for this and fair fúcks to them for standing up for themselves. It's a pity we don't have the backbone for it.

Icesave owes hundreds of thousands of people money. Strangely enough they want it back.

Landsbanki has assets that will cover 90% of the money owed. What right do the people of Iceland have to prevent that money being given back?

K-9 · 11-04-2011 11:17AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't see why?
The icelandic government, unlike our own shower of gobshítes didn't guarantee every cent their crooked friends owed out. The english and the dutch took this action of their own accord, they should view it as a costly lesson and only allow banks who's deposits are 100% guaranteed and insured to operate in their jurasdiction in future.
There is no reason why the people of iceland should pay for this and fair fúcks to them for standing up for themselves. It's a pity we don't have the backbone for it.

A guarantee like ours was never an option for Iceland as their banking problems was far worse than ours, hard to imagine, but it was a few times worse. They simply couldn't even attempt to guarantee it on any credible level as the markets just wouldn't buy it. They had no option from day one.

It seems they don't want to pay anything at all to the British, or well, have rejected 2 deals.

Fratton Fred · 11-04-2011 12:59PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

There are allegations of dodgy dealings in the icelandic banks fred and the people dont feel like they have to pay it back, I get that the dutch and the british are angry though.

I think there is a degree of empathy in the UK, the British tax payer has had to stump a shed load of cash for the banks as it is, yet there still appears to be huge bonuses being paid out.

This case is a lot different though, in that the people who would have lost out are normal savers. Plus, Landsbanki does still have a lot of assets to call on. The Iceland government has already stayed this deal would only have cost the tax payer around £168m. Not the £4bn that is actually owed.

AskMyChocolate · 11-04-2011 01:33PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Icesave owes hundreds of thousands of people money. Strangely enough they want it back.

Landsbanki has assets that will cover 90% of the money owed. What right do the people of Iceland have to prevent that money being given back?

They have no right. Nor do they have any obligation. They are not arguing that they do. It is a job for an administrator, then a receiver, then a liquidator if needs be. The Icelandic, British and Dutch governments took the decision to cover the deposits of their citizens. Although, judicially this is wrong (as nobody should have to pay for another person's inability to look after their capital) I can see the reason behind it. Nobody in Ireland, as far as I know, is arguing against our government for protecting the savings of our citizens that were given in good faith.
We are arguing, like the Icelanders, that we are not responsible for anyone's savings. We just think it's unfair for us to be responsible for everyone's savings.
Ultimately, the depositors should lose, rather than a child who wasn't involved and had no say. These were private institutions. But we're willing to meet people half way.
Unfortunately, we come from a proud history of institutionalised child abuse.
Ruairi Quinn and Michael Noonan FTW.:mad::(

Guill · 11-04-2011 02:43PM

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Cue the inevitable "Let's default" posts...

Why dont we default??

hatrickpatrick · 11-04-2011 02:46PM

Ban Ki Moon wrote: »

Many Icelanders say taxpayers should not have to bail out irresponsible banks.

And the problem with this is...?
Since when did everyone adopt this ethos of "Private companies can keep their profits if they make them, but if they end up with bad debts that's the government's problem" BS?

A bank is a private company. Ordinary taxpayers who have nothing to do with it, should have to clear up none of their mess.

Fratton Fred · 11-04-2011 03:39PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And the problem with this is...?
Since when did everyone adopt this ethos of "Private companies can keep their profits if they make them, but if they end up with bad debts that's the government's problem" BS?

A bank is a private company. Ordinary taxpayers who have nothing to do with it, should have to clear up none of their mess.

A bank got into trouble. It was taken over by the government. The people that are owed money by that bank want it back.

The bank needs to be liquidated to free up assets to pay off its debts.

AskMyChocolate · 11-04-2011 04:35PM

Guill wrote: »

Why dont we default??

Because, that would be playing their game. Why don't we repudiate?

hatz7 · 11-04-2011 08:25PM

deise go deo wrote: »

Something I wanted to know when I was hearing about this on the news. What Courts would a case like this be heard in? And what legal system would cover it?

That's what I was thinking too, It could take a year or more just to get all that technical and procedural stuff sorted out. They are buying themselves some good time, because the uberrich bondholders hate nothing more than having their names dragged out in court, I'd say some real interesting names will pop out during the course of the case.

Fair play Iceland, we will be following ye soon enough!

hatz7 · 11-04-2011 08:36PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't see why?
The icelandic government, unlike our own shower of gobshítes didn't guarantee every cent their crooked friends owed out. The english and the dutch took this action of their own accord, they should view it as a costly lesson and only allow banks who's deposits are 100% guaranteed and insured to operate in their jurasdiction in future.
There is no reason why the people of iceland should pay for this and fair fúcks to them for standing up for themselves. It's a pity we don't have the backbone for it.

I agree with your sentiments. 100%
But they will have to pay back the money at some stage,

I base my opinion on nothing more than history (the super rich always get paid, that's why they are super rich) and healthy cynicism (they will find a way to do it).

hmmm · 11-04-2011 08:43PM

The most irritating thing about those who say "default!!!" is that most of them really believe it's a painless option and they will listen to no-one who says otherwise. They're probably the same crowd who thought they were all going to become millionaires buying property in Bulgaria.

hatz7 · 11-04-2011 08:59PM

hmmm wrote: »

The most irritating thing about those who say "default!!!" is that most of them really believe it's a painless option and they will listen to no-one who says otherwise. They're probably the same crowd who thought they were all going to become millionaires buying property in Bulgaria.

I don't think your right in your analysis,
I think everybody knows full well that default would (or will) bring economic hardship,
Default offers a different kind of economic hardship. (what kind of different economic hardship, I'm not sure, I think, maybe a harsher short term hardship, ATMs running out quicker, then taking longer to be topped up again).

In my opinion, its a 'don't default' (terrible medium and long term consequences) V's 'Default' (terrible short term consequences).

What kinda gets me is that there isn't any reasoned public debate on the matter. That worries me and makes me want to do the opposite of what the state wants us to do, if you know what I mean.

The tone, and line of arguing that the 'don't default brigade' is similar to that of a communist state, Insert Irish accent here (1)there is one other way or option, (2)this is in our best interests, (3)trust in us,(4) forget what those foreigners are doing, they are foreign and evil lol.

Isn't it fabulous to see democracy in action

Comments