CyclopsRock
Member
Iceland's basically incomparable to the US and UK banks that got bailed out. They actually were too big to fail, the Icelandic ones weren't.
Okay let's compare.
Data shows the US recovered after it bailed out big banks and did not jail bankers.
You made an assertion that the US couldn't do it because it's a bigger country, you didn't explain why it's true.
Again, the fact that Iceland is tiny only made it harder for them to do it.
And I think the US should've totally went after bankers and thrown a whole lot of them to jail, not sure about putting them in receivership, but I would definitely broken them up like they did in Iceland.
But again, I'm not suggesting that you can take Icelandic solutions as is, the US and Iceland are different countries with different economies, but I am saying that this is further evidence that the "too big to fail" doom prophecies are mostly scare tactics made by people whose interests lay with the banks rather than the people.
I don't accept that there's nothing to learn from it because Iceland is a small country.
But... Iceland didn't let the banks go bust? It just nationalized them? Other countries did that too - the United Kingdom and RBS, for example. Letting them go actually bust would have been dreadful for a whole bunch of reasons, but that doesn't mean you have to leave the same people in charge. Temporary nationalization and prosecution of key figures, on the other hand, does indeed work pretty great.
Yeah, I could be wrong, but AFAIK they only nationalize those banks like Sweden did when they faced their own crisis in the 90's. And they also came out stronger as a result.
Interesting read here: http://brentpierce.com/2013/12/12/the-great-iceland-revolution-myth/
I think it's insinuated that the US would also have recovered if it did let the banks go bust. Because, as we all know, Landsbanki failing and Bank of America failing have the same effect.
I mean on the world stage.
In Iceland, they got so big that they were pretty much impossible to bail out. But internationally, they were still small banks.
There are many myths surrounding the Icelandic crisis, but what should I infer from an article dating from 2013 that puts their recovery in doubt now that we are firmly in 2015?
There are many myths surrounding the Icelandic crisis, but what should I infer from an article dating from 2013 that puts their recovery in doubt now that we are firmly in 2015?
Infer what you like, you arrogant prick. I said it was an interesting read.
Temporary nationalization and prosecution of key figures, on the other hand, does indeed work pretty great.
Infer what you like, you arrogant prick. I said it was an interesting read.
Why?
Because the government shouldn't be deciding which private enterprises deserve tax payers money?
They stop being private enterprises once they become nationalized, mate.
And of course it should. It decides it all the time. It generally does so through a licitation process.
But Lloyds, RBS, HBOS? These were - are - enormous banks, with enormous balance sheets and enormous capital. The idea of the government picking and choosing to whom they wish to deploy these things borders dangerously close to central planning for my liking. Are they there to make money? Are they there to nudge the economy in a certain route? To enact significant policy directives (ie cutting carbon output not by internalising the costs, but rather by strangling such businesses in the cradle)? If the government want to achieve certain outcomes, they should do it via legislation, not via the back door in the form of manipulating the distribution of private capital. If it's a temporary thing, these ... temptations don't exist - the business needs to remain profitable so they can sell it on again when the economy picks up.
You're assuming that the legislative wouldn't be as, for lack of a better term, dangerous, as the executive. Why?
Can't quite see the difference between doing such a thing in your scenario via taxation privileges or via more lenient terms through public banking, tbh.
I think it's insinuated that the US would also have recovered if it did let the banks go bust. Because, as we all know, Landsbanki failing and Bank of America failing have the same effect.
I mean on the world stage.
In Iceland, they got so big that they were pretty much impossible to bail out. But internationally, they were still small banks.
Infer what you like, you arrogant prick. I said it was an interesting read.
Why?
We should have put the people behind the crash behind bars for the rest of their lives IMO.
Yet only one of those countries managed to do so retaining its sovereignty and the dignity of the populace.
I'm perpetually in awe at how the most powerful country in the world seems so ridiculously defeatist when confronting successful measures enacted by smaller nations.
"We can't have a proper national healthcare service like the Nordics, our population is so small". "Sensible weapons regulations wouldn't work, there are too many firearms out there already". "We can't fight the banks, our economy couldn't take it".
Time to find that much vaunted bravery and use it for something better than pushing shitty trading deals and bombing impoverished villagers in Goatfuckingstan.