Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
nanne:

The fact that Icelandic citizens have to pay up has to do with the actions of the previous Icelandic government, which decided to nationalise the banks and apply for an IMF credit rather than letting the banks and the country simply go bankrupt and wipe out the savings of Icelanders and foreigners alike.

Trying to sort this out for myself, this statement confused me.

If Iceland had let the banks go bankrupt, would they not have had to pay for some savings anyway as deposit guarantees? And is deposit guarantees not exactly what the present conflict is about?

Another thing that confuses me is, what did the icelandic government do when they took over the banks? Did they
a) put the banks into receivership?
b) take over the stocks and continue running the operations?
c) transfer the debt of the banks to the government?

If a or b they could still let the banks default on their debts, and if they need to start a new bank for those icelandic savings and loans operations. If c they are criminally insane, like their US counterparts.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Aug 18th, 2009 at 01:43:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're right, it was muddled thinking. The banks were largely put into receivership, one bank was nationalised (see here). The banks were then restructed, and new ones split off by the government of Iceland.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Aug 18th, 2009 at 03:15:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If c they are criminally insane, like their US counterparts.

Or the Irish.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 19th, 2009 at 01:34:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series