Iceland Votes No, Turns A Cold Shoulder To British, Dutch Banker Bailout Deal
What a shame we didn't get to vote here, huh? Yes, despite some heavy-duty pressure (and the implied threat of being blocked from membership in the European Union), the tiny country voted no to a crushing repayment plan for the British and Dutch debts incurred by a failed Icelandic bank. That plan would have required each Icelander to pay around $135 a month for eight years — about 25% of the average family's salary:
REYKJAVIK, Iceland – Icelanders blew whistles and set off fireworks in the capital as referendum results Sunday showed they had resoundingly rejected a $5.3 billion plan to repay Britain and the Netherlands for debts spawned by the collapse of an Icelandic bank.
Voters in the tiny Atlantic island nation defied both their parliament and international pressure to display their anger at how their nation was being treated.
"This is a strong 'No' from the Icelandic nation," said Magnus Arni Skulason, co-founder of a group opposed to the deal. "The Icelandic public understands that we are sovereign and we have to be treated like a sovereign nation — not being bullied like the British and the Dutch have been doing."
[...] Britain and the Netherlands want to be reimbursed for money they paid their citizens with deposits in Icesave, an Internet bank that collapsed in 2008, along with most of Iceland's banking sector. Most ordinary Icelanders feel the repayment schedule was too onerous.
[...] The overwhelming margin reflected Icelanders' simmering anger at bankers and politicians as the country struggles to recover from a financial meltdown. President Olafur R. Grimsson — who sparked the referendum by refusing to sign the repayment deal agreed by Iceland's parliament — said Icelanders resented having to pay for the actions of a few "greedy bankers."
He said, however, the British and Dutch would get their money back eventually.
"The referendum was not about refusing to pay back the money," Grimsson told the BBC. "Iceland is willing to reimburse those two governments, but it has to be on fair terms."
Iceland, a volcanic island with a population of just 320,000, went from economic wunderkind to fiscal basket case almost overnight when the credit crunch took hold.
And you'll never in a million years guess how that happened! (Stop me if this sounds familiar.)
They became a free-market poster child. By deregulating the banking and financial sectors, in just five years, Icelanders saw their wealth increase by 45 per cent. The banks went from domestic lending to international financing, until foreign financing made up two thirds of their debt. Then it all collapsed.
The new left-of-center government has been trying to negotiate a plan to repay $3.5 billion to Britain and $1.8 billion to the Netherlands as compensation for funds that those governments paid to around 340,000 of their citizens who had accounts with Icesave, an Icelandic Internet bank that offered high interest rates before it failed along with its parent, Landsbanki.
Failure to settle the dispute could have repercussions for Iceland's economic recovery. The International Monetary Fund has agreed to loan Iceland $4.6 billion, and the agreement is linked to repaying its international debts.
[...] Many Icelanders remain angry at Britain for invoking anti-terrorist legislation to freeze the assets of Icelandic banks at the height of the crisis.
Oh yeah, about that last part. Iceland Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir has demanded an apology from the UK for freezing their assets. I wonder how long she'll have to wait?
I don't blame them for being furious. Even Icelandic companies that had nothing to do with their banks had their assets frozen by the U.K. government.
And of course, the International Monetary Fund is a flock of vultures. Their Structural Adjustment Programs usually increase poverty in the countries they "help," because one of the main conditions is that the governments sell off their national assets - usually to western corporations at fire sale prices.
So good for Iceland! Too bad our Congress doesn't have that kind of spine.
perhaps,Susie, you might give a thought to the numerous families in those other countries who were induced into putting their savings into attractive interest bearing savings accounts of Icelandic banks only to see their money transferred to Iceland just before the banks collapsed.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
That the taxpayers of a country bear full financial responsibility for the actions of unregulated bankers?
Those savings were reimbursed by their governments, and their governments sought reimbursement from Iceland - which Iceland's citizens support. What they do not support is the excessive interest rate applied to the repayment plan.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
(and a big hip hip hooray for Iceland!)
(when does our chance to vote against "those bastards" come?)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
I'm saying that it was fundamentally wrong for those banks to have done what they did and their government could have compelled them to make restitution and transfer that money back. Basically they exported the misery those Icelandic banks caused to the citizens of other countries. They forced those country's deposit insurers to make restitution for their speculative and unwise and most importantly unregulated actions. They lied to the regulators of England and the Netherlands about the stability of their banks. I am quite confident that if the situation involved foreign banks doing the same thing to US depositors there would be cries of rage about it on this very site. Now did I say that the citizens of Iceland, who had no knowledge of what was being done by their banks, shoulder the whole burden? No I did not. I merely ask if it is fairer for the people of England and the Netherlands to bear all of that burden. I submit that it is not.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
wants to pay the debt. Just on better terms.
on less draconian terms even if it is pennies on the dollar.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Citizens of Iceland did this?
Peter G, ...I hope no-one has induced you into keeping your money in one of those 401-k scams have they?
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
not the citizens of Iceland. If they are anything like our politicians here, the public did not really have a choice in the matter.
No doubt about it. Those people have ice in their veins. They're ice cold in a crisis.
...their icy stones.
(testicles always need to remain "a little cooler" you know...
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
. .
can fill this out. I kind of recall where Iceland's banks collapsed because they had a ton of money invested in a British run bank in HKG, which ended up being a total scam run by one (or a few employees) that literally caused the bank to loose billions (or trillions). That, and they had money tied up in the U.S. - and we know what those crooks did to the worlds economy.
I say, good for them.
Why would GB and the NL bail out the depositors? Receiving a higher interest rate indicates they were taking a greater risk.
In the absence of government insurance (like our FDIC) where is the personal responsibility of the depositors?
errrr.... there was a government insurance scheme in place. In order to market savings products in the UK (and any other EU country) a Bank has to either join that country's depositor protection scheme, or alternatively provide protection through their own country's equivalent scheme. The Icelandic Banks marketing their savings accounts in the UK WERE members of the Icelandic governments deposit insurance scheme. That is where the obligation upon Iceland to pay its debts comes from. Its not the UK or Dutch government or citizens problem that Iceland did not properly fund their depositor protection scheme.
So basically the retribution exacted by the citizens to deny this particular attempt is sweet, but, in reality, Iceland DOES owe that money, eh?
if your deposits disappeared by wire tranfers overnight. The differential being offered by the Icelandic banks was not spectacular. Just enough to get them into massive trouble when the world economy collapsed.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Why does one govt after another kneel before the banks?
It is the role of govt to regulate, to protect the citizens and businesses that rely on the banks.
Why has one govt after another failed to do its job?
Every single Goldman Sachs employee should already be under indictment for fraud in just about every nation on the planet.
Why won't the governments do their job?
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
there will be serious repercussions. They won't get to play in international finance or insurance ever again. No one will ever trust them again. They have virtually no manufacturing base and it will be back to fishing and tourism to earn their daily bread.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Well, there are two roads to take, not just for Iceland but for most every country in the world. Either they sit back at allow the further financialization of their economies (which is nothing more than an impossible, un-payable, growing debt) or they do something about it and change course. It would be one thing if ONLY Iceland were in this position. That, of course, is not the case. So Iceland can choose to give away all of their valuable resources, infrastructure and a large portion of their future earnings (which means, all things told, that whatever resources they could profit off of will not be owned by them and won't benefit them in the future anyway) or they can take a stand (Argentina did as much, obviously a different country, but they did and the numbers were far greater). Argentina did, Ecuador did (and won), Greece is in huge trouble (with unrest large and growing), the Baltic countries are drowning in debt, Spain, Portugal, the US (far and way in the worse shape), amongst many others are in the same position. Look at the debt of the formerly Third World to the banks and Treasuries of the West. Will they fight and take the other road and have a chance to recover or will they, like so many before them, sell off everything of value in their countries and get more loans that they could never pay back, which makes the situation worse in the future? Debt inflation or wage increases relative to debt for workers? Economic domination or sovereignty? Public services and an industrial base or debt peonage? The world really is at a fork in the road.
in their financial position but they are uniquely vulnerable.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
There are worse things than fishing and tourism. International finance has shown itself to be largely fraud. The future doesn't exist yet, but Iceland has set an example that is more trustworthy than the actions of the U.S. and Britain.
congratulations Icelanders. way to stand up for yourselves. now that's democracy. you make the founders proud.
It's nice to know there is still one country out there that is not as dumb as America and Briton. Way to think for yourselves and stand up for real accountiblity Iceland.
Yeah, great move Iceland. Watch as their country reverts to the stone age and a barter economy. Framing this as a "Banker Bailout Deal" is total nonsense anyway. The Icelandic Government guaranteed deposits with these Icelandic banks, then failed to regulate them properly and allowed them to run riot. This deal (or whatever compromise replaces it) is simply expecting Iceland to repay its debts run up in its Depositor Compensation Scheme that the British and Dutch governments advanced to savers on the bases of assurances and promises from the Icelandic government.
Britain were repaying loans to the US government from the 2nd World War right up until the 1980's. Cry me a river that Iceland will have to pay a price for living high during the good times when fishermen became $200,000 a year bankers overnight.
"Its not the UK or Dutch government or citizens problem that Iceland did not properly fund their depositor protection scheme."
In the same way that it isn't our problem that the crooks in the American government (not us directly or in some direct democratic referendum) listened to nonsense, junk economics for decades and sold our industrial base, our economy and pro-debtor policies down the river, privatizing public resources and handing over basic services to horrible, inefficient private, for profit entities. I guess we always had the option to start a revolution, but there seems to be a democracy gap the world over these days and that gap is always biggest in the countries that have followed the horrible neo-liberal playbook. It's also the same as saying that it isn't our problem that the war profiteers in government started the Iraq war. Maybe the citizens on those countries will replace the crooks in government with people have SANE and moral economic policies to begin with.
I find it hard to feel sorry for the British in all of this since they've done this exact playbook on every country that was stupid enough to listen to their horrible advice and who had to give away their economic sovereignty, best resources and industries to the British and Americans through institutions dominated by the US and Britain. Let's see how happy people are in the coming years when the "structural adjustment" policies arrive IN the US and Britain. Let's see how wonderful the "free market" is when the dollar is no longer the reserve currency, or at the THE reserve currency.
By the way, I just read Michael Hudson's "SuperImperialism". He details the debates and discussions that the British and the Americans had regarding the repayment of WWI and WWII debts (and also the setting up of the IMF and World Bank vs. the ITO, which is interesting given the current events). Keynes and the UK negotiators were enraged by what the Americans were asking of them, they were enraged by things like Lend Lease and the like, that the US was using as leverage to pay back the war costs (their debts). Interesting how the arguments differ when the shoe is on the other foot. Or how the US, in control of the Bretton Woods institutions, was strongly in favor of pro-creditor policies when they were the world’s bank but they did a 180 with in the Bretton Woods institutions and things like the flow of gold and gold convertibility when they turned into debtors.
Good for Iceland. Not only does it tell the banksters to take a hike, maybe the citizens in the creditor countries will take a look at the crooks in government, still under the spell of junk economics, and do something about it. The British shouldn’t look at Icelanders any different than they did at Keynes when he was fighting for THEM under the same conditions years ago. They should look at “New Labour” and the Conservatives for selling them on the these horrible economic policies to begin with.
What would the British do if they were in debt to, say, China, and China said that they had to privatize the NHS and sell it to Chinese firms to pay back the debt?
I have only pity for anyone who believes that the FDIC and related American depositor insurance programs are adequate.
You must know what a run on the banks is - surely you realize that we're the blink of an eye away from financial collapse if a run starts here. American banks are no more solvent than Iceland's, which is precisely why they required funds from the federal treasury to prop them up.
Banksters are shit scared of countries like Iceland. Bravo Iceland!
I hope global warming turns Greater Scandinavia into prime real estate and the leaders of the Free At Last World.
(Sorry, China. I know the 21st Century is supposed to belong to you, but I can dream, can't I?)
and I'd move there in a minute if they'd let me.
You are falling for the misleading title to this article. This vote in Iceland is screwing British and Dutch taxpayers, not Bankers.
Iceland had pretty much the most deregulated free for all banking system in the world and now the chickens are coming home to roost. They are looking for loans and bailouts from European countries and to join the EU, fair enough, but not if they will not honour their debts over a reasonable timescale.
Do you think they care about joining the EU at this point? It won't be long before it's a sinking ship. They made the right decision to protect themselves. And the rest of the 1st world made the WRONG decision to bail-out these banks that are demanding payments. They participated in institutional fraud.
Wow, this article is so far off the mark I don't know where to begin. This has nothing to do with people (or people power) standing up to evil bankers.
Iceland's government couldn't compensate British and Dutch clients/people/taxpayers (as they were obliged to do under international regulation!) after Iceland's ridiculously unregulated banks collapsed, so the British and Dutch government partly covered the outstanding debts to those individuals. Now those governments (taxpayers) want their due money back from the Icelandic government.
What the hell is wrong with that? It's only fair, and it has nothing to do with people standing up to "the system" or "bankers".
I like Crooks and Liars, but you really need to avoid this kind of ignorant populism... it undermines your (usually) very valid message.
banks should pay it back, not taxpayers.
(fuck corporate welfare)
...and I hope that America isn't Obliged under international regulation to bailout everyone either!
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
err... the responsible (icelandic) banks are gone or on the brink bankruptcy.
And in any case, British and Dutch clients of those banks accept that they have lost money they deposited in those banks, EXCEPT for the basic sum guaranteed under international regulations by the Icelandic government/state/taxpayer.
Again: why wouldn't the British and Dutch consumers demand that money back?
They can demand it all they want but it won't make a difference it seems - and I'm loving it! Hopefully it will begin to change people's thinking on how they handle money, for the better.
Well, its good when people learn to take greater responsibility for their consumption patterns, but in this case there's not much to "love":
1) Iceland is a tiny country crippled by debt. Even though it was caused by its own failure (not just of bankers; that island is a tiny community where everyone was happily living beyond their means because of an unregulated bubble of greed of consumers/voters, business and politicans alike), its nothing to laugh at. It will be a bleak future from now, with a lot of economic hardship.
2) Many consumers in other countries lost their hard-earned savings, which is nothing to laugh at either.
It's a victory, because it de-legitimises the power of corrupt financial institutions. That's what I'm happy about.
And the future won't necessarily be bleak...it depends how quickly and efficiently the country can re-configure its priorities - the same for any nation touched by the GFC. I hope people recognise this, but it will probably take much more pain yet to mobilise them.
Maybe (I'm not so sure), but in the meantime, ordinary citizens have lost their savings or are forced to sell their houses... isn't it pretty distasteful to gloat about something that has caused that?
It's truly nothing compared to the global tyranny we've been living under. But then, I'm considering also future trends and where they would leads us if we were somehow able to re-inflate the bubble.
The truth is that the 1st world has been manipulated by so many lies and promises, for so long now, that we have corrupt expectations and needs. People feel they need these corrupt institutions to survive. They do not. All they do is promote inequality.
How much did British citizens lose, directly and indirectly, with Northern Rock? How about RBS? How does this compare with Iceland and would the money Iceland would pay to the British and Dutch banks not come out of the social services, and basic needs of Icelanders? Were will the bailout money of the financial fat cats go to? I'm sorry but is the issue not the philosophy and the policies that have lead to all of this? There are victims on both sides of this and this should wake them up (as it should us) about what the elites in their governments have been doing and the nonsnese economic ideas they've put into place.
the British have a major share and say within the IMF. The US has veto power and usually teams up with the British to call the shots. Which institutions gave Iceland the advice to deregulate their financial sector in the first place (not just Iceland anyways, as we all know)? Have they not done this over and over again? Swoop in with economic aid (or support a brutal regime who agrees to the terms with no say from the public), with policies attached that they know are going to hand over economic sovereignty and which lead the countries to go into debt and then when the $hit hits the fan they either force them to hand over the keys to the car or threaten a capital strike? I guess people are endlessly supposed to do nothing when this happens to them and I guess the citizens of the creditor countries shouldn't rethink who they put into office.
Here’s Michael Hudson talking about the that wonderful IMF institution, with some insight as to how it is REALLY used to almost always benefit the owners of the West’s financial wealth:
http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson05112009.html
It is supposed to be merely incidental that the largest IMF shareholders, the United States and Britain, happen to be the major creditor nations and their banks the main beneficiaries of IMF loans. But in a Parliamentary question-and-answer session on May 6, Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown spilled the beans. Under pressure for his notorious “light-touch regulation” as Chancellor of the Exchequer (1997-2007), he undid half a century of rhetorical pretense by announcing that he was pressuring the IMF to bail out Britain in its nasty dispute with the Icelandic owners of a British bank that went under. He was in a position to know the nitty-gritty of who owed what and which nation’s monetary authorities were responsible for which banks. So when he said that he was strong-arming the IMF and other organizations to force Iceland’s government to pay for his own government’s mistakes, he must have known this was breaking the unwritten law of pretending that the IMF is not the servant of creditor nations in bilateral disputes with smaller economies.
Here’s the background. Mr. Brown and his New Labour predecessor Tony Blair have saddled British taxpayers with a generation of payments to pay for their decade of deregulating London’s financial sector. Bad mortgage lending led to the failure first of Northern Rock and then the Royal Bank of Scotland, whose ambitious junk-mortgage program had made it the world’s largest bank. At $3.8 trillion before it collapsed, it was nearly twice the size of Britain’s $2.1 trillion gross domestic product (GDP). So one can understand why Mr. Brown was flailing around to blame someone for New Labour’s “Don’t see, don’t ask” policy.
…This set the stage for his explosion last Wednesday when he explained how he intended to make Iceland pay, not only for Icesave but also for Kaupthing S&F, for which the British authorities were responsible in the case of depositors who had lost money. Unlike the unfortunate IceSave (administered as a branch of Iceland’s Landsbanki and hence subject to Icelandic regulatory authority), Kaupthing S&F is incorporated as a distinct British affiliate, and regulated and insured as such. The UK authorities accordingly have not claimed that Iceland’s government has any obligations to reimburse British depositors who have lost money. Yet when asked about the “£6 million that the Christie hospital [in Manchester] stands to lose in the Icelandic bank Kaupthing,” central banker Brown pretended that Kaupthing was not a British bank overseen by domestic deposit insurance authorities. “The fact is that we are not the regulatory authority and that many, many more people had finances in institutions regulated by the Icelandic authorities,” he insisted before Parliament. “The first responsibility is for the Icelandic authorities to pay up, which is why we are in negotiations with the International Monetary Fund and other organisations about the rate at which Iceland can repay the losses that they are responsible for.”
This naturally has prompted Icelanders to ask British authorities just which “other institutions” they may be talking to, and what they may be hoping to gain. The IMF’s representative in Iceland, Franek Rozwadowski, was quick to explain to the Icelandic newspaper Fréttablaðið that it was not the IMF’s role to intervene in “a bilateral matter that needs to be resolved bilaterally.” But fears remain that Iceland’s government will be pressured to squeeze out money from the economy to reimburse foreign speculators on the winning end of the many bad gambles that Iceland’s banks made before being de-privatized.
Iceland cold shoulders cold cash?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
bailed out. I think now most of us would vote no.
They made their bed let them die in it!
I still think we should go take the money back. If we can't get the cash lets just take the buildings, there furnishings, leave an empty shell.
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness and it is killing America!
Are you saying that the average Iceland family makes $ 6480 a year?
Likewise here. I would never have voted to bail out the banks--I just didn't have a vote, but bought and paid for whore congress critters.
Britain and the Netherlands are both very well off countries--they can afford to bail out their citizens (they should make them take a haircut though) and give very reasonable terms to the Icelandic population. Britain;s using anti-terror laws says everything about that repressive, non-democratic inbred country. I'd take Iceland any day.
"that repressive, non-democratic inbred country. I'd take Iceland any day"... nice.
It always amazes me how- beyond making absurd statements like that one- people have a need to paint the world in black and white.
Even in such a sad and difficult case as the icelandic crisis, human beings apparently need to create a "good vs evil" narrative, rather than dealing with the complexity of the real world.
What does "dealing with the complexity of the real world" mean? Legitimising complexity (fraud)?
No, but understanding that most people are at the least self-centered, and that they try to make the most out of their own lives first, before getting into gran debates on ideology and ethics. That doesn't make them evil, it just makes them human.
When an english mother is angry with Iceland because she just lost the money that was supposed to finance her children's education, what does she care about rants against bankers or ideological discourse on the evils of the global capitalist system. She just cares about bringing up her child in the best way possible.
Well I'm glad you agree with me then. People SHOULD have feelings about their own money, SHOULD be protective of it, and SHOULD NOT trust international banking cartels. We will have better societies for it.
Sure, personal responsibility, awareness and integrity is fundamental.
Unfortunately, both groups of run of the mill civilians got absolutely screwed here. However, as a believer in representative democracy, one nation voted to put the people in power who made the laws that allowed for the total deregulation of their banking industry.
It may not be popular here to speak like that, but I don't limit that to only this case. We, as Americans, bear collective responsibility for continually electing Bush and the GOP in the early 2000's. It is the unfortunate part of representative democracy - what appears to be the best for the common good ends up being the opposite.
Please don't label me as a "personal responsibility conservative." Those types tend to eschew said responsibility in most circumstances. Rather, I view representative democracy as the most free form of governance, but, in cases like this, the voters who allow their democracy to be perverted bear the costs.
Couldn't agree more.
and not American.
"When an english mother is angry with Iceland because she just lost the money that was supposed to finance her children's education, what does she care about rants against bankers or ideological discourse on the evils of the global capitalist system."
So put a human face on this elite created disaster. The mistakes made by politicians in her own country have caused this mess. If she wants to blame Iceland alone then she isn't interested in understanding what has happened to her or her country and you shouldn't use her pain to prove your point. Did that mother notice Norhtern Rock, RBS and see a trend? Is Iceland to blame for that too or the policies choosen by her government?
Obviously the financial system is rotten to the core, and needs a huge overhaul. But do you really think that that mother cares more about such a general statement than about getting (a bit of) her money back?
Ocne the banks became insolvent (yes yes, damn them), the ones who didnt live up to their direct responsibilities were the icelandic government and, with the referendum, the icelandic voters.
In the case of Northern Rock, the British government had a similar responsibility, and, unlike Reykjavik, did in fact live up to its direct obligations.
"In the case of Northern Rock, the British government had a similar responsibility, and, unlike Reykjavik, did in fact live up to its direct obligations."
RBS? Citigroup? AIG? Bank of America? Goldman Sachs? The Mexican Peso Crisis? Long Term Capital Management? The East Asian Financial Crisis? I get it though. It is the responsibility of the governments to socialize the costs of the financial parasites when their deck of cards falls down (as it always does). Why? One crony in the government works with a crony in another to write laws that say so. You and I have no say, little knowledge of their activities and no direct control of them once in office. Most of the people who decide this for us aren’t elected either, they’re appointed to positions of power by the bums people elect. We're supposed to just shut up and see our tax dollars go towards financial parasites and not towards health care because some bureaucrat wrote a law saying so. There's the crying mother though, pulls on the heart. She obviously says nothing about the other bailouts (far, far bigger) and doesn't realize a pattern, cause not only is she sad but she isn’t curios about the world and doesn’t want to understand the situation. It's a crime when her tax dollars DON'T cover the mistakes and theft of those in her government and don't cover the losses that result in horrible economic policy. She only cries when other countries want to repay her in ways that don't destroy their lives, and she would have been ok if Keynes and the UK Bretton Woods negotiators gave away everything Britain had when they were in the position Iceland is in. Pull that crap somewhere else. What bank do you work for? Some silly think tank?
The reason why people like you are fighting Iceland’s decision is because you know that this is an option that other countries can take and it wouldn’t bode well for the financial swindlers.
"But do you really think that that mother cares more about such a general statement than about getting (a bit of) her money back?"
Just stop. Does this mother want her money back from RBS? Northern Rock? Why should her money go towards those crooks (and the money is far bigger)? Like I said, you and people like yourself are using these types of arguments because you know how dangerous it is when a country says no to this racket. Other countries might get dangerous ideas. Then what? New Labour and the Conservatives have to pay for self serving and failed economic policies they've implemented to benefit themselves and people like them?
Very well said. Thank you.
I was about to go after the ad misericordiam European is using, but your refutation is far better than what I would have written.
are bank bailouts featured in teh summer or winter Olympic Games? It's so exciting!
they said NO to average hard-working people (taxpayers) bailing out the greedy bankers for their excesses... unlike what happened in amerika where our 'betters' shouldered us with billions of dollars of bailouts to the greedy banksters who, within 14 months of receiving said billions, returned to their ways and paying out billions to themselves in 'bonuses'... so, we get to shoulder the bailouts in the form of taxes for decades and they get to shoulder billions in compensation and a return to the high-life...
yup, sounds like 'capitalism' in america...
The money the Icelandic government is due to repay is to the British and Dutch governments, not to banks.
A true democracy.
Comments are closed on this entry