Iceland overthrows government, banks; media suppresses news

[Dman8777]

This sort of thing is exactly what every western nation over the last few years should have gone through. It's the only way the systemic problems get resolved. Unfortunately, the people in most western nations have been brainwashed into self-delusional zombies.

In the US, people are going to be paying for the bankers errors through higher taxes or reduced social programs. In Europe, the wealthier nations are being forced to bail out the poorer nations. People in the wealthier countries will have to shoulder more taxes or more debt and people in all of the poorer countries have to face 'austerity measures.'

And why are so many people forced to shoulder the bankers problems? To preserve the massive wealth accumulated by a tiny minority in the past few decades and a system that allows a handful of people to control large amounts of wealth and power within our 'free' societies...

 

[Craig234]

This sort of thing is exactly what every western nation over the last few years should have gone through. It's the only way the systemic problems get resolved. Unfortunately, the people in most western nations have been brainwashed into self-delusional zombies.

In the US, people are going to be paying for the bankers errors through higher taxes or reduced social programs. In Europe, the wealthier nations are being forced to bail out the poorer nations. People in the wealthier countries will have to shoulder more taxes or more debt and people in all of the poorer countries have to face 'austerity measures.'

And why are so many people forced to shoulder the bankers problems? To preserve the massive wealth accumulated by a tiny minority in the past few decades and a system that allows a handful of people to control large amounts of wealth and power within our 'free' societies...

That is pretty much it, how this robbery works; more for the rich means less fo the poor.

It worked that way in many cases of rich nations robbing poor nations of the little they had, of keeping the poor country's labor and resources cheap.

Put in a leader of the poor country who will sign deals to borrow large amounts that go back to companies from the lending countries; then 'austerity' to pay the loans.

Anyone who hasn't read 'Confessions of an economic hit man', while I'm not sure if it's literally accurate, would benefit from its explaining how this works.

 

[Craig234]

Wrong, government guaranteeing anything always creates a moral hazard.

I hate this word, but duh. First, the government did not formally guarantee those things. Rather, the banks got into a position, pushing their de-regulation, to be able to blackmail the government and the nation economically. Why do you think when people like Paulson pushed TARP, they said how they were strong opponents of that moral hazard, but it had to be done because of the price to the country not to?

If terrorists had a nuclear bomb in a major American city and would kill millions of Americans if we didn't let someone they wanted out of jail, you can say all day that giving in to their demands creates a sort of 'moral hazard', rewards terrorism, etc. But the fact is once it's gotten to that point the only correct decision is to do it.

Then you can talk all day about how we never should have deregulated nuclear material and sold it to the highest anonymous bidder, but it's too late then.

Allowing millions of Americans to be blown up - or the economy to be in effect blown up - because we let those people get that blackmail position was an error, but it doesn't mean they don't have blackmail, or that we should not give in to the 'ransom' that's mush less bad, and then fix things. The problem is, we aren't fixing what's broken. Too big to fail banks are bigger than before.

And if these banks were indeed "corrupt" and committing illegal acts then the government failed at stopping them.

Yes, it did. That's what having 40% of the economy's profits buys you with voters who vote based on the well-funded 30-second ads saying "Al Gore says he invented the internet!" 5000 times to voters who say, 'why I don't like that Al Gore, he's a big liar.'

What are you offering here? How are you suggesting we start electing politicians who will side with the public, not Wall Street? You say let them destroy the economy? Your post offers nothing but bad alternatives, not any solutions. The only group I see who will do better policies are progressives, and for them to get elected more means campaign finance reform reducing the importance of big money.

If that works, more Democrats and Republicans might shift back towards being more for the public. But it looks like a very small chance of any reform.

Instead, it seems the country is pretty much headed more and more towards plutocracy, and less for the masses of Americans.

At some point, the rich can buy off voters into giving up the very power of democracy, with economic incentives that are much more attractive to the people than the 'useless democracy' that isn't doing them any good, which pretty much would cement the plutocracy status.

 

[epidemis]

Iceland better not need to borrow any money for the next hundred years, because I don't think these people understand that no one will give it to them.

Why not? It's not like they have defaulted on any loan. I'm more surprised anyone would loan the american government any money.

If terrorists had a nuclear bomb in a major American city and would kill millions of Americans if we didn't let someone they wanted out of jail, you can say all day that giving in to their demands creates a sort of 'moral hazard', rewards terrorism, etc. But the fact is once it's gotten to that point the only correct decision is to do it.

Fail.

 

[Craig234]

Fail.

Learn to argue.

 

[Double Trouble]

Any link to a reputable (non kook) source for good info? I don't want to bother reading a bunch of drivel on some hacked up blog, I'd rather read real information from a reputable source.

 

[Jhhnn]

The govts of Iceland and Ireland both made the same mistake- assuming the liabilities of their banks, putting the citizenry on the hook for the bankers' greed & recklessness.

That's particularly troublesome for Iceland, whose bankers wheeled & dealed on the international level, dealing in amounts of money that the small Icelandic population of 350K simply doesn't have.

It's no coincidence that Conservatives were running both countries in the frenetic runup to the crises, or that they were Johnny on the Spot to bail out their banker buddies, either.

Iceland, in particular, was just a conduit for Bankstas, who attracted investment money from other countries & invested it outside of Iceland, for the most part. Average Icelanders benefited from the boom, no doubt, but not in proportion to the liabilities. They'd have been a lot better off to just say no to the international bankers, tell 'em that private enterprise needs to sort out their own problems. Their economy crashed & the value of their money went to hell in a handbasket, anyway, but they wouldn't have enormous debt while trying to rebuild.

Privatize profits & socialize losses- it's the agenda of so-called "Conservative" politicians & Bankstas everywhere.

 

[Craig234]

The govts of Iceland and Ireland both made the same mistake- assuming the liabilities of their banks, putting the citizenry on the hook for the bankers' greed & recklessness.

That's particularly troublesome for Iceland, whose bankers wheeled & dealed on the international level, dealing in amounts of money that the small Icelandic population of 350K simply doesn't have.

It's no coincidence that Conservatives were running both countries in the frenetic runup to the crises, or that they were Johnny on the Spot to bail out their banker buddies, either.

Iceland, in particular, was just a conduit for Bankstas, who attracted investment money from other countries & invested it outside of Iceland, for the most part. Average Icelanders benefited from the boom, no doubt, but not in proportion to the liabilities. They'd have been a lot better off to just say no to the international bankers, tell 'em that private enterprise needs to sort out their own problems. Their economy crashed & the value of their money went to hell in a handbasket, anyway, but they wouldn't have enormous debt while trying to rebuild.

Privatize profits & socialize losses- it's the agenda of so-called "Conservative" politicians & Bankstas everywhere.

The fundamental problem with democracy today is that well-funded interests, using propaganda machines ('think tanks', marketing firms) and mass media, can exploit voters' weaknesses to get their support (mainly through negative advertising against the people on the public's side), and corrupt democracy to their own agenda.

There's just no known counter to this. For every citizen who says something against it, he's a guy on a street corner drowned out by mass media.

If the message starts to take off, it's attacked, demonized, underpublicized, taken over, whatever is needed to neuter it. But they don't 'take off' much.

In Iceland's case, that sales pitch seems to have been getting in on a scheme to make money.

Take the rare figure like Elizabeth Warren - she can't get appointed to run her own designed agency that's a mild one for consumers.

In a very rare case, she might get elected to the US Senate (running against 'Wall Street's favorite member of Congress', Scott Brown) - but that's only a handful.

For every Elizabeth Warren there are a thousand who serve the Wall Street Agenda.

And Warren doesn't even seem to have any real liberal agenda - she's just a critic of the worst behaviors of Wall Street, making her 'fringe'.

 

[Lanyap]

This is what we should have done in the US.

Returning to the tense situation in 2010, while the Icelanders were refusing to pay a debt incurred by financial sharks without consultation, the coalition government had launched an investigation to determine legal responsibilities for the fatal economic crisis and had already arrested several bankers and top executives closely linked to high risk operations.

Iceland's financial plight was highlighted in the movie "Inside Job". Here's one clip.
http://movieclips.com/KCct-inside-job-movie-financial-stability-in-iceland/

 

[Nebor]

Learn to argue.

There's really no need to argue when anyone can see you're just a soft-hearted, muffin headed liberal that makes decisions by emotions instead of logic and reason.

The short version is that according to game theory the terrorists have no reason not to detonate the bomb once they have what they want. Because they are an amorphous group with no clear structure or organization, they can't build or lose "trust" with other players.

I took a course called The Economics of Terrorism in grad school, it was difficult but fascinating. Terrorism is one of the most effective, cost efficient methods of bringing about political change in the world precisely because it causes people like you to make poor, irrational decisions.

FWIW I wouldn't let the prisoner go even if the bomb were going to kill everyone I know in the world (family, friends, etc.) I'm not easily swayed by emotion.

 

[fskimospy]

Iceland better not need to borrow any money for the next hundred years, because I don't think these people understand that no one will give it to them.

Just like how nobody loans money to Argentina? They defaulted a few years back and have since reentered the bond market. They just have to pay higher rates.

 

[Rainsford]

I don't think anyone actually likes that. Many conservatives would have been fine with the 2008 banks failing.



No, maybe people are missing that corporations exist to shelter shareholders from liability. All you lose is your investment. You don't take on personal debt. That is the raison d'etre of corporations.

Are either of those two things practical in circumstances when a corporation can have a very powerful effect on an entire country? Letting a bank (or whatever) fail when doing so can harm your entire economy might not be the best idea. And do we really want to limit liability for a corporation that has the power to very negatively impact a lot of people on a personal economic level?

It seems like we have the worst of both worlds though. No personal liability when you screw up and the government makes sure there's little corporate problems either. I'm not sure what the correct answer is, but it definitely seems like we have yet to find it.

 

[Craig234]

Are either of those two things practical in circumstances when a corporation can have a very powerful effect on an entire country? Letting a bank (or whatever) fail when doing so can harm your entire economy might not be the best idea. And do we really want to limit liability for a corporation that has the power to very negatively impact a lot of people on a personal economic level?

It seems like we have the worst of both worlds though. No personal liability when you screw up and the government makes sure there's little corporate problems either. I'm not sure what the correct answer is, but it definitely seems like we have yet to find it.

The idea of the corporation was created under Queen Elizabeth so that the nobility could have ventures and have limited liability for them.

The first global mega corporation for this was the East India Company (there's an interesting history of it in Thom Hartmann's "Unequal Protection").

It's clear the benefits were entirely for the owners/investors.

This is why the history of corporations always had them quite limited, under the thumb of government. The typical corporate charter was for a limited duration for a specific project, like 'a corporation to build a bridge'. Corporations ahd to be approved as 'serving a public interest'. The owners weren't just given these protections to go crazy and dominate society.

Of course, what's happened is a steady increase in the power of corporations, to where they dominate politics and some make more money than whole nations.

The thing is, all this power isn't in the hands of a ruler or government to be used for the good of society - it's in the hands of a corporation who is legally required not to consider society's interests, but only to maximize returns for the shareholders. As the movie 'The Corporation' argues, corporations resemble sociopaths.

As corporations get more powerful, they're really just returning to the days of Queen Elizabeth, as far as forcing society to serve them in plutocracy.

There's a reason why the public interest is supposed to be represented by government and to keep corporations in check from abuses.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Good for the Icelanders! I wish we could do this in the U.S.

 

[Double Trouble]

The thing is, all this power isn't in the hands of a ruler or government to be used for the good of society - it's in the hands of a corporation

See, that's one of the things that sets you aside from rational people: you actually believe a "ruler or government" is any more likely to think about the good of society than any other individual or group. Here's a hint: they are not. With a corporation you know what their intent is and you can act accordingly. Nobody forces you to give your money to that corporation, unlike governments.

 

[Infohawk]

And do we really want to limit liability for a corporation that has the power to very negatively impact a lot of people on a personal economic level?

Nobody's limiting the liability of the corporation. I was talking about the shareholders' liability being limited.

 

[Jhhnn]

See, that's one of the things that sets you aside from rational people: you actually believe a "ruler or government" is any more likely to think about the good of society than any other individual or group. Here's a hint: they are not. With a corporation you know what their intent is and you can act accordingly. Nobody forces you to give your money to that corporation, unlike governments.

Utterly incorrect in a modern society. Participation in the economy isn't optional, it's mandatory, particularly for urban dwellers. We often have choices as to which corporate entity gets our money, but we can't avoid them entirely.

We also have no voice in the operation of the corporations we deal with, but we always have the right to vote in our Democracy... well, unless Repubs get their way, in which case some of us will be more equal than others...

 

[Nebor]

well, unless Repubs get their way, in which case some of us will be more equal than others...

I love that the Democratic party is now so corrupted by corporate influence that even when you got your Messiah Obama elected, he carried on enough of Bush's policies to be labeled a Republican by even Craig. It's lose lose for the left.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not easily swayed by emotion.

You just have a distorted self image.

 

[piasabird]

This is what happens when the laws and regulations about what banks are relaxed. There is a place for regulation about local, state, regional, federal, and international investment banks are defined as. For one thing, I think only certain banks should be allowed to invest in foreign investments. Then you got savings and loans and credit unions and mortgage underwriters. When banks invest in foreign ventures, they are endangering the American Public to their liability because the federal government is backing the banks. One thing I would like to see is that the federal government only back individual local banks.

 

[Craig234]

I love that the Democratic party is now so corrupted by corporate influence that even when you got your Messiah Obama elected, he carried on enough of Bush's policies to be labeled a Republican by even Craig. It's lose lose for the left.

I've said repeatedly you're a sociopath; your 'loving' that our society has a largely corrupted democracy is just one more example.

 

[Nemesis 1]

All I can say is YES! There is a people left who understand they WERE sheep and they now see the shepard for the wolf that he is. God blesse you people . Prosper and multiply!

I hope these people have the gritt it will take. To not become subservient to the Bank Emperor. What these people are going is shining a light on gray world a world created thew empiraical knowledge. Work out a simple barter system that was proven in times past . A nation like the USA could have done this 50 years ago . But that generation are all but gone. The generations that followed Fell to sheephood threw mind control implanted daily by all media.

Yes these people will fail . But for a second in time I got a look at something really special. Well done my new very good friends no matter how it turns out for you. God speed, live well and stand strong

 

[Double Trouble]

Utterly incorrect in a modern society. Participation in the economy isn't optional, it's mandatory, particularly for urban dwellers.

Participation in "the economy" doesn't mean anything. You can participate in "the economy" without supporting a particular company.

We often have choices as to which corporate entity gets our money, but we can't avoid them entirely.

If it wasn't for government granted monopolies, you would have the ability to completely avoid whatever corporation you want. You vote with your wallet by choosing to buy their products or not. If you don't want to support their products, don't buy them.

We also have no voice in the operation of the corporations we deal with, but we always have the right to vote in our Democracy...

You have a voice by not giving them your money, and there's nothing preventing you from becoming a shareholder (and thus part owner) of the company.

well, unless Repubs get their way, in which case some of us will be more equal than others...

 

[fskimospy]

Participation in "the economy" doesn't mean anything. You can participate in "the economy" without supporting a particular company.



If it wasn't for government granted monopolies, you would have the ability to completely avoid whatever corporation you want. You vote with your wallet by choosing to buy their products or not. If you don't want to support their products, don't buy them.



You have a voice by not giving them your money, and there's nothing preventing you from becoming a shareholder (and thus part owner) of the company.

There are lots and lots of ways a corporation can and will affect you regardless of whether or not they see a dime of your money.

 

[Ausm]

I love that the Democratic party is now so corrupted by corporate influence that even when you got your Messiah Obama elected, he carried on enough of Bush's policies to be labeled a Republican by even Craig. It's lose lose for the left.

Not quite sure why your so happy for that especially when our countries government is in such gridlock.