Iceland Recovering Fast in Europe After Jailing Bankers Instead of Bailing Them - page 2.

fitimi

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: katilja on July 08, 2015, 03:54:08 PM

I don't think it was as simple as that. Because the banks were not bailed out, many people lost their savings. The majority of the savers were not living in Iceland. So in effect, the money that the banks owed (to those savers) was already invested in Icelandic properties and Icelandic companies but those investments were paid for by other non-Icelandic Europeans.

But still, you should brutally abuse the bankers, confiscate everything they have, make their families destitute. Take their homes and throw their wives and children out and drain their bank accounts (including the accounts of immediate family, children too) to ZERO$$$ and jail them. Just totally destroy them personally.

readysalted89

sr. member

Activity: 327

Merit: 250

Quote from: katilja on July 08, 2015, 03:54:08 PM

I don't think it was as simple as that. Because the banks were not bailed out, many people lost their savings. The majority of the savers were not living in Iceland. So in effect, the money that the banks owed (to those savers) was already invested in Icelandic properties and Icelandic companies but those investments were paid for by other non-Icelandic Europeans.

I remember small government authorities in other countries had invested in Iceland's banks, and lost a fortune of tax payers money they had invested. They had to make brutal cuts to public services to write their losses off, and whole communities had to suffer. Iceland might have done alright by letting their banks go bankrupt but communities in other countries were hit hard by it.

steve.reimer

newbie

Activity: 24

Merit: 0

It's relatively easy to make any economic scheme 'work' when one is dealing with a population smaller than a small US city....

Possum577

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Loose lips sink sigs!

I can't say i like the news source but the approach by Iceland seems very appropriate. There needs to be negative consequences to risky action - in anything. If there is no negative consequence people won't learn from their behavior or be convinced not to take such risk action so easily.

We need fewer exceptions from our leaders, staying firm to the belief system when the decisions are tough are what define a leader from everyone else.

katilja

newbie

Activity: 15

Merit: 0

I don't think it was as simple as that. Because the banks were not bailed out, many people lost their savings. The majority of the savers were not living in Iceland. So in effect, the money that the banks owed (to those savers) was already invested in Icelandic properties and Icelandic companies but those investments were paid for by other non-Icelandic Europeans.

Ermon

newbie

Activity: 16

Merit: 0

That's the way to go about it. Imprison them all, take all their benefits, confiscate their property, make them pay back every single penny they have fraudulently obtained from hardworking tax payers. Stop bailing out private banks by using tax payers money.

When it comes to bankers, I would gladly re-introduce a death penalty. That would make them think twice before they embark on yet another fraudulent Ponzi scheme.

rio3232

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Very interesting take. I been hearing about this practice in Iceland but was unaware of the impact till just now. Although “jailing” may seem like an extremity, I do believe more aggressive practices need to be adopted here in the west against financial crimes.

Excerpt:

After Iceland suffered a heavy hit in the 2008-2009 financial crisis, which famously resulted in convictions and jail terms for a number of top banking executives, the IMF now says the country has managed to achieve economic recovery—“without compromising its welfare model,” which includes universal healthcare and education. In fact, Iceland is on track to become the first European country that suffered in the financial meltdown to “surpass its pre-crisis peak of economic output”—essentially proving to the U.S. that bailing out “too big to fail” banks wasn’t the way to go.

Iceland is beautifully, yet unfortunately, unique in how it chose to handle the disaster. It simply let the banks fail, which resulted in defaults totaling $85 billion—lending ample justification for the prosecution and conviction of bank executives for various fraud-related charges. The decision seemed shocking at the time, but the gamble has obviously paid off. Choosing a different route, the U.S. bailed out the banks and let executives off the hook by levying fines that ultimately ended up being paid by the corporations—meaning the executives ostensibly responsible for the mess got off scot-free.

Read more

Topic: Iceland Recovering Fast in Europe After Jailing Bankers Instead of Bailing Them - page 2. (Read 1730 times)