This whole "Iceland reneging on its promise to refund UK and Dutch governments for the money it refunded its own savers" story seems to have split opinions somewhat:
John B sums up the facts neatly (as ever, you can seldom fault him for factual inaccuracy) and concludes: "If that’s democracy, screw it."
Witterings links to this via this and concludes: "Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work? Politicians say yes, people say no - people win. Simples."
To be fair, the missing bit is that UK taxpayers didn't have a say in the UK government's decision to bail out these frankly reckless 'savers' in the first place, but hey. To my mind the fight is between these savers and Icelandic banks; there was no overriding need for governments or taxpayers to get involved in the first place. The people in charge of local councils' investment policies who risked taxpayers' money in this way ought to be sued for negligence or misuse of public funds or something.
And Another One Gone
4 hours ago
11 comments:
You chase yield, you take risks. Hard cheese for the savers.
Well done Iceland. Do the maths and you realise the repayment was equivalent to about $40k per household. No wonder they didn't like it.
Especially as the "reward" is joining the EU.
I blame Kerry Katona's king prawn ring..
We should just invade Iceland - it'll come in handy, what with all this Global Warming.
Well done Icelanders, Icelandiks or whatever.
Why should British taxpayers underwrite poor investment decisions abroad , they gambled , let them lose . You'll be expecting us to bail out the bankers next!
DKMcG
to bail out these frankly reckless 'savers' in the first place
I don't understand how these savers were reckless. And what makes them 'savers' rather than savers? Were the savers in Northern Rock, HBOS etc also reckless 'savers'? Why then should the UK taxpayer have bailed them out?
Especially as the "reward" is joining the EU.
This is the bit I really do not understand. If we want to punish the Icelanders for not keeping their word, we should force them to join the EU!
I had to explain to a Local Gvt. Financial boffin a few weeks ago how to use Google alerts to keep in touch with what is going on, especially when you have a large stake in what is going on.
125k a year apparently is what the going rate is for not knowing what is going on.
"125k a year apparently is what the going rate is for not knowing what is going on."
I know someone who knows less than nothing and he's on nearly 200k!
Mr Brown receives £130594 in Prime Minister's salary, and £61820 as MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
A bargain, surely?
"To my mind the fight is between these savers and Icelandic banks; there was no overriding need for governments or taxpayers to get involved in the first place."
That's a "should" versus "is", though. In your opinion, governments shouldn't guarantee savings, and there are some good arguments for that opinion.
But in the world as it actually existed at the time, potential savers with Icesave knew that their savings were underwritten by the Icelandic government up to EUR21k and by the UK government up to GBP50k, and hence made their decisions on that basis.
Did Iceland guarantee the entire banking liabilities at the time savers putb in the money? If not they have no more duty to pay banker's debts than government has to pay the hotel bills abroad of tourists when a travel agency folds.
I also fail to see how not being restricted by EU mandarins is a threat.
didnt the icelandic banks have to follow fsa rules before getting a banking license for the UK? If so are they not duty bound to protect at least some of depositors' money?
im not sure id agree with some of the implication above that certain people were effectively gambling by using icesave or kaupthing, after all you see them advertised in the times financial section, you assume its ok to put your money there no?
Post a Comment