The Treasury expected Reykjavik to rubberstamp the terms of repayment for the loan extended by Britain and the Netherlands at the height of the financial crisis. The loan meant that 400,000 savers with deposits in Icesave did not lose their money.
President Ólafur Grimsson stunned the world’s financial community by refusing to sign the repayment schedule into law. Instead, he said that the matter would be decided in a referendum among Iceland’s 243,000 voters.(Times, U.K.)
This is bad, given the broader support in the range of $12 billion that Iceland accepted from the E.U., I.M.F. and other nations, and while they are saying they will make good on their debts, coming up with an actual method that keeps the average Icelandic citizen smiling, or cracking a smile, seems unlikely.
Aside from the politicians at the top perhaps trying to displace voter anger by letting the citizens vote via referendum on the payments to Britain and the Netherlands, one wonders if this is just a back door method to avoid moving toward E.U. membership. Somewhere, maybe, someone with some clout is saying, "Hey, if we pee on the walls, they won't let us in!" But it's more than that. They are killing their hopes of any broadly financed economic support and that will certainly delay recovery. Half of having decent credit has nothing to do with money... it's reputation, which often enough can replace money, or the need for it.
Maybe the average person does not care. After all, you are living on an island. You have geothermal baths and energy independence , a small population and plenty of fish and Bjork. You don't really need money. And if you do, you can just immigrate to the U.S. or some other place that likes really attractive people (or confuses you with the hotter people in Sweden).
*
Other News:
- G Whiz! Studies on twins show the G-spot is a good friend of Santa, Harvey, and Jesus (for atheists).
- The deputy chief of intelligence in Afghanistan sharply points out the lack of preparation by intelligence units, in contrast to some military units. Their focus on hunting and killing the enemy (including the use of drones) has often been at the expense of knowing the situation of the wider population. Major General Michael Flynn referred to them as "ignorant of local economics," among other critiques. This reminds us of how Rumsfield carried us into the Iraq war with a rather disengaged understanding of Iraqi civilian life. He was at odds with the State department, who might have saved us a lot of time and grief in the area of meeting the needs of a foreign population. It also reminds us of certain Christians, the highly charismatic and evangelical types and others, who often seem more focused on Satan (the ultimate insurgent), instead of the God they serve (and his goodness). In this case it would do a world of good if focused on the people in Afghanistan and their day to day, and fixated less on rooting out and destroying the easily replaceable and rotating round of terrorist leaders.
No comments:
Post a Comment