About Iceland and it’s democracy..

[TheDemSocialist]

[h=2]About Iceland and it’s democracy..[/h]

No news from Iceland… why?

How come we hear everything that happens in Egypt but no news about what’s happening in Iceland:

…

In Iceland, the people has made the government resign, the primary banks have been nationalized, it was decided to not pay the debt that these created with Great Britain and Holland due to their bad financial politics and a public assembly has been created to rewrite the constitution.

And all of this in a peaceful way.

A whole revolution against the powers that have created the current crisis. This is why there hasn’t been any publicity during the last two years: What would happen if the rest of the EU citizens took this as an example? What would happen if the US citizens took this as an example.

This is a summary of the facts:

• 2008, The main bank of the country is nationalized.
• The Krona, the currency of Iceland devaluates and the stock market stops.
• The country is in bankruptcy 2008.
• The citizens protest in front of parliament and manage to get new elections that make the resignation of the prime minister and his whole government.
• The country is in bad economic situation.
• A law proposes paying back the debt to Great Britain and Holland through the payment of 3,500 million euros, which will be paid by the people of Iceland monthly during the next 15 years, with a 5.5% interest.
• 2010, the people go out in the streets and demand a referendum. In January 2010, the president denies the approval and announces a popular meeting.
• In March the referendum and the denial of payment is voted in by 93%.
• Meanwhile the government has initiated an investigation to bring to justice those responsible for the crisis, and many high level executives and bankers are arrested. The Interpol dictates an order that make all the implicated parties leave the country.
• In this crisis an assembly is elected to rewrite a new Constitution which can include the lessons learned from this, and which will substitute the current one (a copy of the Danish Constitution).
• 25 citizens are chosen, with no political affiliation, out of the 522 candidates. For candidacy all that was needed was to be an adult and have the support of 30 people. The constitutional assembly starts in February of 2011 to present the ‘carta magna’ from the recommendations given by the different assemblies happening throughout the country. It must be approved by the current Parliament and by the one constituted through the next legislative elections.

So in summary of the Icelandic revolution:

• resignation of the whole government
• nationalization of the bank
• referendum so that the people can decide over the economic decisions
• incarcerating the responsible parties
• rewriting of the constitution by its people

Have we been informed of this through the media?
Has any political program in radio or TV commented on this?

- No!

[FONT='Trebuchet MS', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans', Arial, sans-serif]The Icelandic people have been able to show that there is a way to beat the system and has given a democracy lesson to the world.[/FONT]

[FONT='Trebuchet MS', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans', Arial, sans-serif]

[/FONT]
Anonymous • About Iceland and it's democracy..

[FONT='Trebuchet MS', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans', Arial, sans-serif]Wow i never even heard about it. Some great victories for the people of Iceland it sounds like. More people power! Just want the world needs!

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response? [/FONT]

 

[Cyrillic]

Meh...
Only Nordics care about them rest of Europe is more looking what are PIGS doing.

 

[Camlon]

Countries that are doing fine, are not interesting. I thought Iceland was quite whiny in the beginning, didn't want to pay at all, didn't want to admit they were the cause of their crisis.

But in the end they ended up doing the right thing. They are in fact paying back their debt, they are nationalizing their banks, they punished some of the bankers, they had a referendum, they are not joining the EU, and they reduced the value of the krona. The far left might like this, but Iceland actions are popular among the right as well. EU and Greece should take a second look.

 

[Baltim]

EU and Greece should take a second look.

And this is the reason there isn't much about Iceland's recovery being trumpeted about.

People might start to realise there is an alternative to the current austerity measures Europeans are suffering.

 

[PeteEU]

And this is the reason there isn't much about Iceland's recovery being trumpeted about.

People might start to realise there is an alternative to the current austerity measures Europeans are suffering.

The problem is, that for this to happen in Greece, Ireland, UK, Spain, Italy and so on, very powerful and very connected people/companies would have to go bankrupt and jail. Also American companies/banks would be seriously effected, especially on the criminality aspect. It simply wont happen.

In Iceland the people basically forced the politicians to cut their own wrists and that of their powerful backers... I just dont see that happening elsewhere.

 

[Paschendale]

I'm discovering a lot of stuff about this that I never knew... Why wasn't this front page all the while it was happening?

 

[PeteEU]

I'm discovering a lot of stuff about this that I never knew... Why wasn't this front page all the while it was happening?

Was over here.

 

[alexa]

The problem is, that for this to happen in Greece, Ireland, UK, Spain, Italy and so on, very powerful and very connected people/companies would have to go bankrupt and jail. Also American companies/banks would be seriously effected, especially on the criminality aspect. It simply wont happen.

In Iceland the people basically forced the politicians to cut their own wrists and that of their powerful backers... I just dont see that happening elsewhere.

Is this not what needs to happen if we are to have the hope of a decent future with decent social mobility and equality of opportunity and indeed not t0o much inequality in general with the social disfunction and civil unrest that leads to.

I have been reading about debt free banking where all that can be loaned is the money in the bank. Not sure if I've got my head around it yet but why the hell are we not doing it - ignorance perhaps?

 

[Camlon]

Is this not what needs to happen if we are to have the hope of a decent future with decent social mobility and equality of opportunity and indeed not t0o much inequality in general with the social disfunction and civil unrest that leads to.

I have been reading about debt free banking where all that can be loaned is the money in the bank. Not sure if I've got my head around it yet but why the hell are we not doing it - ignorance perhaps?

We are not doing debt free banking, because it would fail miserably. The amount of capital in the banks wouldn't be enough, and people wouldn't be able to get loans. No loans, means that investment is very difficult.

What we do need is capital ratios for banks to make sure they don't overextend themselves during booms.

 

[alexa]

We are not doing debt free banking, because it would fail miserably. The amount of capital in the banks wouldn't be enough, and people wouldn't be able to get loans. No loans, means that investment is very difficult.

What we do need is capital ratios for banks to make sure they don't overextend themselves during booms.

I will have to go and look it up again but it has something to do with the Government being in control rather than banks lending money which they do not have and then demanding huge profits. The bank would be Nationalised. The Government would withdraw old notes and reprint the same amount but now it would just use the money it had rather than living in constant debt. Like I say I haven't properly understood it yet but I understand that the US was somewhat like this in it's early life.

 

[PeteEU]

I will have to go and look it up again but it has something to do with the Government being in control rather than banks lending money which they do not have and then demanding huge profits. The bank would be Nationalised. The Government would withdraw old notes and reprint the same amount but now it would just use the money it had rather than living in constant debt. Like I say I haven't properly understood it yet but I understand that the US was somewhat like this in it's early life.

It is how commerce was done for the first many thousands of years. There was no more debt than there was money in the system. It was a very very limiting system and causes next to no growth, since the money amount does not grow.. for someone to consume, means someone else has to loose money. Hence the rich stay rich ONLY by hoarding money and not giving it away. So owning your own house? Forget it, will never happen for 99% of the population. Owning your own car? Forget it, too expensive. We would essentially be in the dark ages again.. the last time we had this type of commerce.

The problem is transparency and lack of regulation.

A bank or company must never be "to big to fail". We must enforce the monopoly laws and prevent too much consolidation. And we are not doing that. The US banks/financial institutions that caused the global melt down are in fact BIGGER than they were before the melt down.. But we rarely hear that fact (not odd since it is the rich and bankers who own the media), and the politicians wont lift a finger .. so

Now Iceland. The problem was here a micro example of the rest of the world..., that a handful of bankers and rich men had acquired so much wealth via debt that they were a huge part of the over all GDP of the country. When the US sub-prime mortgage market collapsed, bringing down the rest of the planets housing prices, the wealth "poofed" all of a sudden because the income they were depending on either via actual businesses (people stopped buying) but especially via the money markets (the credit crunch), just poofed.. And it is not like Iceland is special. Take my own home country of Denmark. The largest shipping company is from there, and is almost 20% of GDP. Now it is not a company that will go down any time soon, since it has always been run on very conservative principles, but if it did, then it would be devastating on the economy. And the politicians have been bullied yearly by the now dead founder (RIP this week) to maintain the companies profits. They own a large portion of the North Sea profits for example and yet the area is not theirs.

If we look at the influence of banking on certain countries then there is serious concern. The top US banks are a huge relative portion of US GDP. It is even worse for the UK. Hence letting them fail would be catastrophic for society, since there is no one to turn to for help. Iceland had Europe to turn too, and we helped them to get over the hump. It was/is a small economy. But doing it on a larger scale is much more difficult. And as we all know, money is power and dont expect the rich to take their fair share of the burden.. they dont pay their fair share of taxes so why would they help fix the economy and usher in their own demise?

The inter connection between banks/financial institutions with other companies who rely on these banks to function in the daily and to buy other companies, mean that we the "normal citizen" are more than often on the short end of the stick. Remember no one has ever been punished for the sub-prime crisis.. in fact those that caused it, actually were rewarded.

Now in Iceland the rich bankers lost all power with the crisis. The politicians who protected them normally were thrown out, the media bit off the hand that fed them (the rich bankers) and the people rose up and demanded justice. This would simply not happen in the US and UK or else where. Could you see UK media acting independently of their rich backers and bankers? The politicians would certainly not bite the hand that feeds them.. so how exactly would a "revolution" happen?

And that is why we need more transparency and regulation to prevent too much money and hence power to be in the hands of few people. That is why I advocate breaking up banks and breaking up companies that reach a certain size/market share. Take NewsCorp.. that company should have been broken up long ago... far far too much power in the hands of one man. Or Bank of America, Citicorp and so on.. they are actually bigger today than 4 years ago when they nearly brought down the world economy..

We do need change, but we wont get it under the current politician and economic reality. The reason we are bailing out Greece is to save the wealth of rich bankers and companies, not that of the Greek people.

 

[alexa]

Here is where I got my information from




It is interest free debt, my mistake.

 

[PeteEU]

Here is where I got my information from




It is interest free debt, my mistake.

That is basically Islamic banking... don think that will fly during these times

 

[alexa]

That is basically Islamic banking... don think that will fly during these times

If it is as well, that is not what it was talking about. I imagine you have not watched given the length of it and I watched some time ago and didn't quite understand it then, not having a grasp of economics. However what got me posting in this thread, is that it spoke of Iceland. It spoke of the community banks that Norway/Sweden/Iceland etc used to have and how this was initially brought to the US and according to them how it could be again to the advantage of us all. The beginning part describes how the US tried to have this kind of banking and I think by it's constitution should have it and how it fought for a long time to get it again. Try and watch it sometime Pete, it is really good and when I get some time I will watch it again. In the meantime, here are some notes, quotes I took.

(or quotes and notes)

The Solution

Federal and State

Federal

1.Governments should issue and control the quantity of money and commercial banks can only lend out the money they actually have.

2.British citizen James Robertson splits up the money pile between two competing government bodies – the British Government would publish monetary objectives approved by Parliament e.g. an inflationary objective of 2/3%, then the Bank of England would create just enough debt free money to achieve those objectives. It would then give this money to the Government to spend in the economy by the normal budgetary process. The B of E is a public agency acting in the public interest. Commercial banks would still be in operation but could only lend out the money they have – then they would have to compete for additional money on the open market, just like other companies have to compete in the market for the materials they use. They would be without subsidy as they are now. Banks would be prohibited from creating new money. It would be considered forgery. This would make banks truly competitive which they are not at the moment (1hr 23min33sec) This would also encourage new people to come in rather than the stranglehold the present situation and subsidies brings.

3.Ellen Browns solution. The Gov would create the money debt free. We think we are dependent on the banking system but we are not. Gov's do not need to pay for things with debt they can just pay for it with money.

MONEYMASTERS SOLUTION

The Gov creates all the money in the form of debt free notes or their electronic equivalent and then spends that money into existence through the normal process. Existing money is replaced 1/1 with the new debt free money and debt is paid off with this new money as well but to prevent inflation reserve requirements are gradually raised on the commercial banks requiring them to maintain 100% reserves. In other words banks can only loan out money they actually have. For every dollar loaned, the bank must have a dollar.

STATE SOLUTIONS

States can create banks. Just pass a law by the State legislature. The State then desposits all their new funds into their new bank and utilise the fractional reserve principle to their advantage by making loans to themselves for roads, bridges etc at no interest. When the loans are repaid the money is extinguished from the system. In this way you create wealth while not creating a constant increase in the money supply and inflation.

Byron Dale Minnesota

Money must come into circulation without debt to anybody

Bank of North Dakota first state owned bank in the US. - introduced by Swedish immigrants.

Community banking had been going on in Sweden for at least a centrury before that. 1820 Swedes came up with the idea of the savings bank. They only lent out money they actually had. They decentralised and were a way for minicipalities to fight poverty. They operated on The Chrurch Steeple Principle – they would only loan money to people whose house could be seen from the highest church steeple in town. This increased the 'common wealth' as well big bankers wealth.

Debt based bankers then attacked the savings banks

1.they encouraged them to consolidate into bigger and bigger banks

2.The Norwegian Parliament was convinced to pass a law allowing the savings bank to be bought up by the non savings debt banks. Mergers resulted and they are no Swede Bank.

The Savings Banks empower the local community and it times of crises are proven to be more profitable than the big banks.

Iceland -public interest savings banks

Iceland privatised her banks which previously had been going by Sweden's savings system. At first all looked good, Iceland seemed to be making money but under the surface, the financiers were creating a huge financial bubble. They opened a new off shore internet bank called Icesave and got savers from UK and Holland by offering attractive rates for new depositors. Entire towns and police pension funds etc were put into these accounts as well as charity's. Using fractional reserve lending Icesave fanned that into billions for questionable new loans. Icesave started investing in European ventures especially in Russia. Many believe that Icesave actually became a money laundering operation run by the Russia Mafia all the while trading on the good reputation for solid banking Iceland had built up over the previous decades.

In the 5 years when Icelands banks were privotesed before the collapse they actually grew ten times and then collapsed for the tax payers to sort out. At first the government did try to save them with tax payers money but then

In Iceland 93% of the people voted not to bail out the bankers

70% do not want to join EU and they are interested in setting up banking like North Dakoda.

Iceland home to the oldest Parliament in Europe having met annually for 1,000 years.

Iceland wants to escape the 'serfdom' of the debt money system.

Instead of creating bonds or debt the government could and should be creating dollars, interest free.