Forum Post: Iceland got it right. Can we take inspiration from their strength?
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 9:05 p.m. EST by jmuller0626
(0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The following is a link to a great article regarding how the citizens of Iceland refused to be controlled by the banks, redrafted their constitution, and saved their country from collapse.
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2011/08/25/why-iceland-shold-be-in-the-news-but-is-not/
The only way to solve this economic crisis is taxing corporations and major fortunes of the country.
When talking about taxing, you have to realize that the 1% always pays more than any ordinary folk from the 99%. i.e. a tax of 20% of 20,000 $ vs. tax of 20% of 2,000,000$ will always have higher substancial value.
True, but then consider. At the end of the day, our Mr. Smith ordinary folk has a liquid net of 16,000$ while our Mr. Donaldo Trumpet of the 1% has 1,600,000$.
With 100 times more liquid net than Mr. Smith, and considering the cost in that economy is 12,0000$, don't you agree that Mr. Trumpet will have much more options to deploy his ressources than Mr. Smith? Thus, because he can choose more, his cost of opportunity is Far Lower than the cost of opportunity of Mr. S. There is an ineficiency, since one agent (Mr. S) is standing higher cost of opportunity than Mr. T.
To correct that unefficiency, a surplus tax must be made to Mr. T. Because only efficiency will redistribute proportionately sacrifices in an economy, allowing no waste.
A mix of paretto and keynesian economics. I was one of the lucky ones where Adam Smith theories and John Keynes views were presented as equally important, and not brainwashed by the "market always works". It doesn't like this crisis shows, because it's not a market for starters but a cumulation of inneficiencies, translating from economish to english, the market only works for the rich and screws over the poor.
Hell yeah iceland got it right they told those bankers to f off. turned out that 90% of the debt that the bankers said they owed was in fact the bankers debt. europe is in a mess and so is america. kill the banking cartel
[Removed]
Once again people need some perspective. Iceland has a population of 313,000 with 93% being ethnic Icelandic. America is an enormous melting pot. You can not get people to agree on a wide range of issues. We have to stick with one and get it done. End the corruption in Washington by fixing the campaign finance laws. Everyone will be behind it. Trying to write a Constitution will never work.
[Removed]
Cancel odious debts.
If a despotic power incurs a debt not for the needs or in the interest of the State, but to strengthen its despotic regime, to repress the population that fights against it, etc., this debt is odious for the population of all the State. This debt is not an obligation for the nation; it is a regime's debt, a personal debt of the power that has incurred it, consequently it falls with the fall of this power.
The reason these "odious" debts cannot be considered to encumber the territory of the State, is that such debts do not fulfill one of the conditions that determine the legality of the debts of the State, that is: the debts of the State must be incurred and the funds from it employed for the needs and in the interests of the State.
"Odious" debts, incurred and used for ends which, to the knowledge of the creditors, are contrary to the interests of the nation, do not compromise the latter — in the case that the nation succeeds in getting rid of the government which incurs them — except to the extent that real advantages were obtained from these debts. The creditors have committed a hostile act with regard to the people; they can't therefore expect that a nation freed from a despotic power assume the "odious" debts, which are personal debts of that power.
Even when a despotic power is replaced by another, no less despotic or any more responsive to the will of the people, the "odious" debts of the eliminated power are not any less their personal debts and are not obligations for the new power....
One could also include in this category of debts the loans incurred by members of the government or by persons or groups associated with the government to serve interests manifestly personal — interests that are unrelated to the interests of the State.
For creditors to expect any protection in their loans to foreign states, their loans must be utilized for the needs and interests of the state, otherwise the loans belonged to the power which contracted them, and were therefore, "dettes de régime."
A regime that is the result of a coup d'etat and debt that is used to finance wars of choice that do not serve the interests of the nation, in my opinion would fall into the category.