Talk:2008–2011 Icelandic financial crisis/Archive 2

Angles to cover

Haarde's statement that Iceland's friends hadn't been there for the country when they were needed and that Iceland would have to go looking for friends where they could be found (now mentioned in the section on Sovereign credit ratings) should be more prominently presented.

The reactions among Icelanders on the grassroots level should be described. There was an Icelandic author on a Norwegian television talkshow the other day, and he described both a sense of shame and a tremendous aggression among the population against the small group of renegade capitalists who were seen to be the cause of the financial disaster. __meco (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That was Hallgrímur Helgason, right? I don't know about shame but there is certainly a lot of anger. The capitalists are very unpopular, as is the governor of the central bank - there have been organized protests calling for his resignation. He certainly carries a lot of responsibility but the focus on him is obviously a consequence of his being already very well known and controversial (having been prime minister and all). The head of the FME, say, is probably no less responsible for the failure of the regulatory apparatus to prevent the débâcle but he isn't nearly as well known so doesn't get protested against. Haukur (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also a Dolchstoßlegende of sorts going around. The theory is that Davíð Oddsson didn't give Glitnir the loan they were asking for because of personal animosity towards the owners of the bank - the planned nationalization of Glitnir is then blamed for the collapse of all three banks. So, in effect, Davíð brought the entire financial sector down because of his dislike for certain capitalists. I personally do not find this theory convincing. I think there was probably nothing the Central Bank could have done in October that would have saved the banks. Haukur (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't exactly recall his name, but it could very well have been Hallgrímur Helgason. He had written a book on 2004 about a guy from North Iceland and very much resented the (then) economic boom and was riding on a horse to Reykjavik to kill the PM, or seomthing to that effect. As for the term shame that may well have been used by the TV journalist, Anne Grosvold, and not by Helgason. __meco (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment, but it is quite hard, practically, to cover the statements of the various politicians in an NPOV way at the moment. Both in Iceland and in the UK, politicians are (IMVHO) playing to their domestic audiences to the detriment of a fair analysis of the problems. A recent UK example is the idea that 'administrators are on standby to go into Landsbanki's London branch': a little research shows that Landsbanki and the UK administrators are already working very closely together, so any change would be purely formal! (and a legal nightmare) As for Geir Haarde's famous statement that "one has to look for new friends", it could only be discussed in the context of the Icelandic government's apparent reticence to take a loan from the IMF, an "old friend" if ever there was one.

As for shame and anger, it is also a difficult topic. There is anger both within Iceland and outside it, for almost the same basic reasons ("Wi wer 'ad", as one would say in Grimsby). Tempers are still too high to fairly lay blame. Kaupthing directors have lashed out at UK savers, the UK government and the Icelandic government for crashing their bank: anyone except themselves, in fact! Be careful with translations as well: Haukur will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that skuld in Icelandic means both "shame" and "debt" (as in other Germanic languages, and the translation isn't meant to be exact: it is the root of the English "should"). Physchim62 (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Icelandic word skuld primarily means 'debt' but it's related to the word 'skylda' which means 'duty' and of course cognate with the words P is thinking of. And there's Skuld, of course. Haukur (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In Norwegian skyld (noun) means blame and has a connotative causative component. We would use gjeld in the way Icelanders use skuld, I believe. However, the verb skylde means to owe and would be comparable with Icelandic skylda I suppose. The phrase skylde på ("på" = "on") means to blame. I know in Telemark dialects, skyldfolk means relatives. __meco (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Skyldfólk means the same in Faroese and Icelandic. And I also thought of a phrase where 'skuld' does mean "blame". The phrase "skella skuldinni á einhvern" means "lay the blame on someone". But we digress... Haukur (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Brown v. Brown

"Tony Brown, the chief minister, has blamed his namesake in the UK for the crisis", FT reports.[1] Haukur (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't mention that he's just had to put up half his government's reserves (7.5% of GDP) in depositor protection: one can assume he's fairly angry. On the other hand, nothing forced him to give a banking licence to Kaupthing (the Isle of Man is not part of the EEA), so he's really go nobody to cry to, except the rabid and vociferous KSF (IoM) depositors. Physchim62 (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Versailles

Pétur Blöndal is comparing the negotiations with the British and Dutch to the Treaty of Versailles.[2] Haukur (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Utterly pathetic. Everyone seems to agree that there are enough assets in Landsbanki to pay off the debts fairly quickly. Blöndal is not only raising the spectre of a "bankrupt economy", but suggesting that the government should walk away with the assets while leaving the debts — see what that would do to Iceland's international competitivity in the medium term as every Icelandic company has to pay cash-with-order for anything it buys from abroad… Physchim62 (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that this is a member of the governing coalition. But, then again, Pétur Blöndal has long been something of a maverick. Meanwhile, the largest opposition party has called for the freezing of all domestic assets of Icelandic financial companies, their owners and connected parties and the seizure (how's that going to work?) of their assets abroad.[3] The resolution stops just short of the populist demand for the expropriation of the assets of the two Björgólfurs and other billionaires. Haukur (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I (personally) would leave each of the billionaires with the ISK 1.7 million that was (supposedly) guaranteed by the Tryggingarsjóður. And only if they promise not to spend it all in a single night ;) On a more serious note, the question of criminal responsibility has come up, Geir Haarde mentioned it briefly in his address to the Althing on 15 October. I'm sure that investigations are going on in London as well but, thankfully, for once, the British authorities are not increasing the temperature by making public announcements about them. The British press reckons that Björgólfur Guðmundsson has lost £230 million pounds in the crisis (I'll find a ref. if one is needed). To actually confiscate funds, there would need to be judicial sentence, but funds could be frozen under a Mareva injunction, as mentioned above. Physchim62 (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Uppreisn

Steingrímur J. Sigfússon says there will be an uprising/rebellion (Icelandic uppreisn) if the government acquiesces to British demands.[4] Haukur (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

He should be careful about driving too fast, that opposition politician from the Left-Green movement, both literally and metaphorically. His comments just build up an Aunt Sally to blow down, and there is no reason to believe that he has any privileged information. However, given that Geir Haarde has also said that he "refuse[s] the legal basis of the [British] claim." less than a week after his address to the Althing in which he admitted "a claim that falls on the Icelandic state", things are looking bad, especially for Iceland. As yet, the Icelandic government has still not even asked for help from the IMF: maybe Norway will help the country out [5], after 1000 years of mutual disagreement. Physchim62 (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear exactly which points are in contention between the Icelandic and British delegations. It's certainly possible that Geir Haarde admits that some claim falls on the Icelandic state but rejects the legal basis of some particular claim the British delegation is making. It's certainly not a promising sign that negotiations have been broken off for the time being. Meanwhile, a translation of the transcript of the conversation between Árni and Darling has finally been released.[6] I must say that Árni was being very blue-eyed if he though Darling left that conversation as a satisfied costumer. He even seems to warn him at the end of the conversation that he feels he will have to say things that will have consequences for Iceland. Haukur (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

But I should add: Darling's subsequent statement that the Icelandic government had informed him that they had "no intention" of honoring their obligations is still quite unfair. Árni didn't say that, he mostly emphasizes that the situation is unclear and that the domestic situation has to be solved first. Haukur (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problems are either: the two governments issued a joint statement saying that most matters had been resolved, and then ten days later they're at each others' throats again… that's an awful lot to be "lost in translation", especially given the foreign language skills of the (even) average Icelandic politician. I can only hope that most of this is 'playing to the domestic audience', so as to sell a solution which the politicians feel will be unpopular (and I'm talking of both sides). Physchim62 (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly possible. For the first few days after the crisis hit it seemed that opposition voices in Iceland were nearly silent and the government probably had a comparatively free hand. More recently, there has been a lot of criticism and discussion and push-back. Maybe that has something to do with it. There's also clearly some tension between the two coalition parties and between the Central Bank and, well, many other parties. Haukur (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Transcript

Iceland Review has published the Árni–Alistair conversation in English. Physchim62 (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish Árni hadn't treated Darling as some annoying irrelevant guy who was distracting him from the "domestic situation" and whose concerns could be dealt with at a more convenient time. And I wish Darling had realized that there were still a lot of common interests between Iceland and Britain and that his "we told you so, you idiots, now you're going down!" approach would be counterproductive for both countries. Haukur (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Darling is also quite lame, he obviously didn't have any idea what was going on (other than the fact that Icesave was going under), but never thought to ask the question "why?" It comes over as well in his famous "believe it or not" comment the next day. I think the transcript should be read in conjuction with Davið Oddson's comments later in the evening, where he predicted "5-10-15%" return on loans: hardly helpful from a central banker, especially when most sources now seem to assume a 50% payout or better. Physchim62 (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting blog entry for 7 October, from an author who is already cited in External Links. It seems like the Icelandic government has (finally) asked for IMF help here. David Oddsson defend's himself [7], while the cost to one German bank is described here. Physchim62 (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Good links. The press conferences today weren't very illuminating. The government say they can't discuss the details of the deal with the IMF until it's been processed and approved by the IMF. They did say there won't be any forced privatization or budget balancing. We keep hearing that the IMF has learned from the excesses/dogmatism of the past so, I don't know, maybe it'll be all nicey-nice. Geir Haarde was asked about the status of the negotiations with the British. He said there was a substantial difference between what the two parties believed to be the legal responsibilities of the Icelandic state. It feels like either the British are asking for something more than the Dutch got (what?) or that the Icelandic government has changed their mind on what their obligations are since the Dutch deal. Or, I guess, that they feel they have nothing to lose by playing hardball with the British since Iceland has probably already suffered the commensurate reputation damage there. Haukur (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of the problem was Iceland playing for time while the IMF deal was agreed — it seems fairly generous as IMF deals go, and is twice as much as Iceland was 'theoretically' entitled to (though obviously theory has gone out the window recently). Probably a certain amount of hardball-playing as well, particularly for the domestic audience.

As for real legal differences, it's hard to say. The Dutch got to lend Iceland €1.1 billion euros to cover the possible liabilities of the Tryggingarsjóður in the Netherlands. Geir Haarde said on 15 October that the deal would have to go before the Althing, ie that he didn't have the authority to sign it at the moment. It could be that the discussions are being blocked over the legal responsibility of the Icelandic state for deposit protection (ie, the same argument as 7 October), with the British insisting on a state guarantee and Iceland refusing. It seems crazy, as the result ends up the same (unless there are some really scary things in the Landsbanki accounts) but, if the Icelandic government prefers to delay for a while, it's a domestically well-received excuse. Physchim62 (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way, Geir Haarde seems to have admitted that, in practice, the Icelandic government will have to cover any shortfall in the Tryggingarsjóður (especially as it now controls most of the banking system). The UK position seems to be that, without a government guarantee on the Tryggingarsjóður, and in the way it was set up, Iceland is in breach of the deposit guarantee directive (94/19/EC), which would trigger state liability anyway. The result works out the same way from either perspective, but there's obviously ample room for lawyers to make a fortune in the middle. The directive has only been tested once in the ECJ, and that case itself seems to muddy the waters even further! Physchim62 (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Icesave accounts, Björgúlfur Thor Björgúlfsson (he and his father were the dominant owners of Landsbanki) made a huge splash in interview on Stöð 2 last night. He claims that on 5 October, the British authorities made an offer to Landsbanki to fast-track their application to move the Icesave accounts into British jurisdiction so they would be covered by the UK deposit-protection scheme. Allegedly they promised to make this happen in five days but needed 200 million GBP as collateral. Landsbanki was given until noon the next day to come up with that money and they immediately sought to borrow it from the Icelandic Central Bank, offering it solid collateral in the form of government-issued bonds and such. For reasons unknown, the Central Bank did not even respond until 12:30 the next day and only to deny their request. Nobody from the Central Bank or the government has yet responded to Björgúlfur's allegations. Had this deal gone through it might not have been enough to save Landsbanki from collapse but it would have prevented the mess in Iceland-UK relations. --Bjarki S 11:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.255.161 (talk)

Hmm, sounds a bit like "I know a few guys in London who'll solve all our problems, but they need 200 million GBP to do it…" In any case, Alistair Darling specifically asked about the famous £200 million the day after (7 October). I don't think it would have prevented the diplomatic crisis because it came too late, the bank run had already started: the UK government would have been forced to sell on the deposits, just as it did with Kaupthing Edge (and Bradford & Bingley). It might even have been a bigger diplomatic crisis… In any case, Landsbanki already had a London subsidiary to take on the deposits, Heritable Bank: had those that controlled it been at all concerned with not betting the Icelandic economy on the survival of their fortunes, they could have transferred the deposits at any time, had they paid the necessary fees to the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme and the statutory reserves into the Bank of England. But for some reason, they didn't want to do that… Physchim62 (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree - this sounds like more Dolchstoß stuff to me. Haukur (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The Central Bank has now told their side of the story: [8] They say that the reasons Landsbanki gave for the 200 million request did not include a speedy treatment by the British regulators. They further say that there was no guarantee at all that 200 million pounds would be enough and that the CB/state had already assumed great obligations in the form of a 500 million euro loan to Kaupþing and a planned 600 million purchase of Glitnir. Under those circumstances it would have been reckless to throw 200 million GBP at Landsbanki with no guarantee of success. I think this sounds about right. The Central Bank was in an impossible situation, I don't think there was any way to rescue that freighter. Haukur (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

More cowbell

This editorial seems to sum up the British position in a flippant (but almost polite) way, and from a newspaper that isn't known for paper-flag nationalism. This story from Norway is the first I've seen of possible criminal investigations into the banks' operations, apart from the hints that Geir Haarde made to the Althing. Reports of Landsbanki assets being frozen in Norway seem exaggerated for the moment. Physchim62 (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like both Glitnir [9] and Landsbanki [10][11] assets have been frozen in Norway. Kaupthing assets there have already been seized by the Norwegian government. Physchim62 (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

October 5 letter

"If needed the Icelandic Government will support the Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund in raising the necessary funds, so that the Fund would be able to meet the minimum compensation limits in the event of a failure of Landsbanki and its UK branch."[12] Interesting. Haukur (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"support … in raising the necessary funds" is a phrase that has been used much by the Icelandic government. It is obviously not equal to a guarantee. Physchim62 (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Had the wording been "We will cover any shortfall in the Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund up to the statutory limit." there would have been no argument. Physchim62 (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right that the wording is not completely unambiguous. It still seems like a far cry from "no intention to honor their obligations". Haukur (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well that's not a sovereign guarantee, which is what the British government was looking for and which most people outside of Iceland regard as the obligation of those states that signed up to Directive 94/19/EC (as Iceland did through the EEA). The current Icelandic government can shout all it likes to try to hide its own responsibility for the current mess, but I don't think history will be on its side. Physchim62 (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Interest rate hike

18% Wheeeeee!! [13] Haukur (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Utter, utter lunacy! It makes one want to suggest that Davíð Oddsson be privatised, in shares of one pound. Why should ordinary Icelanders pay the debts of heedless politicians? Physchim62 (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As it turned out, Davíð is no longer the guy running the asylum - this was an IMF mandated move. They're sure off to a running start, can't wait to see what other measures they have in store for us. Haukur (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it's probably a good thing that Davíð is out. To paraphrase his own words, firemen don't usually inherit the burnt out house, whoever the arsonists were. The worrying thing is not only the stupidity of the interest hike, but also the secrecy around it. There is nothing from the IMF that suggests that it was a condition and it only benefits one small group of people: the (ex-)bankers with financial assets in Iceland. Physchim62 (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

To correct the above, the IMF wants positive real interest rates, so yes the hike was part of that (as was the surprising publication of October's economic statistics yesterday). Physchim62 (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

To see who's really benefited, note that international trading of the króna restarted at the same time. Some people will be able to convert their króna assets to hard currency, at the expense of the rest of the population: history repeating itself if ever there was one! Physchim62 (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Faroese bailout

The Faroese are offering a loan of 300 million Danish crowns.[14] Very generous, considering the size of the Faroese economy. Haukur (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's very roughly 0.5% of GDP, if I've done my sums right ;) the equivalent from the UK would be £6.7 billion. Physchim62 (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Carry trading

An interesting exercise is to look at Landsbanki's 2nd quarter financial statement. At 30 June 2008, it had £6.26bn in GBP deposits, backed by £3.91bn in GBP assets (values converted at GBP 1 = ISK 158.02, the official rate for that day). It also had £5.90bn in ISK assets for only £2.18bn in ISK deposits. It was raising money from retail depositors in the UK at 7% interest to lend it in Iceland at 17%, nice little earner while it works! The overseas deposits weren't funding "overseas expansion", they were funding a credit bubble within Iceland, generating the inflation which itself justified the interest rates that kept the mechanism going. Rest to see if anyone manages to pin criminal charges somewhere, because it seems to me that both nations were being defrauded. Physchim62 (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Iceland to join European Union

You've removed this information while the link provides and proves information about willing of Iceland to join European Union and to adopt euro as its currency. In internet there are more references that this is true. --Dima1 (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not true that there has been some big bump in the polls in favor of EU membership. I debunked this at Talk:Iceland and the European Union. The truth is that opinion polls have shown high support for applying for EU membership for quite some time now. The only post-collapse poll doesn't really show any movement. Haukur (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you should have removed that information, Haukur. Maybe the wording of the short paragraph wasn't the best, but it is simply ridiculous to say that the crisis has not changed perceptions of the pros and cons of EU membership vs. EEA membership. The simple fact that the Independence Party is now even discussing EU membership is sign enough of that. And it would surely be an incompetent foreign ministry that didn't know how to apply for membership should the political will arrive. These are the two main points of the FT article which referenced the paragraph. Physchim62 (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

They've certainly discussed it before. A political party appointing an internal committee to study a particular issue just doesn't seem like very compelling news. Yes, it's possible that their pro-EU faction will finally gain the upper hand but that would not be something that happened suddenly, that faction has been gaining strength for some time. But if you want to include this I don't object. The main thing I have an issue with is the FT's false representation of public opinion polls, there has been no 20% bump in favor of joining the EU - public opinion polls have (throwing out the undecided) shown 60-70% support for the EU for quite some time, depending on exactly which question is asked. Just look at them, I link to the data at Talk:Iceland and the European Union. Haukur (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

To take an example, a 2002 poll showed 91% in favor of applying for EU membership to find out what kind of deal we could get; 4% were neutral and 5% against.[15] In the 2003 elections, the only pro-EU party got 31% of the vote. In the 2007 elections, they got 27% of the vote. Haukur (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, this is not just any political party, it is the party which has the largest number of seats in the Althing despite its opposition to EU membership, a party whose leader is he current Prime Minister and whose ex-leader is the current Chairman of the central bank. Speaking of Davíð, here's his quote from the now infamous interview: "If we were tied to the euro, for instance, we would just have to succumb to the laws of Germany and France." Six weeks later, and when Geir Haarde has made it clear that these moves are in response to the current financial crisis, I think it is silly not to report them. Physchim62 (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said, feel free to mention this. It still seems clear from recent press conferences that Geir Haarde is as opposed to joining the EU as ever. What I think is more real and important than a committee being formed is that the most anti-EU MP for the Progressive Party, Bjarni Harðarson, resigned from parliament a few days ago. Today he was followed by the chairman of the party, Guðni Ágústsson, also anti-EU. That party seems ripe for a pro-EU platform before the next election. And, yes, we also think it's a bit funny that the only people resigning are opposition MPs.Haukur (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh I don't doubt that Geir Haarde is personally opposed to EU membership, I was merely postulating that he felt he had to give a sop to those in favour. And what better way to do it than to hold the party conference in January, when the economy will still be in a mess and he can present entry negotiations as an unnecessary distraction from the serious task of earning (or trying to earn) money? Pure Machiavelli. But that's my PPOV: for the article, I feel obliged to come up with something which roughly corresponds to the external sources! Nightstallion has had a try at Iceland and the European Union. I've replied to your statistical queries at that talk page; I wouldn't have put the FT article up here if it hadn't corresponded with my (non-citable) impressions from other sources. Physchim62 (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If I also allow myself to delve into some personal observation I think it doesn't help clarity in the issue that the media is pretty much in the tank for the EU. The editors in chief of both the major newspapers are strongly pro-EU and there's not really anyone on the other side. But I'm not sure you're right about the economy and the EU. It seems to me that conversation about currency issues and the financial economy help EU-supporters. If the conversation turns back to the real economy (fish) it will help EU-opponents. Haukur (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Icesave dispute

Should we have a separate section on the Icesave dispute? It would be a hard section to write neutrally, especially as things are currently developing, but the dispute is now referred to in "Banks", "Sovereign debt", "Effects – Outside Iceland" and tangentially in the lead, in "Causes" and in "Political aftermath". It's getting to be a bit of the elephant in the room that nobody wants to mention (at least in the article)! Comments please! Physchim62 (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to that. Haukur (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Vote of no-confidence

The leaders of the opposition have brought a no-confidence resolution to the Althing,[16] it will likely be voted on early next week. It is very unlikely to pass, the coalition parties have 4043 out of 63 seats in parliament so they could handle some defections. Will there be any defections? My guess is that there won't be. But the move is clearly an attempt by the opposition to put the Social Democrats on the spot. There is a perception that the Social Democrats have been trying to wear the cloak on both shoulders. Several of them have criticized actions by the government and very many of them have said that they want the governor of the Central Bank to be dismissed. The opposition probably wants a monopoly on that sort of populist rhetoric. Haukur (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The motion will be discussed tomorrow afternoon. No word on any defections. Haukur (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, doesn't seem likely. Social Democrat Alliance Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir has come out against early elections [17] (and in favour of suing the UK, silly woman, doesn't the Icelandic government have better things to do?). The vote needs eight defections (or sixteen absentions) out of eighteen Social Democrats in order to pass, assuming that all opposition members vote in favour: seems like a tall order to me, but let's see what happens. Physchim62 (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a no-confidence motion has ever succeeded in the history of the Republic. Let me speculate on the reasons. For one thing the Althing is small enough that a party leader usually has a fairly close relationship with every MP from their own party. For another thing, we have list elections rather than one-man constituencies. A backbencher in the UK can buck the party if she believes her own status back in her constituency is unassailable. The typical Icelandic MP is entirely dependent on the goodwill of her party to get a good spot on a list before the next election.

I predict there will be zero defections. It's perhaps not entirely out of the question that we'll see one or two abstentions but I think it is unlikely. Haukur (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's not as if Icelandic MPs have very many other jobs to go to at the moment! Physchim62 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No defections from the coalition. Kristinn H. Sigurðsson Gunnarsson, party-tourist and super-maverick, voted with the government. The final vote was announced 18-42 with three MPs not present. Haukur (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Causes

I am surprised that there is so little on the background for the crisis. Swedish news present it as being due to politicians and incompetent management, and they compare the situation on Iceland with the oligarcy in Russia.[18][19]--Berig (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, where do you draw the line on "background" for the causes? There are plenty of editors here (of different nationalities and countries of residence) who are trying to keep the article within shouting distance of a neutral point of view, which isn't always easy! Were the banks' managers incompetent, unlucky or (as seems most likely) both? Was the government driven by ideology, pride, simple incompetence or all three? Is it oligarchical to have half-a-dozen large companies in a jurisdiction of 300,000 residents? Personally, I don't know, nor do I feel I have right to make that judgment here. Physchim62 (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. A newspaper is neither obliged to follow NPOV nor liable to be edited by people who take offense. However, I believe that the view presented by the Swedish newspapers may explain why the Swedish government has been reluctant to help out (which they should have done ASAP, IMO).--Berig (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that English Wikipedia is not only read in Sweden! This is an ongoing affair which affects a large number of people in many countries: the 340,000 Icelandic residents are the worst affected, of course, but the shock waves go far wider and have shaken a much larger number of people. My personal opinion is that this is an article in which responsibility in our treatment is paramount, which is why I've spent a lot of time both researching and editing it. I've expressed my PPOV on several blogs under this username, but what I think is needed here is analysed information, not opinion (insofar as the two are different!). You might be amused by this flippant editorial in the (respectable) British press, which obviously can't be cited but which serves at light relieve anyway. Otherwise, you can find a large number of analyses from different points of view in the "External links" section. Physchim62 (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

We now have a new tool in the form of the IMF staff report which justified the loan package. Luckily (for WP) it says roughly the sme things as are already in the article, although maybe with a different emphasis. It's relatively readable, but be warned – it's 87 pages long! Physchim62 (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes regarding the Presidency of Iceland

"The President has little political power" is not true. The President of Iceland has to sign every law that is passed in Althingi before it take action. If he refuses to do so it will fall into the hands of the people to decide with a vote. So the President has a very strong political power but not in an totalitarian sense but in a democratic one.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/%C3%93lafur_Ragnar_Gr%C3%ADmsson#Veto_on_media_law http://www.government.is/constitution/

Not quite. If the president refuses to sign a law it still takes action - but has to go to a referendum. Perhaps a better wording would be "The president exercises little political power". In theory, of course, he has a lot of power - but it rarely comes into play. Haukur (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the phrase is "no executive power". Of course the President has political power, otherwise the Norwegian press wouldn't be reporting what he (was alleged to have) said. The remaining sentence "The President does not necessarily agree with the government on these issues." doesn't read wonderfully either: it seems like it's trying to force a point that should already be obvious. If the President were important in normal day-to-day policy making (as in France or the U.S.), he would have been mentioned before the final section! Physchim62 (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

At Icesave dispute, I wrote it as "Even the President of Iceland Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, who normally has only a figurative role in Icelandic politics, joined in the attacks…" Physchim62 (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's tricky. Apart from being a figurehead (giving speeches, talking to foreign heads of state etc.) the president has three main roles in the Icelandic system of government: 1) He's meant to facilitate the formation of governments - be a neutral party who can help the parliamentary leaders form a coalition. In the last couple of decades this hasn't come much into play since parliament has tended to form governments easily. 2) If all else fails and the parliamentary leaders reach a prolonged impasse, the president is meant to form a government on his own. This last happened in 1942. It very nearly happened in 1979—the president had drawn up a list of ministers—but was averted at the last moment. 3) The president can refuse to sign a law, in which case parliament will either retract it or put it to a referendum. This has only happened once, in 2004.

Now, obviously, 3) is significant legislative power and 2) can be understood as significant executive power. If parliament gives up on governing the country, the president is meant to find some people who will. Haukur (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you volunteering to add that information to President of Iceland ;) That article could do with some expansion! On the whole, the constitutional position of the President of Iceland is similar to that of other European Heads of State (with the notable exception of France). The Queen of England can veto an Act of Parliament, though that last happened in 1708. The King of Belgium is currently working to try to find people willing to govern the country, thankless task that that is. Even the President of Ireland is formally part of the Oireachtas, and can force a referendum on proposed laws. Physchim62 (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I should add it. I'm so lazy, lately, I rant on talkpages when I should be fixing up articles. But please don't make me govern Belgium. Haukur (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Breaking: Seðlabanki protests

A group of some 100 protesters has managed to get into the Central Bank.[20] I bet they're looking for the lower-interest-rates button. Haukur (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well they can't seriously be expecting to find any money there… Physchim62 (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Fortune article

The article is largely okay but it promotes some of the myths that have sprung up in reporting about this. This one is particularly egregious: Iceland used to be one of Europe's poorest countries, a bleak place that survived mostly on fishing revenue and the occasional adventurous tourist who came to bathe in the natural hot springs or explore the moonlike lava fields. Davíd Oddsson almost single-handedly changed that.

Iceland was one of the poorest countries in Europe in the 1980's? That's just bananas. As poor as Albania? Romania? Poland? Absolutely crazy. Even if we take this to mean "Western-Europe" it still doesn't make sense. Was Iceland as poor as Spain? Ireland? No. Back in reality, the "bleak place" that was Iceland in the 80's had a GDP per capita above West-Germany and Britain. Haukur (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Fortune paper has several factual inaccuracies which could have been avoided if the author had simply looked at Wikipedia (this article especially). On the other hand, peripheral inaccuracies apart, it's a reasonably intelligent analysis of the crisis: that's been my criterion for adding External Links, not whether I actually agree with the papers! Physchim62 (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It promotes other "myths" too: the government of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which used controversial antiterrorism legislation to deliver the death blow to Iceland's banks. Mind you, I grew up about about 10 km from Grimsby; I've been exposed to Anglo-Icelandic myths and legends from an early age! ;) Physchim62 (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretty slick ad

Tells you how reliable and stable and long-term the whole thing is.[21] Haukur (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "here today, gone tomorrow" and "we're committed to you for the long term" seemed particularly ironic to my (somewhat warped) sense of humour! Physchim62 (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Central bank governor threatens return to politics

Mr. Davíð Oddsson has stated in an interview with a Danish newspaper that he plans to hold on to his job at the Central bank for a few more years. He says that if he would be sacked from the job he would probably return to politics. To the only man with the power to fire Doddsson, PM Geir Haarde, this is definitely a threat. Davíð also blames everybody else for the crisis in the interview, mostly the media and claims that he often tried to warn the nation about the impending doom but was never heard. [22] [23] --194.105.255.161 (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The vice-chairman of the IP (and probably the most outspoken critic of Davíð in the party) has responded by saying that she "assumes Davíð will choose the path that is best for the party, that is what the current and former chairmen of the party have done." Nobody knows what this cryptic message means. [24] --194.105.255.161 (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite. The word on the street for weeks has been that Geir Haarde is keeping Davíð Oddsson at his post at all cost because anything else would mean his return to politics and the potential destruction of the already battered Independence Party. This Danish interview is the first public statement by Davíð that he would return. Haukur (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Given Doddsson's comments as central bank chairman, one would say that he already has returned to politics! Does he sound as psychotic in Icelandic as he does in English? Physchim62 (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. The "no" part is that he has a sort of hypnotic charm. Many people thought the Kastljós interview was quite good at the time. He explained what he thought was going on in plain and reassuring terms which was nice after Geir Haarde's vague and ominous "God help us" address to the nation. Of course it turned out that Davíð's ideas about what was going on didn't entirely match the reality of the situation. That's the "yes" part of the answer. Haukur (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

To give a more literal answer, Davíð's English is quite bad. In Icelandic he's a good public speaker and a competent (if not very original) writer. Haukur (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Straumur and Exista are being traded again

Trading in Straumur and Exista was suspended for a long time but it's now open again. As a result the OMX-15 is down to 403 points.[25] Haukur (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Any news about SPRON? We still have it down as suspended on the article, though I admit I haven't looked at the stock exchange for a while. Physchim62 (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer my own question, trading in SPRON is still suspended. Index down nearly 40% (at 1335 GMT), with the two most highly traded stocks (today) being Straumur and Exista, down 57% and 96% (!) respectively. Mind you, that still values Exista at 2.1 billion krónur, or twice what Lýdur and Ágúst Gudmundsson are supposed wanting to pay for it [26] … Physchim62 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I take back that last comment: as the Bakki Brothers already hold 45% [27], paying a billion krónur for another 43% would value the company at almost exactly its current share price (ie, down 96% in three months!) Physchim62 (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when trading in SPRON resumes we'll finally know the full extent of the hecatomb. And don't talk down Exista! My Exista stock is definitely doing better than my Kaupþing stock. Haukur (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I know that Exista has actually diversified since it was set up as a holding company to own Kaupþing stock, then taken over by the main shareholders in Kaupþing, and then financed by loans from Kaupþing…

On a related note, I see that trading in Eimskipafélag Íslands is going a pace, with a turnover today so far (1412 GMT) of 5550 krónur (€38)… Turnover was only 1557 krónur (€11) when I looked earlier on. Who said the stock market wasn't for small investors! OK, this is a company which has lost more than 96% of its króna value in the last year, so maybe those investors weren't quite so "small" when they bought their shares, which would have been worth 144,800 krónur (€1588) at the start of the year… Eimskipafélag Íslands is still worth more than Exista, though! Physchim62 (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Trust

A curious poll on what institutions people trust.[28] The FME had to fight hard for the bottom place on that list but I won't say it wasn't deserved. Interestingly, the EU and the IMF aren't exactly popular either. What do people trust? Apparently, the universities, the police, the state-run media(!) and—to a lesser extent—some food companies. Haukur (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Real" exchange rate

Just a quick note about the term "real exchange rate", that one editor wanted to replace by "onshore exchange rate". A currency's real exchange rate is the exchange rate (usually against a basket of foreign currencies) with inflation factored out: the opposite is not "unreal exchange rate" (!) but "nominal exchange rate". You can have "real interest rates" as well – in Iceland, the real interest rate is 0.9% (18.0% – 17.1%). Physchim62 (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow! that was painless! Congrats to all whove worked on the article. Physchim62 (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Antiterror measures

This edit was reverted today but as far as I can see it was completely merited. The cited source does not support the claim that PM Brown was using powers dating back to WWII and this is the first and only place I have seen such an idea being promoted. This claim is OR until it can be backed by reliable sources. --Bjarki (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted Physchim62, who reverted it. I think we will fix it shortly. Thank you.--Pethr (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The pedigree of Part 2 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 can be found in the House of Lords debate of 28 November 2001 [29]. In brief, the 2001 Act merely updated the wording from the 1964 version (which itself was reenacting wartime powers). In the same debate, the government defeated attempts to restrict the use of these powers to terrorism cases – in fact, they are not the powers used for freezing terrorism assets.

Someone appears to have mentioned this to Doddsson, as he no longer rants on about the use of "anti-terrorism legislation" but rather that "the British placed a fellow NATO member on a list together with the most notorious terrorists on the planet" (speech of 18 November). The latter is correct, at least in the original presentation of the Treasury financial sanctions page [30] (the "list" has now been split into two, but you can easily imagine how it originally looked).

The Part 2 powers are for unilateral financial sanctions, and have rarely been used. The only two other occasions I can find are against Rhodesia in 1965 and against Argentina in 1982. Multilateral sanctions are made under section 1 of the United Nations Act 1946 (this includes the current anti-terrorism sanctions) or section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, as can be verified from the Treasury financial sanctions page. Physchim62 (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence in the article needs to be verifiable. Please add a source that supports the wording. Terrorism reference in the next sentence seems hard to understand when the first sentence references the Second World War. Thank you.--Pethr (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Video

User:Salvor has some video coverage of the New Year's Eve protests/riots. The most lively segment is approximately 1:00-2:00 in this video (remember to click 'high quality' if your connection is decent): [31] Haukur (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Page rename for consistency

While updating List of banking crises #21st century, I noticed that the article name 2008–2009 Icelandic financial crisis is not consistent with the other article names Financial crisis of 2007–2010, Global financial crisis of 2008–2009, and Russian financial crisis of 2008–2009: they all put the name last. This follows in a long tradition of names like Panic of 1907. For consistency I suggest renaming this article from 2008–2009 Icelandic financial crisis to Icelandic financial crisis of 2008–2009. Eubulides (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes that does sounds more consistent. I don't see why it shouldn't be moved. --BiT (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Blog post linking crisis to Friedman

J.R. Hercules put a link in the first paragraph attempting to assign blame for the crisis to the ideas of Milton Friedman before even fully explaining the crisis, much less proximate causes. The blog post that is used as a "source" for this boils down to "Keynes had ideas. Friedman had ideas. Greenspan and Bernanke support Friedman's ideas. Some of Friedman's ideas were put in place in Iceland. Things are bad there now. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Friedman's policies caused the crisis."

I've removed this section until a more concrete analysis linking the two can be found. Additionally, when/if one is found, it should probably go under "Causes" given that "traces the cause" is the operative phrase. --Ben (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please take care, you removed a ref for another sentence, a fairly high quality ref too from the economist and important too given the context [32] Nil Einne (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Deregulation

As BenBerry has argued above for removing the reference which blames Friedman for the crisis, so should blaming deregulation be removed. According to the "Causes" section of the article, deregulation was the sole cause of the crisis (additionally, no link is provided for readers to verify the idea that deregulation could be at fault). This is mentioned with absolutely no background info whatsoever. The "Cause" section should include theories to the cause from the various economic schools of thought, not simply the Keynesian. Austrian economists would argue that fractional reserve banking, central banks and the government were the source of the problem. All of this seems to have been conveniently ignore thus far in the article. Gaytan (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the causes section needs to be expanded and improved but I have reverted your removal. BenBarry removed a paragraph in the wrong place, and more importantly not supported by a reliable source (as a blog by a non-expert is not a reliable source). You removed something supported by a realiable source. If you feel the section is misleading, re-write it with appropriate references. Do not remove material simply because you disagree with it when it is supported by reliable sources Nil Einne (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

About Eva Joly

The article states that Eva Joly was hired to lead a 20-member ”economic crime team”, but in reality she is a mere consultant. She only stays a few days a month when here presence is requested. See: Eve Joly hired as a special consultant to the Icelandic government. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I fixed it. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Page Rename, 2009 to 2010

I don't think that there will be any objections, but I believe this page should be renamed "2007-2010", as the crisis is still underway. Nigtv (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

2008-2010 seems reasonable but how about simply 2008–2011 Icelandic financial crisis? Haukur (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

or Post-2008 economy of Iceland? Physchim62 (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Report from the Althing

The report was released at 1030 UTC 12 April, it is currently being read in the Reykjavík Central Theatre. From the small extracts I've read in English, it is dynamite: dates and figures and all (not all, certain organizations seem to have withheld figures, but plenty all the same). Can we please stop the edit warring and consider this new source? Physchim62 (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Voters reject plan

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/04/20114105711706711.html Economic and political chaos feared as voters turn down a plan to repay debts to UK and Netherlands from a bank crash.

Add this in? Hcobb (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's also this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/01/1001662/-Icelands-On-going-Revolution but its quite hard to just "add it in" as I certainly don't understand the overall timeline very well; it doesn't help that this article mentions dates and times without mentioning years. linas (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:2008–2012 Irish financial crisis - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 06:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Causes?

The section entitled 'causes' contains the following line

"A number of writers have linked Iceland's woes to the nation's adoption of neo-liberal economic policies starting in the 1990s."

I find this line to be highly dubious for at least two reasons. First, it varies from the rest of the article with the hedging line "A number of writers have linked" whereas the rest of the article deals with statements of fact. The reason for this is also reason number two why I have a problem with this statement, its citations are not only both to editorials, which are expressly forbidden by RS, but they link back to alternet and huffington post, neither of which I would call reliable for matters economic. I am going to remove that sentence for those reasons. Bonewah (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not remove cited sources. They are also not "editorials"; please look up the definition of "editorial". J.R. Hercules (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The line is useless and should be removed. What are "neo-liberal economic policies", for example. We can do far better than this, and from more reliable sources. Physchim62 (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The line is useless... "Useless" in what way? It sums up the content of the links. What would be a more "useful" line to employ -- "A number of writers have linked Iceland's woes to the level...of mercury in Iceland's waters"? "...to the volcanic activity within Iceland?" "...to the average number of children in Icelandic families?" Please explain precisely what you mean by "the line is useless".

What are "neo-liberal economic policies", for example? Apparently weren't able to figure out how to use your mouse to click on any of the links; you could have then read the pieces, and discovered the answer for yourself. Or, possibly, you don't know how to do a simple search for the words "neo-liberal" in the WP search engine. However, you can simply click on this link and have your answer. J.R. Hercules (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The mere fact that this statement is 'cited' means nothing. As I said before, neither the Huffington Post nor Alternet is a reliable source on economics, and in both cases, the article's are the (un-peer reviewed, un-scientific) opinion of some guy. Consider the consequences of allowing this type of speculation in this article:

"A number of writers have linked Iceland's woes to the nation's adoption of neo-liberal economic policies starting in the 1990s.

"A number of writers have linked Iceland's woes to the nations failure to more thoroughly adopt neo-liberal economic policies.

"A number of writers have linked Iceland's woes to the nations currency peg with the Euro"

"A number of writers have linked Iceland's woes to George Soros.

All of those statements can be sourced to someone, if the only qualification for inclusion is that someone have an opinion and a cite somewhere on the internet. If we are going to include the speculations of some random guy on alternet, why stop there? Why not include the speculations of every random guy anywhere? The answer should be obvious, articles need to be more than "person 1 believes X, person 2 believes Y, person 3 believes Z". We need to establish that any given person's opinion is relevant and important to the subject at hand. Bonewah (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, as I stated on your talk page, this article is a very technical one, you will notice nothing of politics or economic theory in that article. Consider the section you keep editing (causes): every other section deals with specific causes and effects: Icelandic banks upload debt, then cannot refinance, or the Krona becomes overvalued and suffers carry trading. These are are cold facts and the article refrains from editorializing. Your edits, in contrast, are vague and editorial in nature, "The nation is settling scores with neoliberalism", "number of writers have linked Iceland's woes ..", linked in what way? What neoliberal policies? Every other part of the article strives to explain specifics, your edits avoid real explanation.

Simply adding more editorials as citations does nothing to address my concerns. Especially considering the fact that the opinion articles you added (and they are opinion articles) dont even support the claims being made. Again, I ask you to respond to my discussion here in a meaningful way and not just revert. Bonewah (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It is you who is "reverting", as you persist in deleting well-sourced material.

Statement: "A number of writers have linked Iceland's woes to the nation's adoption of neo-liberal and laissez-faire economic policies starting in the 1990s."

Support: About 7 or 8 references.

Fact: It doesn't matter one whit if you agree with the writers or not or if like what they say or not: the fact remains that there has been voluminous public discussion on the matter, and the section points simply this out and provides proper references as support. It will be interesting to see how you justify your reasoning in deleting the material during arbitration. J.R. Hercules (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The line is useless because 1) it doesn't suggest which "neo-liberal economic policies" were to blame and 2) it is just a glib swipe at one political philosophy. Let's take the proximate cause of the kreppa, that Icelandic banks borrowed far too much money which then then couldn't pay back. Now the banking system was deregulated in the early 1990s, does this mean that the deregulation was the cause of the crisis? If so, why did Iceland suffer so much worse than other countries? The Icelandic banks could never have grown so large without the EEA Agreement: does that mean that the EEA Agreement is the cause of the financial crisis? Why did Norway – which also deregulated its banks and joined the EEA at the same time of Iceland – not suffer a financial crisis on the scale of Iceland's? The line is simply vacuous on these matters, a kind of intellectual opium to persuade people that it was all the fault of the big bad neo-libs and that everything would be OK if we just stuck them all up against a wall and started shooting. "Unencyclopedic" doesn't even start to convey what is wrong with the sentence! Physchim62 (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I already did justify my reasoning, right above. The mere fact that someone holds a certain opinion does not mean that it should be included in an article. Again, as per above, I can find numerous commentators that believe any number of things, and, if we included begin including opinion simply because someone holds it, this article will become a hopeless mess of "person 1 believes X, Person 2 believes Y, Person 3 believes Z". But ive already said all this, you just arent listening Bonewah (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the edit lasts for all one sentence, your claim that "this article will become a hopeless mess..." falls flat on its fallacious face.J.R. Hercules (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not read the part where I said "will become" as in if we allow this particular opinion in the article, we will have to allow every other opinion. Consider the previous POV pusher Gazpr and his edits which have the Icelanding economic crisis being caused by the Russian mob [33]. Guess what? He can find someone who *thinks* that the Russian Mob is the cause of it, just like you can find someone who *thinks* neo-liberal policies are the cause of it. Do you see what I mean now? This article is not a place for the random opinions of random people, the entire article deals in fact except the section you keep trying to add in which is merely the speculation of a random editorialist. Bonewah (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So in the event that the article does become a "hopeless mess" of "random editorializing" in the future, I strongly suggest you monitor the situation. J.R. Hercules (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Perspective of the "causes" section flipped, and with no references

The above discussion concerns a section on how the causes or opinions on the causes of the crisis should be communicated in this article. Before, the question was whether there was adequate evidence to include criticisms of neoliberalism as a contributor to the crisis.

Crisis resolution

Iceland's financial position has steadily improved since the crash. The economic contraction and rise in unemployment appear to have been arrested by late 2010 and with growth underway in mid 2011.[187] Three main factors have been important in this regard. First is the emergency legislation passed by the Icelandic parliament in October 2008. It served to minimise the impact of the financial crisis on the country.

A second important factor is the success of the IMF Stand-By-Arrangement in the country since November 2008.

Finally, the third major factor behind the resolution of the financial crisis was the decision by the government of Iceland to apply for membership in the EU in July 2009.

Now, there is a section that argues precisely the opposite--that neoliberalism actually helped the country get back on its feet--with absolutely no citations for the opinions whatsoever (some of the facts used to formulate the opinions are cited, but the actual opinions themselves need citations even more urgently).

In other words, a referenced section was accused of being POV, then converted to a non-referenced section that is definitively POV in the opposite direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Druep (talk • contribs) 21:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

articles regarding Iceland's debt forgiveness program

http://wizbangblog.com/2012/04/14/did-iceland-forgive-the-majority-of-its-citizens-mortgage-debt/

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0410/imf-says-targeted-debt-reduction-policies-can-work.html

In Iceland, banks were made to accept reductions in mortgage interest payments of up to 40pc and the most distressed households had a portion of their outstanding debt written off.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9195844/IMF-urges-authorities-to-consider-debt-forgiveness-to-restore-growth.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Druep (talk • contribs) 21:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Canadian dollar

Shouldn't this have something about the plan to replace the currency with the Canadian dollar? (as stated in the Economist, the Canadian Ambassador to Iceland, etc) 65.92.180.130 (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Iceland Canadian Dollar: Nordic Country Not Considering Adopting Loonie, Government Says. Even the Economist only says the idea was merely discussed: Canada and Iceland A loonie idea Bonewah (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)