Iceland jails crooked Banksters, Sells-off Banks, doles out kr 30,000 to each citizen w/ proceeds.

[99th_Monkey]

Last edited Thu Oct 29, 2015, 08:38 PM - Edit history (1)

THIS^ is how to deal with crooked Banksters, not with kid-gloves, deregulation and bail-outs.

First They Jailed the Bankers, Now Every Icelander to Get Paid in Bank Sale
Oct. 29, 2015 * The AntiMedia * by Claire Bernish

(ANTIMEDIA) Iceland — First, Iceland jailed its crooked bankers for their direct involvement in the financial crisis of 2008. Now, every Icelander will receive a payout for the sale of one of its three largest banks, Íslandsbanki.

If Finance Minister Bjarni Benediktsson has his way — and he likely will — Icelanders will be paid kr 30,000 after the government takes over ownership of the bank. Íslandsbanki would be second of the three largest banks under State proprietorship.

“I am saying that the government take some decided portion, 5%, and simply hand it over to the people of this country,” he stated.

Because Icelanders took control of their government, they effectively own the banks. Benediktsson believes this will bring foreign capital into the country and ultimately fuel the economy — which, incidentally, remains the only European nation to recover fully from the 2008 crisis. Iceland even managed to pay its outstanding debt to the IMF in full — in advance of the due date.

http://theantimedia.org/first-they-jailed-the-bankers-now-every-icelander-to-get-paid-in-bank-sale/

[LiberalArkie]

1. Now that is bank regulation.. Good for them

[mindwalker_i]

2. I'm sure Hillary will do the same thing here

[99th_Monkey]

11. Yes, of course Hillary will .. Cuz she already told them to "CUT IT OUT!"

[Amimnoch]

15. And Bernie will be soooooo much more successful.

After all, even as such a Senior and lifetime politician and Senator, he's had soooo much more success with breaking up the banks.. like that bill to break them up just this last summer.. the one he supported.. and failed.. So, do tell, exactly how, when he can't even make this kind of legislation happen right in the mix of it all, is he going to get a bill done and on his desk? What Congress is going to do this for him? What will he compromise with Congress to make it happen?

You're probably right, Hillary likely will not push this issue, not unless the electorate wises up enough to give her a congress that will back her up on it.

And there you have it boys and girls.. in a nutshell..

One politician who won't do it because she's an experienced realist that knows where she can and can't make progress, and that's why she will be the best candidate to make REAL progress.

And one politician who's great at wishful thinking outside of reality, who has already failed at this and other of his fanciful thinking policies, and wishes to become president where, when all is said and done, he will either end up having to compromise and greatly disappoint his devoted, and possibly end up becoming a great president... OR he will stick to his principles and become the most useless, and ineffective president in the history of the country due to a following that put him there and failed to realize that they also needed to get a congress that would back the man up.

[cui bono]

17. So you've resigned yourself to voting for that the GOP will allow.

That's depressing.

I'm voting for what I want. That's what democracy is supposed to be about.

[cstanleytech]

18. I dont see them resigning themselves to anything, they seem to me to just be pointing out that

right now with the Republicans having so much control over Congress that the odds of such a thing happening with the banks here in the US are about nil.

[cui bono]

20. But if you really want to change something you have to vote for the person who is actually going to

try. And that ain't Hillary. And when the response is "well what do you think Bernie is going to be able to do" then they are voting for what they think the GOP will allow. They're not saying Hillary will try just as hard as Bernie, they are blaming the GOP.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[LuvNewcastle]

22. Yes, the only time failure is assured is when

you don't even try to do something. And doing the same thing over and over produces the same results. That's the logic that too many people ignore, but it's true nonetheless.

[treestar]

33. What good is trying if Congress is Republican?

Have you not yet learned you'd need a Congress to pass these laws?

Voting for BS alone is not going to do it. You'd have to start paying attention to who you are electing to Congress.

[cui bono]

38. It's a hell of a lot better than giving up or settling?

And spare me the condescension. You really think I don't know how laws are passed?

Pfft. Explain to me how Hillary, who the right wing hates with a passion, will do better than Bernie with a GOP congress.

[treestar]

88. That's the point, no one can do it with an R Congress

but at least a D President could veto. The point is that you have to think about who will get elected to Congress and campaign there, instead of leaning entirely on the Presidency, as you are dong with BS and will end up disappointed. So he asks an R congress for single payer, why is that any better than not asking in a situation where it will not happen?

How is it "giving up" when you know there is nothing going to happen. Please give me at least 100,000 dollars. At least I asked. Rather than "giving up" even though I know there is no way you are going to do it. You may be one of those who will ask people for anything, no matter how unreasonable, because you may as well at least try? I have been asked by people to do things that are so incredible, I can't believe they could be that selfish. But they at least tried.

[BlueJazz]

83. Amen. I'd rather go down swinging than fail like a meek, scared sheep.

[cstanleytech]

86. Wrong, the one who it really is any of the Republicans if they win.

Hillary might not be the best but the same could be said of Bernie but I think they are both far better choices than any of the Republicans running as for major changes well thats going take a complete change in the entire government not just the office of president.
And I do mean our entire government from Congress to the courts.

[Amimnoch]

30. Oh hell no, not the GOP.

The Democrats. See, therein lies the big problem, not all Democrats are equal. What a Democrat representative in Rural Tennessee will vote on when it comes to a bill is not the same as what a Democrat Representative in Urban California will vote on, is not the same as what a Democrat in resort/vacation spot Florida will vote on.

You guys see Hillary's establishment ties as her weakness, and as the bad thing. I see it as her knowing how to use it to get the most done. Some of it will be compromises, because without compromises she will get... nothing at all, and while it might feel good to think getting nothing done at all is better than a bill of compromise, it's the people that suffer most when nothing at all is done.

Worse, when there is a GOP majority in either the House or the Senate, those compromises have to be even worse because then, you are facing getting nothing at all done vs. getting something done (even if it is not perfect).

The bully pulpit can only go so far, and for it to work at all there's got to at least be a fairly good chunk of congressional support behind it, or it's completely worthless.

Show me a potential congress that will make Senator Sanders vision a possibility.. at all.. and I'll change the logo in my sig.

[treestar]

34. note the meme "Bernie will at least try" as if that matters

more than actually passing anything.

Yeah Obama could have demanded new laws that would allow prosecution of whatever they want prosecuted and not gotten it. And you can bet he would have gotten no credit for "at least trying."

[cui bono]

39. So you'd rather have Hillary, who will not try to rein in the banks at all.

Who is worse on social issues than Bernie.

That makes no sense what so ever.

[Amimnoch]

46. No, I'm voting for Hillary who will reign in the banks.

Who has been a champion on Human rights, and done much to protect and advance them.

Difference between her and Bernie.. she has the network of support to actually make progress in those areas.

[hifiguy]

57. The Hillary who will "reign in the banks"

is as imaginary as Snow White or Cinderella. Possibly moreso, as the fairy tales have been told the same way for several hundred years. HRH's story changes daily.

[cui bono]

79. I absolutely disagree.

Unless she's doing things the GOP approves of, then yes. If she takes the centrist path she most likely will take.

That's why we need a liberal who will fight for what we need, not just what people think we can get. The negotiations need to begin with our ideal outcome as our side's demand, THEN we move from there. We can't start at the center. That's how we got here.

[treestar]

87. Why would Hillary not try to rein them in

and with what? What are they doing now? Who is doing what that is illegal under US law?

[cui bono]

90. Really? You're siding with Wall Street against the people?

Wow.

Or are you just being contrary for the "fun" of it? Because actually your post doesn't make much sense. You first ask why Hillary wouldn't rein in the banks but then proceed to wonder what they are doing that is so wrong? Using the term "illegal" doesn't get you off the hook. You know damn well that many things that are wrong with this country are "legal". So should we not try to change anything then? Why bother voting at all?

But to answer you first question about Clinton. Why would she not try to rein them in? Because in her own words, she "respresented Wall Street" as a senator. And now they are funding her campaign and SuperPACs. And besides she told us she already asked them to cut it out. So I guess that's as much fighting for the people against the 1% that we'll see from her.

[treestar]

91. Could you be more over simplistic?

I think not. Individual defendants have to have violated laws and there needs to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

And it is oversimple to make it the People vs. Wall Street. People in general have no real interest in Wall Street failing - we'd have unemployment and people would lose their retirement. You've gotten into a bubble with this irrational hatred of a Street.

[cui bono]

93. What a completely disingenuous post.

Is that how you explain your support of a candidate who is backed by and will serve Wall Street? You think we all want Wall Street to fail? Where did you get that idea?

Do you really think things are fine as they are?

[TheKentuckian]

89. Of course it matters because the actual trying helps you to acquire the power and

then there is the need to actually wield the power for such purposes.

Not trying because the odds are not in your favor is just setting up to continue to have excuses and even legitimate structural reason to not fight when they change for the better.

This stuff isn't going to poof it's self into existence at some based on the count of Democrats in the legislature.

[cui bono]

42. Where has this idea come from that Bernie doesn't compromise in order to get things passed?

[mindwalker_i]

28. It seems like you thesis is it won't happen

so vote for Hillary. Bernie might want to do the right thing and prosecute the banks, but it just isn't going to happen. So vote for Hillary. By that logic, it's too hard to go to the moon in a month so don't even try, and furthermore invest in the person who wouldn't even think of it.

Even if prosecuting the banks doesn't happen, there are a whole lot of issues that Bernie would at least try to work on - in the positive direction - that Hillary wouldn't touch. And maybe he won't be able to get where we want, but that's not a reason to go full speed the other way.

FAIL!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

29. So your solution is to quit?

[Amimnoch]

31. not at all.

My solution is the same as all of yours: To support the candidate that I wholeheartedly believe will be the best candidate to move progressive and liberals issues the most forward.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

55. That's odd. There are Hillary supporters who can't WAIT to purge the Liberals from the party.

[hifiguy]

58. The lists are being compiled

and the axes are being sharpened as we speak. Make book on it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

62. We're doing the same...

[hifiguy]

64. I saw the name Thurgood Marshall, Jr there.

Son of the great civil rights lawyer and the first African-American justice of SCOTUS . I will bet his father would be so proud of him:

According to documents filed with the SEC, he is a director serving on the board of Corrections Corporation of America, (1) the largest commercial vendor of federal detainment and prisoner transport in the United States.

(1) http://biz.yahoo.com/e/140516/cxw8-k.html

[Spitfire of ATJ]

85. Amazing what money does to people.

[Kingofalldems]

41. YMMV?

[Kingofalldems]

44. So what does that have to do with Hillary Clinton?

[LanternWaste]

50. It is fun to pretend Democratic candidates not of our choosing will eventually become fascis

It is indeed, fun to pretend Democratic candidates not of our choosing will eventually become fascist. I'm only sorry I didn't get to read the creative rationalization that lies behind your bumper-sticker allegation.

Oh well, bias is as bias says...

Fascist... that's a great one.

[bvar22]

59. So what is the choice:

a) Someone that we KNOW won't break up the banks re-regulate the banks, or send crooked banksters to jail....EVER,

OR

2) Someone who sees them as crooks, and will do everything he can to protect the American People from the looters.


Hmmmmmm.
Hard Choice.

[Amimnoch]

73. If that was the actual choice it would be.

The actual choice is:

A) Someone that will use every tool given and available to either increase regulaton on the banks (but has to have a congress that will do it). OR

B) Someone who says they will try knowing full well there is no way they will get it through with the congress that reality hands them.

Easy choice in my book, when you put reality into it.

[bvar22]

74. So you will choose a known zero,

..to someone who is known to fight for what is right.
At the very least, Bernie WILL get the message out there, and more and more people will hear it.
Maybe not this time, but if we elect your candidate.....there IS no message, and everything stays the same.

I'll join the fight while you sit on the sidelines and eat popcorn.
Just the kind of guy I am.

Why try to change anything?
Its too hard!

[Unknown Beatle]

75. At least Sanders is trying against all odds.

Hillary won't do it because she supports wall st and gets big money from them and there's plenty of documented evidence to back my claim. She's going to make an excellent president for the wealthy, for you and I, not so much. That's if she wins, a great big if.

[AlbertCat]

23. I'm sure Hillary will do the same thing here

The only problem with anyone doing that here is our government is MORE corrupt than the banks.

[quakerboy]

81. chicken or the egg.

Without the money, our government wouldnt be corrupt.

So.. who is more corrupt. the ones paying the bribes or the ones taking the bribes?

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. Agreed ....

if only the U.S. operated under Icelandic Jurisprudence.

[2naSalit]

8. for some it could be...

depends on how poor you are.

[99th_Monkey]

9. Thanks for catching that -nt-

[A HERETIC I AM]

27. No worries

I deleted the post above

[SandersDem]

14. doesn't matter

they own it, it's basically bankrupt, they liquidate it and people get a small portion of their money back, but the big thing is the bank goes away and the economy sees a little stimulus. It also sends one helluva a message to stock holders of every other bank in Iceland. If that were done here, the too bigger to fail banks would break themselves up.

[ish of the hammer]

21. more than you got, when the U.S. bailed out our banks.

[A HERETIC I AM]

26. Not true

I got to avoid an economic collapse, just like you.

[ish of the hammer]

53. That money would have ben better spent

as a direct subsidy to the American taxpayer. Let's see 1 trillion $ divided by 350 million citizens. What would you have done with that money? What did the banks do with that money? What do ALASKA's citizens do with their Permanent Fund money?

[A HERETIC I AM]

54. Yes, it's always best to look at things from certain perspectives...

Uninformed ones are a good start.

It is critically important to remember what it was that was about to push the economy into the abyss back then; Banks stopped lending to each other.

Period.

If you think that is no big deal then you don't understand how complex the banking system is and how it is tied into the daily operation of business in the USA.

Please tell me how just giving a trillion dollars AWAY (Because that's NOT what happened. They didn't back dumptrucks full of cash up to the back doors of B of A and Citibank and just say "Here ya go! Enjoy!&quot would have gotten the banks to start lending to each other again.

As far as What Alaskans do with their annual check, who bloody cares? It has NOTHING to do with what happened in late 2008/early '09 and in no way can relate to the bank "bailout"

[AlbertCat]

24. It's more like $233

If I remember correctly, Dubya promised everyone about a $300 tax refund from Bill Clinton's surplus....


and we all know what happened then.

[99th_Monkey]

66. KansDem down-string says it's actually MUCH more than that: $3,512.92 to be exact.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027300328#post63

Could you please back up your math, or amend your post?

[Orangepeel]

69. 30,000 ISK = $233.55

http://www.x-rates.com/calculator/?from=ISK&to=USD&amount=30000

[99th_Monkey]

72. Cool. You were right after all. KansDem agrees with you now.

Thanks for the link. I wasn't sure how to google for exchange rates, so now I'll
have the link.

[D Gary Grady]

80. Even easier, just type it in to a Google search

For example, I just started typing "30000 icelandic kr..." into my browser's address field and the suggestion "30000 icelandic krona to usd" appeared, and when I hit return I got the conversion, plus a currency conversion calculator that allows putting in other amounts and currencies.

Google does all manner of conversions and calculations for you. Try typing e.g. "speed of light in furlongs per fortnight" and it will tell you. Or type a math expression ("2000 * pi" for example) and besides the answer it will give you a calculator. It's quite useful and it's only dumb luck I know this.

[quakerboy]

82. Its a matter of currency. SEK vs ISK

If you just google KR to USD, you get the Swedish Krona(SEK), which would give a value over $3000 usd

But the Icelandic Krona(ISK) has a different value than the Swedish, so you get a value of about $233 USD

[Fumesucker]

5. They could only do that thanks to the overwhelming power of the Icelandic military

A force against which our own government appears but a pale shadow.

[dreamnightwind]

6. LOL, our military would protect the banks

and imprison the people, though I guess they're only capitalism's enforcement mechanism in foreign countries. Here in the U.S. we have our very own police state to take care of that.

[hifiguy]

60. Not so sure about the uniformed military.

And I think that is the primary reason the kkkops have been militarized to the teeth.

The kkkops would gleefully mow the people down without a second thought. I genuinely doubt the military would. I believe that the average soldier/sailor/marine/airman has a pretty solid sense of honor. The kkkops are for the most part a gang of armed goons who will do whatever their masters order them to do; the Mafia is the police business model, omerta and all.

[dreamnightwind]

71. Yes, I more or less said as much

"though I guess they're only capitalism's enforcement mechanism in foreign countries. Here in the U.S. we have our very own police state to take care of that."

though I don't share your high assessment of our military's sense of honor, mixed bag like anything else.

[dreamnightwind]

7. K & R, need to fix the title though

uses the wrong currency, as pointed out upthread.

This is the kind of approach you get when politicians are elected with public money rather than with corporate money.

[99th_Monkey]

10. done nt

[abelenkpe]

12. K&R

[SDjack]

13. I suspect that the next scam devised by Wall Street banksters

will not be offered for sale to Iceland. Criminal banks need to be killed, assets sold, and confiscated by the IRS.

[erronis]

16. This is nicely documented in Michael Lewis's "Boomerang"

which shows how the western (mainly US) vultures leveraged their interests against that of whole countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang:_Travels_in_the_New_Third_World

Bunch of greedy bastards. Or as RMoney would say, The Makers.

[Rex]

19. Wow, they are just rubbing it in our faces! Dam you Iceland!

[WillyT]

25. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[Rex]

35. If only our country had that kind of integrity!

[treestar]

32. Very different country with very different laws

Has nothing to do with us and our laws. Please cite which people could be prosecuted under which laws of the US.

A country as small as Iceland is very different.

[GummyBearz]

36. For starters,

Everyone from ratings agencies that rated toxic assets as AAA-grade investments. Secondly any bank that over stepped boundaries and encouraged ratings agencies to do so in order to sell the AAA-toxic waste to mutual funds.

That is clear business fraud. Just like Macy's would get in trouble for selling cheap knock offs labeled as expensive designer brands

[snagglepuss]

47. I wish you'd consider making this an Op because it clearly

shows concrete steps that could and should be taken. A lot of people probably think like the other poster that the criminal scams were horrible but that given existing laws nothing can be done.

[GummyBearz]

49. I'm a not going to have time today

If you have a bit of time to make a good title and get it out there, feel free to quote my example. Just give me a shout out. I'll try to find it later today to kick.

[99th_Monkey]

37. Iceland is a "different country, it has nothing to do with us and our laws"

Ha! Yes, I quite agree it's an embarrassment to see how another nation conducts it's public
affairs with zero-tolerance for corruption, bribery, graft, buying political favors, etc. and
actually holds their wealthy class accountable for their misdeeds, like any other citizen.

And yes, high-powered US corporate attorneys have been very successful at rigging our laws
to favor Oligarchs over We The People, to the point where it's all-too-obvious to anyone who cares
to pay attention, that we have a "rigged system" of "legalized bribery", "revolving door corruption",
and "pay-to-play" politics.

So your asking me to "please cite which people could be prosecuted under which US laws"
not only rings hollow, it entirely misses the point.

[Rex]

48. LOL!

THAT ONE never met a bankster he/she didn't like. In all the years here, that one has never once complained about the status quo. So that they would come into this thread with such venom toward the subject speaks volumes about their character.

THAT ONE is ALWAYS for "wait just a few more years for the perfect Congress to come along" and a reason I will not take them seriously no matter what they post about.

[99th_Monkey]

52. Thanks

At least that one scores high on "consistency" scale.

[hifiguy]

61. ANY country can have laws with integrity.

Our owned, err, elected representatives make sure that no such laws are enacted. The billionaire class must be protected at all costs.

[WDIM]

51. That is exaclty what we need to do.

In addition to Arresting the banksters we should cease their assets and redistribute to the people who it has been stolen from.

[hifiguy]

56. I can only offer the traditional Icelandic toast

Skål Iceland!!

[KansDem]

63. That's $3,512.92!!!

I could pay off some debt with that!

[99th_Monkey]

65. THANK YOU! AlbertCat up-string was claiming it was only $233

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027300328#post24

That makes a HUGE difference in the significance of the redistribution, so thank
you for setting the record straight.

[KansDem]

70. DAMN!!!

I'm sorry. That was the Swedish krona.

[Catherine Vincent]

67. I'm moving to Iceland. :)

[Phlem]

68. K&R!!!!

[rocktivity]

76. That's about $234

in actual money.


rocktivity

[99th_Monkey]

78. Yes, that has already been sorted out up-string.

But thanks for restating it, I guess.

Believe it or not, for some people that is what they need to eat,
.. but on second thought, that's probably not the case in Iceland,
because poor and/or homeless people are scarce as hens teeth there.

[hobbit709]

92. Which is $234 more than we got.

All we got was even bigger banks and less money for the 99%

[Warpy]

77. Iceland showed us how to do it, all right

Keep social programs intact when people need them the most, nationalize the banks, jail the fraudsters, and change the bank culture completely.

Now they're in a strong, solid recovery while the rest of the world is still struggling, the fraudsters making sure their own gravy train isn't derailed while keeping the majority poor and getting poorer.

When things start to blow up in other countries, I fully expect bankers to be up against the wall instead of jailed.

[wildbilln864]

84. Awesome! Go Iceland! n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. You all realise that's the *conservative* solution, don't you?

Two radically different visions emerge of the future of the Icelandic banking system

The question of what to do with the states stake in Landsbankinn, Íslandsbanki and Arion has is quickly becoming one of the most hotly debated political questions of the day in Iceland.

A social bank rather than breadcrumbs

The National congress of the Left-Green alliance called for Landsbankinn to be turned into a non-profit “social bank”, which would be operated in the interest of society as a whole, rather than shareholders. Katrín Jakobsdóttir, who was re-elected as the chairman of the Left-Green Alliance told the Icelandic National Broadcasting Service RÚV that the question was whether society would enjoy the entire benefits created by the bank, “or just the breadcrumbs, falling off the table.”

A consensus around privatization

Meanwhile, the chairman of the conservative Independence party outlined a plan to privatize the banks. Bjarni Benediktsson, who was also re-elected as party chairman at his party’s national congress, proposed that the state distribute 5% of the shares in all three banks among all citizens. RÚV estimates that this would transfer assets worth 29.65 billion ISK (230 million USD/210 million EUR) from the state to the citizens, meaning every Icelander would receive shares worth 90,000 ISK (700 USD/640 EUR).

Bjarni argued that this plan was “not intended to dramatically improve the economy” of Icelandic homes, but to “create a broader consensus around changes in the ownership structure and ensure the goal of broad-based ownership.”

http://icelandmag.visir.is/article/two-radically-different-visions-emerge-future-icelandic-banking-system

[99th_Monkey]

95. Jailing Bankster Crooks is "conservative"?

Maybe in Iceland. Just try doing that in the USA/Wall St.

I get it though, and appreciate your post & link. Oh how different the political landscapes
are, between US and Iceland!.

BTW - I'm totally down with public/community-owned banks, like the one they've
had in North Dakota like forever. Every state needs one. problem solved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_North_Dakota