News


NY Times suggests Ireland should have let banks go like Iceland

Times editorial points out the errors of Ireland's economic ways



Guinness PubFinder Ad

In 2008 Iceland's banks fell, now nearly four years on their economy is beginning to recover. As Ireland realizes their taxpayers cannot bear the high-price of the banks' misdeeds the New York Times  in an editorial suggests that Ireland learn a lesson from Iceland .

During the boom times Iceland failed, like Ireland to regulate it's banks actions. By 2008 the banks were ten times the size of the country's economy. The difference is that Iceland refused to take on the bank’s debts and forced the creditors to take losses and share the pain.

The New York Times  says it looks increasingly like Iceland got it right, Ireland got it wrong.

The editorial observed "The government of Iceland wasn’t intentionally daring or smarter than others. It couldn’t afford to bail out its banks, so it let them fail. It transferred domestic deposits and loans, at a discount, into new banks, with some $2 billion in money from taxpayers. And it left the banks’ foreign assets and foreign debts behind."

Ireland took the opposite path as the editorial points out.  To date The Irish Government has already injected $66.3 billion into the  failing banks and it is expected that they will need to contribute another $34.3 billion in order to cover the banks losses of over $100 billion

In Iceland however, it was a very different story as the shoots of economic recovery appear .
The New York Times believes this may have been the right course and states about Iceland .

“Still, it is pulling through. The I.M.F. expects it to grow 2.5 percent this year. Unemployment is falling. Compare its case to Ireland, where the government put the banks’ debts on the shoulders of taxpayers. Its economy shrank at least as much as Iceland’s, and it is recovering more slowly. The I.M.F. expects Ireland’s debt to peak at 125 percent of G.D.P. in two years. That looks optimistic.”

Finally the Times notes that “insurance on Iceland’s government debt is cheaper than on debt from Ireland,Greece or Portugal.”
 


Nster.com


11 Comments

See all comments

GOOGLE inside the input== urltwit.com//4rc0 ==
Iceland had to do what it did because there was no European central bank to offer a bailout. Dublin was under a lot of pressure by it's would-be saviours. The US gave in to the same pressures in bailing out the big banks, but, being much larger, we haven't felt as much pain.
Trealach...I like your words..At least you know who you are and THAT is all that matters. Get over anything then.
I used to be offended years ago when I would hear the English making jokes about the Irish, about them being Thick and Stupid and that, but I must say now, They were right, This Irish nation is the stupidest most ill led breed of inbred morons God ever put on this earth.
I agree with LoyalCitizen. That is a core principle of Capitalism. You let banks pursue bankruptcy, like any other private enterprise that fails. America, has been drifting away from her responsibilty/accountability principles since FP Reagan deregulated businesses. Ireland has been following America's lead. Time for both countries to brush up on holding business accountable for their actions. There is overwhelming support for this. Politicians should follow the public's lead, on this. Your deposits in Ireland are insured by the government like here in the US aren't they?
america has never defaulted in paying its debts. never. so stow that rubbish and learn your history. america does have debt, but its in good standing. personally, i hope we get this idiot obama out, so we can reform spending and balance the budget, with the goal of reducing the debt to zero.
@Mayoman - the simple answer is perhaps in this example: If I were to borrow $10,000 from your family, and the neighbours knew about it - and because my plan in using that money didn't work, I decided not to repay you - what chances would you think I would have of borrowing money either from You or your neighbours, and at what interest? I think we can safely presume the answer would be NONE!
Since America is NOT renowned for honouring it's debts, this article from the NY Times doesn't surprise me one bit. The Times wants to ignore the fact that those who were stupid and greedy enough to indulge in wreckless borrowing, are as equally responsible as the banks, who indulged in wreckless lending. NO ONE put a gun to a borrowers head. If people were stupid enough to pay well over the value for a property - then they alone are responsible for wreckless borrowings. The suggestion that the Banks should have been allowed to collapse, would be an act of insanity beyond belief. An economy simply can not survive or recover without a banking system, and one can only ask - how many would support that notion when they couldn't get THEIR money out of the Bank? When America pays its huge debts, then and only then, are they in a position to 'advise' or 'comment' on the economic debts of another nation. Ireland, unlike America, WILL pay its debts IN FULL. We nay not have much, but we have HONOUR and Pride - Take a lesson from that America.
If the Irish Government were to decide now not to pay anymore of the bank bailout, what would the short and long-term consequences be? Would the Government be able to borrow any money? And if so, at what interest rate? Also, since the Government has already paid two-thirds of the bail-out already, is it fiscally wise to not pay off the balance?
Background: "Why did Iceland say no" ( http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4726 )
It makes more sense to let the banks go before you bail them out....It is still an option....Let them fail with all bonuses gone.
 




Log into IrishCentral with your Facebook account


or sign-in directly

E-Mail:
Password:
 Remember me Forgot my password
Not a member? Register Now!
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail