L'Islanda sta fallendo

[gabi.2437]

Originariamente inviato da Redux

Parlo da ignorante e chiedo lumi: che tipo di peso economico ha l'Islanda? che producono?

http://www.eve-online.com/



Si che sti qua possono spostarsi in un altro stato...

[CYRANO]

Originariamente inviato da Ziosilvio

Pesce, energia geotermica, e alluminio.

e le banane ?





C;,a;,z;,a

[Ziosilvio]

Originariamente inviato da CYRANO

e le banane ?

Sì, è vero, anche quelle. (Con un costo energetico spropositato, oltretutto.)
Grazie.

[Fradetti]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_...ion_in_Iceland

[Neo_]

Originariamente inviato da CYRANO

e le banane ?





C;,a;,z;,a

per quello ci siamo già noi

[ElSaxo]

Originariamente inviato da gugoXX

Mah.
Una nazione i cui abitanti hanno uno stipendio medio di 500$ al mese andrebbe a dare un quantitativo di soldi pari a 18.000$ per ciascun abitante dell'Islanda?
Se fossi un russo sarei moooolto arrabbiato.

se io fossi russo sarei incazzato per taaantissime cose

[cornetto]

Magari e' gia' stato detto..
ma la Islanda, un paese Nato, accettando i soldi russi, entra nella sfera d' influenza della Russia. L'Islanda poi rappresenta anche un territorio militarmente strategico per i sottomarini nucleari russi.....

Fantapolitica??

[lo_straniero]

la russia si sta riprendendo la rivincita

[yossarian]

Originariamente inviato da Aiace

Macchè fallendo...

...zio Silvio ha detto che è pronta una cordata di imprenditori per rilevarla....

si, ma i debiti se li accolla lo stato italiano

[jpjcssource]

Originariamente inviato da cornetto

Magari e' gia' stato detto..
ma la Islanda, un paese Nato, accettando i soldi russi, entra nella sfera d' influenza della Russia. L'Islanda poi rappresenta anche un territorio militarmente strategico per i sottomarini nucleari russi.....

Fantapolitica??

Non esageriamo, Mosca si ingraziera' il governo islandese ottenendo vantaggi, ma da qui a mettere quel paese sotto la sua sfera d'influenza ce ne passa.

Se in futuro l'islanda dovesse decidere fra i russi e gli americani e la NATO non ci sarebbero dubbi che rimarrebbero alleati con i secondi.

[Fradetti]

Originariamente inviato da jpjcssource

Se in futuro l'islanda dovesse decidere fra i russi e gli americani e la NATO non ci sarebbero dubbi che rimarrebbero alleati con i primi.

nella tua frase però i primi sono i russi

poi non si tratta di scegliere "o me o te" son cose che non succedono mai... però prima di prender certe decisioni che posson dar fastidio alla russia l'Islanda ci pensa qualche volta di più

[jpjcssource]

Originariamente inviato da Fradetti

nella tua frase però i primi sono i russi

poi non si tratta di scegliere "o me o te" son cose che non succedono mai... però prima di prender certe decisioni che posson dar fastidio alla russia l'Islanda ci pensa qualche volta di più

fixed

[IpseDixit]

Originariamente inviato da lo_straniero

la russia si sta riprendendo la rivincita

Quasi la metà dei risparmi presenti nelle banche islandesi sono russi, l'intervento russo è per salvaguardare i propri soldi. C'è da chiedersi perchè i russi investono i propri soldi in Islanda....

[Onisem]

Io chiederei agli "no Euro" tout court nostrani, cosa ne pensano in questi momenti.

[gugoXX]

Originariamente inviato da IpseDixit

Quasi la metà dei risparmi presenti nelle banche islandesi sono russi, l'intervento russo è per salvaguardare i propri soldi. C'è da chiedersi perchè i russi investono i propri soldi in Islanda....

Ce ne sono anche tanti di inglesi.
L'Islanda ha provato a trasformarsi in una Svizzera del nord, offrendo tassi di interesse per depositi parecchio vantaggiosi,
sperando di investire i capitali guadagnandoci.
I presupposti erano buoni, il momento quello sbagliato.

[Ziosilvio]

http://www.grapevine.is/Features/Rea...he-major-banks

(forse lo tradurrò un'altra volta)

[Ziosilvio]

Dal Financial Times: (grassetto mio)

--------

The shocking errors of Iceland’s meltdown

By Richard Portes

Published: October 12 2008 18:49 | Last updated: October 12 2008 18:49

The US authorities’ decision to let Lehman fail will be severely criticised by financial historians – the next generation of Bernankes. That precipitated the current acute financial crisis. The Bear Stearns operation had protected counterparties, but after Lehman all remaining trust vanished. Money markets and interbank lending froze completely. Spreads on credit default swaps rose to levels signalling both extreme fear and feverish speculation.

Iceland’s Glitnir Bank was among the first casualties. One of the many vicious circles in this crisis ensnared Iceland’s banks: they were deemed too risky because the country’s central bank seemed not to be a credible lender of last resort, while the government and central bank were deemed not credible because they might have to take over the banks.

The markets hit Glitnir first. Like fellow Icelandic banks Landsbanki and Kaupthing, Glitnir was solvent. All posted good first-half results, all had healthy capital adequacy ratios, and their dependence on market funding was no greater than their peers’. None held any toxic securities. These banks had been managed well since their “mini-crisis” in early 2006.

No matter – when foreign short-run credit lines closed, Glitnir had to request a short-term loan from the Central Bank of Iceland, which refused. Rather than taking Glitnir into administration, the CBI enforced nationalisation on punitive terms. The governor, David Oddsson, was prime minister for 13 years prior to moving to the CBI in 2005. His decision reflected politics, technical incompetence and ignorance of markets, and his comments thereafter were highly destabilising.

This triggered a sovereign debt downgrade and a sharp further fall in the already depreciated krona. Short-run funding for Glitnir and Landsbanki evaporated, margin calls came from the European Central Bank, loan covenants kicked in because of the downgrade. With the banks unable to meet commitments, Iceland’s financial regulators put them into administration.

Kaupthing still seemed viable. But last Tuesday, Mr Oddsson made public remarks that were interpreted to mean that Iceland would not meet its obligations to UK depositors. This was politics for home consumption. So was the UK’s retaliation, with an ill-considered invocation of anti-terror laws to seize the UK assets not only of Landsbanki, but also of Kaupthing. Gordon Brown’s highly aggressive statement was not his best moment of the financial crisis.

Kaupthing was collateral damage. Britain’s seizure of its Singer and Friedlander subsidiary destroyed the larger bank, as covenants on loan agreements were activated. The UK and Iceland appear now to have agreed on dealing with depositors, but too late for Kaupthing. Still, it would be foolish for the UK authorities to impair Kaupthing’s assets further.

Meanwhile the krona fell to ridiculous lows offshore, while domestic trading of the currency ceased. The CBI then made two further egregious errors. The CBI had mishandled its interest rate policy and the foreign exchange markets since early 2008. On Monday, it announced a currency peg at a rate well above the market. Without effective controls, this was unsustainable, and was abandoned by Tuesday. The Bank also prematurely announced a €4bn ($5bn, £3bn) loan from Russia, but it emerged that negotiations would start only this week. What was meant to restore confidence did the opposite.

The Icelandic banks were highly leveraged and large relative to the domestic economy. So are those of the UK and Switzerland. None has been immune to the devastating effects of the crisis. And there may be significant contagion from Iceland to countries vulnerable to capital flow reversals.

There are further lessons. Politicians should not become central bank governors. Mr Oddsson is part of the problem, not of any solution, and should resign immediately. Allowing partial “euroisation” was a recipe for instability. And Iceland was unable or unwilling to arrange early international support, nor did it wish to call in the International Monetary Fund.

Iceland could now negotiate an IMF programme with conditionality and lending from the Fund. But letting the currency float is likely to be disastrous, even with (or because of) much higher interest rates. They could peg the currency with capital controls. Or they could announce they are entering into negotiations to join the European Union, with a commitment to join the euro. If they do, the eurozone authorities should agree to support a reasonable exchange-rate band.

The debacle is due to the unexpected severity of the financial crisis and shocking policy errors. But Iceland has excellent institutions and human capital, as well as sophisticated service enterprises. Its people will have to absorb a temporary fall in their high living standards. Its banks will be revived as much smaller institutions, still with highly capable managers. It will ultimately prosper again.

The writer is Professor of Economics at London Business School

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

--------

[gugoXX]

Originariamente inviato da Ziosilvio

There are further lessons. Politicians should not become central bank governors. Mr Oddsson is part of the problem, not of any solution, and should resign immediately.

Questo lo quoto, e rimarco dicendo che spesso i politici non solo non dovrebbero prendere in considerazione altre cariche, ma addirittura dovrebbero stare lontani anche dalla politica stessa.

Comunque un altro problema che non e' emerso dall'articolo e' che le banche islandesi non hanno compiuto errori piu' gravi di quelli compiuti da altre banche europee o statunitensi. Il problema e' che hanno ricevuto e investito male tante risorse quante quelle ricevute da una nazione di 20 milioni di persone, mentre loro sono 300.000.
Un po' come se i problemi bancari degli USA (che guarda caso sono 300 milioni di persone) avessero raggiunto non 700miliardi di dollari, ma mille volte tanto. 700.000 miliardi di dollari.
Ovviamente lo stato non avrebbe mai potuto metterci una pezza.

[Ziosilvio]

Da Iceland Review:
(grassetto mio, caratteri islandesi nel poema miei)

--------

15/10/2008 | 13:21

We Are Angry

Icelanders are simply speechless after what has happened to our country in the global financial storms. Yesterday we had it all. Now it seems we have been wiped out in a major way and have to call on the International Monetary Fund or even the Russians to help us out of the mess.

People here are extremely angry. We are angry because we were told that everything was in order with the banks. More than 50,000 small shareholders had stakes in the banks and their savings were simply wiped out. These were ordinary people like you and me who had decided to stick with the banks through the financial meltdown and had been assured that everything would be all right in the long run.

We are angry because the banks seem to have organized programs to trick people in Iceland into placing their savings in bond accounts which were claimed to be 99 percent safe instead of keeping them in normal deposit accounts.

We are angry and shamed over the fact that normal people overseas have to tighten their belts and face loosing their savings because of our banks.

We are angry with the politicians who obviously knew of the difficulties the banks were facing after many warnings from abroad and from skeptics of the Icelandic economic boom who said that the banks had become too large and greedy.

We are angry with the billionaire owners who ran the banks and pretty much everything else in this country and have now disappeared in times of trouble.

We are angry with the authorities who did not step in and demand some securities from the conglomerate banks to prevent this economic meltdown from happening.

We are angry with ourselves for being foolish and for not having listened to the voices that warned us about the recklessness of the banks.

And we are extremely angry over the outrageous behavior of Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown who invoked anti-terrorism legislation to freeze the assets of Icelandic banks in the UK when the British government had been assured by our government that depositors of Icelandic banks in the UK would be paid. Many believe this led to the downfall of Kaupthing Bank, the last of our three largest commercial banks to remain standing after the others were nationalized, like the last tree in the hurricane.

We have always considered Britain to be one of our closest allies and friends. For a British politician to gain momentum by stepping on the toes of a miniscule state like ours is simply too much for us to stomach on top of the economic difficulties we are now facing. It is like stomping on a lying man’s head.

Although I’m still angry with my own government for having been too weak to control the Icelandic “oligarchs,” I have to say that I’ve felt some admiration for our own Prime Minister Geir H. Haarde during this crisis.

He has never lost his face despite being harassed by the world press and the British government. Haarde has remained cool and firm as a stone, disciplined and polite as ever while the storms rage all around him and the economy tumbles like a house of cards. I do not envy him of his job these days.

Our Minister of Commerce, Björgvin G. Sigurdsson, has been equally respectable in this period of time where so much has been lost. In times like these we need men and women who are firm as rocks and do not give up once faced with difficult challenges.

There is much to be learned from this global crisis. The most important lesson is probably that we should not let greed get the better of us and that reputation is the only thing that lives after everything else is gone.

As the ancient Icelandic poem Hávamál says:

Deyr fé,
deyja frændur.
Deyr sjálfur ið sama
En orðstír deyr aldregi,
hveim sér góðan getur.

Here in the translation of W.H. Auden:

Cattle die, kindred die,
Every man is mortal:
But the good name never dies
Of one who has done well

We should all think about those wise words during these difficult times.

BB – bjarni at icelandreview dot com

--------

[gugoXX]

Originariamente inviato da Ziosilvio

And we are extremely angry over the outrageous behavior of Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown who invoked anti-terrorism legislation to freeze the assets of Icelandic banks in the UK when the British government had been assured by our government that depositors of Icelandic banks in the UK would be paid. Many believe this led to the downfall of Kaupthing Bank, the last of our three largest commercial banks to remain standing after the others were nationalized, like the last tree in the hurricane.

We have always considered Britain to be one of our closest allies and friends. For a British politician to gain momentum by stepping on the toes of a miniscule state like ours is simply too much for us to stomach on top of the economic difficulties we are now facing. It is like stomping on a lying man’s head.

Mi risulta che siano piu' le risorse che i britannici potrebbero perdere nelle banche Islandesi di quante siano le risorse che gli islandesi potrebbero perdere nelle banche Britanniche.
Anche ai cittadini britannici era stata data assicurazione da parte del governo islandese che loro non avrebbero perso nulla, e che sopratutto i conti correnti normali non sarebbero stati intaccati.
Invece non solo hanno perso gli investimenti, ma stanno correndo il rischio di perdere i conti correnti (le aziende e i comuni li hanno praticamente gia' persi)
Penso che quindi l'azione del governo Britannico sia una semplice protezione al fine di recuperare quanto piu' possibile.
Lasciare che gli Islandesi riprendessero i loro risparmi quando invece ai cittadini Britannici non sarebbe stata data loro la stessa possibilita' non mi sarebbe sembrata la scelta giusta. O meglio, se fossi stato implicato nella faccenda (per fortuna no) mi sarei inca**ato come una biscia contro il governo Britannico.
Se davvero gli Islandesi riusciranno a trovare la liquidita' per i depositi Britannici sono praticamente certo che la faccenda si risolvera'.

Cornuti si', ma pure mazziati no...