Realistic Economy News thread

Sand

Firefox11 wrote: »

Does this mean we a back to the "shake you down for all the money you got" boom years? I see we have learned our lesson.

The realistic news is that Official Ireland, despite all the talk of moral hazard necessitating the bill being put on the shoulders of the Irish taxpayer, has learnt absolutely nothing. The good news is of course that Official Ireland is so great that not only did they have nothing to learn, they are actually touring the world offering their collective wisdom on speaking tours.

K-9

Unless we introduce price caps for hotels I'm not exactly sure what we can do. There was great value to be had for stays in Ireland for a few years but starting to creep up again.

Villa05

K-9 wrote:

There was great value to be had for stays in Ireland for a few years but starting to creep up again.

For someone who lost my job and found another one on a bit less pay
I am more fearfull of the "Recovery" than I was of the recession.

How can we be so stupid in completely and utterly marching headlong into the identical mistakes of the past

Einstein is looking down on us with his head in his hands saying "I told you so"

Definition of stupid

Rightwing

K-9 wrote: »

Unless we introduce price caps for hotels I'm not exactly sure what we can do. There was great value to be had for stays in Ireland for a few years but starting to creep up again.

Indeed.
Nothing more than simple realities of economics.

ezra_pound

Villa05 wrote: »

For someone who lost my job and found another one on a bit less pay
I am more fearfull of the "Recovery" than I was of the recession.

How can we be so stupid in completely and utterly marching headlong into the identical mistakes of the past

Einstein is looking down on us with his head in his hands saying "I told you so"

Definition of stupid

What identical mistakes of the past?

Villa05

ezra_pound wrote:

What identical mistakes of the past?

For starters and in summary.
Allowing property to destroy our competiveness in an unsustainable manner, while other critical infrastructure is neglected.

KingBrian2

Villa05 wrote: »

For starters and in summary.
Allowing property to destroy our competiveness in an unsustainable manner, while other critical infrastructure is neglected.

One of the good aspects of the Celtic Tiger was the progress made in infrastructure, the issue was all those buses, trains and coaches pandered to a public that was delving more and more into car ownership.

nice_guy80

KingBrian2 wrote: »

One of the good aspects of the Celtic Tiger was the progress made in infrastructure, the issue was all those buses, trains and coaches pandered to a public that was delving more and more into car ownership.

different motor tax rates needed.
add the cost of motor tax onto fuel.
you drive more, you pay more for the roads

a huge issue really is the cost base of the public transport system (wages) of both the frontline staff and especially the huge bloated management across the CIE companies

Villa05

KingBrian2 wrote: »

One of the good aspects of the Celtic Tiger was the progress made in infrastructure, the issue was all those buses, trains and coaches pandered to a public that was delving more and more into car ownership.

I could not disagree more

The former largest employer in Limerick ran there own bus service - existing was inadequate
High house prices pushed working people further and further away from there employment ensuring more cars, costs and still a jumbo mortgage. This lead to gridlock everywhere. People pushed away from where services are to areas that cant cope with increased population.

The infrastructure provided during the bubble was (a) inadequate (b) built at extortionate cost (c) provided in areas of political strength rather than areas of need.
Telecommunications company sold off and asset stripped.

The Web Summit moved because

Company organisers have long griped about the capital's creaking infrastructure, rollercoaster hotel stock and lack of transportation............

Decoded, that means no gridlocked streets around suburban venues. It means no hoteliers who jack prices up from €75 to €600 for the week of the conference. And it means no more worrying about getting people around the city on time.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/its-not-you-its-us-why-web-summit-ditched-dublin-for-modern-lisbon-31554024.html

The root cause's are Greed and Corruption
When an event is on in a particular location in Ireland. The response is to jack up prices to extotionate levels to make a quick killing.
Alternatively a business can use it as a business opportunity, hugely influential people arrive and they are fleeced returning to communicate their experiences to others.
Had they been given a good value for money experience and returned to communicate this to there colleagues, think of the repeat and new business this could create.

State contracts for public services and infrastructure are viewed as cash cows by Irish business. The price is extortionate and as a result we get very poor value for our investments.
Very often companies associated with or close to politicians are involved in the contracts.

Damien360

Villa05 wrote: »

The Web Summit moved because



http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/its-not-you-its-us-why-web-summit-ditched-dublin-for-modern-lisbon-31554024.html

The root cause's are Greed and Corruption
When an event is on in a particular location in Ireland. The response is to jack up prices to extotionate levels to make a quick killing.
Alternatively a business can use it as a business opportunity, hugely influential people arrive and they are fleeced returning to communicate their experiences to others.
Had they been given a good value for money experience and returned to communicate this to there colleagues, think of the repeat and new business this could create.

State contracts for public services and infrastructure are viewed as cash cows by Irish business. The price is extortionate and as a result we get very poor value for our investments.
Very often companies associated with or close to politicians are involved in the contracts.

Not to condone it in anyway but this happens all over the world. I am currently in an area where the Superbowl will be held next February. The prices for hotels are insane next year and way outside stated rates. The same happened for the Olympics in London. Major conferences attract high hotel rates. The exact same will happen in Lisbon.

Villa05

Damien360 wrote:

Not to condone it in anyway but this happens all over the world. I am currently in an area where the Superbowl will be held next February. The prices for hotels are insane next year and way outside stated rates. The same happened for the Olympics in London. Major conferences attract high hotel rates. The exact same will happen in Lisbon.

I understand that, but are prices increased from 75 to 600 per night. Is double or triple the original rate sufficient in such circumstances.

This conference attracts well heeled and travelled people, who have clearly voiced their opinion that Dublin is not a place they wish to return to, with rip off hotel room rates one of the main reasons identified by the event organisers.

creedp

Rightwing wrote: »

Indeed.
Nothing more than simple realities of economics.

Another example of why we need to privatise everything .. because you can be guaranteed that the market will screw you when you are most in need .. simples really

BoJack Horseman

Holding steady in the World Economic Forums competitiveness index for 2015-16

http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2015-2016/economies/#indexId=GCI&economy=IRL

JustTheOne

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Holding steady in the World Economic Forums competitiveness index for 2015-16

http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2015-2016/economies/#indexId=GCI&economy=IRL

Jobsbridge, massaged figures.

BoJack Horseman

JustTheOne wrote: »

Jobsbridge, massaged figures.

'Cept, nowt to do with jobsbridge

Calibos

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

'Cept, nowt to do with jobsbridge

He also said massaged figures. We all know theres actually 500,000 on Jobsbridge. They just 'massaged' 2 zero's off the end.

Rightwing

creedp wrote: »

Another example of why we need to privatise everything .. because you can be guaranteed that the market will screw you when you are most in need .. simples really

The market dictates prices, if these punters can't afford to pay good riddance to them.

realitykeeper

According to media reports, there is a housing shortage, especially in and around Dublin. However, according to builders/developers, house prices are not high enough to make it worth their while to build houses. Consequently, the government are considering using NAMA and special state building programs to make up the shortfall.

If social demand for housing is enough to get houses built, then why are there so many desperately poor families in Africa living in small dwellings? The answer may come down to the governments access to credit. According to Robert Maxwell, wealth was all about access to credit. It ended badly for him and I think i will end badly for Ireland also.

BoJack Horseman

realitykeeper wrote: »

It ended badly for him and I think i will end badly for Ireland also.

Well. as you said before....

realitykeeper wrote: »

Ireland and most first world countries on the path to third world status.

realitykeeper wrote: »

I would speculate it will be before the end of 2018. I would be surprised if it took longer than that

Just 3 years to go!!

realitykeeper

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Well. as you said before....
Just 3 years to go!!

Indeed. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

newacc2015

realitykeeper wrote: »

Indeed. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

I think you are! Even if we lost 90% of our wealth tomorrow. We would still probably be better than 80% of the world population.

realitykeeper

Looks like house building is doing very well in Iceland now and its all due to inward investment (not borrowed money).

http://icelandmag.visir.is/article/labour-shortage-looming-tourism-and-construction-industries-iceland

http://icelandictimes.com/exciting/

Here the government has to borrow to pay the developers their profit margin. How insane is that. Ireland should have let the banks fail.

newacc2015

realitykeeper wrote: »

Looks like house building is doing very well in Iceland now and its all due to inward investment (not borrowed money).

http://icelandmag.visir.is/article/labour-shortage-looming-tourism-and-construction-industries-iceland

http://icelandictimes.com/exciting/

Here the government has to borrow to pay the developers their profit margin. How insane is that. Ireland should have let the banks fail.

Iceland is still paying for burning its bondholders. Its credit rating is still pretty poor. Its also borrowing close to 6%. Versus our 1.6%. They might have saved some money on not paying back bondholders. But they are paying for when borrowing for money

Would you happily told hundreds of thousands for Irish, than you have lost your saving? It would have damaged confidence in the banks for generations. Its just not what we do in Europe.

realitykeeper

newacc2015 wrote: »

Iceland is still paying for burning its bondholders. Its credit rating is still pretty poor. Its also borrowing close to 6%. Versus our 1.6%. They might have saved some money on not paying back bondholders. But they are paying for when borrowing for money

Would you happily told hundreds of thousands for Irish, than you have lost your saving? It would have damaged confidence in the banks for generations. Its just not what we do in Europe.

Bailing out the banks in return for low interest rates was not a good idea. In any case, the low interest rates are largely facilitated by the EU policy of QE which will ultimately be highly inflationary - not least to interest rates.

Even as a saver myself, I would rather have lost everything and later be refunded by the government (like they are doing in Iceland) than have the appalling mountain of bank debt dumped on me. In Iceland, the government was able to attend to the poor and destitute directly which is the opposite to what was done in the EU and US where the banks got all the money.

comongethappy

realitykeeper wrote: »

Even as a saver myself, I would rather have lost everything and later be refunded by the government (like they are doing in Iceland) than have the appalling mountain of bank debt dumped on me.

The cost of saving AIB & BOI was much cheaper than letting them die & refunding deposits layer.

Irish people have over €90bn on deposit, almost all of it which is with the 2 big banks.

Seems you are actually in favour of the state taking a larger burden to suit yourself?
Odd.

realitykeeper

comongethappy wrote: »

The cost of saving AIB & BOI was much cheaper than letting them die & refunding deposits layer.

Irish people have over €90bn on deposit, almost all of it which is with the 2 big banks.

Seems you are actually in favour of the state taking a larger burden to suit yourself?
Odd.

If the cost of saving AIB and BOI was cheaper than letting them fail, then they would not have failed. The shareholders and creditors stood to loose a lot more than 90 billion if all mortgage debt owed to those banks was written off as happened in Iceland.

The real reason those banks were saved was to avoid short term economic and political turmoil. In other words, cowardice.

Godge

realitykeeper wrote: »

If the cost of saving AIB and BOI was cheaper than letting them fail, then they would not have failed. The shareholders and creditors stood to loose a lot more than 90 billion if all mortgage debt owed to those banks was written off as happened in Iceland.

The real reason those banks were saved was to avoid short term economic and political turmoil. In other words, cowardice.

Here is one you will like - the miraculous story of Iceland (that is, if you believe in miracles):


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/17/the-miraculous-story-of-iceland/

Most interesting paragraph:

"Iceland's recovery has become a myth wrapped in a legend inside a legend. It let its banks fail, slashed household debt, let its currency collapse, put capital controls in place—and now it's doing better than those countries that did austerity! In reality, Iceland let its banks fail for foreigners, wrote down household debt only after their laws had made it worse, had no choice but to watch the krona plummet, but, at the same time, tried to keep it from plunging too far by limiting how much money people could take out of the country . Oh, and it did more austerity than any country not named Greece. The truth is a more complicated place."

More austerity than Ireland!

newacc2015

realitykeeper wrote: »

Bailing out the banks in return for low interest rates was not a good idea. In any case, the low interest rates are largely facilitated by the EU policy of QE which will ultimately be highly inflationary - not least to interest rates.

Even as a saver myself, I would rather have lost everything and later be refunded by the government (like they are doing in Iceland) than have the appalling mountain of bank debt dumped on me. In Iceland, the government was able to attend to the poor and destitute directly which is the opposite to what was done in the EU and US where the banks got all the money.

The whole point of QE is to create inflation. Look at the state of the Japenese economy. No inflation or deflation like we have destroys an Economy beyond repair. What good is controlling inflation(which isnt an issue), if we dont have Economic growth in the long term

You are failling to see what an American version of a failed bank is. You would have had zero savings after it. It destroys long term confidence in Banks. There is thousands of Italian who dont trust the safety of their banks and have safety deposit boxes full of Cash in Switzerland. If there is no money in Banks, loans cant be created

realitykeeper

Godge wrote: »

Here is one you will like - the miraculous story of Iceland (that is, if you believe in miracles):


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/17/the-miraculous-story-of-iceland/

Most interesting paragraph:

"Iceland's recovery has become a myth wrapped in a legend inside a legend. It let its banks fail, slashed household debt, let its currency collapse, put capital controls in place—and now it's doing better than those countries that did austerity! In reality, Iceland let its banks fail for foreigners, wrote down household debt only after their laws had made it worse, had no choice but to watch the krona plummet, but, at the same time, tried to keep it from plunging too far by limiting how much money people could take out of the country . Oh, and it did more austerity than any country not named Greece. The truth is a more complicated place."

More austerity than Ireland!

Despite all this, Iceland was right to let the banks fail. Ireland postponed the pain of letting its banks fail but the cost of doing so will be astronomical.
The fact that Ireland has to borrow to supplement developers is one of the early indicators that Ireland was wrong to bail out its banks. Iceland`s booming construction sector fueled by inward investment shows they were right.

realitykeeper

newacc2015 wrote: »

The whole point of QE is to create inflation. Look at the state of the Japenese economy. No inflation or deflation like we have destroys an Economy beyond repair. What good is controlling inflation(which isnt an issue), if we dont have Economic growth in the long term

You are failling to see what an American version of a failed bank is. You would have had zero savings after it. It destroys long term confidence in Banks. There is thousands of Italian who dont trust the safety of their banks and have safety deposit boxes full of Cash in Switzerland. If there is no money in Banks, loans cant be created

The central banks are wrong. Inflation is not good it is bad. Consumers like prices to fall not rise. The only reason the central banks want the economy to have 2% inflation is because they think it will encourage more people to spend instead of save. That is not much of a plan.

Money should be backed by gold or other commodities. Nothing is backing the Euro, Dollar, Yen or Sterling.

Godge

realitykeeper wrote: »

Despite all this, Iceland was right to let the banks fail. Ireland postponed the pain of letting its banks fail but the cost of doing so will be astronomical.
The fact that Ireland has to borrow to supplement developers is one of the early indicators that Ireland was wrong to bail out its banks. Iceland`s booming construction sector fueled by inward investment shows they were right.

It was not possible for Ireland to adopt the Iceland solution as that would have ended FDI, the main pillar of our economy.

As for Iceland's construction boom, people can't take their money out of Iceland because of capital controls so the domestic economy is artificially supported and if that is going into a property boom, we know where that ends up.

Zubeneschamali

realitykeeper wrote: »

Money should be backed by gold or other commodities.

Say "Hi" to the nineteenth century for us.

Markcheese

[quote="realitykeeper;9743711

Money should be backed by gold or other commodities. Nothing is backing the Euro, Dollar, Yen or Sterling.[/quote]

Is gold any more valuable than concrete or steel -? Or a patent or a brand ? It's a hedge against financial termoil - but it's main value is it's scarcity - why should a currency be backed by gold (or silver) and not butter or computer chips -

mjv2ydratu679c

Markcheese wrote: »

Is gold any more valuable than concrete or steel -? Or a patent or a brand ? It's a hedge against financial termoil - but it's main value is it's scarcity - why should a currency be backed by gold (or silver) and not butter or computer chips -

Rather have it backed by butter or computer chips than a promise, which its currently backed by

Sand

comongethappy wrote: »

The cost of saving AIB & BOI was much cheaper than letting them die & refunding deposits layer.

Irish people have over €90bn on deposit, almost all of it which is with the 2 big banks.

Seems you are actually in favour of the state taking a larger burden to suit yourself?
Odd.

Much cheaper for who? I'm not someone who has accounts with AIB and BOI. Why should I be penalised to bail out your mistakes?

The reality is that the burden of bailing out the AIB and BOI (and Anglo Irish and Nationwide) was not taken on by those who had made the choices that led to their failure. Nor was it borne by those who voted in the wrong government, or who had looked the other way, or who had "all partied". It certainly wasn't taken on by our European partners. It was passed onto future generations who will be paying for this mess for decades. Having learnt absolutely nothing the current generation are busy trying to re-inflate a property bubble and claim backpay in union pay deals.

So much for all the high talk about moral hazard.

BoJack Horseman

Sand wrote: »

Much cheaper for who?

Ireland.

The cost of buying BOI & AIB shares is certainly cheaper than letting those banks disappear.

Something like 3/4 of all Irish people have at least one account with either of these banks.

Once the 2 banks are re-privatised the net cost of saving millions of peoples savings will be more than worth it.

Rightwing

newacc2015 wrote: »

The whole point of QE is to create inflation. Look at the state of the Japenese economy. No inflation or deflation like we have destroys an Economy beyond repair. What good is controlling inflation(which isnt an issue), if we dont have Economic growth in the long term

You are failling to see what an American version of a failed bank is. You would have had zero savings after it. It destroys long term confidence in Banks. There is thousands of Italian who dont trust the safety of their banks and have safety deposit boxes full of Cash in Switzerland. If there is no money in Banks, loans cant be created

Or to create a stock market bubble.
What good is inflation without wage inflation? QE won't achieve that.

realitykeeper wrote: »

The central banks are wrong. Inflation is not good it is bad. Consumers like prices to fall not rise. The only reason the central banks want the economy to have 2% inflation is because they think it will encourage more people to spend instead of save. That is not much of a plan.

Money should be backed by gold or other commodities. Nothing is backing the Euro, Dollar, Yen or Sterling.

Correct.
Central banks are inept and looking for the easy solution. Problem now is, the easy solution looks permanent as market participants are hooked, until complete meltdown.

Sand wrote: »

Much cheaper for who? I'm not someone who has accounts with AIB and BOI. Why should I be penalised to bail out your mistakes?

The reality is that the burden of bailing out the AIB and BOI (and Anglo Irish and Nationwide) was not taken on by those who had made the choices that led to their failure. Nor was it borne by those who voted in the wrong government, or who had looked the other way, or who had "all partied". It certainly wasn't taken on by our European partners. It was passed onto future generations who will be paying for this mess for decades. Having learnt absolutely nothing the current generation are busy trying to re-inflate a property bubble and claim backpay in union pay deals.

So much for all the high talk about moral hazard.

BOI has returned all cash to the State plus surplus. AIB in time will pay back the lion's share of its debts.

The rest of your post is spot on.

Sand

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Ireland.

I'm not Ireland. It wasn't cheaper for me. Cheaper for you maybe, but why should I bail you out of your poor choices?

Something like 3/4 of all Irish people have at least one account with either of these banks.

And more than 3/4 of all Irish people probably have a mortgage but I don't see why I should bail them out of that either.

BoJack Horseman

Sand wrote: »

It wasn't cheaper for me.

How much exactly?
I mean impericaly, how much did the governments purchase of their stakes in AIB & BOI cost you, in 2014 for example? (or any year if you prefer)

but why should I bail you out of your poor choices?

I've one savings account & one current account.
My savings account was set up when I was 7 with £40 of my communion money.
My current account was set up when I started secondary school cos they BOI gave a snazzy wallet for every student account set up!

Poor choices?
Get a grip of yourself.

Millions of regular Joe's & Mary's have their life savings, their business, their wages in their savings & current accounts.

Equating the people of Ireland with some sort of hedge-fund sharks is frankly moronic..... genuinely, utterly stupid.
And saving these 2 banks was absolutely the right thing to do.

And more than 3/4 of all Irish people probably have a mortgage but I don't see why I should bail them out of that either.

there are 700,000 mortgages in Ireland, you arent bailing any homeowner out there either... unless you have sums to the contrary (just like you will provide for the above)

realitykeeper

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Ireland.

The cost of buying BOI & AIB shares is certainly cheaper than letting those banks disappear.

Something like 3/4 of all Irish people have at least one account with either of these banks.

Once the 2 banks are re-privatised the net cost of saving millions of peoples savings will be more than worth it.

The cost of bailing out the banks was far more expensive than letting them fail.

Had the banks failed, Ireland would not have been able to accumulate more debt with interest to pay back. Everyone with a mortgage would have had the mortgage written off. Everyone without (and with) a mortgage would not have to pay taxes or suffer the cutbacks associated with paying bank debt.

The big losers would have been the shareholders and creditors who would have got perhaps a few cent in the euro back because the banks they owned choose to burn the savers. They would not even have got the bank buildings as all bank assets would have been seized to begin the process of refunding the savers.

Of course, the short term hardships would have been politically unpopular which is the real reason the government cowardly did the wrong thing and saved themselves by enslaving current and future generations.

sword1

Are you sure everyone with a mortgage would have had it written off, I presumed the loans would have been sold off to another company as part of the liquidation of the assets same as the properties

realitykeeper

sword1 wrote: »

Are you sure everyone with a mortgage would have had it written off, I presumed the loans would have been sold off to another company as part of the liquidation of the assets same as the properties

Yes I am sure. The mortgages would have been written off like in Iceland.

This 30 sec video shows the Icelandic public applauding the decision:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NABKMc7OKqY

Admittedly, the Icelandic government didn`t want to do it because they wanted to be able to borrow so they could feather their own nests, buy the next election etc, but the Icelandic people insisted on it as retaliation against the banks for burning savers.

ezra_pound

Reality keeper deserves the Looney left administration he idealises. He could do with a good dose of Gerry IRA Adams justice and equality and some Boyd Barrett social welfare.

The sane, hard working, educated people of this nation however deserve much better.

ibstar

I've been reading a lot of news lately both local and from abroad, and this created a lot "noise" in my thought process regarding our own economy.

On one side I read and hear that everything is changing for the better, and on the other side it's the opposite.

We're told that the unemployment rate is falling, but we're constantly shown that not all is good with various taxes and constrains in the financial realm.

Considering how things are moving, where will Ireland be in 10,20 or more years into the future?

Will EU pressure us hard enough to raise our corp. taxes? Will an increase in tax cause LMCs to leave?

At the rate we're recovering/going (very vigorously and fast compared to our counterparts), how long/much do we have left t fully recover?

How long are we going to see our friends,neighbors and relatives leave to Canada, Australia and US?

realitykeeper

ezra_pound wrote: »

Reality keeper deserves the Looney left administration he idealises. He could do with a good dose of Gerry IRA Adams justice and equality and some Boyd Barrett social welfare.

The sane, hard working, educated people of this nation however deserve much better.

Tá Tú mi-ceart. True right wingers like me know the banks should have been allowed to fail. You are the looney leftist who thinks it was a good idea to splash out a hundred billion saving other people from their bad decisions for no reason whatsoever.

The only consequence of letting the banks fail would have been an inability to borrow which by the way would have been a very good thing in itself.

Godge

realitykeeper wrote: »

Yes I am sure. The mortgages would have been written off like in Iceland.

This 30 sec video shows the Icelandic public applauding the decision:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NABKMc7OKqY

Admittedly, the Icelandic government didn`t want to do it because they wanted to be able to borrow so they could feather their own nests, buy the next election etc, but the Icelandic people insisted on it as retaliation against the banks for burning savers.

They didn't write off every mortgage in Iceland. They wrote off a portion of the mortgages after they had imposed penal rates of interest on them. The ordinary person in Iceland who had a mortgage got hammered.

realitykeeper

Godge wrote: »

They wrote off a portion of the mortgages ...

The "portion" you are referring to is the vast bulk of the mortgages. The only thing the mortgage holders had to pay for the cost of reimbursing savings which were lost when the banks defaulted. Of course, the mortgage holders had lost savings themselves so in a way they were repaying themselves. The defaulting banks got nothing from the mortgage holders. They did get phone calls, demands and reminders to pay the Icelandic savers

OMD

realitykeeper wrote: »

The "portion" you are referring to is the vast bulk of the mortgages. The only thing the mortgage holders had to pay for the cost of reimbursing savings which were lost when the banks defaulted. Of course, the mortgage holders had lost savings themselves so in a way they were repaying themselves. The defaulting banks got nothing from the mortgage holders. They did get phone calls, demands and reminders to pay the Icelandic savers

I also thought it was only a portion of mortgage debt:

"Despite overwhelming criticism from international financial institutions, Iceland’s government (formed after the April 2013 election) announced in November that it will be writing off up to 24,000 euro ($32,600) of every household’s mortgage, fulfilling its election promise. The government said the debt relief will be spread out over four years and will begin by mid-2014; and the prime minister has promised that public finances will not be put at risk.
According to estimates, the measure is set to cost $1.2 billion in total, reduced by 13 percent on average. "

realitykeeper

100% of Icelandic mortgages were written off from the banks perspective. I think it was upwards of 80% that was written off from the mortgage holders perspective and that was for replenishing Icelandic savings accounts (not for bailing out foreign based bond holders).

What is now abundantly clear is that Iceland were right to let their banks fail. The Irish, being slow to learn, will need more time to know this.

OMD

realitykeeper wrote: »

100% of Icelandic mortgages were written off from the banks perspective. I think it was upwards of 80% that was written off from the mortgage holders perspective and that was for replenishing Icelandic savings accounts (not for bailing out foreign based bond holders).

Can you provide evidence of this because I can't.
https://www.rt.com/business/iceland-banks-collapse-crisis-405/

"Despite overwhelming criticism from international financial institutions, Iceland’s government (formed after the April 2013 election) announced in November that it will be writing off up to 24,000 euro ($32,600) of every household’s mortgage, fulfilling its election promise. The government said the debt relief will be spread out over four years and will begin by mid-2014; and the prime minister has promised that public finances will not be put at risk."

"S&P estimated that Iceland's proposed mortgage debt relief program will have a cumulative fiscal cost of about 6 percent of GDP over the next four years. It is expected that the government will finance the program through increased taxation and not higher deficits."


How about this
http://wizbangblog.com/2012/04/14/did-iceland-forgive-the-majority-of-its-citizens-mortgage-debt/
"Did Iceland forgive the majority of its citizens’ mortgage debt?"

Worth reading I think. Spoiler alert: Iceland didn't forgive the majority of its citizens’ mortgage debt