Profit from some Banks and Nama

Someday

I was reading at the weekend that Nama should show a profit of €1 Billion and with AIB showing a half year profit of €1.2 Billion, that puts a value on them at €24 Billion(10 times Profit).

So if we sell or float AIB and let’s say we get €22 Billion, take €20 Billion off what we borrowed to bail them out. That leaves us a saving on repayments of about 1 billion and 2 Billion over?

1 Billion from Nama will probably be 1.5 billion with a low ball from the government.

I believe also the government could get extra from PTSB and BOI when fully sold off! (Let’s say 500 mil)

€5 Billion in total, if spend wisely it could save a lot of issues for the new government.

Income tax reduction (Crazy income tax system)
Justice ( Too many break-ins)
Transport (m45 built and other roads)
HSE & ED departments
Housing
Other

ressem

The shareholding's held by the Strategic Investment Fund (formerly the pension reserve fund).
The last Ernst and Young valuations were a lot lower, at the start of the year.
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/state-s-holding-in-aib-increases-by-1-7bn-in-value-1.2059497

So it shouldn't be raided for day to day expenditure, absolutely not for income tax cuts (one-off windfall income won't offset a cut in annual income).

We've €51 billion of debt to roll over between 2018 and 2020. It'd be comforting to have some reserve to avoid being crunched by lenders at that stage.
If interest on debt can be minimised, then that saving can be used for annual budgeting.
Just as the €7 billion of reserves used last year cut our IMF interest costs.

BoJack Horseman

I think you are overstating the potential value of a re-privatised AIB.

Also, as things stand, NAMA wont make a profit..... a small loss is the most likely outcome.

Overall, the financial crisis wont see a profit for the state.
And if it did, lowering our already low income tax rates would be the worst place to spend it.

Someday

@ressem that value is based on last year’s profits, they are working off 10 times! Their profit has doubled this year.

@BoJack Horseman people getting 48c in the euro after 33K is not good, no incentive to move up the ladder.

BoJack Horseman

Someday wrote: »

@BoJack Horseman people getting 48c in the euro after 33K is not good, no incentive to move up the ladder.

Then lower the trehshold at the lower end and raise it at the upper end.

However under no circumstances should the berti-nomics of collapsing income tax in lieu of transient consumption taxes be the order of the day

ressem

According to
http://group.aib.ie/content/dam/aib/group/Docs/Press%20Releases/2015/aib-announces-2015-half-yearly-financial-results.pdf

the pre-provision profit for the half year 2015 is €701 million, not €1.2 billion.

And the bank's stock market valuation should be around 1.6x the net asset value of the group, to be in line with other European banks (and that seems a bit frothy).
There are still impaired loans of €18 billion.

Not simply 10x profit, which is too volatile, what with all the write-backs and one-offs of a recovering bank.

Someday

@ressem - Fair enough but I think we can get our 20 billion back, which will make savings on repayments. That could be over 1 Billion a year! From Nama, that could be 1 Billion and would go along way to help many areas!

@BoJack Horseman, what tax changes would you make, if you had the above to play with?

BoJack Horseman

Someday wrote: »

@BoJack Horseman, what tax changes would you make, if you had the above to play with?

None.....

and its all moot anyway cos your figures are pie in the sky.

However....public expenditure is very very low.
€9bn per year less than it was at peak.
The governments capital budget is around half what was widely regarded as the minimum needed to get by, let alone improve.

If I had piles of imagination money, I would invest it in public services & infrastructure.

The amount of tax the government extracts from the economy is still low by peer nation standards (36%) and far far less than the mythical Nordics everyone says we should copy.

Someday

So you would take more tax out, where would you target?

BoJack Horseman

Someday wrote: »

So you would take more tax out, where would you target?

No, I'm just talking about the imaginary billions you say the financial sector crisis will yield us.

Once the current increase in revenue isnt wanked away on tax cuts, public expenditure will increase anyway.

Someday

Nama - http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/nama-set-for-potential-surplus-of-1bn-when-it-winds-down-1.2227596

AIB - http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/aib-and-noonan-focus-on-value-to-taxpayer-347103.html

BoJack Horseman

Someday wrote: »

Nama - http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/nama-set-for-potential-surplus-of-1bn-when-it-winds-down-1.2227596

AIB - http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/aib-and-noonan-focus-on-value-to-taxpayer-347103.html

Neither say anything concrete about profits.

Lots of "hope" & "maybe" etc......
fluff articles of hypothetical

.

Someday

Well, lets wait and see and hopefully we will have a good outcome!

realitykeeper

Someday wrote: »

€5 Billion in total, if spend wisely it could save a lot of issues for the new government.

Income tax reduction (Crazy income tax system)
Justice ( Too many break-ins)
Transport (m45 built and other roads)
HSE & ED departments
Housing
Other

The net cost of bailing out the banks will be upwards of 100 billion if the Irish people are stupid enough to go along with it. Banking on the stupidity of the people will certainly work for the government in the short term at least.

That said, the next recession will have people scrambling for people and circumstances to blame. That is when the issue of the bank bailouts will come back into focus. The contrast between Ireland`s floundering economy and Iceland`s robust economy will then become glaringly obvious.

The question then will be what to do about it. It would be pointless offering a view on that at this juncture because so many people think the bank bailouts were a necessary evil and that the government has turned the economy around. Only the next recession will determine who was right.

BoJack Horseman

realitykeeper wrote: »

The net cost of bailing out the banks will be upwards of 100 billion

Show your sums for the rest of the class....

The contrast between Ireland`s floundering economy and Iceland`s robust economy will then become glaringly obvious.

cant win em all I guess

KingBrian2

realitykeeper wrote: »

The net cost of bailing out the banks will be upwards of 100 billion if the Irish people are stupid enough to go along with it. Banking on the stupidity of the people will certainly work for the government in the short term at least.

That said, the next recession will have people scrambling for people and circumstances to blame. That is when the issue of the bank bailouts will come back into focus. The contrast between Ireland`s floundering economy and Iceland`s robust economy will then become glaringly obvious.

The question then will be what to do about it. It would be pointless offering a view on that at this juncture because so many people think the bank bailouts were a necessary evil and that the government has turned the economy around. Only the next recession will determine who was right.

Wouldn't the current figure prove that the worst of the financial crisis are over. The commitment of politicians to keep the deficit down is the real issue. If say a Sinn Fein government got into power would they have cost effective budget to implement or would it be back to the gravy train.

Someday

If Sinn fein get in we are in serious trouble!

realitykeeper

Seems like some folks here can`t tell the difference between the present and the future. The next recession is not here yet. This is the present, the next recession will be in the future. It would be funny if it hits in 2018, just before Enda Kenny plans to step down as Taoiseach.

creedp

realitykeeper wrote: »

Seems like some folks here can`t tell the difference between the present and the future. The next recession is not here yet. This is the present, the next recession will be in the future. It would be funny if it hits in 2018, just before Enda Kenny plans to step down as Taoiseach.

I wouldn't worry about that becasue 'm sure Kenny would do a 'Bertie' on it

KingBrian2

creedp wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about that becasue 'm sure Kenny would do a 'Bertie' on it

Do you mean keep voting him in and it will be sorted. Regardless of who is the next Taoiseach the next gvt needs to have a competent Dail to co decide legislation with the cabinet and a major priority is to reduce the national deficit. Forget the recession the deficit is too damn high.

realitykeeper

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Regardless of who is the next Taoiseach the next gvt needs to have a competent Dail to co decide legislation with the cabinet and a major priority is to reduce the national deficit. Forget the recession the deficit is too damn high.

Even if the deficit were reduced to zero immediately, the existing debt is far too high. Ireland will go into the next recession with that high debt. It is the combination of high debt and recession that will create insurmountable problems in the future. Ireland must get rid of its debt and tell creditors who gave money to bail out the banks to get their money from the banks. NAMA should be disbanded and whatever profit it made should be given back to the banks.

KingBrian2

realitykeeper wrote: »

Even if the deficit were reduced to zero immediately, the existing debt is far too high. Ireland will go into the next recession with that high debt. It is the combination of high debt and recession that will create insurmountable problems in the future. Ireland must get rid of its debt and tell creditors who gave money to bail out the banks to get their money from the banks. NAMA should be disbanded and whatever profit it made should be given back to the banks.

At least we agree that the deficit is too high. As for the debt it is in line with European norms so no volatility on the markets. Borrowing to much will make the international picture a lot worse. The economy can only get better with domestic growth.

realitykeeper

KingBrian2 wrote: »

At least we agree that the deficit is too high. As for the debt it is in line with European norms so no volatility on the markets. Borrowing to much will make the international picture a lot worse. The economy can only get better with domestic growth.

The deficit is a minor issue. The big problem is the existing debt which is extremely high. Domestic growth will not solve the problem. Growth from exports may help but it will be nowhere near enough to create the income necessary to significantly reduce the national debt before the next recession.

In fact, the government is not even talking about reducing the debt. It is still going on about reducing the deficit. Attempting to deflate the debts of the PIGS will backfire spectacularly in the form of hyperinflation.

creedp

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Do you mean keep voting him in and it will be sorted. Regardless of who is the next Taoiseach the next gvt needs to have a competent Dail to co decide legislation with the cabinet and a major priority is to reduce the national deficit. Forget the recession the deficit is too damn high.

No I mean that Kenny craves popularity - typical Irish person maybe.. just wants to be loved - so he will do a runner before the crap really hits the fan just like the lovable Bertie did to Cowen.

KingBrian2

realitykeeper wrote: »

The deficit is a minor issue. The big problem is the existing debt which is extremely high. Domestic growth will not solve the problem. Growth from exports may help but it will be nowhere near enough to create the income necessary to significantly reduce the national debt before the next recession.

In fact, the government is not even talking about reducing the debt. It is still going on about reducing the deficit. Attempting to deflate the debts of the PIGS will backfire spectacularly in the form of hyperinflation.

Borrowing to increase demand is not the answer that's for sure. I know the economy needs to be allowed to compete in a fair way with other trading nations. The decision by the Russians to build barriers with Europe is unhelpful at this time. Everyone knows the Russians are harming their own economy by prohibiting the EU from making more deals with its neighbour Ukraine.

realitykeeper

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The decision by the Russians to build barriers with Europe is unhelpful at this time. Everyone knows the Russians are harming their own economy by prohibiting the EU from making more deals with its neighbour Ukraine.

Even President Putin would agree with this. Russians are building barriers to counteract the expansionist policies of NATO and the unwillingness of the EU to allow Ukraine develop trade relations with Russia without sanctioning the Ukraine with exclusion from the EU trading block. Russia also has to respond to western sanctions even if that response hurts Russia at the same time. It is a matter of principle.

KingBrian2

realitykeeper wrote: »

Even President Putin would agree with this. Russians are building barriers to counteract the expansionist policies of NATO and the unwillingness of the EU to allow Ukraine develop trade relations with Russia without sanctioning the Ukraine with exclusion from the EU trading block. Russia also has to respond to western sanctions even if that response hurts Russia at the same time. It is a matter of principle.

I realise that though we are not Russia's enemy, lower tariffs and restart trade with all the Black Sea ports is the best possible solution. Putin has made his intentions clear when it comes to safeguarding Crimea. He has to be made to see that our trade is benevolent of those countries presently situated around the Black Sea, Ukraine, Turkey & Georgia we have every right to enter these markets and establish bilateral trade with all these countries.

realitykeeper

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Show your sums for the rest of the class....







cant win em all I guess

From 2008 to 2015, Ireland`s national debt grew by well over 100 billion euro. In Iceland, every mortgage in the country was forgiven 100% so domestic debt was reduced to nothing.

Ireland`s growth is fueled by debt which must be paid back with interest. I guess you are right, can`t win em all.

andrew

realitykeeper wrote: »

In Iceland, every mortgage in the country was forgiven 100% so domestic debt was reduced to nothing.

No they weren't

Irelands growth is fueled by debt which must be paid back with interest. I guess you are right, cant win em all.

Proof that it's being fuelled by debt? And if it is, proof/argument for why that's a bad thing? It's entirely possible to have debt fuelled growth so long as you're using that debt for productive investments and not consumption.

BoJack Horseman

realitykeeper wrote: »

In Iceland, every mortgage in the country was forgiven 100% so domestic debt was reduced to nothing.

It's amusing how all of your posts are wrong, all the time

Is it a trolling thing?

realitykeeper

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It's amusing how all of your posts are wrong, all the time

Is it a trolling thing?

No it`s the truth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyxzg58JkYI

But why was it even necessary to post this video clip. Surely if the banks say savers are not going to get their money back, the state would retaliate by telling the courts not to process any claims by the banks. In other words, state imposed mortgage forgiveness.

realitykeeper

andrew wrote: »

Proof that it's being fuelled by debt? And if it is, proof/argument for why that's a bad thing? It's entirely possible to have debt fuelled growth so long as you're using that debt for productive investments and not consumption.

Since 2008, Ireland borrowed upwards of 100 billion euro. Do you need proof of this or do you just want proof that these borrowings are fueling growth?

Back in the 1970s, the UK had to call in the IMF. After that humiliating episode, British Labour Prime Minister Jim Callaghan was forced to admit:

"We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step."

andrew

realitykeeper wrote: »

Since 2008, Ireland borrowed upwards of 100 billion euro. Do you need proof of this or do you just want proof that these borrowings are fueling growth?

Back in the 1970s, the UK had to call in the IMF. After that humiliating episode, British Labour Prime Minister Jim Callaghan was forced to admit:

"We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step."

I'm fairly sure that that borrowing mainly went to cover that little bank bailout we had, as well as the massive deficit at the time. I'd like to see some evidence that increases in government expenditure are fuelling the GDP growth we're currently seeing.

Oh wait there is no evidence of that, see page 6 of the Central Bank's quarterly bulletin. Specifically, 'public consumption' versus every other component of national income shown on that table, as well as the associated commentary on the following pages.

Dob74

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Show your sums for the rest of the class....







cant win em all I guess

Or if you want to look at gnp you can Iceland is doing better than before the banking crash.
While we are still just breaking even.
13.3 billion PPP dollars (2013)
Iceland, Gross national income
1990199520002005201015B15B10B10B5B5B00
[Removed Image]Explore more



180.4 billion PPP dollars (2013)
Republic of Ireland, Gross national income

19901995200020052010400B400B300B300B200B200B100B100B00
•Norway338.2 billion PPP dollars
*


•Greece283.5 billion PPP dollars
*


•Republic of Ireland180.4 billion PPP dollars
*





[Removed Image]Explore more

FreudianSlippers

realitykeeper wrote: »

NAMA should be disbanded and whatever profit it made should be given back to the banks.

What a remarkably terrible idea! I can't even begin to understand the logic behind this one. Can you elaborate?

realitykeeper

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What a remarkably terrible idea! I can't even begin to understand the logic behind this one. Can you elaborate?

Certainly. Giving the money back to the banks would be the first step in reversing the bank bailouts which landed a 100 billion extra in debt on the Irish taxpayer.

The next step would be to tell the creditors that lent to Ireland to bail out the banks that the banks have been refloated and that they have done a reverse takeover of Ireland Inc and that they should ask Sean Fitzpatrick if they want their money back.

realitykeeper

andrew wrote: »

I'm fairly sure that that borrowing mainly went to cover that little bank bailout we had, as well as the massive deficit at the time. I'd like to see some evidence that increases in government expenditure are fuelling the GDP growth we're currently seeing.

Oh wait there is no evidence of that, see page 6 of the Central Bank's quarterly bulletin. Specifically, 'public consumption' versus every other component of national income shown on that table, as well as the associated commentary on the following pages.

How can you blissfully ignore the stimulus effect of government borrowing. All of the statistics shown are garnished by that stimulus. If Ireland had borrowed nothing since 2008, the public consumption would have been a shadow of what it is. Infrastructure investment could not have happened and the property market would have had to collapse properly by perhaps 80% instead of just the 60% fall reached before it began to rise again.

Needless to say, the next recession will not be one the government will be able to borrow its way out of. Furthermore, since the pea brains in the ECB have started QE, the resulting bond buying frenzy has ensured Ireland`s true debt has spiraled again, far beyond the 100 billion it borrowed to balance the books and the other 100 billion needed to bailout the banks and all that on top of what was a sizable enough national debt.

The Bank of International Settlements has repeatedly warned the various central banks of the dangers of QE and yet these Central Banks blindly march on, ignoring all the warnings.

KingBrian2

realitykeeper wrote: »

How can you blissfully ignore the stimulus effect of government borrowing. All of the statistics shown are garnished by that stimulus. If Ireland had borrowed nothing since 2008, the public consumption would have been a shadow of what it is. Infrastructure investment could not have happened and the property market would have had to collapse properly by perhaps 80% instead of just the 60% fall reached before it began to rise again.

Needless to say, the next recession will not be one the government will be able to borrow its way out of. Furthermore, since the pea brains in the ECB have started QE, the resulting bond buying frenzy has ensured Ireland`s true debt has spiraled again, far beyond the 100 billion it borrowed to balance the books and the other 100 billion needed to bailout the banks and all that on top of what was a sizable enough national debt.

The Bank of International Settlements has repeatedly warned the various central banks of the dangers of QE and yet these Central Banks blindly march on, ignoring all the warnings.

It is the responsibility of the banks to comply with the Basel III agreement on financial conduct. If they don't they should be punished by the governments overseeing them.

realitykeeper

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It is the responsibility of the banks to comply with the Basel III agreement on financial conduct. If they don't they should be punished by the governments overseeing them.

Yes but governments are more the problem than the solution. In this country, the central bank did attempt to reign in excess borrowing to be fair to them but politicians are only interested in getting re-elected so they watered down what the Central bank was trying to do.

andrew

realitykeeper wrote: »

How can you blissfully ignore the stimulus effect of government borrowing. All of the statistics shown are garnished by that stimulus. If Ireland had borrowed nothing since 2008, the public consumption would have been a shadow of what it is. Infrastructure investment could not have happened and the property market would have had to collapse properly by perhaps 80% instead of just the 60% fall reached before it began to rise again.

Needless to say, the next recession will not be one the government will be able to borrow its way out of. Furthermore, since the pea brains in the ECB have started QE, the resulting bond buying frenzy has ensured Ireland`s true debt has spiraled again, far beyond the 100 billion it borrowed to balance the books and the other 100 billion needed to bailout the banks and all that on top of what was a sizable enough national debt.

The Bank of International Settlements has repeatedly warned the various central banks of the dangers of QE and yet these Central Banks blindly march on, ignoring all the warnings.

government expenditure.PNG

Yeah, the government propped up the economy with expenditure....decreases. What a stimulus that was eh?

Though I suppose you're right that if the government had just stopped spending money at all then by definition "public consumption would have been a shadow of what it is", but then again so would the entire economy, so good luck justifying that one while keeping in mind that the majority of government expenditure goes on social welfare, healthcare, and education.

djpbarry

realitykeeper wrote: »

The net cost of bailing out the banks will be upwards of 100 billion...

Any chance of a source for that statement?

realitykeeper wrote: »

The deficit is a minor issue. The big problem is the existing debt which is extremely high.

The debt is high because the deficit was/is high. Getting the deficit down is paramount if debt is to be brought under control.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Domestic growth will not solve the problem. Growth from exports may help but it will be nowhere near enough to create the income necessary to significantly reduce the national debt before the next recession.

Actually, only fairly modest growth is required to make the debt manageable.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Giving the money back to the banks would be the first step in reversing the bank bailouts...

By giving the banks even more taxpayers’ money?!?

realitykeeper

djpbarry wrote: »

Actually, only fairly modest growth is required to make the debt manageable.

Modest growth can only manage the debt as long as the growth can be sustained. Growth cannot be sustained because another recession will come. The present lack of urgency in dealing with the debt will be regretted.

FreudianSlippers

realitykeeper wrote: »

Modest growth can only manage the debt as long as the growth can be sustained. Growth cannot be sustained because another recession will come. The present lack of urgency in dealing with the debt will be regretted.

Care to tell us when this next recession is gonna be Mystic Meg?

All kidding aside, I don't disagree that it's a boom/bust cycle, but I don't see the point in reducing the national debt if we're inevitably headed to another major recession. I don't think it'll be for another 20+ years to be honest.

djpbarry

realitykeeper wrote: »

Modest growth can only manage the debt as long as the growth can be sustained.

True, but at present, Ireland's GDP growth rate is far better than modest.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Growth cannot be sustained because another recession will come.

Growth cannot be sustained because at some unspecified point in the future, growth will stop?

Em, ok.

realitykeeper wrote: »

The present lack of urgency in dealing with the debt will be regretted.

But it is being dealt with, by reducing the deficit.

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

Modest growth can only manage the debt as long as the growth can be sustained.

True of course.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Growth cannot be sustained because another recession will come.

All cumulative growth will be wiped out by this recession? If we have another recession in 2025 that lasts 3 years, what effect on the debt would that have?

realitykeeper wrote: »

The present lack of urgency in dealing with the debt will be regretted.

We are reducing the deficit and paying down the debt. What else would you have us do?

realitykeeper

andrew wrote: »

government expenditure.PNG

Though I suppose you're right that if the government had just stopped spending money at all then by definition "public consumption would have been a shadow of what it is", but then again so would the entire economy, so good luck justifying that one while keeping in mind that the majority of government expenditure goes on social welfare, healthcare, and education.

So you agree. The growth is fueled with borrowed money. If the government had not bailed out the banks, those with mortgages would have their mortgages written off and this would would enable them to pay more toward education, healthcare etc. The Icelandic government did this and their economy is now growing without borrowing money.

realitykeeper

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't think it'll be for another 20+ years to be honest.

That would be a 28 year growth cycle. 10 to 15 is more common and my guess is the next recession will come sooner rather than later.

Ireland tried credit fueled growth in the past and see how that ended. Given that Ireland has done nothing to tackle its debt and gone on another borrowing binge, I think the next recession will be far worse than the last.

djpbarry

realitykeeper wrote: »

So you agree. The growth is fueled with borrowed money.

Only if you believe that (reduced) government spending on welfare, healthcare, education, etc. is what is driving that growth.

realitykeeper wrote: »

If the government had not bailed out the banks, those with mortgages would have their mortgages written off and this would would enable them to pay more toward education, healthcare etc. The Icelandic government did this and their economy is now growing without borrowing money.

Yay! Free lunches for all!

realitykeeper wrote: »

Given that Ireland has done nothing to tackle its debt and gone on another borrowing binge...

How many times...

Steps have been made to reduce the deficit - yes or no?

Reducing the deficit results in less borrowing to meet day-to-day expenditure (or "growing the economy" in your world) and, therefore, "tackles" national debt - yes or no?

andrew

realitykeeper wrote: »

So you agree. The growth is fueled with borrowed money.

No. Government expenditure fell, hence it could not have contributed to growth, since growth is an upward movement. All it did was reduce the size of the fall.

If the government had not bailed out the banks, those with mortgages would have their mortgages written off

Those two things do not follow.

The Icelandic government did this and their economy is now growing without borrowing money.

Iceland does borrow money. In fact, they'll be borrowing money (some short term T-Bills) literally TOMORROW.

aido79

realitykeeper wrote: »

So you agree. The growth is fueled with borrowed money. If the government had not bailed out the banks, those with mortgages would have their mortgages written off and this would would enable them to pay more toward education, healthcare etc. The Icelandic government did this and their economy is now growing without borrowing money.

I really hope you educate yourself a bit better before you start your next thread on this topic. Also why do you continue to compare Ireland's financial crisis to a country with a population of 300,000 with their own currency?

realitykeeper

aido79 wrote: »

I really hope you educate yourself a bit better before you start your next thread on this topic. Also why do you continue to compare Ireland's financial crisis to a country with a population of 300,000 with their own currency?

I did not start this thread.

According to the President of Iceland (and me) the Icelandic solution to the crisis could have been adopted by any of the modern economies including the United States with its population of over 300,000,000.00