Comments on: Iceland currency exchange restrictions lead to 28 legal cases

By: Jared

Jared — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:13:37 +0000

Leil…

Of course they would spend money to find out who is corrupt. Think about it… If someone is stealing from your house every day and you couldn’t catch them yourself, wouldn’t you hire a detective to find out who it is? You spend money to save money, and that’s how the cookie crumbles.

By: Mike (UK Nordiv analyst)

Mike (UK Nordiv analyst) — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:15:56 +0000

The currency restrctions have one primary purpose – to stop a disorderly collapse of the currency. Such a collapse would be catastrophic for the country. Icelandic inflation would hit levels that you observe in places such as Zimbabwe, and the ISK denominated savings and investments (such as pensions) would be wiped out in a blaze of glory. And such a collapse would have no effect on the non-ISK denominated debts. In fact those debts could be used to extract all sorts of assets for the creditors when they saw that the ISK was worthless.

The restrictions indicate a country on life-support. But without them the country would be dead. At least economically dead since your terms of trade would deteriorate to the point that Iceland would need to pay in non-ISK currencies up-front, with some insurance added on for good measure. Most imported items would need to be rationed: most notably food, medicines, and fuel. (You are pretty close to that scenario anyway but with the IMF behind you the country still carries that organisation’s credibility.)

The restrictions are crude, horrible, nasty and clumsy. Not nice at all but very necessary.

By: Blake Patrick

Blake Patrick — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:06:10 +0000

Yes you are correct maybe your previous incompetent government shouldn’t have imposed the currency restrictions or required them to be imposed by its own incompetence in the first place.

By: Fisy

Fisy — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:01:56 +0000

>Restrictions on the purchase of available foreign currency is an absolute necessity and will be a necessity for some time to come.

It is becasue the glacier bond holder need to be paid out in ISK.

Whole point is that a year of keeping krona at level of below 185 to EUR is more than long enough.

Exchange controls just do keep out foreign investors.

And it does stop it from being showed that in fact after going up for while, once glacier bond hold taken out they money which would see at 200 probably then it back to 175-180 per EURO in next year because the fundementals of Icelandic enomoy is actually good not impaired.

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/07/08/euro-exchange-rate-reached-over-180-isk/#comment-84879

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/05/25/icesave-deal-tantalisingly-close-iceland-finance-minister/#comment-78061

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/02/04/currency-controls-keeping-iceland-regulators-busy/#comment-112894

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/10/31/when-mcdonald’s-closes-what-happens-to-the-m/#comment-99679

And lots other threads from before …

By: Giova Bocca

Giova Bocca — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:15:24 +0000

The first that needs be done is to learn who the “organisations breaking Iceland’s strict temporary currency restrictions” were and why they were breaking those “strict temporary” restrictions. If you read back to the time following the general collapse that followed the collapsing and reorganisations of thee banks, and after the implementations of the restrictions you will read of organisations whose economic life and health depended on imports, whose suppliers would not accept or credit payments in ISK. Were firms that violated the strict restrictions to pay for needed supplies, ranging from groceries to machine parts for fishing-industry machinery, needed to keep that industry going to bring Iceland foreign source revenues, committing treason, or swindling? Were the merchants who shifted their accounting to foreign nations, and to foreign currencies that still held trade values, in order to have foreign currency to pay suppliers, who returned to Iceland only so much as they had to to pay overhead expences, committing treason or swindling? Were they provided any viable alternatives then, in those times and in those circumstances? Would Iceland have benefited from all import-dependent in Iceland being reduced to bankruptcy?
Economies do not reduce handily to simple blacks and whites, villains and saviours. Those are reserved for religions and politics. Even in movies and stories undercurrents, cross-purposes and “back-stories” are demanded, mostly because they make the stories more like real life, less like politics or religion.

By: Knowless

Knowless — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:40:03 +0000

Restrictions on the purchase of available foreign currency is an absolute necessity and will be a necessity for some time to come.

But it would be nice to have confidence that those restrictions are protected at all times for the interests of the State.

By: Bromley86

Bromley86 — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:36:09 +0000

one thing for sure all the money were spent gone already.

One of the first things that Eva Joly said was that Iceland wouldn’t recover much of the money. IIRC she expected enough to pay for the investigation but not much more.

Which makes it a little strange that she’s not a bigger fan of asset freezes.

By: Damon Vickers Returns to Alex Jones Tv 4/4: Global Currencies Have No Real Value!

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 05:45:05 +0000

[...] Iceland currency exchange restrictions lead to 28 legal cases … [...]

By: leil

leil — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:07:31 +0000

this government sucks!!!!!!
they spent millions just by investigation itself, by the time they know who the swindlers and corrupts are, one thing for sure all the money were spent gone already.

By: wally

wally — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:22:31 +0000

fisy – that is weak. A law is in place for the protection of the people, people break the law for the enrichment of themselves and your arguement is that they are righteous because the government is stupid.
If you would read back your comments in 20 years time you would laugh at yourself.