Cyclone Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 The economies are certainly very different in size, but are they fundamentally different in any other way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 The economies are certainly very different in size, but are they fundamentally different in any other way? Not sure but I think we rely more on financial services than Iceland? Not sure it would have sparked a heap of confidence in our support of one of the main sectors if we had let it die.. I think our 2 economies rely on totally different industries... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Iceland let it's banks go bust and has recovered quicker than any other economy in the world. Bailing out the banks is not the only, or the correct answer. Wasn't that clear? A bonus to not bailing them out is that you can instead prosecute the people who lead them, and in the future whoever leads the banks will know that they don't have immunity or get out of jail free cards. Ok thanks for the I was talking about austerity though and how to recover an economy. What they actually did was like I said, implement massive austerity (much bigger than ours). Made use of their poor currency value to drive exports and tourism, implement capital controls to control the currency, raise interest rates etc etc. ---------- Post added 21-06-2017 at 10:01 ---------- Not sure but I think we rely more on financial services than Iceland? Not sure it would have sparked a heap of confidence in our support of one of the main sectors if we had let it die.. I think our 2 economies rely on totally different industries... No, before 2008 Iceland was a massive financial centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkshire 53 Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 My question was about our limited understanding of how banks create money, not so much about the regular crashes built into the system; they make money even in a crash. They keep their power by having made finance the oxymoron 'difficult simplicity', hard to fathom, but once you get there it's simply smoke and mirrors. I am only part way there, hence my post for input. Check out and get back on the 'Fractional Reserve system' where, from a deposit of any sum, banks can literally create money from thin air by lending out up to 90% of the sum deposited. If it's a con, why do financial experts and politicians not expose it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Check out and get back on the 'Fractional Reserve system' where, from a deposit of any sum, banks can literally create money from thin air by lending out up to 90% of the sum deposited. If it's a con, why do financial experts and politicians not expose it ? So why isnt every man and his dog, opening up a bank, and doing what you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkshire 53 Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 I thought I was asking you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 My question was about our limited understanding of how banks create money, not so much about the regular crashes built into the system; they make money even in a crash. They keep their power by having made finance the oxymoron 'difficult simplicity', hard to fathom, but once you get there it's simply smoke and mirrors. I am only part way there, hence my post for input. Check out and get back on the 'Fractional Reserve system' where, from a deposit of any sum, banks can literally create money from thin air by lending out up to 90% of the sum deposited. If it's a con, why do financial experts and politicians not expose it ? Because they are all part of it, and getting very rich from it. The 1% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 (edited) [/b] Because they are all part of it, and getting very rich from it. The 1% Do you reckon Dennis Skinner is in the 1%? Edited June 21, 2017 by truman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinkman Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 (edited) My question was about our limited understanding of how banks create money, not so much about the regular crashes built into the system; they make money even in a crash. They keep their power by having made finance the oxymoron 'difficult simplicity', hard to fathom, but once you get there it's simply smoke and mirrors. I am only part way there, hence my post for input. Check out and get back on the 'Fractional Reserve system' where, from a deposit of any sum, banks can literally create money from thin air by lending out up to 90% of the sum deposited. If it's a con, why do financial experts and politicians not expose it ? It doesn't appear that you actually know what the fractional-reserve banking practice is. Edited June 21, 2017 by Pinkman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Do you reckon Dennis Skinner is in the 1%? No, I think it helps to be part of the club. Don't forget a few (very few) economists tried to bow the whistle before the 2008 crash, and lost there jobs, their credibility, and were ostracised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now