Föstudagur 08.04.2011 - 12:03 - FB ummæli ()

Michael Hudson sendi bréf

Við fengum bréf frá Micheal Hudson hagfræðingi og sagnfræðingi. Hann fjallar um Icesave málið í víðu samhengi og tel ég að sem flestir ættu að gefa sér tíma til lesa greinina hans.

Greinin kemst ekki öll fyrir á blogginu en ég set viðhengi með og nokkra valda hluta úr greininni.

What is the rational of Iceland and other debtor countries paying, especially at this time? The proposed agreements would give Britain and Holland more than EU directives would. Iceland has a strong legal case. Social Democratic warnings about the EU seem so overblown that one wonders whether the Althing members are simply hoping to avoid an investigation as to what actually happened to Landsbanki’s Icesave deposits. Britain’s Serous Fraud Office recently became more serious in investigating what happened to the money, and has begun to arrest former directors. So this is a strange time indeed for Iceland’s government to agree to take bad bank debts onto its own balance sheet.

——————

One would think that the normal response of a government in this kind of foreign debt negotiation would be to appoint a Group of Experts to lay out the economy’s position so as to evaluate the ability to pay foreign debts – and to structure the deal around the ability to pay. But there has been no risk assessment. The Althing has simply accepted the demands of the UK and Holland without any negotiation. It has not even protested the fact that Britain and Holland are still running up the interest clock on the charges they are demanding.

—————-

Iceland’s government seems to have become decoupled from what is good for voters and for the very survival of Iceland’s economy. It thus challenges the assumption that underlies all social science and economics: that nations will act in their own self-interest. This is the assumption that underlies democracy: that voters will realize their self-interest and elect representatives to apply such policies. For the political scientist this is an anomaly. How does one explain why a national parliament is acting on behalf of Britain and the Dutch as creditors, rather than in the interest of their own country accused of owing debts that voters in other countries have removed their governments for agreeing to?

Iceland¹s NO Vote April 2011 Michael Hudson

Flokkar: Stjórnmál og samfélag

«
»

Facebook ummæli

Vinsamlegast athugið:
Ummæli eru á ábyrgð þeirra sem þau skrifa. Eyjan áskilur sér þó rétt til að fjarlægja óviðeigandi og meiðandi ummæli.
Tilkynna má óviðeigandi ummæli í netfangið ritstjorn@eyjan.is

Höfundur

Gunnar Skúli Ármannsson
Var læknir á Landspítalanum en starfa núna í Svíþjóð. Kvæntur og á fjögur börn, hund og átti kött. Fæddur dreifbýlismaður-Kópavoginum-flutti síðan til borgarinnar. Bjó um tíma á Patreksfirði og var við sérnám í Svíþjóð um níu ára skeið. Er virkur í  Dögun. Tekið þátt í búsáhaldarbyltingunni síðan hún hófst. Er meðlimur attac samtakanna á Íslandi.
RSS straumur: RSS straumur