Guest Post: The Icelandic Success Story

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics

The Icelandic Success Story

Emotionally, I love Iceland’s financial policies since the crash of 2008:


Iceland went after the people who caused the crisis — the bankers who created and sold the junk products — and tried to shield the general population.

But what Iceland did is not just emotionally satisfying. Iceland is recovering, while the rest of the Western world — which bailed out the bankers and left the general population to pay for the bankers’ excess — is not.

Bloomberg reports:

Few countries blew up more spectacularly than Iceland in the 2008 financial crisis. The local stock market plunged 90 percent; unemployment rose ninefold; inflation shot to more than 18 percent; the country’s biggest banks all failed.

This was no post-Lehman Brothers recession: It was a depression. 


Since then, Iceland has turned in a pretty impressive performance. It has repaid International Monetary Fund rescue loans ahead of schedule. Growth this year will be about 2.5 percent, better than most developed economies. Unemployment has fallen by half. In February, Fitch Ratings restored the country’s investment-grade status, approvingly citing its “unorthodox crisis policy response.”

So what exactly did Iceland do?

First, they create an aid package for homeowners:

To homeowners with negative equity, the country offered write-offs that would wipe out debt above 110 percent of the property value. The government also provided means-tested subsidies to reduce mortgage-interest expenses: Those with lower earnings, less home equity and children were granted the most generous support.

Then, they redenominated foreign currency debt into devalued krone, effectively giving creditors a big haircut:

In June 2010, the nation’s Supreme Court gave debtors another break: Bank loans that were indexed to foreign currencies were declared illegal. Because the Icelandic krona plunged 80 percent during the crisis, the cost of repaying foreign debt more than doubled. The ruling let consumers repay the banks as if the loans were in krona.


These policies helped consumers erase debt equal to 13 percent of Iceland’s $14 billion economy. Now, consumers have money to spend on other things. It is no accident that the IMF, which granted Iceland loans without imposing its usual austerity strictures, says the recovery is driven by domestic demand.

What this meant is that unsustainable junk was liquidated. While I am no fan of nationalised banks and believe that eventually they should be sold off, there were no quick and easy bailouts that allowed the financial sector to continue with the same unsustainable bubble-based folly they practiced before the crisis (as has happened throughout the rest of the Western world).  

And best of all, Iceland prosecuted the people who caused the crisis, providing a real disincentive (as opposed to more bailouts and bonuses):

Iceland’s special prosecutor has said it may indict as many as 90 people, while more than 200, including the former chief executives at the three biggest banks, face criminal charges.


Larus Welding, the former CEO of Glitnir Bank hf, once Iceland’s second biggest, was indicted in December for granting illegal loans and is now waiting to stand trial. The former CEO of Landsbanki Islands hf, Sigurjon Arnason, has endured stints of solitary confinement as his criminal investigation continues.


That compares with the U.S., where no top bank executives have faced criminal prosecution for their roles in the subprime mortgage meltdown. The Securities and Exchange Commission said last year it had sanctioned 39 senior officers for conduct related to the housing market meltdown.

Iceland’s approach is very much akin to what I have been advocating — write down the unsustainable debt, liquidate the junk corporations and banks that failed, disincentivise the behaviour that caused the crisis, and provide help to the ordinary individuals in the real economy (as opposed to phoney “stimulus” cash to campaign donors and big finance).

And Iceland has snapped out of its depression. The rest of the West, where banks continue to behave exactly as they did prior to the crisis, not so much.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Yen Cross's picture

 Drill away people/ See ya on Discovery Something...  Exploit the Icelanders, that probably are content, with their Ocean Bounty/

reader2010's picture

I said right here on ZH back in 2009 the difference is that Iceland has democracy and  of course I got laughed at.

ThirdWorldDude's picture

You're spot on as usual, Icelandic democracy is over a millenium old.

mc_LDN's picture

The difference is in Europe and the US the Banksters are clever. They captured the political class decades ago and started re-writing the rules to suit themselves. Pretty diifficult to prosecute banksters when half of them sit in parliaments and senates.

willwork4food's picture

Yup. And collect massive salaries and benefits

This will not end well.

Acet's picture

They captured the political class in Iceland too.

The difference is that over there the people threw the politicians out (and, at least the Prime Minister was criminally charged, though that has come to nothing yet). All the mainstream parties that were in the pocket of the bankers were trashed, to the point that the Mayor of Reykjavik is a comedian who started a party and spent his campaign making fun of traditional parties (and apparently he's a pretty good Mayor).

With an well educated population and a real (i.e. Proportional Vote) democratic voting system, Democracy does work.

Which is why at least the UK, the US and most of Europe are going to continue down the route of economic and social stagnation and decay (if they're lucky), economic collapse and/or revolution, war and dictatorship.

Being Free's picture

So the Pols throw the banksters under the bus and give out free get out of debt cards to those who indulged while those who did not just bend over.  The pols survive and look like heroes??

Iceland is no example of social justice.

Clowns on Acid's picture

Yeh but Iceland is such a diverse country.....

Optimusprime's picture

Diversity is weakness.  Once that sinks in, the world makes a lot more sense.

Cathartes Aura's picture

huge populations pitted against each other by me-duh is weakness.

but just like huge feedlots, it's hella profitable, and that's the bottom line here. . .

praxis's picture

Valhalla I am coming

JR's picture

 “Activities such as fraud, embezzlement, or counterfeiting should not be ‘privatized’; they should be abolished.” This Rothbardian solution to America’s banking crisis parallels that of Iceland’s success story that “went after the people who caused the crisis."

Says Austrian Economist Murray Rothbard, “the Fed, which had promised to redeem its liabilities in gold, has been in default of that promise since Roosevelt's repudiation of the gold standard in 1933. The Federal Reserve System, being in default, should be liquidated, and the way to liquidate it is the way any insolvent business firm is liquidated: its assets are parceled out, pro rata, to its creditors.”

Rothbard, explaining how “two great desiderata – the return of the gold standard, and the abolition of the Federal Reserve – could both be accomplished at one stroke,” states: “The important point, it must be emphasized, is that at the very first sign of a bank's failing to redeem its notes or deposits on demand, the police and courts must put them out of business. Instant justice, period, with no mercy and no bailouts.

“Under such a regime, it should not take long for the banks to go under, or else to contract their notes and deposits until they are down to 100 percent banking. Such monetary deflation, while leading to various adjustments, would be clearly one-shot, and would obviously have to stop permanently when the total of bank liabilities contracted down to 100 percent of gold assets. One crucial difference between inflation and deflation, is that inflation can escalate up to an infinity of money supply and prices, whereas the money supply can only deflate as far as the total amount of standard money, under the gold standard the supply of gold money. Gold constitutes an absolute floor against further deflation.”

In an article published in 1995 in The Freeman just shortly after to his death, Rothbard stated: “If this proposal seems harsh on the banks, we have to realize that the banking system is headed for a mighty crash in any case. As a result of the S&L collapse, the terribly shaky nature of our banking system is at last being realized. People are openly talking of the FDIC being insolvent, and of the entire banking structure crashing to the ground. And if the people ever get to realize this in their bones, they will precipitate a mighty "bank run" by trying to get their money out of the banks and into their own pockets. And the banks would then come tumbling down, because the people's money isn't there. The only thing that could save the banks in such a mighty bank run is if the Federal Reserve prints the $1.6 trillion in cash and gives it to the banks – igniting an immediate and devastating runaway inflation and destruction of the dollar.

“Liberals are fond of blaming our economic crisis on the ‘greed of the 1980s.’ And yet ‘greed’ was no more intense in the 1980s than it was in the 1970s or previous decades or than it will be in the future. What happened in the 1980s was a virulent episode of government deficits and of Federal Reserve-inspired credit expansion by the banks. As the Fed purchased assets and pumped in reserves to the banking system, the banks happily multiplied bank credit and created new money on top of those reserves.

“There has been a lot of focus on poor quality bank loans: on loans to bankrupt Third World countries or to bloated and, in retrospect, unsound real estate schemes and shopping malls in the middle of nowhere. But poor quality loans and investments are always the consequence of central bank and bank-credit expansion. The all-too-familiar cycle of boom and bust, euphoria and crash, prosperity and depression, did not begin in the 1980s. Nor is it a creature of civilization or the market economy. The boom-bust cycle began in the eighteenth century with the beginnings of central banking, and has spread and intensified ever since, as central banking spread and took control of the economic systems of the Western world. Only the abolition of the Federal Reserve System and a return to the gold standard can put an end to cyclical booms and busts, and finally eliminate chronic and accelerating inflation. “

HoaX's picture

I kind of like Iceland and the way they told the banksters to shove it where the sun don´t shine, I love it even more they, like Sweden, decided to prosecute the bankers responsible for this mess. Should happen more!

That being said, it is important not to forget one thing. Iceland was living the good life during the boom years and none of the citizens claimed when the easy money was flowing in.

Then when it turned out to be a massive scam they basically shafted naive Dutch and English savers who were lured in by Icesaves sleek advertising campaigns (John Cleese was one of their main stars).

I can only speak for the dutch goverment in this case. They had to bail out Dutch savers to the tune of 100k Euros per account, not the bank, just ordinary people who were lured by somewhat higher interest rates (greed I guess) and the professional look of Icesave as a company. Icelanders in the mean time where living large during those days, driving big cars and having a massive property boom. Then when it all went bust they basically just reneged on all their agreements.

I like this story but it smacks of hypocrisy in that respect.


andrewp111's picture

I'm sorry, but anyone who put their savings into a  foreign bank that promised above market interest rates deserves to lose his money.  Those depositors should not have been bailed out by their home governments.

Oldwood's picture

So people are dumbasses if they invest in foreign banks but they should be bailed out if they paid and borrowed too much on their houses. Populist bunk! Bad/stupid behaviour must have costs or it will continue and likely double down. How can you have a sustainable system if those who do the right thing, (save) end up losing, and those who are living large, buying everything they want, get bailed out?

Jack Burton's picture

If Iceland had followed the Irish model, the Icelanders would be wholly owned slaves to the banking class. The crimes of the banking elite have been visited upon the Irish taxpayers, while banker live the high life.

At least in Sweden, in their previous banker caused collapse, the government took over and sacked the bankers from their highly paid jobs and replaced them with new management and then let the banks go private again. In Iceland the crimes of the bankers were orders of magnitude worse than the Swedish disaster. Had Icelandic taxpayers been made responsible for the banks obligations, then 5 generations of Icelanders well past the end of the 21st century would have been slaves to pay off bankers losses. Iceland did the right thing, it was not easy, nor painless.

If they do go into the EU, as they seem to want to, I believe they are joining a sinking ship. They can still trade with Europe, why take on the Euro. The benefits may be just to the financial sector.

I remember Iceland in 2005 and 2006. I was there during the peak boom. The Icelanders were drunk on the new model of finance capitalism. Many dropped jobs in the real economy and joined the banks at enormous salaries. They soon lost these jobs. Many of them believed the new world had changed Iceland for ever, now they are relearning how to run a real economy. Good for them!

HoaX's picture

"I remember Iceland in 2005 and 2006. I was there during the peak boom. The Icelanders were drunk on the new model of finance capitalism. Many dropped jobs in the real economy and joined the banks at enormous salaries"

This exactly, the icelanders were driving massive cars and had a huge property boom during the heyday of their banking industry. I´m not at all disagreeing with it unwinding but I do find it utterly hypocrite they basically made Dutch and British taxpayers pick up the tab for their large living.

One great thing they did though, and that pretty much pays for most of their wrongs, is, like Sweden, prosecute and jail the banksters responsible, not bail them out like the rest of the Western World has (and yes, that includes Europe and my country the Netherlands)

That being said I can completely understand them wanting to join the EU. Because unlike being portrayed in the Murdoch controlled media, the European Union is NOT about protecting the financial services sector but about much more. Like Employer protection, education, cultural and agricultural investments etc. Also, the fact Britain (and mainstream US media) are so vehemently anti-EU at the moment is because the European Union actually wants to impose much needed regulation which would harm their infinite leverage, zero-rules financial services sector which by default would harm their so revered London City where you can create money out of nothing and then some.

I know I´ll come over as a so-called Europhile but I don´t care, the fact I grew up in it meant for me that a) I could study not just at Dutch Universities but take a masters in Berlin, while german students did the same at my university. b) It allowed me to start my own bussiness in the South of Europe, without having to apply for a green card or anything. c) It ensured that if my national goverment didnt respect consumer or democratic rights I had the European Courts to turn to for justice, like many have.

Populism and EUSSR rhetoric is so easy, and mainly comes from either the UK or US who as pointed out over and over on this site, have a much larger debt problem than any other European country, thanks to their great, unregulated financial services sector.


OutLookingIn's picture

Sorry. No can do. Can't have it two ways at the same time.

Claiming an harmonious whole culturally, then in the same breath claiming low debt on a nationality basis, just doesn't cut it. If you count debt - then count debt as a whole. You will find that the EU as a whole has much more debt then any other region on this planet!

The EC was a great idea until they politisized the idea and called into being the EU.

HoaX's picture

Sure, lets take the entire EU GDP into account as well then though. Because we want to be fair don´t we?

And don´t worry, I wont have you look it up:

European GDP for 2011 (latest stats since 2012 hasnt been calculated yet):

12,629,458 (in millions)

Combined European debt:

€10,320,106 (in millions) 

Thus a debt to GDP ratio of 82.2% (this includes all Euro countries, so Britain is included in these numbers)

It is way above what you should feel comfortable with I agree completely, but in comparison to the US? It´s over 100% and rising rapidly. No austerity for you guys!

United Kingdom is 86.6% btw, and that is not counting debts held by the financial services industry. As has been pointed out on this site as far back as 2010, if you would take that into account the UK would have well over 1000% debt to GDP.

So how it that CRTL-P button working for you guys?


smiler03's picture

The Icelandics DON'T want to join the EU. Some policticians favout it but popular opinion is against it and jioning the EU will not happen.


"As we get results from more primaries and the forming of lists of candidates EU membership for Iceland becomes more distant. If it would have been hard to get it through the current parliament it will be almost impossible at the next one."

Vast majority of Icelanders oppose EU membership and have according to every opinion poll published in Iceland for more than three years. The majority also does not want to adopt the euro and wants the EU application withdrwan."



Yen Cross's picture

 Nationality Basis? That's (A) new one?  Ok Mr. Government of (gumby land)... How should we appropriate civil collection?

  That "Robin Hood" tarriff? I'm all ears?  must fund Iceland huts?

Acet's picture


People that don't speak any languages other than English, who never lived anywhere in Europe except maybe the UK and don't actually read any non-English media seem to have a lot of trouble viewing the EU with an unbiased look, probably the result of only having access to media which is biased and propagandist in nature.

Being Portuguese and having lived in Holland and now England, I'm often shocked at how little most of those shouting out loudly against the EU here actually know about it and how often the local (British) magnate owned press just makes up outright lies about the EU (my favorite is the one about the EU regulating the curvature of bananas).

My impression is that the average Brit (and seemingly, the average American) are in fact very unsophisticated and ignorant about the world while believeing that they know about it 'cause they read/watch the world news on UK/US newspapers/TV.

From my side I can tell you that the EU was the best thing that happened to Portugal, having brought in decent consumer protection, better laws, helped build-up the country's infrastructure, tempered the local politician's tendency for corruption and even avoided one or two local attempts at undoing the transition from Fascism to Democracy. In the UK, I can see that more often that not, consumer and human rights are better defended thanks to EU legislation than they would if left only to the locals (the UK is a very punitive country - though the wealthy get a free pass - and has the highest prision population per-capita in Europe).

The EURO is the problem, not the EU.

Oldwood's picture

As government's grow they become less accountable to their people. A large centralized govenment is to be feared, whether in Europe, America or anyplace else on earth. Enjoy your freedoms while they last. You can only hope that your educational system indoctrinates it's citizens to love it's brave new world at a rate equal to it's demise.

Acet's picture

You assume the EU is a government: wrong - it's still a supranational association of countries: it has no power to impose any real laws anywhere in Europe.

You assume that I grew up under pro-EU indoctrination: wrong - I was born under Fascism.

You assume there is pro-EU indoctrination in Europe's schools: wrong - for certain in Portugal, Holland and the UK, the EU stands out by being mostly ignored, rather than the subject of conversation and classes.

You know nothing of what you're talking about.

You make a lot of broad statement and talk the ideological talk of evil large government, lack of accountability, centralisation, freedom, a propagandistic education system, citizenship - the beautified spiel of the parrot repeating the words without having really aquired a deep understanding of the whys and hows. Your pretty building is just a facade, not something made through the real work of building it from the foundations up, one brick at a time - no depth, just a wall of grand-sounding words.

centerline's picture

Hmmm... too bad the banks are running the show.

Acet's picture

Yupes. This whole "it's the fault of the EU" is all a game of smoke and mirrors. It's the banks running the show.

At the end of the day, it's national politicians supporting their local buddies in their local banks and using the EU institutions to do so. Everybody is in it for their on nation: from the German politicans trying to keep together a currency that has given them huge competitive advantages as an exporter and trying to support the likes of Deutsche Bank, to the politicians in the PIIGS trying to avoid loosing the sinecures and priviledges they have setup for themselves and their buddies over the years.

I'll admit that some of the European instituations are being used in the whole scheme of propping-up the banks, as vehicles for each country's politicians supporting their national banks, just like in their own countries they're supporting those banks with bailouts, austerity for the middle class only and by not going after the bankers with criminal charges. However you will notice that's it's only the Euro related structures - something that, frankly, needs to go - used in this way, while there are a lot of good things in the EU that have nothing to do with the "Euro experiment" and should not be lost because of this.

The true problem is that in many countries the national politicians have been bought by the bankers and other big parasitical corporations, while at the same time having hooked a section of the population on uncondicional state support (welfare for the rich and welfare for the poor) and in the absence of the EU, these corrupt traitors would be destroying their own countries only probably some of those countries would have reverted to dictatorship by now.

Freddie's picture

Why does the EUSSR make countries vote a second time or third until the country votes the way the EUSSR wants them to vote?    More politicians at supranational organizations means less freedom for citizens.  See the UN, World Bank, US Senate, etc for more examples.

You mention lack of accountability. The EU-SSR has never allowed opened or audited their finances.  A bit like Harry Reid and the Democrats not having a budget for 4 years going on 5.  It means the money is stolen from the taxpayers with no accountability.

HoaX's picture

"The EU-SSR has never allowed opened or audited their finances"

This is another lie that circulates a lot in "quality" media like the Sun and Daily Mail, but factually untrue.


More than 94% of the European budget goes to citizens, regions, cities, farmers and businesses. The EU budget focuses on bringing growth and jobs (which admittedly isn´t going too great at the moment, but where in the western world is that different these days?), tackling climate change, migration, cross-border crime and other challenges that affect us all. It tries to help boost prosperity, for example by better interconnecting Europeans through energy, transport and ICT infrastructure, by supporting less well-off regions to create growth and jobs both there and in the rest of the EU, and by pooling efforts in areas like research and education (like the before mentioned Erasmus program). It is also about securing our own food supply. And finally, it is about making the EU's size count in the world - just as the US and China make their size count, and pooling our efforts to help the world's poorest people.

Think of air traffic liberalisation, passenger rights or cheaper roaming charges. Or think of the Commission's decisions in antitrust and cartel cases, where consumers have been cheated out of millions of euros through illegally inflated prices. In 2010, the estimated benefit to customers resulting from the Commission's cartel decisions was at least €7.2 billion.

Commission staff are in charge of negotiating trade agreements that help to bring down the price of consumer goods and offer a wider choice of affordable products. They are also involved in helping the EU to draw the right lessons from the financial and economic crisis through better regulation and supervision of financial markets. Administrative costs have been stable for a long time, and over the past five years serious efforts have been made to keep them low. The Commission has conducted a zero growth policy in relation to staff numbers. It has dealt with new competences and priorities through the redeployment of existing staff and has asked for no extra staff beyond those resulting from enlargement. The Commission also decided to freeze its administrative expenditure in 2012, a 0% change.

The part that goes to administration DOES get audited, problems arise with individual countries not signing off their books, the UK is especially notorious in this respect. Which reminds me, when has the last time been the UK government had its finances audited? Right, it never happened.

And no, I do NOT work in any way shape or form for the EU. Before you come with that one. I also think we should always stay vigilant and keep a close eye on what the EU and its commission actually does. Just sprouting slogans without doing any factual research doe not constitute an honest, let alone constructive debate though.



francis_the_wonder_hamster's picture

You lost me at "tackling climate change".

HoaX's picture

You can subsitute that for "Invest in renewable energy"

Something the US (and UK soon never really cared much about I admit.

We all know Al Gore and his CO2 tax are a fraud, that doesn´t mean all renewable energy sources are though, and if anything it makes us less dependent on oil price fluctuations. You in the US are lucky to be able to buy your barrels in dollars for the time being, but this is going to end, the Chinese and Russians are already working on that.

You can take an example in Germany in that respect, they have invested heavily in renewable energy, and yes, paid a premium on their energy bill for years. The future german generations though will be self-sufficient energy wise, and even able to export their surplus. I know the US has more of a mentality of "let´s frack the crap out of our shale reserves, who cares about the consequences" but some peoples do actually care about the legacy they leave behind.

Yen Cross's picture

 This is beyond stupid. Good job Iceland, creating /resurrecting a vibrant economy.

Seize Mars's picture

Ok, look. Does Iceland currently have a fiat currency? Yes? Then it will all happen again.

Sauron 1, Middle Earth 0.

Yen Cross's picture

 I'm taking a shower. I just do not get how "320K" people living on a partially subsidized group of volcanic rocks, that can't even declare a sovereign currency is a success!


willwork4food's picture

Something about what a wise man said a long time ago about being able to trust one in a small amount, then they could be trusted with a city...

We still love you YC!



OutLookingIn's picture

Wall street and the TBTF's need a bunch of Vikings to go a bezerking on them!


W74's picture

Grab your guns and pitchforks, that's the only way we in the US are going to get rid of the cockroach class.

Seasmoke's picture

How many Jewish leaders in Iceland ?

Bansters-in-my- feces's picture

Free Jon Corzine...!!!....

Yen Cross's picture

 lulz/ Corzine would ass rape Iceland and leave a giant monument that says " TRUMPH FAR NORTH"...

abelesnik's picture

Canceling and reneging on all debt works! It's also as old as the Old Testament, which had a Jubilee every 50 years where all debts were cancelled. Someone up there understandt the human psyche, which spins off into never never land in about 50 years, generating insane debt. All those creditors lose their shirts at the Jubilee, and have to start over. Jubilee is the the state saving itself. That's what Iceland did, and that's what needs to be done in EU and US, too. All those people holding that bogus paper can have a bonfire, and the world economy starts over. Who is hurt by cancelling debt. Exactly the people who caused the speculative escalating bubble. Serves 'em right.

De-valuation effectively is the same as a Jubilee. The sooner the better. The alternative is to keep creating Sovereign money out of thin air, which never catches up, and which just extends the economic malaise indefinitely. Eventually there will be a Jubilee, or reset. Only thing that prevents it is the power of the bankers and financiers and their influence on government. Prime example is Gaithner, of course, but same is true of all those fat cat Europeans.

HoaX's picture

The problem is those who will renege on their debts are the very people who profited in creating it in the first place.

In the meantime the ordinary folks get shafted. Tell me, why would you save and try to be responsible if you can just rack up massive debts, live the good life while it lasts and then when it comes crumbling down just tell everyone to shaft themselves? (And yes, this is pretty much global banking these days). At least jail those responsible for accumulating it in the first place (like Iceland did, which I give them props for)

This might just work if there was a gobal, collective debt reset, but even then the countries and people who actually behaved responsibly and didn´t accumulate massive debts are the ones effectively paying the price unless the others are paying by serving life-long prison sentences.

Why do we convict rapists, murderers etc. on a personal basis but when it comes to companies we are all libertarians all of a sudden? Just like humans need laws because as much as we like to think so, people and companies when faced with the prospect of easy money, do not all behave responsibly, especially so financial institutions. No, they get senatorial hearings, a slap on the wrist, heck in the UK, named to be Lords. Keep calm and Carry on.


Yen Cross's picture

You are 100% correct HoaX. The hand that feeds... You Fucking Monkey!

centerline's picture

There is one simple fact that I alway come back to:  there have been no real arrests, convictions and complete fucking asset stripping of anyone in the financial sector.  We have seen the financial sector pretty much commit daylight robbery now with the Corzine fiasco.

This simple fact ought to say about everything one needs to know about who is in charge.  Knowing who is in charge leads to a pretty solid guess as to where we are headed.


Oldwood's picture

So those that borrow win and those who save will lose. Sounds perfect.

JR's picture

Interpretation of Leviticus 25: 9-17

“The Year of Jubilee was meant to be celebrated every 50 years. It included canceling all debts, freeing all slaves, and returning to its original owners all land that had been sold. There is no indication in the Bible that the Year of Jubilee was ever carried out.”

Yen Cross's picture

 Why doesn't Iceland take the NOK or SEK route?  Both highly productive currencies. Norway and Sweden/

 Not my trade of choice, but a good trade for the well versed trader/ wide spreads-and timing.

 Iceland needs tight overnight spreads, and she needs lending to service her debt/ No real GDP/

 A few hundred million in gross cash flow?

  Keep junking pin head/ I'm just doing the math! If you were smart, you would listen. I'm not your enemy/

  I'm trying to help you balance a budget!