"hugsa sig vel um"

Nú verður maður að hugsa sig vel um í kvöld. Því það er takmarkað til af morgundögum. Kært kvödd

72% segja nei við Icesave

Athugasemdir

[Sigurður Haraldsson, 8.4.2011 kl. 21:16]

Sæll hvað áttu við?

[anna (IP-tala skráð) 8.4.2011 kl. 23:02]

Ef þú ert óákveðinn og skilur ensku, gæti þetta hjálpað þér.

Hér er smá brot (úrtak) úr bréfi sem Michael Hudson skrifar til Íslendinga.  (þú getur googlað hver hann er)

Hér er greinin í heild: http://kjosum.is/greinar/3-greinar/121-will-iceland-vote-no-on-april-9-or-commit-financial-suicide

Ég er búin að kjósa Nei tvisvar og kynna mér sannleikann vel fyrir báðar kosningar. Það er betra að skila auðu en að segja já.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Will Iceland Vote “No” on April 9, or commit financial suicide?

Ireland, Greece and Iceland are now being told horror stories about what might happen if governments do not commit financial suicide..

Looking over the past year, it seems that the Icelandic nation has been used as a target for a psychological and political experiment – a cruel one – to see how much a population will be willing to pay that it does not really owe for what bank insiders have stolen or lent to themselves.

This is not only an Icelandic problem. It remains a problem in Ireland, and in the United States for that matter, as well as in Britain itself.

The moral is that creditor foreclosure – or voluntary forfeiture to pay international bankers – has become today’s preferred mode of economic warfare. It is cheaper than military conquest, but its aim is similar: to gain control of foreign property and levy tribute – in a way that the tribute-payers accept voluntarily. The result is economic austerity and chronic depression, ending the upsweep in living standards promised a generation ago.

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?

So returning to the problem of the credit rating agencies, how can anyone believe that agreeing to pay an unpayably high debt would improve Iceland’s credit rating??
Investors have learned to depend on their own common sense since losing hundreds of billions of dollars on the ratings agencies’ reckless ratings. The agencies managed to avoid criminal prosecution by noting that the small print of their contracts said that they were only providing an “opinion,” not a realistic analysis for which they could be expected to take any honest professional responsibility! (ojbara!!!)

It thus would be legally as well as morally wrong for Iceland’s citizens to spend the rest of their lives paying off debts owed for money that should rather be an issue between Britain’s Serious Fraud Office and the British bank insurance agencies.

Overarching the vote is how high a price Iceland is willing to pay to join the EU. In fact, as the Eurozone faces a crisis from the PIIGS debtors, what kind of EU is going to emerge from today’s conflict between creditors and debtors. Fears have been growing that the euro-zone may break up in any case. So Iceland’s Social Democratic government may be trying to join an illusion – one that now seems to be breaking up, at least as far as its neoliberal extremism is concerned.