Heard an interesting explanation as to why there isn’t and won’t be an overall remittance of loans. The IMF is against such a measure.
I’m not sure how that can work as the IMF said it would not interfere in in-state matters but let’s suppose it is true.
Then the Progressive Party must surely know this and why are they going on and on about the loan remittance?
Just to collect more angry voters on an empty promise? Wouldn’t be the first time I know.
But how is the IMF exactly expecting the macro economics of Iceland to stay intact if the micro economics are in shatters?
The banks are supposedly working on solutions for their own customers but where is the sense in that?
They would like to believe they are competing in a marketplace where there is supposed to be a winner who offers the best quality at the best prices.
But Iceland isn’t a marketplace, it is an economic disaster area. Why should I get one treatment in my state owned bank, while a friend recieves a different treatment in another?
Related posts:
July 9th, 2009 → 8:59 am @ Dadi
0