In 2008 Iceland has been hit hard by the financial crises. The control of the three major banks of Iceland fell in the hands of the government in an effort to stabilize the financial system. The situation was already expected to happen since the Special Investigation Commission Report said at the end of 2006 that the banks would collapse. The government did not take enough measures to prevent or to limit the damage. Even placing investors of the Icesave account in a high risk situation and lose 5 billion dollars. They could have prevented the liability of the icesave investors by changing it into a subsidiary. Few remarks; the prime minister confessed certain mistakes were made and could have been done differently and the prime minister also remarked that the unregulated free market has failed.
Did the Icelandic government acted immoral by neglecting the possibilities to limit or to prevent the damage that is caused by the collapse of the bank Landsbanki, causing investors of icesave to lose 5 billion dollars?
The main argument is by viewing it in the business discourse. As stated by the prime minister “the ideology of an unregulated market utterly failed”. Looking at the business discourse this remark is actually incorrect. It is not the unregulated market that had failed; it is more likely that the politics had failed. The government knew since 2006 that the situation was inevitable. It was the government (seeing the government as a sole entity) interest to safeguard the national economy alongside the investors of icesave. Neglecting the opportunities that could have been taken has put the national economy of Iceland in danger at the cost of the tax payers. Iceland now in total owes 6 billion pounds to the icesave investors due to unnecessary risk that has been taken by the government.
S253697
2 comments:
In my opinion it is mainly the Icelandic Central Bank that failed to properly control the Icelandic banks and by doing so they desecrated their moral duty not to harm others. They let them go abroad and did not supply the Dutch National Bank with the information that was needed to make a good decision about the entrance of the banks. They had the opportunity to stop the Icelandic banks from going abroad.
In this case, the harm was mainly financially and suffered by the inhabitants of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (and now by the inhabitants of Iceland). Although the Icelandic politicians are responsible for the quality of the supervision they are only indirectly involved; the real moral responsibilities lies with the bankers of the Icelandic Central Bank who did a bad job at supervising and thus protecting the Icelandic inhabitants from the financial havoc.
U1236311 / ANR169300
The financial crises made Iceland whole country bankruptcy because the country economy is almost based on the banking business. The government failed to help the major banks to be alive during the crisis. Bankers and investors denounced the government putting their money on high risk projects. From the view of business discourse as the writer said, it is permission to get the maximum profit under the situation you are legally right and morally right. The government should not be wrong to do that thing as I think. Although the situation was inevitable since 2006, the government has the responsible for keeping the country economy go on and as I think the Iceland government has tried to improve the bad situation. Hoping to make the society steady, the government has no choice to go on their project.
499432
Post a Comment