3 ms·

I think Iceland is used as a coutner-example to Greece, Ireland or Spain and not the US. Notice as they keep comparing the Icelandic unemployment rate to the E

• ddebernardy 13y ago
  It's part of a trade zone with the EU, so that mostly makes sense. (There's more to the EU than PIIGS, brw.) Comparing its unemployment rate with that of the US would seem as bizarre as comparing Ohio's with that of the EU.
  • randomafrican 13y ago
    Yes. But the biggest point is that Iceland has taken a very different path from Ireland, Spain or Greece with very different outcomes. (of course, the situations were not exactly similar at the beginning but comparable enough to draw those comparisions)
    • jackgavigan 13y ago
      There are key differences. Ireland, Spain and Greece are members of both the EU and the Eurozone. Iceland is a member of neither. IANAL but I understand that what Iceland did would not have been permissible under EU law. That is part of the reason why Ireland, for example, took the path it did, in relation to the bank bail-outs.
      • randomafrican 13y ago
        I'll give you the Eurozone... Makes it impossible to devaluate and much harder to put capital controls in place (though Cyprius manage to do so while being in the Eurozone). However, what Iceland did was still unilateral. They didn't ask for anybody's permission and didn't expect their decision to be accepted. Laws and treaties still need to be enforced and those countries are still sovereign. What happens if a country does something that is against EU law ? At worst, they may be expelled from the EU. So it's really a matter of comparing the advantages of EU membership to the cost of the path of action that was taken. It's still a political decision.