It's highly relevant because of the stark contrast in the manner in which Iceland prosecuted the bankers like the criminals they are, versus the crazy manner in which bankers are treated in the US and Europe.

One law for the corrupt, rich, and connected bankers, and much harsher laws for ordinary people who are not connected, wealthy and powerful (e.g. individuals targeted for illegal downloads versus bankers blowing up the global economy causing untold economic hardship). This sends out a strong message from a government to it's electorate: fuck you, you miserable peasant. Not only will you go along with these bailouts, you'll cheer loudly for your bought candidate when he's re-elected.

I'm from Ireland, and we should have copied Iceland to the letter. The difference is we're in the EU and our government is happy to be Angela Merkel's little bitch, and take the pain (sovereign debt burden) to maintain the illusion that everything is rosy in the garden.

Iceland even had the balls to crowd-source it's new constitution, giving real, tangible power to it's people (you couldn't even imagine this in most countries). Talk about real democracy compared to crony capitalism:

http://gigaom.com/2012/10/22/icelanders-approve-their-crowds...

Great article on Iceland from Michael Lewis (Wall Street on the Tundra):

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/04/iceland2...

And we didn't "crowd-source" our constitution (which hasn't been changed yet, btw). The committee of 25 people simply maintained a website where they could collect opinions. They had no significance other than being input to the work of that committee. But I suppose many Icelandic are happy to let this kind of misunderstanding propagate, rather than explaining how we messed up the election of those 25 people, how their suggestion for a new constitution is actually only "advice" for the parliament, and how nothing has happened yet as we still have the same old constitution.

We also don't like to mention that there is little wrong with our old constitution. It's pretty standard. The suggestions for the new one, as far as the banking crisis goes, are about more transparency in government. Other changes are about different things (such as ownership of natural resources, etc.)

There is a lot of misinformation and hype in the foreign media around how Iceland has handled the crisis. As an Icelander living abroad, talking about this topic mainly consists of telling people "actually, that's not what happened..".

I think Iceland (and other countries) could do well looking at Alaska and their oil fund for inspiration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

Haven't read these in detail, but the look ok on a quick glance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932012_Icelandic_fin...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icesave_dispute

Not to mention, parliamentary style governments are always being torn down and rebuilt as different blocs of power emerge. Things can change fast, especially if that country also does direct democracy referendums. That's a feature, not a bug and very different to the more stable and conservative style of government the US was built on.

Also, a screen blocking "join us on facebook" dhtml pop-up? Wow. Another example of the hostile web here.

They are a tiny country who nationalized their banks, stiffed creditors, implemented unnecessary austerity measures and devalued their currency. I'm not sure they're a model for US economic policy.

Creditors were left to deal with the mess that they were complicit in creating while ordinary people who just wanted a house to live in were freed from crushing debt. Some limited austerity measures were put in place that didn't cut into core social spending. The people were taken care of while financiers were told to take a hike, and just as all the experts didn't predict the crash, none of them predicted Iceland's recovery. Maybe the big lesson here is that economists don't know what the fuck they're talking about, and there are other factors in play than neoclassical theory. That is why this hasn't received coverage, because it would lead to self-reflection that would make those in power uncomfortable.

Of larger nation than Iceland Norway and Sweden handled the bank crisis around 1990 by nationalizing the banks and adding to their capital reserve. The shareholders lost their money, but the banks were able to recover in not too many years.

The worst thing that can be done is a bailout. In that case the people that took unnecessary risks for their own short-term gain are rewarded, and everyone else have to pay.

There is a systematic method to deciding which stories are covered by MSM outlets and which aren't. It is not a coincidence that most outlets chose not to cover the Iceland story, regardless of it being a very small country.

Not everything is a "conspiracy", and failure to acknowledge that there are certain forces at play is a blatant misunderstanding of the role MSM plays in public brainwashing.

Yes, exactly. As someone who knows the media world better than he'd like to, I cannot think of a more succinct or generally applicable characterization. You, sir, have nailed it.

When they're not winning (which is frequent), and thinking "what the fuck am I doing here?" (also frequent) chances are good that whoever or whatever they're getting snowed by can be fairly described just the way you did.

Just because you are ignorant of the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I know about Iran-Contra, the gulf of tonkin, etc. How about the USS liberty?

Your link was very interesting.

I don't understand why people insist on using the "shadowy figures gathering in smokey rooms" straw-man, Herman/Chomsky's propaganda model has been around for 25 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

1) we care about the pomp and circumstances surrounding the British royalty (weddings, deaths, etc)

2) we care about what happens in Israel

3) we care about events that make us feel morally superior (rapes in India)

4) we care about things that could affect us (terrorists in Afghanistan, EU's sovereign debt crisis, etc)

American media doesn't even cover what happens in major European countries like the U.K. or France or Germany, much less in minor ones. And it's not just among regular people. Even educated, well-informed people generally don't care about what happens abroad. It's just American exceptionalism at work. We feel we are so dramatically different from anyone else, either in other countries or in other times, that nothing that happens in those other places could possibly have any relevance to us. The idea that we would look to other countries for ideas on how to solve domestic problems is completely alien to us.

I know I personally view world news through the lens of "how will this affect me?". If I want to learn something about how things are going in Iceland, I'll read Wikipedia (which I do fairly often, but most people probably don't).

As for looking to other countries for a solution, I'd say that's part of what makes us Americans. The idea of "we rebelled against the European power for a reason, we don't want to be like them" is ingrained into our culture. I don't think that's a terrible thing, but rather one of the things that make us unique. Diversity is not a bad thing.

The other part of what defines American culture is our individualism. That's changing rapidly these days, as our population centers become more concentrated and a larger percentage of the population are more closely tied to a larger social community. I think you'll see a bit of a "whiplash" effect, as we quickly lose many parts of our "Americanism" and become more like Europe. When that happens, the media coverage will change to reflect that.

Individualism has historically been correlated with urbanization. Just because people are living closer together does not a community make. In fact, urbanization has tracked with the breakdown of old communitarian social relations and its replacement with market relations. If anything is going to erode that, it will be new "solidarity economies" and things of that nature rather than the simple concentration of population.

Read "Manufacturing Consent" book for a more thorough explanation on how the system works.

(It works on individual level -- journalists and corporate --- certain stories are suppressed by the owners).

individual media outlets know that if they cover this they will incur the wrath of their advertisers and go bankrupt, so they don't cover it.

These are not conspiracy theories, these are facts.

...in this case I would not be surprised if the government essentially told news outlets not to tell the story.

[citation needed]