What Iceland did was say to the bankers if you stuff up then it's your problem. Where're not here to bail you out.
In the US the bankers stuffed up, the tax payers bailed them out and the bankers got a nice big pay rise.
What this has taught the US bankers is they can safely put a gun to the head of the American people and their government will gladly hand over the money. No questions asked.
When the banks get bailed out its not of primary importance that bankers keep their jobs or "get a raise". The people being bailed out are the banks creditors. Iceland didn't tell the bankers stuff it (well they may have too--it's just less important), they told the lenders stuff it.
Iceland was in a position to hang out the creditors, because 1) they were all foreign; and 2) they didn't have an immediate, present need to tap the capital markets.
While not being in precisely the same situation as Iceland, Ireland probably could have done something similar. Greece cannot, because they continue to need to borrow immediately.
I think the (correct) point of the original article was that listening to and following the advice of your creditors is typically the best thing for them, but not for you.
Isn't Greece trying to run a primary budget surplus, i.e. before interest payments. If they managed that, they wouldn't need to tap capital markets after defaulting.
Do you actually know what you're talking about or are you just joining the large chorus of whiners that exist everywhere these days? People don't want to exchange knowledge and learn, it's one huge rant. I wish I could figure out how to stop this.
Anyway, I think salaries in many Wall Street jobs have been declining. And many of the banks that took TARP money paid it back with interest. Those that haven't, should be forced to at some point. Also, I think some of that money went to Detroit.
To be clear, Fed action isn't spending. Look at page 32. It's all in the form of interest paying loans (and $10 trillion went to other central banks, not even private institutions). Much of it is to provide liquidity to banks already eligible to borrow through the discount window - already a source of unlimited loans from the Fed, at under 1% since 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discount_window). Much of the rest is to provide liquidity to other institutions that couldn't borrow directly, because the liquidity that's supposed to be indirectly ensured by the discount rate had dried up.
So yes, the Fed responded to the financial crisis by increasing liquidity. That it mostly occurred through ad-hoc programs and instruments doesn't change the fact that it's the basic function of the central bank. It's in no way paying for Wall Street salaries.
That's a completely ridiculous number, because you're adding up short term transactions. If you lend me, and I pay back immediately, $100 every day for a year, you did not lend me $36,500.
In the US the bankers stuffed up, the tax payers bailed them out and the bankers got a nice big pay rise.
What this has taught the US bankers is they can safely put a gun to the head of the American people and their government will gladly hand over the money. No questions asked.