Printable View
[QUOTE=Spassmusssein;440612]As the mexican journalist Silvina Sterin Pinsel wrote Friday, old age not always is a warant for quality.
Usually with Whisky and Bordeaux-wines it is.
Obviously judge Griesa had / has problems, understanding the cause, his judgement and the consequences.
You can guumble it easily.
Anyway, there will not be great confusions, just the exchange "blue" will get down.[/QUOTE]Sounds like MORE gibberish to me.
[QUOTE=Jackson;440620]Sounds like MORE gibberish to me.[/QUOTE]Dear forum-owner, if you love the definition "gibberish", really soo muuch,
have funfunfun + use it as foolish-gibberish everytime as you want 4 my posts.
As you are not so updatet and keen in macro-economy, quite more in rhetoric outblasts, I will stay "off limits" furthermore in this discussion.
Hope that your mansion and "Alamo" will have a big future. Even after the "(inexistent) default".
Next time in a house-party (if I would be invited still), I owe you a nice "champan" or "Malbec" if u want.
Why do you guys assume that the USA is the center of the universe. Do you know him? Have you ever talked with him about anything? He has be posting useful info on AP for many years. He lives and has made money in business in the provencia for a long time. He has many argentine friends and associates and might have a better feel for the word in the street than sex tourists.
Economically Argentina is playing with a loaded bomb. If they do not work within the USA federal court order, they are going to get fucked 1000 different ways.
Maybe the Chinese will help out the argentine government with 25% of the pompas humidas as collateral.
This board can use spas's posting more than he needs ap. Let's not lose another posting member over playing "quien es mas macho" on an internet chat board.
Every one has their opinion. In something like this discussion I doubt there is no concrete right or wrong answer. From what I see, if Cristinaland defaults, things will go on as they have been. The only reason they want their accounts in order so to speak is so they can borrow more money so that they can have a even bigger default in the future! The biggest issue is if Argentina continues as it has for so many years by just scraping by or if some one of intelligence takes the reins and makes this country into what it could be! Improve the little things. Paved roads, lighted streets, telephone system that is affordable and works, postal system that is affordable and works, a electric and gas distribution system that works like it should! Once again I could go on and on but some one should straighten out this country, it has great possibilities!
[QUOTE=Gandolf50;440627]Every one has their opinion. In something like this discussion I doubt there is no concrete right or wrong answer. From what I see, if Cristinaland defaults, things will go on as they have been. The only reason they want their accounts in order so to speak is so they can borrow more money so that they can have a even bigger default in the future! The biggest issue is if Argentina continues as it has for so many years by just scraping by or if some one of intelligence takes the reins and makes this country into what it could be! Improve the little things. Paved roads, lighted streets, telephone system that is affordable and works, postal system that is affordable and works, a electric and gas distribution system that works like it should! Once again I could go on and on but some one should straighten out this country, it has great possibilities![/QUOTE]I agree. Put a Margaret Thatcher type in charge and it would be amazing how Argentina would transform. They just need an attitude adjustment on government and what to expect from it.
[QUOTE=Dccpa;440629]I agree. Put a Margaret Thatcher type in charge and it would be amazing how Argentina would transform. They just need an attitude adjustment on government and what to expect from it.[/QUOTE]That is not only unlikely, it is nearly impossible.
Since even before Juan Peron wreaked havoc on the populace, those holding the reigns of power (regardless of political leanings), in Argentina, have been unified in their abuse of the populace for their continued power and prosperity. One of the conditions necessary to continue this exploitation of the country's people and resources is the limitation of information reaching the individual. This is achieved through both, the institutionalization of provincialism and by overwhelming the media with propaganda, thereby forcing any real information to the margins. A critical byproduct of this has been that a plurality of the citizenry has become structurally (I. E. Permanently) dependent upon the government for something that the individual believes (rightly or wrongly) that he can't provide for himself. Therefore, his well being is dependent upon perpetuation of the policies that got him into the predicament. When any philosophy, challenging the status quo (I. E. Keeping people in their place. Dependent upon the govt. And exploiting them) begins to propagate, it is ritualistically flogged in nearly 100% of the media until it is regarded by the populace as a periah. However, when the next shoe drops (in this sense, Argentina is a centipede or millipede), that philosophy (recently run out of town) will be blamed for whatever problems the govt has created. When all else fails, you will see articles about the Malvinas, splashed upon all of the media.
The current default is merely another act in the theater of the absurd. Kicillof shows up at the final moment, offers what is already known to be unacceptable and leaves. Miraculously, the "private" banking industry steps in and agrees to purchase all of the bonds at a price the govt can't pay without triggering the RUFO provisions of the exchange notes. Oddly, the RUFO rights expire this December. I am certain that the Argentine banks won't get a sweet deal from the govt for stepping in. Who pays for this? The people, of course.
I think that this quote from [URL]zerohedge.com[/URL] sums up Argentina's stance quite accurately:
[URL]http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-30/how-argentina-became-bad-debtor[/URL]
[QUOTE]Try to explain to your bank that since it was you who squandered your earnings for more than a decade, you have the right to not pay the mortgage with which you purchased your home.
When the bank takes you to court for not paying your mortgage, explain to the judge that you are a poor victim of evil money vultures and that you have the right to ignore creditors because you couldnt be bothered with changing your unsustainable spending habits.
When the judge rules against you, try to explain to the world in international newspapers how the decision of the judge is an injustice that endangers the international banking market (as the Argentine government has been doing recently).[/QUOTE]
I love Kicillof saying that this isn't a default because Argentina "paid" the interest payment. He leaves out the fact that Argentina knew full well that Griesa had enjoined BNY from forwarding any funds to the exchange note holders. That is like missing a mortgage payment because you left the money, for the bank, in an envelope that you buried in the back yard and sent the bank a note letting them know what you've done. Bonds have very explicit terms and conditions that are spelled out in the prospectus just like a home mortgage gives explicit instructions on how the bank will be repaid. The simple fact is that Argentina defaulted on its bonds and then only resolved the issue with 95% of the owners of those bonds (you know, the people who got screwed, investing in Argentina). The only problem is that the original agreement (the bonds on which the country defaulted in '01) applied to 100% of the bond holders and there were not provisions that would force the 5% to go along with the majority. Therefore, in '05 and '10, Argentina did not resolve its bond issues. It did a partial job and it left a very big problem unaddressed. The entire issue is based upon Argentina not standing up to the agreements to which it had previously committed.
What is most galling is that Kicillof then goes out and says that they can't address the legal claims (which Argentina claims are not rightfully theirs, despite the courts saying otherwise) of the holdouts because, they (the Govt) are so altruistic and honorable that they can't violate the terms of the agreements into which they entered in '05 and '10. So, they are committed to standing up to the obligations of the government, except for those instances that they are not willing to stand behind their obligations. Well, that makes sense...in Argentina.
I guarantee you that the "private" banks will get huge rewards, come next year and the 95% that holds the exchange notes will sue, claiming that the govt acted in bad faith and in collusion with the "private" banks and that they in fact did violate the RUFO, prior to 12,31, 2014 and therefore the entire class of exchange bonds is due equal treatment. When that shoe gets dropped, the sh*t is going to hit the fan. My guess is that after years of litigation, the 95% will win and Argentina will have $30B (or so) judgement handed down for the shenanigans that they are trying to pull off, now.
"Argentina Default Imminent as Talks Collapse".
[URL]http://online.wsj.com/articles/argentina-bonds-rise-to-multiyear-highs-on-prospect-of-deal-1406728458[/URL]
First off it was Argentina who offered the originally defaulted bonds in New York, knowing full well they would be subject to New York statutes governing such sales. Second it was Argentina that set the terms of those bonds. Now they come back complaining about the judge and laws in New York and about the terms and conditions of the bonds THEY DRAFTED AND SOLD.
In this article Why Argentina's default feels like American bullying, Don Pittis he tries to explain why maybe Argentina has a leg to stand on.
[URL]http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/why-argentina-s-default-feels-like-american-bullying-don-pittis-1.2724389[/URL]
Then he wrote this.
[QUOTE]In some ways it is disappointing that the New York courts have thrown their support behind the vultures and against the country trying to get its financial house in order.[/QUOTE]"Getting it's financial house in order," LOL.
Thanks for the laugh Don.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;440664]First off it was Argentina who offered the originally defaulted bonds in New York, knowing full well they would be subject to New York statutes governing such sales. Second it was Argentina that set the terms of those bonds. Now they come back complaining about the judge and laws in New York and about the terms and conditions of the bonds THEY DRAFTED AND SOLD.[/QUOTE]And to add...
10 years ago, Argentina could have bought the very same bonds, at the exact same distressed price that the so called "Vultures" bought them, this being a common tactic exercised by financially distressed corporations.
Instead, Argentina decided to play a game of chicken in the New York State courts, apparently banking (no pun intended) on the idea that said courts would be as easily manipulated by political pressure and public opinion as the courts in Argentina.
They lost that gamble.
Thanks,
Jax.
[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;440674]In this article Why Argentina's default feels like American bullying, Don Pittis he tries to explain why maybe Argentina has a leg to stand on.
[URL]http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/why-argentina-s-default-feels-like-american-bullying-don-pittis-1.2724389[/URL]
Then he wrote this.
"Getting it's financial house in order," LOL.
Thanks for the laugh Don.[/QUOTE]They are trying to give the impression that they are trying to get their act together. But that is only so they can BORROW MORE MONEY! All they are doing is postponing payments on capital and paying on interest for now. They have some big payments coming up in the coming years when they HOPE they will be better off financially and will be able to pay. Of course every one knows that is a dream.
The part here that is truly outrageous is the judge's action to block the interest payments to the other bondholders. Argentina has the money to make those payments, but the judge blocked it, and further declared it illegal for anyone to help facilitate those payments. All in an attempt to strong-arm Argentina into paying the holdout funds. How does the judge get that kind of power? It's ridiculous. I am sure the other bondholders are pleased at getting their payments blocked.
Decisions like this support Argentina's claim that the judge is biased, and that the "talks" being ordered amount to extortion. Not surprisingly, the judge Thomas Griesa is a life-long Republican, appointed by a Republican president. And the holdouts are led by hedge fund titan Paul Singer, a conservative billionaire who has given millions of dollars to Bush and Romney.
The holdout funds do have a legal claim to their payment. But given the circumstances, the rulings of the judge go beyond the pale. He knows about the RUFO clause, but still insisted on forcing Argentina into default.
Wall Street is playing both sides here. The ISDA just determined that a credit event occured, triggering up to $1 Billion in payments on insurance that protects against default. Who sits on the ISDA committee? Singer's company and large US banks. How convenient. Who bought the insurance? Singer and large US banks? Somewhere in the US today, some very wealthy people are very pleased with judge Griesa. On Wall Street, it doesn't matter who gets hurt, as long as there is profit to be made.
[QUOTE=Esten;440689]The part here that is truly outrageous is the judge's action to block the interest payments to the other bondholders. Argentina has the money to make those payments, but the judge blocked it, and further declared it illegal for anyone to help facilitate those payments. All in an attempt to strong-arm Argentina into paying the holdout funds. How does the judge get that kind of power? It's ridiculous. I am sure the other bondholders are pleased at getting their payments blocked.
[/QUOTE][i]Law...is the opium of the masses, a mere construct devised by the bourgeois class to subjugate the proletariat[/i] - Karl Marx, the Communist Manifesto, 1848
[i]In his Tuesday speech, Axel Kicillof[/i] (Marxist Minister of the Economy who's "negotiating" with bondholders on behalf of Argentina)[i] mocked the concept of the "rule of law," saying this was designed to protect big business.[/i] -Reuters, April 20, 2012