Printable View
[QUOTE=QuakHunter]Please send your $250.00 to Quakhunter Online University.[/QUOTE]The check is in the mail!
Damn Quak, you did not get your check? Hell, you have got to get on this band-wagon before it quits playing: "Money For Nothing." Returned to Gringo Land Sunday, and there it was.
In all honesty, did think it was a little ridiculous, but what is an old fart like me to do? Take the money and run.
[QUOTE=Damman]The check is in the mail!
Damn Quak, you did not get your check? Hell, you have got to get on this band-wagon before it quits playing: "Money For Nothing." Returned to Gringo Land Sunday, and there it was.
In all honesty, did think it was a little ridiculous, but what is an old fart like me to do? Take the money and run.[/QUOTE]That's Capitalism at work and I applaud it!
Suerte
That $250 is the "freebie" the crack dealer gives you the first time in order to get you hooked.
It is tough to refuse if it's just sitting there on the dining room table when you open your mail. Hmm.$250. I could buy an ipod, have one room in the house painted or perhaps donate it to Acorn. But then you start thinking about STIMULUS. That $250 today is approximately AR$925 which could be put to stimulative uses such as (approximately) 13 half hour trips to 343 Uraguay, 9 half hour visits to 1707 Ste Fe, 3.7 hour sessions (cola included) at 1633 Junin, or 1 night out at Madahos. Hard to pass up that little "gift" sitting there when you think of what you could do with it. All of which seems very stimulative. Until you look deeper.
Out of one US tax dollar, less than 5% is spent on programs such as this. Therefore, at best, that $250 started off as $5,000 (AR$18,500) in the hands of the taxpayers, from whom it was extra-constitutionally confiscated. Had it been left in the hands of its righful owners (not according to BHO) it would translate into 264 half hour trips to 343 Uraguay, 185 half hour visits to 1707 Ste Fe, 74 hour sessions (cola included) at 1633 Junin, or 20 night out at Madahos. Now that is what I would call stimulus. So much so, that no more stiumulation would be needed (at least for a little while)
The only thing that gets really stimulated in the first case is the expansion of government. There is no defensible logic (consitent with the Constitution) whereby it makes sense to run dollars through the government apparatus in order to give it back to the 'taxpayers' so that they can spend it to stimulate the economy. Americans love to spend, leave a dollar with an earner and you will get a $0.95 of spending (accounting savings) give a dollar to the government and you will lose $0.95 in the bureacracy and get $0.05 of actual spending.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]That $250 is the "freebie" the crack dealer gives you the first time in order to get you hooked.
It is tough to refuse if it's just sitting there on the dining room table when you open your mail. Hmm.$250. I could buy an ipod, have one room in the house painted or perhaps donate it to Acorn. But then you start thinking about STIMULUS. That $250 today is approximately AR$925 which could be put to stimulative uses such as (approximately) 13 half hour trips to 343 Uraguay, 9 half hour visits to 1707 Ste Fe, 3.7 hour sessions (cola included) at 1633 Junin, or 1 night out at Madahos. Hard to pass up that little "gift" sitting there when you think of what you could do with it. All of which seems very stimulative. Until you look deeper.
Out of one US tax dollar, less than 5% is spent on programs such as this. Therefore, at best, that $250 started off as $5,000 (AR$18,500) in the hands of the taxpayers, from whom it was extra-constitutionally confiscated. Had it been left in the hands of its righful owners (not according to BHO) it would translate into 264 half hour trips to 343 Uraguay, 185 half hour visits to 1707 Ste Fe, 74 hour sessions (cola included) at 1633 Junin, or 20 night out at Madahos. Now that is what I would call stimulus. So much so, that no more stiumulation would be needed (at least for a little while)
The only thing that gets really stimulated in the first case is the expansion of government. There is no defensible logic (consitent with the Constitution) whereby it makes sense to run dollars through the government apparatus in order to give it back to the 'taxpayers' so that they can spend it to stimulate the economy. Americans love to spend, leave a dollar with an earner and you will get a $0.95 of spending (accounting savings) give a dollar to the government and you will lose $0.95 in the bureacracy and get $0.05 of actual spending.[/QUOTE]Next to Grouper, Walleye is my favorite fish.
Great job.
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a74AVZeo8ndw[/url]
[QUOTE=QuakHunter]Next to Grouper, Walleye is my favorite fish.
Great job.[/QUOTE]Like this?
[QUOTE=Sidney]''Nationalizations, lack of credible government, dubious capital repatriation scheme, high level of debt and slowing growth, lack of consumer demand and private investment, denial of high inflation, and corruption.'' ---BA Herald[/QUOTE]After I read denial of high inflation (which is not so high anymore) I found out you were talking about Argentina and not of the US.
[QUOTE=Joe Hernandez]After I read denial of high inflation (which is not so high anymore) I found out you were talking about Argentina and not of the US.[/QUOTE]Very true, but just wait one year or two and you ll see inflation kick in in the US at double digits. This is the only way to balance their accounts and pay back their creditors with funny money. Long term interest rates are already rising even tho the economy is still in recession.
[QUOTE=MataHari]Very true, but just wait one year or two and you ll see inflation kick in in the US at double digits. This is the only way to balance their accounts and pay back their creditors with funny money. Long term interest rates are already rising even tho the economy is still in recession.[/QUOTE]But the US would not invent those figures, atleast they have not done this untill now and I doubt they ever will.
I do think that the USA does have other things to worry about then high inflation in 2011.
[QUOTE=Joe Hernandez]But the US would not invent those figures, atleast they have not done this untill now and I doubt they ever will.
I do think that the USA does have other things to worry about then high inflation in 2011.[/QUOTE]Indeed, long term unemployment is not organised there to avoid social unrest. 2 years with an unemployment rate over 10% would lead to serious anger, in a country where holding weapons is a constitutional right.
[QUOTE=MataHari]Indeed, long term unemployment is not organised there to avoid social unrest. 2 years with an unemployment rate over 10% would lead to serious anger, in a country where holding weapons is a constitutional right.[/QUOTE]Matahari, with all due respect, that is by far the dumbest post I have read herein.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Matahari, with all due respect, that is by far the dumbest post I have read herein.[/QUOTE]This is inevitable, we are all the "dumb" of somebody. Valid arguments might help me understand your point of view tho.
Isn't that the reality in most of the rust belt?
Matahari, I don't know where you're from. I want to say that most people who are not from the US can't understand why we support the right to bear arms. It may seem like chaos or anarchy.
But the foundation for that system is supposed to be, along with self-defense, to give the government something to think about.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson.
The problem is that the US government has gotten too big for an armed insurection by its populace, most likely. However, I wouldn't give up that right for anything.
And look at the Great Depression in the US. People weren't exactly going nuts in and killing each other in the streets. It went on a helluva lot longer than two years.
This is not that bad, tourism is going down but Argentina is probally doing better then most of the rest of the world.
[QUOTE=El Queso]And look at the Great Depression in the US. People weren't exactly going nuts in and killing each other in the streets. It went on a helluva lot longer than two years.[/QUOTE]The 30s are also known in the north american history for the emergence of the crime industry.
In southern states, kidnapping is developping fast. Even in repressive environment (record inprisonment rate in western democracies) it s easily understandable that the threat of misery can lead desperate armed individuals to criminal acts. Since they don't have anything left to loose.
In Japan for example, known for the discipline of its population and respect for authority, ruined pensioneers are turning hoolingans. Nothing comparable to gang criminality, but a simple expression of despair due to becoming outcasts, undesired in the society they contributed to build. Imagine if weapons were easily accessible.
[QUOTE=MataHari]The 30s are also known in the north american history for the emergence of the crime industry.[/QUOTE]Not all over the country - in the northeast predominantly. And many of those grew out of prohibition and other illegal activies, starting in the 20s. The Depression helped it along, sure. Wasn't the reason for it. And look at Vegas in the mid-40s, particularly in the 60s and 70s - well after the Depression. Or mob violence in southern Florida in the 60s and 70s after Castro took over Cuba. Again not depression-related, nor desparate citizens looking for a way out.
[QUOTE=MataHari]In southern states, kidnapping is developping fast. Even in repressive environment (record inprisonment rate in western democracies) it s easily understandable that the threat of misery can lead desperate armed individuals to criminal acts. Since they don't have anything left to loose.[/QUOTE]Well, in the South adjacent to Mexico, yes. And it has nothing to do with desparate times, it has a lot to do with the drug war that is going on and has been going on sometime. And it's being done by drug cartels, not desparate citizens trying to figure out a way to get money.
[QUOTE=MataHari]In Japan for example, known for the discipline of its population and respect for authority, ruined pensioneers are turning hoolingans. Nothing comparable to gang criminality, but a simple expression of despair due to becoming outcasts, undesired in the society they contributed to build. Imagine if weapons were easily accessible.[/QUOTE]I don't know about this - I haven't seen anything on it. However, I'd say maybe that's more a sample of what happens when a society is too restrictive and in bad times doesn't have a better outlet. I really couldn't imagine old pensioners in the US roaming the streets like hooligans (really can't imagine it in Japan either)
There has been high inflation since 2006.
Some interesting things going on with Argentina's oil industry: China's CNPC, Cnooc Group Said to Seek Stake in Repsol's YPF.
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aZq2xVbh.Gt4[/url]
Analysts seem to be at a loss for why CNPC would be interested in doing business in Argentina and purchasing Repsol YPF: earnings cap of $42 per barrel of oil exported, with any revenue above that amount collected as taxes. Ever wonder why no one wishes to invest in Argentina?
[url]http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10001581/chinas-cnpc-eyes-repsol-ypfs-argentine-arm/[/url]
YPF (Argentine National Oil Company) went private a few years back and the deal was brokered by Nestor Kirchner when he was Governor. Plus, a major holder of YPF is Enrique Eskenazi, personal friend of Nestor Kirchner and is known as the banker for Kirchner. Something is amiss, China buys an oil company in a country that limits exports? Cannot help but think the Kirchners got their fingers in this deal and are about to join the unemployed politicians in Switzerland.
It's too bad Zelaya's plane was refused permission to land. It would have been real interesting to see what Micheletti would have done with Cristina, as he had previously threatened consequences of some sort for whoever accompanied Zelaya if he tried to return.
The funny thing is, it doesn't seem to matter what Zelaya wants in relation to buddying up to Chavez, it doesn't appear that it's going to happen even if he could somehow change the constitution. Hell, he can't even get back into his country after being exiled.
As far Honduras itself, I'm not sure which side of this to be on. I don't know the Honduras constitution, and whether what their supreme court did was illegal or not, but it was supposedly the civilian branch of the government that booted Zelaya when the supreme court asked the military to do it. And a congressman (Micheletti) was named interim president by civilian authority. Was it legal? Does it matter in this case?
Aside from Zelaya actually being removed from the country, it was a pretty seamless transfer of power, which is good for a former military dictatorship, and I don't think there's any reason to believe they won't hold the elections in November that they were going to have anyway, another seamless transfer of power.
I don't know that the US and the world should be on Zelaya's side in this. It's obvious he was trying to pull a Chavez, and as Sidney notes in his mention of the poll of citizens, the people DO NOT want that at all. I can understand us maybe saying they should have arrested Zelaya and tried him, if he really was guilty of all that drug dealing and such. But that gives even more reason for the world to recognize Micheletti as the rightful interim president.
Of course, Cristina wants to be seen as a power somewhere, since she's obviously no longer much of a power in her own country. And I'm sure she's earning browney points with her buddy Chavez for accomanying Zelaya in attempting to land. Chavez doesn't have the balls to do it, and anyway probably is terrified to leave his country in case someone should rise and up and keep HIM from landing on return. And on top of that, none of them actually thought they would land, it's just show-boating and claim-making.
[QUOTE=Damman]Analysts seem to be at a loss for why CNPC would be interested in doing business in Argentina and purchasing Repsol YPF: earnings cap of $42 per barrel of oil exported, with any revenue above that amount collected as taxes. [/QUOTE]China's smart. Buy low, sell high. In all likelihood, it's not going to get any worse than this unless Argentina turns to Chavez-style nationalization, and even then they would be unlikely to mess with the Chinese plus even Chavez pays compensation when he nationalizes.
The tax right now is for revenue above $42/ barrel. The key words there are "right now" -- with the current, disfavored administration that won't likely retain power after 2011. What would the tax be in 2012 if China bought an oil company and got involved in politicking? Then what would the company be worth?
I'm definitely out of my element here. I don't know Argentine politics very well. Perhaps there's a national attachment to a tax above $42/ barrel. But, experience elsewhere suggests that these things are "lobby-able," especially when money is involved.
Finally, as to the Honduran situation, the Wall Street Journal had a decent editorial piece: WSJ. Com - Opinion: The Wages of Chavismo - [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124640649700876791.html[/url]
I'm not usually a big fan of their editorial stuff, but this one was all right.
Finally, finally, thanks to Sid for the article on California's impending default. It will be interesting. I didn't know this, but apparently it is unconstitutional for a State to declare bankruptcy. That will limit California's options even further.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]China's smart. Buy low, sell high. In all likelihood, it's not going to get any worse than this unless Argentina turns to Chavez-style nationalization, and even then they would be unlikely to mess with the Chinese plus even Chavez pays compensation when he nationalizes. [/QUOTE]Repsol's annual report does not paint a pretty picture for YPF: reserves and production are declining. I cannot see why anyone would buy this dog other than they know something. Do not think China is a buy and sell deal when it comes to natural resources. The one thing I do know, doing business in Argentina is one big pain in the ass for International Corporations.
[quote]BUENOS AIRES (Dow Jones)--Argentine energy company YPF SA (YPF) painted a bleak picture of operating in Argentina in its latest annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
"The Argentine government exercises significant influence over the economy," YPF said Wednesday in its filing.
The firm, which has most of its operations in Argentina, cited a long list of legal, regulatory and operating uncertainties which might damage its finances in the future.
It told investors in its securities it cannot offer assurances that government decisions won't harm its operations and that, as the government seeks to boost a flagging economy, it may take further action that could hurt the Argentine oil and gas industry.
With most economists saying the Argentine economy is in deep recession, YPF said the economy "may not continue to grow at current rates or may contract in the future." Sustained inflation could drive up YPF's operating costs, especially wages, and the firm may not be able to raise prices to keep up, it said.
During the 2001-2002 crisis, the Argentine government devalued the currency and froze utility rates. Oil and gas investment and production slowed, while a number of companies had contracts with overseas customers, which were paying far higher prices than the local market, leading to shortages in Argentina.
As a result, the government decided to "give absolute priority to domestic supply at low, stable prices in order to sustain economic recovery," YPF said. That has become a major source of disruption.
On days when there are shortages, YPF has to cut back supplies to higher-paying customers to ensure deliveries to residential consumers at lower prices, the report said.
YPF has had to cut back some of its exports, leading to legal disputes with overseas customers, it said. The firm said it believes the government intervention constitutes "force majeure" which allows it to break contract terms, "although no assurance can be given that this position will prevail" in court.
YPF said it can't pass on all of the increases in international oil and fuel prices, or increase local natural gas, gasoline and diesel prices even though sometimes it has to import fuels to meet demand.
It faces higher taxes on exports and restrictions on export volumes, to ensure domestic demand is met, which have already harmed its financial position, YPF said.
A law passed in January 2007 transferred ownership of hydrocarbon reservoirs to provincial governments, opening up a new level of provincial as well as federal uncertainty, YPF said.
The company said there aren't any assurances the government won't make exchange and capital controls stricter.
The firm said its reserves and production are declining. Proved reserves fell 18.8% in the last two years, and it replaced about 32.7% of production with new proved reserves during 2008. Daily production last year fell 4.1% from 2007. It's trying to mitigate those declines by improving technology at maturing fields and undertaking deepwater exploration for new fields.
The firm said it's facing "intense competition" in bidding for crude oil and natural gas production areas from a host of new government-controlled companies, including the new federal company, Energia Argentina SA, or Enarsa, as well as companies set up by provincial governments in La Pampa, Neuquen and Chubut.
Labor demands, meanwhile, "are commonplace in Argentina's energy sector" and unionized workers have blocked access to and damaged its plants in the recent past, YPF said.
Spain's Repsol YPF SA (REP) owns about 84% of YPF while local Argentine group Petersen Energia SA owns about 15.5%. Petersen has an option to buy another 10% from Repsol.[/quote]
Perhaps they worry that something similar might happen to them at some point.
Mao said it best, political power flows from the barrel of a gun. Ceasar said the Roman Legions are what make the law legal. It was true then just as it is true now. Food for thought.
Thanks Damman. But, to this investor's eye, that is the perfect time for an investment. If the current owners / stockholders can't see past tomorrow, they'll sell for a low price. If 2011 brings a new administration -- or at least the same administration but one that is more amenable to changing its policies -- then this sort of investment could pay off quite handsomely.
My point isn't that China wants to both buy low and sell high. My point was that China would want to buy low. When an industry is beaten up due to over-regulation, and a new approach may be around the corner, then that's the time to buy. Perhaps China can't negotiate a new approach to oil and gas regulation with the Kirchners. And, perhaps the Kirchners won't be around anymore after 2011. Then, how many of those risk factors and obstacles in the extract below go away? I don't know. But there's a good chance things will change.
Regardless, though, I think China is most interested in locking up sources of long-term supply. If Argentina can help with that, and China has cash, I'm sure a deal can be worked out. We'll see. Should be interesting.
[QUOTE=Damman]Repsol's annual report does not paint a pretty picture for YPF: reserves and production are declining. I cannot see why anyone would buy this dog other than they know something. Do not think China is a buy and sell deal when it comes to natural resources. The one thing I do know, doing business in Argentina is one big pain in the ass for International Corporations.
BUENOS AIRES (Dow Jones)--Argentine energy company YPF SA (YPF) painted a bleak picture of operating in Argentina in its latest annual report filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
"The Argentine government exercises significant influence over the economy," YPF said Wednesday in its filing.
The firm, which has most of its operations in Argentina, cited a long list of legal, regulatory and operating uncertainties which might damage its finances in the future.
It told investors in its securities it cannot offer assurances that government decisions won't harm its operations and that, as the government seeks to boost a flagging economy, it may take further action that could hurt the Argentine oil and gas industry.
With most economists saying the Argentine economy is in deep recession, YPF said the economy "may not continue to grow at current rates or may contract in the future." Sustained inflation could drive up YPF's operating costs, especially wages, and the firm may not be able to raise prices to keep up, it said.
During the 2001-2002 crisis, the Argentine government devalued the currency and froze utility rates. Oil and gas investment and production slowed, while a number of companies had contracts with overseas customers, which were paying far higher prices than the local market, leading to shortages in Argentina.
As a result, the government decided to "give absolute priority to domestic supply at low, stable prices in order to sustain economic recovery," YPF said. That has become a major source of disruption.
On days when there are shortages, YPF has to cut back supplies to higher-paying customers to ensure deliveries to residential consumers at lower prices, the report said.
YPF has had to cut back some of its exports, leading to legal disputes with overseas customers, it said. The firm said it believes the government intervention constitutes "force majeure" which allows it to break contract terms, "although no assurance can be given that this position will prevail" in court.
YPF said it can't pass on all of the increases in international oil and fuel prices, or increase local natural gas, gasoline and diesel prices even though sometimes it has to import fuels to meet demand.
It faces higher taxes on exports and restrictions on export volumes, to ensure domestic demand is met, which have already harmed its financial position, YPF said.
A law passed in January 2007 transferred ownership of hydrocarbon reservoirs to provincial governments, opening up a new level of provincial as well as federal uncertainty, YPF said.
The company said there aren't any assurances the government won't make exchange and capital controls stricter.
The firm said its reserves and production are declining. Proved reserves fell 18.8% in the last two years, and it replaced about 32.7% of production with new proved reserves during 2008. Daily production last year fell 4.1% from 2007. It's trying to mitigate those declines by improving technology at maturing fields and undertaking deepwater exploration for new fields.
The firm said it's facing "intense competition" in bidding for crude oil and natural gas production areas from a host of new government-controlled companies, including the new federal company, Energia Argentina SA, or Enarsa, as well as companies set up by provincial governments in La Pampa, Neuquen and Chubut.
Labor demands, meanwhile, "are commonplace in Argentina's energy sector" and unionized workers have blocked access to and damaged its plants in the recent past, YPF said.
Spain's Repsol YPF SA (REP) owns about 84% of YPF while local Argentine group Petersen Energia SA owns about 15.5%. Petersen has an option to buy another 10% from Repsol.[/QUOTE]
If I am correctly investing in Argentina petrol was pretty rewarding in most of the 90's. Maybe those times return with the election of let's say Macri or the Rodriguez Saá clan. Then it's a good time to buy and China has enough bargain power on Argentina to force them to design rewarding legislation for Chinese companies
From the guys on the ground. My cousin's family is planning to visit BA next week and would like some straight info on the effect of the swine flu on tourist venues and activities. Are the theaters and shops closed, are restaurants busy (taking into account it is winter) Will festivals be well-attended, the streets be bustling, museums open? They are also planning side trips to Uruguay and Chile. What is the status there, and is there screening of travelers?
I'd very much appreciate some firsthand information. I told them I had "sources".
[QUOTE=BA Luvr]From the guys on the ground. My cousin's family is planning to visit BA next week and would like some straight info on the effect of the swine flu on tourist venues and activities. Are the theaters and shops closed, are restaurants busy (taking into account it is winter) Will festivals be well-attended, the streets be bustling, museums open? They are also planning side trips to Uruguay and Chile. What is the status there, and is there screening of travelers?
I'd very much appreciate some firsthand information. I told them I had "sources".[/QUOTE]As off now theaters are closed, shops are not. Festivals will probally be cancelled, the restaurants are less busy, museums untill now are open.
There is screening with flu-meters and you have fill out forms.
That's how the situation is now, this can change by the minute
Last Thursday, we were asked to wash our hands. The owner of the parilla came around with a squirt bottle of gel alcohol. Places are not crowded. There is a one-tent circus operating out of a shopping center parking lot out here in the burbs that was shut down until next week at least. I didn't realize the theaters were shut down, but I'm not surprised.
Dinner tonight at Palacio Espaņo was very sparsely occupied, at the busy hour of 10:00 pm there were only about a quarter of the seating used.
Thanks for the valuable feedback. It's much appreciated.
[quote]BUENOS AIRES (Dow Jones)--Argentina's Central Bank has issued new rules for the foreign exchange market requiring more specific information about who is sending money to and from the country.
All transactions must now carry the full name or company name, address or identification number, and account number, the central bank said in a communique published Tuesday.
The bank said it wants foreign exchange operators to seek the same information from transfers into Argentina.
The authority determined that if the information on a transaction isn't provided within a period of 20 days it must be canceled.
Local newspaper El Cronista said the bank believes the move brings Argentina into line with international norms to counter money laundering.
Foreign exchange sources said it targets tax evasion and exerts more control over currency operators, according to the report.
A representative of the Central Bank wasn't immediately available for comment.[/quote]
Does this also mean you can't change peso's to dollars that easy?
Underground market may improve: exchange rate
[quote]BUENOS AIRES (Dow Jones)--In a new bid to tighten control over the foreign-exchange market, the Argentine government will start checking the tax records of every person who tries to buy dollars, the director of the tax collection agency, AFIP, said in a radio interview Tuesday.
"We're focusing our work on tax evasion in all segments," AFIP Director Ricardo Echegaray said.
Echegaray said the government will require individuals to justify their income and prove that they have legally earned enough money to buy a certain amount of dollars or other currencies. He said AFIP has been working with the Argentine Central Bank for months to create a way of determining whether people have the justified "fiscal capacity" to participate in the exchange market.
"If you go buy dollars today, in AFIP we're going to be able to say, 'Oh, this person is buying an amount that surpasses his purchasing power.'" Echegaray said.
Though Echegaray focused on AFIP's tax-evasion aims, analysts said the new measure really aims to help the Central Bank more easily control the peso's value.
"More than anything else, this is to diminish the demand for dollars," said Fernando Izzo, an analyst and currency trader at ABC Mercado de Cambios. "I don't think it'll do much to control the market because it won't affect business demand, but will surely slow the sale of dollars to smaller retail buyers. It will slow sales at bank windows to individuals."
Over the past year especially, the Central Bank has worked with other government agencies to crack down on the market. Banks say government tax officials closely observe their transactions and often imply that if Central Bank orders aren't followed, the banks could face tax trouble.
Central Bank official say they're simply enforcing exchange-rate policies.
The monetary authority has kept tight control over the peso, making sure that its value doesn't fluctuate abruptly as have other currencies in the region.
"For now, the central bank has the currency very dominated in a band that ranges between ARS3.80 and ARS3.81 (to the U. S. Dollar)" Izzo said. "After the recent congressional election, it wanted to send a signal to the market that it could control the exchange rate."
Izzo said the peso is likely to decline slowly in value until it reaches around ARS4 or ARS4.05 by year's end.[/quote]
Since the elections the exchange rate has been stable.
The fiscal surplus has turned in a deficit, let's wait how this will end up
"By Matthew Cowley.
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES.
BUENOS AIRES (Dow Jones)--Argentina's government will accept the "consequences" of a revision of consumer inflation data going back to 1999, Economy Minister Amado Boudou said Tuesday.
The revision is part of a broad overhaul of the government statistics institute, or Indec, unveiled Tuesday to bolster the institution's credibility. The changes were issued in a decree signed by President Cristina Fernandez.
There are widespread accusations that the government meddles with the Indec data, and inflation numbers in particular. Officials have always denied the charges, saying the numbers are no less reliable than data presented."
Link: [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090721-718110.html[/url]
It's not surprising that Indec was flawed in its inflation calculus, but it is surprising (to me, anyway) that Kirchner admitted it. There are only two reasons she would do it that I can think of: (1) she really, really needs access to international credit markets and this is perceived as a way to help get there; or (2) someone else made her do it, such as Hugo Chavez.
Someone tell me: What does it mean when the government says it will "accept the consequences of a revision?" As I recall, Argentina has inflation-linked debt. Are these bonds tied to the rate published by Indec? If so, I imagine the country will owe a fair chunk of change to its creditors holding those bonds. In this case, is that Chavez? Or, were the bonds he bought dollar-denominated and not tied to Indec-tallied inflation data?