Argentine Economy

[QUOTE=BadMan]And it is your right to do so on an open forum. Obviously we disagree. All I am saying is the sky isn't falling and renegotiating debt isn't the end of the world. And the principle has already been paid twice over. I didn't say " don't pay "/ I simply said, by all means renegotiate a crappy rate. If there is one thing this global economic meltdown has taught me, is that there is room for doing things differently.[/QUOTE]Yep. Fair enough. At least guys like Correa keep things interesting.

It's one thing to say he was elected to lead, and quite another to have him drive the country off the economic cliff. I don't think he's going to get very far trying to buy his bonds back at cheap rates. He may be able to do a little of that, but the laws of supply and demand can't be suspended as easily as interest payments. If he's got some other, undisclosed plans that work, more power to him. I can't see what that might be, but Correa's the guy with the doctorate, not me. We'll see how things develop.

Personally, I'd be curious to see some of the financial media look past whether Correa had the ability to make this interest rate payment and, instead, look to whether he had the ability to roll over the bond principal payments coming due (I think) in 2010. Once Correa went on record that part of his strategy was to stiff the country's creditors, it's hard to believe that anyone would lend him the money to roll over those bonds. If that's true, and given the price of oil right now, then the country was probably going to default anyway. If anyone would lend, it would have been at very high interest rates. And, if Correa accepted those terms (which would be his only option) then he would look pretty silly, having campaigned on the notion that the lower interest rates of earlier debt were "criminal."

Even more interesting will be what happens to Venezuela if oil stays below $70 a barrel for an extended period. Cracks already are starting to appear in that iceberg. I'll bring the popcorn. It should be interesting.

Chavez Latin America Allies Escalate Rhetoric on Debt (Update1)

Email | Print | A A A.

By Joshua Goodman and Daniel Cancel.

Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- South American leaders allied with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez ratcheted up their rhetoric against foreign creditors after Ecuador's default last week, saying they're studying the legitimacy of their own debts.

Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo, speaking today at a regional summit in Brazil, said his government, like Ecuador, will "exhaustively study" its debt, and Bolivia's President Evo Morales said multilateral lenders should compensate their third- world borrowers. Chavez, while supporting his allies' posture on debt, said Venezuela isn't reconsidering its obligations.

"We need to see if there's ethical value in paying debt that wasn't utilized for public good," Lugo told reporters today at the conclusion of the summit at a beach resort in Bahia state.

Lugo and Morales' attack on foreign creditors follows the decision by Ecuador's President Rafael Correa last week to default on $3.9 billion of foreign debt. An audit commission appointed by Correa said the bonds were riddled with irregularities and illegality. The leaders today went a step further, with Lugo, Morales and Correa saying debts created by military dictatorships to implement "neoliberal," or free market, policies should be canceled.

Full article

[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aya2oOuohVug&refer=news[/url]

Mongers,

I actually tend to agree with the notion that debts incurred by non-legitimate governments (defined as not elected) should not have to be paid back in full or possibly at all. How can the people of a nation-state be held to account for loans acquired by a government they did not choose? Furthermore, the people of these nation-states had absolutely no say in how these funds were allocated. In every one of these cases, large amounts of the funds were siphoned off to corrupt officials of said non-legitimate governments. The buyers of third world debt should realize the implicit risks of buying bonds at exorbinant interests rates from military dictatorships, and should not be surprised when they get fucked out of some or all of their money.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers,

I actually tend to agree with the notion that debts incurred by non-legitimate governments (defined as not elected) should not have to be paid back in full or possibly at all. How can the people of a nation-state be held to account for loans acquired by a government they did not choose? Furthermore, the people of these nation-states had absolutely no say in how these funds were allocated. In every one of these cases, large amounts of the funds were siphoned off to corrupt officials of said non-legitimate governments. The buyers of third world debt should realize the implicit risks of buying bonds at exorbinant interests rates from military dictatorships, and should not be surprised when they get fucked out of some or all of their money.

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]Not to mention the moral baggage of being the ones financially propping up these military dictatorships.

Very good points RH, my thoughts exactly.

Regards,

BM.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers-

I actually tend to agree with the notion that debts incurred by non-legitimate governments (defined as not elected) should not have to be paid back in full or possibly at all. How can the people of a nation-state be held to account for loans acquired by a government they did not choose? Furthermore, the people of these nation-states had absolutely no say in how these funds were allocated. In every one of these cases, large amounts of the funds were siphoned off to corrupt officials of said non-legitimate governments. The buyers of third world debt should realize the implicit risks of buying bonds at exorbinant interests rates from military dictatorships, and should not be surprised when they get fucked out of some or all of their money.

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]If enough countries defaulted on debt incurred by non-elected dictators would that tend to cause these credit streams to dry up and perhaps stop some of these guys from seeking power in nation grabbing because there wouldn't be any money in it?

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]If enough countries defaulted on debt incurred by non-elected dictators would that tend to cause these credit streams to dry up and perhaps stop some of these guys from seeking power in nation grabbing because there wouldn't be any money in it?[/QUOTE]Most of the opinions about repudiating debt obligations incurred by dictatorships are just that. Opinions. Reality is that few, if any, loans are advanced to unstable countries. The current governments in South America trying their dammedest to wriggle out of sovereign debt obligations incurred by previous administrations, are few. And surprise, surprise; the administrations that agreed to the debt were legitimate governments by Rockharders definition. These countries are Argentina, Bolivia and now Equador. I think the Bolivian and Equadoran politicians are playing to their local audience and as Argentina has found to its cost, the other options to legitimate, bonafide sovereign loans are few and far between. Charvez is the only 'loanshark' in this neck of the woods and he is charging usurious rates.

Oportunistas all! But they'll get theirs! Both Chavez and the borrowers. Just wait and see.

Argento

Chavez rattled his sabre very loudly about his perfect society and the evil US as oil was riding the wave to $150.00 a barrel. But then again he rattled it loudly at $40.00. Difference here is he could fund his promises to everyone at $100.00 to $130.00; at $40.00 with the inefficiencies in his perfect society he can barely cover the cost of production. I wonder if the Russian Navy had gas money to get back home after their exercises to protect Venezuela from the Mexican Armada; Putin's revenue fell by 40% while the Comrades were on a vacation cruise. (I Saw Sean Connery on a Russian Sub; very cool)

Since he has screwed almost every partner that helped establish a semi-successful oil industry in his move towards Socialism; capital for expansion, modernization and operations is going to dry up. It's kind of like a man with a nice car that can't afford the gas to get to work. The car doesn't run and the boss (The People) gets a new employee to run the business. So low oil revenue means no money to fund new hospitals in Uruguay / Paraguay let alone his Sunday TV show and new "Cities of the Future" that no one wants to live in anyway.

Where will the next suitcase of cash for CFK come from? The fact of the matter is if you borrow money and die, your estate is liable for your debts (Unless you have Johnnie Cochran, RIP as your Attorney. Did OJ really cut his wife's head off?) It seems to me the same principle applies here.

It is the age old story; Capitalism prevails because the people can't stand pain regardless of ideals. The great part is all of the young, middle class idealist kids throughout the world talking on mommy and daddys' mobile phone and drinking $4.00 Starbuck crapuccinos and living in comfort will break out their new T-Shirts with Che's picture on it and talk about the oppression of the people and the cycle starts all over again.

This is good because they go broke on their ideals and have to become prostitutes to support themselves. This increases the supply and mediates demand, thus making the price go down or quality go up.

This is the basis of my PHD studies of "Trickle In" economics.

Bottom line; if you don't want your women to become hookers let's keep the price of oil low.

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]If enough countries defaulted on debt incurred by non-elected dictators would that tend to cause these credit streams to dry up and perhaps stop some of these guys from seeking power in nation grabbing because there wouldn't be any money in it?[/QUOTE]

Lol @ all the wishful thinking in this thread.

Regards,

BM.

[QUOTE=QuakHunter]It is the age old story; Capitalism prevails because the people can't stand pain regardless of ideals. The great part is all of the young, middle class idealist kids throughout the world talking on mommy and daddys' mobile phone and drinking $4.00 Starbuck crapuccinos and living in comfort will break out their new T-Shirts with Che's picture on it and talk about the oppression of the people and the cycle starts all over again.[/QUOTE]LOL. Now [B]that[/B] is funny. My belief, though, is that capitalism prevails because people want the opportunity to get rich. Few will succeed. But, the [I]prospect[/I] of getting rich gets people to participate and believe in the system, which legitimizes it and keeps it going.

Socialism fails because, despite all of the idealistic talk, people don't really want equality. They want the opportunity to do [I]better[/I] than their fellow man. With state-sponsored equality, many eventually find that they can stop "trying" yet still be equal to their fellow man, which undermines that system and eventually destroys it.

Then you've got these others, like the Kirchners, Chavez and Correa. They also want to be rich. But they do so by selling socialist concepts of "justice" and "equality" to the people, taking office, and then looting the country. It is funny when these types try to claim that debt incurred by previous administrations is somehow illegitimate such that they should not have to pay. They do so in the name of "justice" or "fairness." What really happens, however, is that if they default their countries will be branded for many years to come as bad credit risks and unstable economies. Then, the people really will suffer.

Ecuador will be a good example of this. Pre-default, the country may have labored to a small degree to meet very manageable debt obligations. Post-default, let's see if we can tell whether its citizens' lives improve or decline. They'll be free of the yoke of the "unjust" debt. Yet, in five years, I bet the answer will be stark.

By then, my guess is that Correa and his comrades will have looted all they could and been forced from office, and a new band of looters will hold power. But, who knows? The Kirchners have kept their grip on power in Argentina despite their earlier default, and Nestor continues to loot the country to this day. We shall see.

Stanley the Adult Male,

You get extra credit for the spot on analysis of the virtues of captalism.

In my years of academic studies I feel the hope for the members of this board is that an increasing, cheap supply of nubile young females (Over the age of 21) will avail themselves of the profession.

Using true supply and demand as the guiding principle, Viagra / Cialis / Levitra has stiffened many aging dicks and put an increase on demand.

To put it in formula:

V+CI+LEV / PENI x N = Higher Cost for Pussy.

By putting the formula:

Less $ (socialist economy) x puta / N = Higher supply of hookers.

We can increase supply with more socialism and my mongering budget is saved.

In another lesson I will argue the economic benefits of government subsidized breast enhancements as a social benefit. I'm waiting on my grant money from Obama to start this valuable work. My hypothesis is this: ugly parents make ugly kids. I'm also doing some advanced reading of some 1930's German pamphlets on genetic improvements to help with a solution to this problem. We need quality chicas with increasing supply; quality with quantity is good for everyone.

Viva la revolucion!

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]LOL. Now [B]that[/B] is funny. My belief, though, is that capitalism prevails because people want the opportunity to get rich. Few will succeed. But, the [I]prospect[/I] of getting rich gets people to participate and believe in the system, which legitimizes it and keeps it going.

Socialism fails because, despite all of the idealistic talk, people don't really want equality. They want the opportunity to do [I]better[/I] than their fellow man. With state-sponsored equality, many eventually find that they can stop "trying" yet still be equal to their fellow man, which undermines that system and eventually destroys it.

Then you've got these others, like the Kirchners, Chavez and Correa. They also want to be rich. But they do so by selling socialist concepts of "justice" and "equality" to the people, taking office, and then looting the country. It is funny when these types try to claim that debt incurred by previous administrations is somehow illegitimate such that they should not have to pay. They do so in the name of "justice" or "fairness." What really happens, however, is that if they default their countries will be branded for many years to come as bad credit risks and unstable economies. Then, the people really will suffer.

Ecuador will be a good example of this. Pre-default, the country may have labored to a small degree to meet very manageable debt obligations. Post-default, let's see if we can tell whether its citizens' lives improve or decline. They'll be free of the yoke of the "unjust" debt. Yet, in five years, I bet the answer will be stark.

By then, my guess is that Correa and his comrades will have looted all they could and been forced from office, and a new band of looters will hold power. But, who knows? The Kirchners have kept their grip on power in Argentina despite their earlier default, and Nestor continues to loot the country to this day. We shall see.[/QUOTE]

And fundamental to the way human beings function. Stan's generalization likely holds true for all cultures and points in history. There a book that I was forced to read in graduate school over 1000 pages in poorly translate german that said more or less the same thing. Stan, you are the man! You said it all in a few phrases!

The problem with socialist and commie governments is the fact that none of their leaders is in touch with reality. Look at MoFo SoB Lenin, before taking power he had to rely on donations from his mom and family, when he ruled Russia his changes caused a huge famine.

Mao killed millions because he tried to force a system into his country and that didn't suit the needs of his country.

They invoke the will of the people but if their citizens or even their intellectuals protest they will be sent to jail.

Those of us who knew CCCP saw the most incongruent and stupid incompetence, cities that didn't knew fruit while in other republics vegetables and fruit were rottening in the floor, under the trees.

In such systems what incentives do you have to improve your performance if you got paid whether you did well or not.

Now, speaking about debt, allow me to remember my Theory of the State lessons: The officials of a State may change but the State remains. I interpret that in this way, If a country receives money from other countries or individuals, and officials or civil servants were authorized by their government to obtain fund through debt, then the debt is legal, despite the fact that they were or not elected.

Shitheads like Evo Morales, K and the Mico Mandante Chávez must be on drugs when they say they can repudiate debt. My country (Mx) has paid her obligations despite the fact we have lived and suffered several recessions and crises.

They don't want to pay? Fuck'em. No credits for their countries and seizing their overseas funds may do the trick.