Matias, it's a responsibility of the people what government they end up with. It's unavoidable. The choice to not risk their lives and let the military take over is understandable, but it is a choice. Other people did not have a choice on whether Argentina let its military run things, like the people who bought bonds that were offered by the Argentine government, military, neo-liberal or peronist/kirchnerist.
The question I posed was not meant to slight the Argentine people for allowing military dictators to take over the country and borrow money in their name. It is about responsibility and cleaning up the mess afterwards. Who is more responsible to take a hit on that - the people of Argentina or the people who bought the bonds in good faith - most of which were bonds sold to pay off the older debt as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) so to the new bond holders it was new debt.
Even if it wasn't new debt to the bondholders and one could say it was the bond holders' fault for getting involved with a dictatorship - they should have known better, that one day the "legitimate" rulers of Argentina would return (Peronistic Democracy anyone? Who the hell knew who would be ruling Argentina as the bonds came due?) and would have to be reckoned with, that all that debt the military racked up was really illegitimate the moment it was sold, well, I don't think that argument holds either.
Argentina (and many people, around the world it seems) would rather allow dictators to control a country than to go in and make a change. And yet people have sympathy for the people of the country, people still do business with the governments of those countries. Are Argentinos saying that any debt incurred by dictators is simply not valid debt? And how do you determine exactly at what point a government is considered a dictatorship? Who decides that? The people that loan the money? An international court? Do all sovereign loans maybe have to get approved by an international court or any bonds to pay of the debt are invalid?
So I go back to - how are the people who bought those bonds more responsible for that debt than the Argentine people themselves, whether it was debt incurred by the military government of Argentina of by the "neo-liberal" governments or even by Cristina herself? How can anyone really say that it was invalid debt and the pension funds and other investments around the world that bought into that should rightfully carry that debt?
I accept that whatever the bondholders thought at the moment they bought the bonds, that they were indeed risking their capital. That's obvious. There could be a variety of reasons the country doesn't end up paying, OK fair enough.
But I don't feel just saying that the debt is illegitimate, makes it a legitimate declaration. It doesn't play into any mitigating factors, in my opinion, as to whether or not Argentina was justified in defaulting on the payment, the default being declared by the law in the jurisdiction where the contract for the bonds was written. The latter has much more legitimacy than the prior. Again, in my opinion due to the reasons stated.
I'm sorry, but what you are saying about it's the fault of "the people" if they end up with a massive government debt, whether from a democratically elected government or a military dictatorship, that is just total crap.
Most people on the planet, maybe 90-95%, are on a treadmill, trying to earn enough money to make ends meet, They are worried about their finances, their future, their retirement, paying off their mortgages, car payments, student debt, credit card debts, etc., worried about their kids, if they have any, worried about their parents, if they are still alive, etc.
The damage is done by small groups of elitist oligarchs who buy the politician puppets, who own the corporate media, who own the privatized medical systems, prisons, etc. and who are at war with one another for dominance.
Is anyone out there old enough to remember the movie Rollerball?, this where we are heading!
Rollerball: Directed by Norman Jewison. With James Caan, John Houseman, Maud Adams, John Beck. In a corporate-controlled future, an ultra-violent sport known as Rollerball represents the world, and one of its powerful athletes is out to defy those who want him out of the game.
www.imdb.com
This is not something people choose, it's something people get stuck with.
Going full circle, the banksters and oligarchs don't mind debt because their plan is to create so much indebtedness that the governments of the planet will end up having to spend all of their income just to pay the interest on their debts. The governments will then have to privatize all other government functions (police, fire, schools, parks, highways, public transit, even the military) to the oligarchs.
www.zerohedge.com
