I thank you too & appreciate your posts as well, excellent statements followed by a proper demonstration.
In short for the first paragraph:
- Conspiracy theory/insults/suggestion of corruption: the US rank in the second half of the high income countries for anticorruption (ranks close from France) -
http://data.worldjus...ject.org/#table
In Griesa’s case, it’s a problem linked to a minority of ultra-rich people, big companies who manage to use the public system for their private gain. It’s not innocent that Singer managed to have his own Act passed for instance -
http://www.gpo.gov/f...12hhrg76980.pdf. It’s not innocent that GWB erased the Congo debt so that Singer could make profits (to the expense of US taxpayers of course) -
http://dollarsandsen...507palast2.html . It’s not innocent that GWB won the dubious election. It’s not innocent that GWB attacked Iraq on false grounds for private interests. It’s quite astonishing that Kenneth Dart escaped the IRS (to the expense of US taxpayers of course), while the AFTA (the Vulture funds site against Argentine) has such a page -
http://www.atfa.org/...efault-matters/ . It’s not innocent that banksters, who jeopardized millions of Americans, got saved by the US taxpayers and that no real regulation was put in place later on.
I could keep going on, each country has its own problems, the US problem appears to me as originating from: what’s becoming a plutocracy + ultra wealthy individuals or entities which have way too much power.
- Misunderstanding of the US judicial system: while I studied Law, I admit I only have a vague idea about it (learning though)
Now for your points:
- Indeed, the judgement is in force now (never said otherwise?)
- Argentina's claim on debt restructurings : not sure which one you refer too, if that’s the idea there’s a form of Economic imperialism, I think it’s true to some extent, and likely untrue in other aspects. Anyway, what’s for sure is that this jurisprudence worries many countries & international organizations (not really debated anyway).
- Judge blocking the payment to other bondholders: precisely the issue (already debated in extenso in other posts).
- and unless he sees progress in the negotiations between the parties, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that he will suddenly change a position that he has held for years: the fact he decided to block payments to others (or to take hostage the ones who were goodwilling and accepted a cut, depending on how ou consider that) is quite recent but follows a 10 years fight between two hard headed sides. Nothing really new, what will the negotiations give? I keep on thinking Argentina has the upper hand (already explained).
- I don't even know how to address your odd parenthetical comments in the first paragraph about the role of psychology (which itself is an odd notion): in fact, quite a few commentators mentioned the psychological aspect, for instance
Griesa’s ruling was the act of an exasperated judge at the end of his tether. (in this interesting article
http://www.foreignaf...nd-vs-sovereign )
- Griesa's ruling has been proven, by being accepted by the appeals court, to be above the sovereignty of Argentina, and is being enforced: in fact there are two things, Griesa’s ruling & Griesa’s decision to block the payment to foreign bond holders. Concerning Griesa’s ruling, in Legal terms (I’ll do my best in English), it’s not that Griesa’s decision was proved to be above the sovereignty (would be a nonsense), the debate at the SC (at least in the june 2014 SC ruling, didn’t read them all) was about the Foreign Immunity Act and whether or not the discovery of extraterritorial sovereign assets would be covered by it (SC answered no). Now for the decision to block the payments to foreign bond holders, that’s precisely here that Griesa’s is violating Argentina’s sovereignty since Argentina (or eventually the sovereignty of other countries).
Interesting case indeed