Judgement Left Intact: Vulture Funds

[Rich One]

We need a New Deal in Argentina,

 

[PhilipDT]

Sorry, camberiu, but you're about three pages late. You'll need to do better than that, (or else bribe the referee).

Actually I don't think he's late at all. You cited your source for the reparations but conveniently avoided justifying your other claims.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

We need a New Deal in Argentina,

We need to bring back the New Deal in the States.

 

[Johnny]

Default ? Devaluation ? Blue dollar and inflation neck and neck in the endless last furlong ? Time for 'ol Johnny to consider moving back to Buenos Aires ? Tough one to handicap.

 

[ArielFabian]

Seems to me Argentina will do as much as possible to delay default, once it defaults it will keep in this status until March 2015; then.. most likely will normalize its situation after the negotiation.
why march 2012?
92% of the bondholders accepted a negotiation in order to get the $ in cash, this 92% was promised to get the same $ as the other 8% if the 8% could get more $ in the next 10 years through a court (the 10 year period ends in march 2015). The 8% did not accept any agreement, and kept insisting for a better $ in the court. So basically if Argentina decides to pay the total to the 8% (a unique speculative bond holder now ), will need to pay the total to the other 92% too (this sums up to 15 thousand million dollars) Argentina cannot pay 15,000 million dollars. So, most likely Argentina will now cancel the debt with the 92% who accepted the agreement and will default until march 2015, then will negotiate again with the 8% to normalize the situation after March 2015. I don't think this is going to be super bad but Argentinean's image is going to be tarnished by a 6-9 months default depending on how long Arg can delay this.

The past cannot be changed but I can wonder...
Did this credit really exist in the past? Was this a made up credit in exchange of bribes? Did our leaderships make many mistakes? Was this a external sabotage? Why do we owe so much when there are many resources in Argentina? Why are the taxes super high and we still owe $? why our politicians usually increase their possessions 10-20-..40 times or even more times when they have power to govern ( politicians usually say that it was just coincidence, and their private investments went well) ? These are many of the questions I cannot figure out.

The current 8% bondholder is not necessarily responsible of the past; however, even assuming they were never responsible of any illicit activity in the past I believe it is an exaggeration to default a country just to increase their profits a bit more by any means. I am not an economist, but when somebody is so speculative to default a country just to increase the profit, only affecting the real worker who usually pays HIGH taxes and never sees 1 dollar of these credits who are rapidly stolen... (probably the credit never exists and the lender/borrower agree to invent a long term bond to build a public work that is never done, like a route, hospital, school, new train, subway, etc.)

The very speculative 8% most likely will get away with it always; I wish this 8% to get nothing for being extremely speculative to get the maximum profit by any means; I also wish that only the honest investors who expected a reasonable profit in good law to get every cent back from the corrupt system.

 

[toongeorges]

Why do we owe so much when there are many resources in Argentina? Why are the taxes super high and we still owe $? why our politicians usually increase their possessions 10-20-..40 times or even more times when they have power to govern ( politicians usually say that it was just coincidence, and their private investments went well) ? These are many of the questions I cannot figure out.

Never underestimate politicians' ability to spend...

 

[PhilipDT]

You challenged me to back up what I said, and there it is. I just had to dig a little bit. Note that some of the translations are my own, and probably not word perfect.

Thank you for responding I'll get to the reparations in a second but, could you please support the other assertions you made.

• How did US manipulate Argentina into attacking the malvinas?
• What was the secret support that the US gave the UK which caused Argentina to loose the war.
• Which US & UK billionaires bought up public companies for pennies on the dollar? My guess is that far more Argentines benefited than brits.
• How has the US stolen Germany's gold reserves? You don't actually have to answer this since I know it's a flat out not true (see here). I just hope you DIDN'T know that when you originally posted it.

“The Anglo-Argentine Investments Promotion & Protection Treaty”, which was signed in London in December 1990 and sanctioned on 4/11/1992 by Argentina’s Congress as Law No. 24.184.

Article 5 gave the UK control over Argentina's armed forces, especially in Patagonia, where there are vast US, UK, and Israeli investments

Article 12 provided that Argentina's economy was to be "fully and completely deregulated" and led to public companies, (oil, mining, railways, highways, airlines, electricity, gas and water utilities, pension funds, postal services, insurance and reinsurance, and banks), being privatised and sold off at bargain prices. This same article also provided that foreign “investors” were to be given the fullest protection, rights and assistance.

You challenged me to back up what I said, and there it is. I just had to dig a little bit. Note that some of the translations are my own, and probably not word perfect.

OK, so I had the two clauses switched. Other than that, what's your point?

First and foremost I'd appreciate if you could explain why an agreement signed by both parties 10 years after the end of fighting and that equally binds both Argentina and the UK to the same conditions could constitute 'restitutions'.

Next could you please explain how

ARTICLE 12
Territorial Extension
At the time of the entry into force of this Agreement, or at any time thereafter, the
provisions of this Agreement may be extended to such territories for whose international
relations the Government of the United Kingdom are responsible, as may be agreed
between the Contracting Parties in an Exchange of Notes.

or any other part of the agreement means "[Gives the] UK control over Argentina's armed forces, "?

Also, could you also explain how

ARTICLE 5
Expropriation
(l) Investments of investors of either Contracting Party shall not be nationalised,
expropriated or subjected to measures having effect equivalent to nationalisation or
expropriation (hereinafter referred to as “ expropriation”) in the territory of the other
Contracting Party except for a public purpose related to the internal needs of that
Contracting Party on a non-discriminatory basis and against prompt, adequate and
effective compensation. Such compensation shall amount to the genuine value of the
investment expropriated immediately before the expropriation or before the impending
expropriation became public knowledge, whichever is the earlier,\shall include interest at a
normal commercial rate until the date of payment, shall be made without delay, be effectively realizable and be freely transferable. The investor affected shall have a right,
under the law of the Contracting Party making the expropriation, to prompt review, by a
judicial or other independent authority of that Contracting Party, of his or its case and of
the valuation of his or its investment in accordance with the principles set out in this
paragraph.
(2) Where a Contracting Party expropriates the assets of a company which is
incorporated or constituted under the law in force in any part of its own territory, and in
which investors of the other Contracting Party own shares, the provisions of paragraph (1)

of this Article shall apply.

or any other part of the agreement means "provide that Argentina's economy was to be "fully and completely deregulated""

Finally, you put that phrase "fully and completely deregulated" in quotes. In doing so, you implied that it was taken verbatim from the agreement. Could you explain how that was not completely disingenuous?

 

[Matiasba]

Of course I dont have any prooves, but I do think that the UK (which in external policies are practically the same that the US, they always act together) pushed the junta miliutar to attack.
The same as nobody has prooves to Pearl Harbour and the theory that said that the US manipulated Japan to attack.

They knew the Junta needed consensus to govern, the Human Rights organisations were putting a lot of pressure to their government, plus, the situation in the UK was as well critical, Thatcher with very low popularity. The fact is that the war went perfect to the UK, just what they needed. The same with Pearl Harbour. There were no chance for the UK to lost that war, so they knew perfectly well what were doing. There was a lot of intelligence job, I bet they induced the Junta to take that decission.

 

[camberiu]

The moment a government arbitrarily pegs its currency to another, any claims of deregulation go out the window, as currency pegging is the ultimate regulation.

 

[camberiu]

"[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]There were no chance for the UK to lost that war, so they knew perfectly well what were doing. "

Actually, the odds were very much against the British. It took the incredible amount of ineptitude in the part of the Argentine military to lose the conflict. [/background]