"outlaws": Do You Agree?

[sergio]

http://nypost.com/2014/08/20/argentina-outlaws-look-to-trump-us-vultures/

 

[mimyr]

Frankly, I hope the vultures never see a single cent of the debt they bought. It's ridiculous that some fossil of a judge and this parasite Paul Singer can decide the fate of an entire country's economy.

 

[wineguy999]

Frankly, I hope the vultures never see a single cent of the debt they bought. It's ridiculous that some fossil of a judge and this parasite Paul Singer can decide the fate of an entire country's economy.

...and the little woman in the big pink house - she's not involved in any way?

I wish my net worth had increased over 300 times in the last 14 years.

 

[Rich One]

What about the OTHER Good holdouts . From the 7 % holdout total the Vultures are only 1% , these 6 % of genuine small investors should they collect?

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

Your answer depends through which lens you view the issue; Legal, Moral, Political.

1. Argentina is a sovereign country that cannot be held in contempt of a US court order. (Legal)
2. Vulture funds are a lethal virus that help no one but themselves. They are the worst example of free market capitalism. (Moral)
3. CFK, et al have been absolutely insolent to the courts and the holdouts from day one. (Politcal)
4. Judge Griesa is making rulings on issues he doesn't fully understand and is setting legal precedent and establishing bad law. (Legal)
5. CFK, et al is making decisions not based upon getting a workable solution, but based upon what she sees as is the country's best interest, creating an exterior "enemy" to re-focus the national view, raise her approval rating, and coalesce her support base in preparation for 2015. (Political)

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Your answer depends through which lens you view the issue; Legal, Moral, Political.

1. Argentina is a sovereign country that cannot be held in contempt of a US court order. (Legal)
2. Vulture funds are a lethal virus that help no one but themselves. They are the worst example of free market capitalism. (Moral)
3. CFK, et al have been absolutely insolent to the courts and the holdouts from day one. (Politcal)
4. Judge Griesa is making rulings on issues he doesn't fully understand and is setting legal precedent and establishing bad law. (Legal)
5. CFK, et al is making decisions not based upon getting a workable solution, but based upon what she sees as is the country's best interest, creating an exterior "enemy" to re-focus the national view, raise her approval rating, and coalesce her support base in preparation for 2015. (Political)

Reason 3 is undoubtedly correct and if, in Reason 5, you substitute "her own best short-term interest," that would also be correct.

 

[sergio]

Nestor Kirchner is the one who agreed to give US courts jurisdiction. Since he agreed, how is this wrong? There are middle class Argentine investors who lost their life savings. Are they vultures?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Nestor Kirchner is the one who agreed to give US courts jurisdiction. Since he agreed, how is this wrong? There are middle class Argentine investors who lost their life savings. Are they vultures?

You are confused here.

 

[Matiasba]

Your answer depends through which lens you view the issue; Legal, Moral, Political.

1. Argentina is a sovereign country that cannot be held in contempt of a US court order. (Legal)
2. Vulture funds are a lethal virus that help no one but themselves. They are the worst example of free market capitalism. (Moral)
3. CFK, et al have been absolutely insolent to the courts and the holdouts from day one. (Politcal)
4. Judge Griesa is making rulings on issues he doesn't fully understand and is setting legal precedent and establishing bad law. (Legal)
5. CFK, et al is making decisions not based upon getting a workable solution, but based upon what she sees as is the country's best interest, creating an exterior "enemy" to re-focus the national view, raise her approval rating, and coalesce her support base in preparation for 2015. (Political)

I dont think theres any measure taken regarding 2015. Kirchnerismo after 2015 is going to lose a lot of its power, politically, economically, their candidate will not win, not a chance, in fact, I dont think Kirchnerismo is having a candidate (Scioli certainly is not). So pretty much they are extinguishing, they sure gonna be oposition, but thay have not goals for 2015 elections.

In fact, one of the manouvres CFK did (that was exactly the same one that Menem did 15 years ago) was to install in the public agenda the re re election, the posibility of get reelected again, while that was not possible. You know why they did that? Because if you asume from the first moment that your time is finished, you lose political power. You can not say in November 2011 "this is my first day of the lasts ones I have", you have to show power, to project force, that you will govern till the last day. Thats why in both cases they put the re re subject in the media.

If you not talk of re re you automatically lose power.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

I dont think theres any measure taken regarding 2015. Kirchnerismo after 2015 is going to lose a lot of its power, politically, economically, their candidate will not win, not a chance, in fact, I dont think Kirchnerismo is having a candidate (Scioli certainly is not). So pretty much they are extinguishing, they sure gonna be oposition, but thay have not goals for 2015 elections.

In fact, one of the manouvres CFK did (that was exactly the same one that Menem did 15 years ago) was to install in the public agenda the re re election, the posibility of get reelected again, while that was not possible. You know why they did that? Because if you asume from the first moment that your time is finished, you lose political power. You can not say in November 2011 "this is my first day of the lasts ones I have", you have to show power, to project force, that you will govern till the last day. Thats why in both cases they put the re re subject in the media.

If you not talk of re re you automatically lose power.

That didn't seem to bother Menem, who ran for a third term in spite of the prohibition.