Pay Your Debt Cfk

[Tgore1055]

OK this is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, but...

What a lovely example of internet argumentation TGNYC!

Let me summarise your contentions:

The entire article is a 'joke' based on the following evidence, studiously gleaned from a thorough reading by TGNYC:

1. The authors are biased because they are Lecturers at major UK universities (?)
2. TGNYC is "certain" about the details of the unpublished contracts signed by the other 93% of the bondholders, (although presenting no evidence of having read said contracts).

Then, if we are still unconvinced by this rhetorical tour-de-force, TGNYC hammers it home with the conclusion:

Argentina's "concern" about this factor is only and excuse not to pay and propaganda to get the country to agree with their so called point of view.

Of course, only those of us stricken with a craven need for logic would ask, whom is Argentina trying to convince? Argentina? To wit, the Argentine people need to be convinced that they should not pay their tax money to a vulture fund? And furthermore, at what point is someone's point of view not even a point of view, but only allegedly so?

The seventh grade teacher in me wants to litter your post with red marks and send you back for a re-do. Surely you can find something that better proves the article is a 'joke' than this random compilation of non-sequiturs.

OK, lol. You really go out of your way to sound both eloquent and condescending....However that doesn't make you sound intelligent but rather like a prick that has too much time on his hands.
Even though you gave a response to your own questions directed at me, I'll answer from them my perspective. BTW, I wasn't trying to write a "Tour de force" of a piece (kudos on slipping in a phrase that no one uses). An Expat board is not a place for scholarly writing and I'm not in the company of the literary elite (you included). Don't be so defensive and get over yourself.

1. No, I don't think the article is biased because the writers are lecturers at major UK universities. They are both coordinators at the Argentine research center, which you forgot to mention or perhaps you just didn't to further your point.

In my opinion this means not only do they most likely identify with Argentine patriotism and see this legal matter from one side, but they are also VERY likely connected to Argentinian professors, human rights advocates, and even politicians. I'm sure someone of your intelligence would understand that they would probably not publish an article that would piss off most people within their circle. If you couldn't see that correlation right off the bat, then you're not as smart as you think you are. All of this is evident by their tone and references throughout the entire article. There wasn't even a hint of fairness in that article.

I actually might of had some respect for your critique if you had mentioned the other title which was spelled out under their names. Rather you just pointed out they are lecturers at major UK universities (which doesn't mean much anyway).....It's obvious you just wanted sound witty and cute. If I were a seventh grade teacher, and you were MY student.... I would return your post asking you to review the article again, put more thought into it and be more thorough in your critique.


2. Secondly, even though I did not see the contracts I guarantee you that when the 93% agreed to the debt reconstruction, they signed newly drafted contractual agreements with those terms written in the agreement.... which nullifies the original terms. That is exactly why the remaining 7% did not agree to it ....So they could sue. Did I see the new contracts the 93% signed....No, of course not. However if you think that there was a clause that stated if the remaining 7% successfully sues for full payment, then they can renege on their part of acceptance and sue for full payment as well....(again) you are not as bright as you think you are.
It wouldn't hold up in any court of law and that's why only the writers of this article and Argentina themselves are "worried" about that being an issue.....Hence my comment about it just being an excuse (and yes, loosely said.... propaganda) to influence fellow Argentines into seeing the viewpoint of CK on this matter.

Is there anything I can clarify for you or something I didn't answer? Would you like me to expand on something? Feel free to respectfully ask without sounding like a douche.

 

[ghost]

Perhaps Mr Rooney understands 7th grade rhetoric and grammar and the use of red pens. But neither he nor the writers of this article have a clue about the workings of international debt. Bonds or court rulings. The judge in this case has done a huge favor for Argentina by tossing the ball all the way out of the park and up to the Supreme Court. [disclaimer: I think Elliott and his Vultures are pigs. But these pigs are dangerous and have made small fortunes by doing exactly what they are doing in this case, repeatedly]

 

[johnw100]

One question i have , as i`m not very into economics, but whats the difference between the $1.3billion dollars that Argentinga has to pay back and the 16 Trillion that the U.S or EU owes in external debt. Are they the same? Is one country being ordered to payback whilst the other gets off scott free?

 

[ndcj]

Perhaps someone from the "pay your debts" crowd on here, which is seemingly arguing from some perverted sense of moral righteousness, could explain how they defend the morality of the underlying debt?

The defaulted debt was approximately $92bn. Argentina's debt burden, like pretty much all public external debt around the world, is debt that is "rolled over" or recycled several times over (like the equivalent of making only interest payments on a loan, never actually anything off the principal). The military dictatorship accrued public debt of approximately $168bn during its time as the de facto government. The lenders of this money have blood on their hands from 30-40 years ago have the blood of tens of thousands of Argentines on their hands. The vulture funds are, in turn, trying to collect on debt that ultimately was incurred by the dictatorship.

The dictatorship had no legal authority incur debts on behalf of the people of Argentina, just the same as it had no legal authority to govern. Every dollar of debt that stems from that period should be null and void.

If someone steals your credit card number and goes on a spending spree, are you liable?
If someone assumed your identity and took a mortgage over your house, should you lose your house when you don't make the payments?

In both of those cases, the party that lent the money is solely responsible for their loss. Please explain why the same should not apply in the case of an illegal de facto "government" contracting debts with lenders who knew full well who they were lending to? In fact, these lenders deserve worse than just shouldering their liability for the debt, because unlike in the two simple cases above, the lenders knew or ought to have known the crimes against humanity being perpetrated with the help of their money.

 

[dennisr]

One question i have , as i`m not very into economics, but whats the difference between the $1.3billion dollars that Argentinga has to pay back and the 16 Trillion that the U.S or EU owes in external debt. Are they the same? Is one country being ordered to payback whilst the other gets off scott free?

Cannot speak for the EU, however, have personal experience with US issued bonds: I Bonds. Last week I got on the US Treasury web site and requested to cash out some US Government issued bonds: I Bonds. By some miracle and modern science, the full amount including interest was deposited in my checking account. For Argentine bonds, some pensioner in Italy who purchased Argentine bonds wanted to do the same thing as I did, redeem Argentine Bonds he purchased. He has been waiting for his money for twelve years. Check is in the mail type thing. Think that is the difference between US debt and Argentine debt: payment as agreed.

 

[internationalguy]

One question i have , as i`m not very into economics, but whats the difference between the $1.3billion dollars that Argentinga has to pay back and the 16 Trillion that the U.S or EU owes in external debt. Are they the same? Is one country being ordered to payback whilst the other gets off scott free?

They aren't exactly the same, no. There are a lot of different types of debt. National debt is what we have as the 16 trillion. National debt includes every cent the government owes, including domestic creditors, like the social security system and things like that. Argentina's 1.3 billion is owed to foreign governments or funds. I have no idea what Argentina's internal debt must look like but it probably is also messed up.

16 trillion is an indescribable amount. That debt will never be paid. The only reason we get off scott free is because we (not as much we as the Federal Reserve, but you get the picture) have the dollar printing press. Everyone wants (used to want) dollars, so it was very easy to pay for stuff by simply printing dollars since you could get anything you wanted with them. What people don't realize (including dollar hungry Argies) is that the world isn't that crazy about the dollar anymore. The dollar has lost between 10 and 40% of its value when compared against developed world (and even strong developing countries). Just compare the value of the USD vs the Swiss Franc (CHF), Canadian Dollar (CAD), Australian Dollar (AUD), New Zealand Dollar (NZD), Uruguay Peso (UYU), among many others. The Euro and the Pound have their own stories so that won't really behave the same way, but even in those cases the USD has lost ground. The truth is that the size of the debt 16 or.. 32 trillion isn't what matters both would be catastrophic, what matters is that the whenever the US loses it's ability to print the world's most popular currency (not sure it that day has come), the real effects of the 16 trillion will be seen. Real inflation (maybe even larger than Argentina's), having to look for loans somewhere, all of that. There WILL be one day and it will happen very suddenly, when a crisis will explode and all hell will break lose for a few days/ weeks. At the end of it, a whole new system will be in place and we will start talking about using greenbacks as wallpaper.

 

[dennisr]

Who seen this coming: contempt of court ruling?

US judge mulls violation of Argentina debt ruling

That stay is in question now that President Cristina Fernandez announced plans to defy the U.S. courts by selling new bonds that would be enforced and paid from Buenos Aires, rather than paying the plaintiffs as ordered. She wants Argentina's congress to approve the debt swap by Sept. 15.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/29/3593500/us-judge-mulls-violation-of-argentina.html

 

[Gringoboy]

Perhaps someone from the "pay your debts" crowd on here, which is seemingly arguing from some perverted sense of moral righteousness, could explain how they defend the morality of the underlying debt?

The defaulted debt was approximately $92bn. Argentina's debt burden, like pretty much all public external debt around the world, is debt that is "rolled over" or recycled several times over (like the equivalent of making only interest payments on a loan, never actually anything off the principal). The military dictatorship accrued public debt of approximately $168bn during its time as the de facto government. The lenders of this money have blood on their hands from 30-40 years ago have the blood of tens of thousands of Argentines on their hands. The vulture funds are, in turn, trying to collect on debt that ultimately was incurred by the dictatorship.

The dictatorship had no legal authority incur debts on behalf of the people of Argentina, just the same as it had no legal authority to govern. Every dollar of debt that stems from that period should be null and void.

If someone steals your credit card number and goes on a spending spree, are you liable?
If someone assumed your identity and took a mortgage over your house, should you lose your house when you don't make the payments?

In both of those cases, the party that lent the money is solely responsible for their loss. Please explain why the same should not apply in the case of an illegal de facto "government" contracting debts with lenders who knew full well who they were lending to? In fact, these lenders deserve worse than just shouldering their liability for the debt, because unlike in the two simple cases above, the lenders knew or ought to have known the crimes against humanity being perpetrated with the help of their money.

So in other words the military government borrowed the money illegally and used it for immoral purposes.
And you are saying that's a good reason why the money shouldn't be paid back?
Like it's blood money?
It's a very thin and emotive argument.

 

[ndcj]

So in other words the military government borrowed the money illegally and used it for immoral purposes.
And you are saying that's a good reason why the money shouldn't be paid back?
Like it's blood money?
It's a very thin and emotive argument.

It's neither thin nor emotive. Leaving aside totally for a moment the many moral arguments, the de facto government borrowed the money in the name of someone (the Argentine people) that they had no legal right to bind to the repayments.

If I walk into your business, throw you out or take you hostage and pretend to be the owner of your business and start accruing obligations in your name, are you responsible for those obligations? If you are not, then please explain what the difference is. Let's take it one step further -- lets say I walk in to your business the same way, and start borrowing money from someone who knows that I am illegally occupying your business. Should you be responsible for those obligations?

The only people who should shoulder the responsibility of borrowings made to the de facto government should be the members of the junta militar and the lenders who lent to them.

 

[Gringoboy]

From a moral point of view I agree entirely.
In fact this is a point that as you know, CFK has made several times to justify her government's incompetence.