So Much For The Sanctity Of Institutions

[nicoenarg]

I still don't see where Macri is saying "this is how it's going to be, take it or leave it." You say Macri is doing the same thing that Cristina and Nestor did but I don't see it. The first thing Macri (through Sturzenegger) did was acknowledge that simply cancelling the contracts would be illegal and that's not what they want to do. Negotiation amongst the parties to find out what everyone can accept (and if it is accepted, it wouldn't be illegal) is a whole lot different than 1) the corralito and 2) the attitude that Crstina took that those 7% (including something like 3% were the "buitres") were unfair holdouts and they weren't going to pay them at all unless they excepted the huge losses that everyone else did.

What gets me here is you previously were on the side of Cristina with the "buitres", saying she had to do what she did (if I remember correctly, forgive me if I'm wrong) because even though there was a contract for the bonds, they were trying to screw over the country (as if that justifies things) and now you are holding Macri to an impossible standard as he tries to resolve an issue that could have just as bad a consequence, brought on by her administration, with consensus instead of arrogant force.

Maybe there's something here I'm not understanding.

Yes but if Cristina does unconstitutional things and robs people in broad day light like a Mafiosa it's for "the good of the country". If Macri tries to negotiate a deal and hopes all parties come to an understanding (nothing nefarious about the word "persuade" by the way Bradley, it's used in the English language without meaning you're about to commit genocide so calm down about it), in a way that this horrible deal ends up being good for the country, then he MUST be doing something horrible, you know, because MACRI!!!!!!

If I remember correctly Bradley has been pretty anti Macri from the get go and had been 100% convinced that Macri would become president the day pigs start flying. I guess it must be traumatic to see pigs flying all of a sudden. So taking anything that Macri does and twisting it to sound like a plan straight from Satan's personal journal, a la Kirchners, isn't that surprising coming from him.

EDIT:

Oh and they were trying to "stop devaluation"? AYFKM? They should have worried about devaluation when they ran the value of the peso into the ground. This rhetoric that makes absolutely no sense may have worked a little for Scioli's campaign but I don't think anyone on this forum buys the BS about "oh Vanoli was just desperately trying to stop evil, devil Macri from devaluating the peso!!!"

 

[Gringoboy]

I'm no economist and don't understand the mechanics very well, but on the face of it, a default in the first few days of a new presidency is pretty much unthinkable surely?

 

[nicoenarg]

I'm no economist and don't understand the mechanics very well, but on the face of it, a default in the first few days of a new presidency is pretty much unthinkable surely?

Depends on the situation. It would play against Macri's government and creating an environment of trust would be pretty difficult if not outright impossible.

That's why they're trying to avoid default and are currently in negotiations with the involved parties: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1853838-el-bcra-evalua-pagar-los-futuros-y-evitar-el-default This wasn't all that clear given the La Campora style selective quoting by Bradley.

 

[maw]

For me, all the state has to do is prosecute (and win) a case against Vanoli. Once they can prove that his actions were illegal, they can (assuming Argentine law is similar to the States) declare the contracts void. A contract cannont be based on an illegal act. I think the government could do this with time, but the one thing they don't have is time. They need a devaluation NOW.

 

[Rich One]

Sturzi will just cancel the contracts and return the pesos...ª

 

[AmigoArtistico]

For me, all the state has to do is prosecute (and win) a case against Vanoli. Once they can prove that his actions were illegal, they can (assuming Argentine law is similar to the States) declare the contracts void. A contract cannont be based on an illegal act. I think the government could do this with time, but the one thing they don't have is time. They need a devaluation NOW.

I think you'd better hit the law books a bit harder.

 

[dennisr]

Rumor Control suggests Vanoli was forced to make the deal to prop up the peso before the elections: needed cash. It was Cristina thang. Finances are a biblical basket case.

 

[RodalfoWalsh]

I'm no economist and don't understand the mechanics very well, but on the face of it, a default in the first few days of a new presidency is pretty much unthinkable surely?

Maybe not. If you're going to do it, doing it right now would allow you to deflect a large part of the political cost on the people who in this case it belongs to.

The real problem is that a default would basically take the money from the same banks who are in talks to float the huge bond that Macri is counting on to finance the government.

 

[maw]

I think you'd better hit the law books a bit harder.

OK. I'll take that... but only if you explain. You're saying a contract based on an illegal act is binding? Please explain. As I wrote, I'm assuming they were able to find what he did was illegal. So please... provide case law or point me the section of the uniform commercial code that states otherwise.

 

[mikic007]

@maw

Some people are saying the act itself was not illegal, and this too has to be determined on court. In this case maybe only vanoli will be guilty or maybe no one.. There is a lot to determine, we don't know nothing yet. What we know for sure is, that vanoli robbed his nation of huge sum, this without doubt.