Something Old To Further Comment Upon, Now . . . ? ? ?

[EJLarson]

The solution of Argentina is to clean its society and institutions of the Peronist Constitution of 1949 that stablished the return to the medieval society and institutions before the emancipation of Spain: Bans to imports, control of the market, monopolies, restrictions to immigrations, etc.

In spite of all the craziness you spouted before and after this sentence, this is spot on. The eternal and infernal meddling of the government in every aspect of Argentine economic life is the biggest single reason why the country absolutely refuses to take its place as the economic power of South America. How many stories are there on this forum of people who have tried to start businesses that would bring money into the country and produce jobs for Argentines, just to have doors slammed in their faces by bureaucrats?

Noesdeayer alone could probably tell tales that would take us to the end of the decade (I'm not suggesting you do that, mind, but maybe a couple of anecdotes?).

If Macri can make just a little headway with this, it will pay back many fold.

 

[EJLarson]

I presume you saying that this source is "to the left of Lenin" is a joke? Its not the msm sure, but its barely left of centre (at least for a non-US citizen like myself).

No, not a joke - and certainly not to them. They are philosophically socialist-communist and, in spite of broadcasting on the supposedly objective National Public Radio station, highly adversarial in their positions. Interviews are only with those who agree with their positions, during which the opposition is savaged by both interviewer and interviewee.

 

[rpkerston]

Well... as the 'OP' here...

I find myself amazingly grateful (grateful for the info; amazed that I could sift through this and find it) for the series of mini-discussions which have ensued!

I'm sure I don't have enough information, even yet, regarding colonial versus Peronist constitutional frameworks; however, I think I DO understand the pari-passu and RUFO issues much better now. I doubt my personal philosophy of court jurisdictions, or regarding world bodies of influence, would jive with everyone's anywhere... so I won't even go there! I did find some of the New York rulings odd, but I wasn't reading full transcripts, so I don't think I can judge the judge. However, I couldn't agree more with sentiments expressed regarding press explanations to date - which is actually the reason why I started this discussion.

It's interesting how the technical legalities are viewed by various folks: The same contractual clauses in the agreement produce quite divergent views on how they can be accomplished and, more importantly, what effects will be produced. It strongly reminds me how, in medicine, any prescribed medication must be weighed in a risk-benefit analysis: Virtually nothing is thoroughly beneficial without some potential for side effects. I've seen that many economists don't agree on things, despite the high educational levels (and experience) they may have in their field - so I think folks tend to pick theories which they personally appreciate; and I feel equally certain that one prime reason we appoint judges is that - despite it being the only possible human system though with rather subjective, inherent flaws - lawyers will always find ways to interpret legalities in ways that might go in their favour...

I was fortunate enough to work as a parliamentary assistant for a few years, and I noticed that in opposition, it was fundamental to find flaws - that's the system; however, in government, it wasn't necessarily any sell-out to create systems and laws that some didn't agree with. [By-the-way: I worked on both sides.] There were obvious occasions when risk-benefit analysis (however flawed) produced proposed legislation that aimed for one thing yet produced a by-product / unwanted side effect. The opposition's job was, of course, to point out these errors. Sometimes, they clearly felt that their job was simply to slam the government - no matter who or what it was being slammed. Other times, we all got lucky when amendments were proposed by the opposition, instead. I note that in this issue at hand, what is now the opposition stood (while in government) opposed to a number of things (perhaps rightly) but that somehow, it's now gotten solved.

It must strike others - as it does myself - that to solve this issue is probably a good thing. Of course, to solve it at all costs? No!

Hence, my original questioning.

So, having gained a somewhat greater understanding of the subject matter, here, I'm left thinking that there's quite a few ways to 'spin' the possibilities (something I'd considered previously).

I suspect we may be trying to write history before it's happened: Hoping and expecting things to go certain ways and finding out later that this is where such-and-such occurred... and why. We may have some degree of accuracy in predicting things, but with so many views, it's hard to figure out who's right! That reminds me of weather patterns: We keep seeing the same patterns, yet we STILL cannot predict the weather with much greater accuracy. I suspect the same is true with this case! Like economic predictors?

I find this so polarizing, and yet the deal has seen passage with considerable congressional approval, so far. I wonder what side deals may be learned of later?

All of this said, now (and I suspect this discussion is NOT over, yet...) I really appreciate the info - truly. Thank you!

Paul

 

[StevePalermo]

No, not a joke - and certainly not to them. They are philosophically socialist-communist and, in spite of broadcasting on the supposedly objective National Public Radio station, highly adversarial in their positions. Interviews are only with those who agree with their positions, during which the opposition is savaged by both interviewer and interviewee.

Can you quote anything they have published that could be described as 'to the left of Lenin' like you accused them to be in the post I was referring to? I've been reading this source for a while now and have never seen anything like that. Latest stories include "Seaworld to end breeding program for killer whales", "Obama tells donors to get behind Clinton", "GOP establishment consider unity ticket to stop Trump", "Merrick Garland. Where does Supreme Court pick stand on Guantanamo, Death Penalty, Abortion", "Syria. Russian continues to withdraw airforce", "John Kerry. ISIL committing genocide". Not exactly traditional socialist-communist propaganda. Just one story that could be described as further to the left of Lenin would suffice. In fact in your last sentence you could be describing Fox News! Thanks.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

You mean civilized country like.....Argentina?

The law suits against Argentina failed everywhere else (England, Italy, Germany, belgium) because they enforced the international custom (ius cogens).

And yes, Argentina is included. Obviously you don't know, but law universities in Argentina (UBA & Cordoba) are over 400 years old.

The NC was the first in the world to abandon the recognition of rights because of nationality and replacing it for the human being condition. In those terms the US are stil medieval.

The Carta de las Naciones, the first draft of what we know as international law and international human rights law, was inspired in out bill of rights.

This is why at any international court is full of AR lawyers working.

The US diesn't recognizes the international human rights standards. Noth Korea and Venezuela neither.

 

[Noesdeayer]

Gentlemen,please do not forget that this is the Argentine Republic and what we have here are 2 basic premises:
1) the "no te metas". - " don't get involved" .Just live your own life and don't get involved with participative gov't. Leave it to the gov't "de turno".
Just benifit from it,if it's going your way or "bitch and moan",if it's not. But, for God's sake,don't get actively involved in any way.
2) The Argentines will tell you that this is the country of "la quintita" or the "little garden" from which they derive sustainance.
Everyone has their own "little garden".and others have a "quintaza" --a huge garden" many time it depends on your relationship with the current power structure
Peronism thrives on the above premises because --like a lot of socialist ideology--it immensly MESSIANIC. John Sunday always told the people to go from their home to their work and the central gov't would take care of the rest.They need not to hardly anything .This will only change by instilling the individual's responsibility.in their economic and socio-political lives. A big chore for the Macri administration which they appear to have accepted.

 

[thorsten]

The law suits against Argentina failed everywhere else (England, Italy, Germany, belgium) because they enforced the international custom (ius cogens).

So why did the highest German court (similar to all lower instances) ruled against Argentina in February 2015? Maybe that's not part of the Campora propaganda as the people that sued were mainly small private investors (the 2 cases were each about ~3k EUR) and it's hard to paint the picture of evil vultures...

 

[Bajo_cero2]

The Argentinian government agreed to have the bonds governed by New York law (because they had a history of not paying back debts). The debts and consequences are not subject to international law regarding sovereignty. If they were, no one would have ever lent Argentina money. It was the whole point of that clause.

The bond enacted by the mega canje were the first one in being under a foreign jurisdiction. All the bonds enacted later were under local jurisdiction. They were accepted. So, this is not maths.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Café Americano: you're confusing RUFO and pari passu. Once the settling bondholders exchanged their original bonds for new bonds, the pari passu terms of the original bonds no longer applied to them (they continued to apply to the holdouts, of course, because they held on to the original bonds). The only rights the settlers may have had to future payments (and reasonable lawyers disagreed on the scope of these rights) arose under the RUFO clause included in the new bonds, which is no longer a problem because it expired. Hope this helps. I agree that most journalists do a very poor job of explaining this.

Pari past means that the bondholders that did`t agree the exchange of bond with a reduce of the debt, they should have the same condition than other bondholder that accepted the deal offered by NK.

According to AR, those bondholders that didn`t agree to get new bond were they paid 0.30 per 1 usd, lost any right. Pari past means that they have to get the same: 0.30.

This is what former President offered them and they refused.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

So why did the highest German court (similar to all lower instances) ruled against Argentina in February 2015? Maybe that's not part of the Campora propaganda as the people that sued were mainly small private investors (the 2 cases were each about ~3k EUR) and it's hard to paint the picture of evil vultures...

If I made a mistake, this is because using an i-phone at a bar I cannot check everything, neither I care to do it.