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

[Bajo_cero2]

6. If you want to borrow money, you have to abide by the rules. The rules are there for a reason. The rules are the same for every country. If a person wants to take a loan from the bank, the bank imposes rules and limits. The same principles apply for a country.

Countries and persons are different. While the persons are subjects of a State ruled by its laws, the States are legally equals among them and they are ruled by its own laws. The international law states that the assets of a State cannot be seized by another´s State Judge.

This is why, unless the President agree to give up sovereignty, the sentence of Griesa is not enforzable. Clarification for dummies: the sentence of a judge does´t need to be negociated, if they negotiate, it is because the sentence is useless.

Here you have an example:
http://www.ambito.com/diario/noticia.asp?id=757561

. More taxes? More taxes? More taxes?

Well, Prat Gay wants to take loans to pay the expenditures of the State while before the tax cut for richs only, they were paid with tax income plus money printing.

Let`s remember that the income tax for salaries was not abolished but, instead, the President´s decree makes pay a lot of people did´t pay it before.

. There is plenty of money out there in the world for investment. The only question is where it will go. If Argentina doesn't fix its problems and play by the same rules as the rest of the world, not much of that money is ever going to come here.

Facts shows that during crisis, money goes to Germany even they pay in negative terms interest.

Do you remember that when Macri explained his project at Davos, a journalist asked him how was he going to achieve it with the WW economic crisis?

We agree that Argentina has to fix its problems but this is not the solution, instead, it seems to be a Pandora box.

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.

answers could not have been more wrong. However, your answers have qualified you for a one-way ticket to Venezuela, where, if you hurry, you may actually find one or two gatos locos who might actually believe them.

Disagreement is healthy, the lack of respect you show is not. I think that you should move to North Korea where you are going to feel more confortable with the lack of respect of freedom of speech.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Now you are getting the hang of it, laws and lawyers are just an excuse, at the end of the day the powerfull enforce their laws, after all they are the ones making the law, and we think here, we in Argentina will be able to win any case against them being that Argentina defaulted twice and had a pretty shitty attitude towards the creditors......We have to pay up, or they will make us pay up, either way the lesson to be learned here is......... you guessed it right..... don't be in debt! or you will be playing in their field by their rules....

Or not.
http://www.ambito.com/diario/noticia.asp?id=757561

 

[mc kenna]

wow we are saved now, i hope this works a little better than theTIAR (tratado de asistencia reciproca)also sanctioned by the highest authorities on the face of the earth...... but on the other hand , i'm glad you still believe, the system needs believers in order to work(always in favor of the powerfull)

 

[Bajo_cero2]

wow we are saved now, i hope this works a little better than theTIAR (tratado de asistencia reciproca)also sanctioned by the highest authorities on the face of the earth...... but on the other hand , i'm glad you still believe, the system needs believers in order to work(always in favor of the powerfull)

The TIAR was the equivalent of NATO in America, it means, an alliance against the Soviet Union. It fact it worked out very well because there was an uniform dirty war against communism in Central and South America that was won.

The fact is that NY used to be the legal place to deal with conflict regarding international bonds. Seems that they are going to start loosing that place of privilege because of biased judges.

You are describing the Justice System in the US where justice is in favor of the rich and for them only. Justice there means to enforce the rules of the most powerful.

It does´t work out in most of the civilized world where there is equal rights. In civilized countries, the justice means to equal legally people who have huge difference of power because of money. Justice means there, to limit the power of the most powerful.

Law is law, is not maths. The world is changing, who knows and we are debating about a leading case.

 

[mc kenna]

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

 

[AmigoArtistico]

Disagreement is healthy, the lack of respect you show is not.

Qué caradura! You constantly insult everyone who disagrees with your insane, warped, illogical, and totally incorrect point of view (backed by nothing, ever), and you say I'm disrespectful? You're despicable.

 

[cafeamericano]

Countries and persons are different. While the persons are subjects of a State ruled by its laws, the States are legally equals among them and they are ruled by its own laws. The international law states that the assets of a State cannot be seized by another´s State Judge.

This is why, unless the President agree to give up sovereignty, the sentence of Griesa is not enforzable. Clarification for dummies: the sentence of a judge does´t need to be negociated, if they negotiate, it is because the sentence is useless.

Here you have an example:
http://www.ambito.co...a.asp?id=757561




Well, Prat Gay wants to take loans to pay the expenditures of the State while before the tax cut for richs only, they were paid with tax income plus money printing.

Let`s remember that the income tax for salaries was not abolished but, instead, the President´s decree makes pay a lot of people did´t pay it before.



Facts shows that during crisis, money goes to Germany even they pay in negative terms interest.

Do you remember that when Macri explained his project at Davos, a journalist asked him how was he going to achieve it with the WW economic crisis?

We agree that Argentina has to fix its problems but this is not the solution, instead, it seems to be a Pandora box.

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.



Disagreement is healthy, the lack of respect you show is not. I think that you should move to North Korea where you are going to feel more confortable with the lack of respect of freedom of speech.

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.

 

[cafeamericano]

The "RUFO" clause (Rights Upon Future Offers -- the right to ask for more money if an improved offer is made to other bondholders -- in this case the holdouts) expired at the end of 2014. See this article from La Nación. http://www.lanacion....s-fondos-buitre

That doesn't mean that Argentina won't be sued. You know how lawyers are. But it does mean that if they do sue, they have virtually no chance of winning.

Is this different than Pari Passu? I knew that clause had expired, but I thought the risk was the ongoing disagreement of Pari Passu, and what it means, not the RUFO clause. I could be very wrong about that though (It seems like very few news sources really understand all of the complexities).

 

[joeschmoe1920]

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.

 

[cafeamericano]

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. The only rights the settlers may have had (although reasonable lawyers disagreed on the scope of these rights) were under the RUFO clause included in the new bonds, which is no longer a problem because it expired.

Ahhh, thank you!! That makes sense. It seemed strange that there would even be a RUFO clause in the new bonds if Pari Passu was still in force. I suspected there might have been something like this, I just couldn't find a definitive source that said that.