The NY Times on Argentina's debt

Rich One

Crazy ..!Guzman will go down in history as "The 3 Penny Opera Man" or the misadvised Stiglitz Pupil.... IMHO.
Why Hassle so much if Argentina will never pay..!


I was surprised that the World Bank and IMF are actually siding with Argentina's government on this one. But that won't keep some people on this board from describing Alberto like he's Leon Trotsky.

Blackrock (this is always going to remind me of LOST) seems to be acting in bad faith by strong-arming the other creditors into rejecting the deal.


How is that bad faith? Argentina owes the money. I think it is Argentina that borrowed the money under bad faith. Any reduction in obligation that Blackrock accepts should be considered an act of compassion and charity.

Argentina is always free to just refuse to pay too. That is the potential consequence of a creditor negotiating too strongly.


Blackrock has a legally binding, fiduciary duty to its investors to maximize their return. It also has an ethical obligation. Many of those investors - indirectly - are firefighters, teachers, truck drivers, state and municipal employees of one sort of another, etc...

I don't believe anything from the NYT. Or much mainstream journalism. What actually is happening on those zoom calls and in those conference rooms where debt is being negotiated and strategies are being devised, are numerous layers removed from the journalists. At the highest levels of business, the press is used as a pawn, to influence the debate. Objective truth is rarely provided to journalists.

If Argentina pays somewhere around $.52 cents on the dollar, Argentina will walk away with about $33B in free money.

Makes one wonder who is the real vulture.