Thus Spoke Kristina....""

#63
Oh my god the number of Offshores that Macri has just keeps multiplying -- not two seconds ago I read another thread where Bajo said 8, then 13, now it's 16. It's like Brancatelli estimating people in attendance at comodoro py all over again -- 12,000 people in the real world = 300,000 people in the K world...

As of 11 days ago there was a possibility of a 4th. But they weren't even sure that Mauricio Macri was linked to it

http://www.eldestapeweb.com/panama-papers-macri-tendria-una-cuarta-sociedad-offshore-n16399


I can't find any mention of 13 in the mainstream papers right now, if you can, please post. Note I said MAINSTREAM not some conspiratorial blog.

El Chueco did supposedly set up 12 -- per year:
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1890107-el-polemico-abogado-creo-unas-12-sociedades-offshore-por-ano





Look, Bajo, if you or your cohorts have info on Macri and his offshore dealings, you can leak it direct to the ICIJ (Panama Papers):
https://www.icij.org/leak#_ga=1.168669089.1026103765.1459722972
 
#64
People - the ignore feature is a lifesaver. Best thing I ever did was employ it. I think you will find arguing with some people to be an exercise in futility, esp when adherence to fact - substantiated and unequivocal - seems to be unnecessary in their opinions.

ETA - Or we all just start making up things and citing them as fact. That could be fun too :)
 
#65
News for Bajo ... according to self proclaimed K economist Navarro in C5N . Prat Gay paid US$9,3 billion cash to Holdouts. The value of the issued bonds sold plus interests due to holders for 30 years amount to a grand total of US$ 55 billion :cool: :rolleyes:
 
#66
I have been so busy lately, in the last month or so, that I haven't had time to read, much less post, here. But I found myself with a little bit of time this Saturday afternoon and decided to go check things out.

And here I see Bajo talking about Macri being bad, about Lanata being paid by Singer, and when someone challenges him to the facts (i.e., does he have first-hand knowledge that Singer paid Lanata) he starts doing the Cristina dance and calling other people hypocrites and making noises about no, this is not a court of law, just a discussion forum.

Yet I seem to remember that previously, every time someone made a comment about Cristina and her other corrupt associates while they were in power, that he didn't know anything about such things, that he's a lawyer who can only speculate on the facts, where was the proof for such accusations, we can't accuse someone of such things without knowing the facts, and so on.

I find it interesting how he seems to have similar a playbook as that of Cristina...

I will, however, agree with him on one thing, and it's something I said before Macri even took up his presidency, written somewhere here in the annals of this forum: I understand the desire to nail every one of those thieving bastards who duped a goodly portion of this country into thinking they were the saviors of the Argentine people, while making off with at the very least hundreds of millions of dollars of the Argentine people's money, but (and this is where I agree with Bajo) Macri, et al, (those investigating and maybe prosecuting) are helping to make a living martyr of Cristina at the moment.

Putting her in the limelight in such a negative manner is giving the militants that she had purchased with actual money, or promises, or work for nothing, a rallying point. And she does indeed know how to play her followers, how to pull their heart strings, how to bring out in them that stupefied adulation normally reserved for religious figures of the past or present, or horrendous dictators of the past and present perhaps, and use that fuel to stoke her own political fires. Where it ends up, I don't know.

I live about a block from her Recoleta apartment and while she was in town, I had to walk past crowds of idiots standing on all four corners of the intersection where her apartment is located, with news vans parked and taking up space on the streets, making it very difficult at times to maneuver around and get where I (and all other supposedly evil denizens of this neighborhood) needed to go. Listening in my apartment, from a block away, as they sang their songs and chanted, while people who lived near the corner stood on their balconies and beat their pots and pans to the rhythm of the cacerolazos' march. Our youngest had to pass by there twice a day to go to school and reported a couple of fights between true believers and those who were sick of the K's regime, though I was never witness to violence myself. Her admirers pointed their cell phones at her corner window, so famously shown in a number of photos published by news and internet organizations of her standing behind the bars of her balcony with arms raised, greeting her followers, those selfsame admirers hoping to catch a glimpse of her themselves and a chance to take a photo of their adored queen. I heard them talking, speculating whether she was there, or at night if she was awake (often there was only that one window with a light on, as far as one could see), if she would grace them with her fleeting presence, and so on.

Like little children following the Pied Piper of Hamelin to their doom.

Having said all that, I'm not saying that Macri, et al, shouldn't be doing what they're doing: it's certainly the "right" thing to do as far as punishing people who act as the Ks had acted during their reign. It may end up not being the best thing to get rid of the K influence and power, at the moment, unless they can actually put her and people like Baez, et al, in prison, which is another thing completely.

Should Macri, et al, have acted differently in this cause? I, personally, don't know. It's the conundrum of those who claim to be honest. Do the right thing no matter the consequences?
 
#67
Pollo Sobrero major Argie Union leader. Voting for the Law Project banning firing workers, and requiring double termination benefits to fire workers
Very tough decision for Macri to veto this Project


 
#68
... Should Macri, et al, have acted differently in this cause? I, personally, don't know. It's the conundrum of those who claim to be honest ... ... Do the right thing no matter the consequences? ...
Glad to see you back, Queso. I was getting concerned.

I thought about making essentially this same post many times, but just didn't get around to it. However, I have said in other posts, what is paraphrased here: there will be plenty of time to go after cfk personally before legal limitations preclude doing it. Right now (and here I agree, astonishingly, with Bajo as well as you), the first priority has to be the economy, security ... in short, the country ... before trying to jail Cristina.

Realizing that the judiciary is, at least in theory, independent of the executive, it's likely that Bonadio charged off on his own, rather than following anyone's orders, but in my view this has been and will be counterproductive - making her the brave martyr and energizing her base. That's the last thing that Argentina needs now. But the horse (no, I didn't say that) is out of the barn so we spectators can only watch the drama unfold.

Thanks for doing it better than I could have, and thanks for reappearing.
 
#69
Pollo Sobrero major Argie Union leader. Voting for the Law Project banning firing workers, and requiring double termination benefits to fire workers
Very tough decision for Macri to veto this Project


Firing workers should be an employers right not an employees legal position. And they wonder why they are so poor and their salaries are nothing. Fire them I say lets see if they can rebuild Argentina or they will stand crying like babies.
 
#70
Pensador, you're absolutely right about the employers' right to be able to employ whom he wants, when he wants (or at least that's what I got out of your comment). At least within a free society - but then, even the US has serious problems with this as well, nowadays, seems to me.

And that's only the tip of the iceberg here, as far as what keeps this country down. And to continue repeating myself, the US and other countries who adopt more and more restrictions on businesses and their owners, those who produce the foundations for creating wealth in any successful system, are doomed to repeat similar histories. The more you restrict things, the worse it gets - and the less wealth that is created, no matter how many jobs the government "creates".

I was reading something earlier today about the current government pushing to enact a law in late June that would allow the creation of new businesses to occur within a single day. I was in a hurry and didn't read the whole thing, but the official or congressman who was being interviewed (don't remember who it was) mentioned the current red tape that restricts businesses from being created here without going through so much pain - and passing across the desk of too many functionaries who probably enjoy finding an un-dotted "i" and sending the paperwork back gleefully for correction.

Creating businesses easily for small entrepreneurs is very important, not to mention the burden that is placed on such adventurers. The government, or the people, shouldn't present a roadblock to those who would put themselves out there in risk, to create jobs for other people. But Argentina has that "need" to depend on big businesses who can provide "stability" and "bigger paychecks", and legislates labor policies that only deep pockets can fill relatively easily. Small businesses are afraid to hire anyone because of the terrible burden this society puts on all employers, not just hiring and firing (and the attendant abuse that naturally accompanies such requirements), but the aguinaldo, the requirement for paid vacations, the high taxes, etc.

Maybe a follow-up bill for the simplification of business creation would be a lessening of said burden for small businesses, say businesses who employ around 20 people or less. I don't know what that number should be. They have a year trial employment instead of the 90-day period that is in effect currently, when they can let someone go without penalties. They don't have to pay an aguinaldo. They don't have to pay for the employees' vacations. Of course, for the latter two, if it's a strong business they might want to pay this anyway, or come up with (gasp) profit sharing and bonus scheme for every level of worker. It's easier to be socially responsible for others when the government is not strangling you. Who knows - competition in an environment where such things are often thought of as a right - maybe such relative freedom could help transform the idea that such things thought of as a "right" are really a privilege used to award people who contribute to the well-being of all by way of producing.

But nah, surely the unions and bigger businesses would throw a hissy fit and people like La Campora will continue to insist that money is printed, not created by freedom.