Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/31/336765995/argentina-is-in-default-what-does-that-actually-mean

Talks between Argentina and holdout bondholders collapsed Wednesday. With no additional talks scheduled, it appears Argentina has defaulted for the second time in about 12 years

I'm sure the Argentinian government and President will manage to deflect attention from it by more rabble-rousing and sabre rattling over the Falklands however.

They should have done better at the World Cup. That would have boosted their economy enough!

 filbert wrote:
I'm sure the Argentinian government and President will manage to deflect attention from it by more rabble-rousing and sabre rattling over the Falklands however.

I'm sure Sean Penn has the press release recorded and at the ready

Cue Falklands/Malvinas rhetoric from the Argentine president...

Better check and make sure the "Artinians" have not stock up on Silkworms

I reckon its time for the British military to conduct some military exercises...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I reckon its time for the British military to conduct some military exercises...

Your only limited to try for only 13 states

 Jihadin wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I reckon its time for the British military to conduct some military exercises...

Your only limited to try for only 13 states

I...don't even...what?

Not surprised really. I don't see any other way it could have gone with the few hold-outs demanding full payment.

Argentina was (is) in a bad way. They negotiated a lower percentage for the bulk of the debt, but these hold-outs want to be paid in full. Argentina can't do that b/c there's a clause that says all debtors in this deal have to be paid the same. Argentina doesn't have the $ to pay everyone the full amount, so they refuse to pay the hold-outs.

Not to absolve Argentina for what I'm sure is huge mismanagement of their finances, but it does strike me as a bit greedy for this group of investors to hold an entire country's access to international finance hostage over a debt the country can't afford to pay.

Inevitably as it played out now, everyone loses. The hold-outs don't get paid, Argentina loses whatever slim access it had to international lenders and it's the regular citizens who will sufffer.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I reckon its time for the British military to conduct some military exercises...

Your only limited to try for only 13 states

I...don't even...what?

Think Colonies

 Jihadin wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I reckon its time for the British military to conduct some military exercises...

Your only limited to try for only 13 states

I...don't even...what?

Think Colonies

Wtf has that got to do with the Falklands?

It is our fault. We should not have sold them all those homes they clearly could not afford to make payments on. Perhaps they are eligible to refinance under harp.

Remember a couple of years ago when I said that Argentina was a serial basket-case? Yeah, this thread.

Is it too late to put evita back in power? She knew how so solve all the problems.

Madonna version of Evita?

 Jihadin wrote:
Madonna version of Evita?

Nope. Chuck Testa's.

 Eilif wrote:
Not surprised really. I don't see any other way it could have gone with the few hold-outs demanding full payment.

Argentina was (is) in a bad way. They negotiated a lower percentage for the bulk of the debt, but these hold-outs want to be paid in full. Argentina can't do that b/c there's a clause that says all debtors in this deal have to be paid the same. Argentina doesn't have the $ to pay everyone the full amount, so they refuse to pay the hold-outs.

Not to absolve Argentina for what I'm sure is huge mismanagement of their finances, but it does strike me as a bit greedy for this group of investors to hold an entire country's access to international finance hostage over a debt the country can't afford to pay.

Inevitably as it played out now, everyone loses. The hold-outs don't get paid, Argentina loses whatever slim access it had to international lenders and it's the regular citizens who will sufffer.

Play by the rules man. Play by the rules. When you borrow money you have to pay it back. No sympathies for crooks

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
Not surprised really. I don't see any other way it could have gone with the few hold-outs demanding full payment.

Argentina was (is) in a bad way. They negotiated a lower percentage for the bulk of the debt, but these hold-outs want to be paid in full. Argentina can't do that b/c there's a clause that says all debtors in this deal have to be paid the same. Argentina doesn't have the $ to pay everyone the full amount, so they refuse to pay the hold-outs.

Not to absolve Argentina for what I'm sure is huge mismanagement of their finances, but it does strike me as a bit greedy for this group of investors to hold an entire country's access to international finance hostage over a debt the country can't afford to pay.

Inevitably as it played out now, everyone loses. The hold-outs don't get paid, Argentina loses whatever slim access it had to international lenders and it's the regular citizens who will sufffer.

Play by the rules man. Play by the rules. When you borrow money you have to pay it back. No sympathies for crooks

Meh, many of the rules of finance and lending are alot more fluid that you think. Entitites default all the time, that's why contracts (or international standards) provide consequences. That said, but they also are often provided by work-outs, bail-outs, etc from lenders who realize that it's better to get something-than-nothing. Restructuring a loan is pretty common, and it doesn't make one a crook. There are other reasons to possibly call the Argentine govt. a crook, but this isn't one of them.

A more concrete example:
Someone stops paying on their house, they aren't a crook, the house might taken away and the borrower's credit slashed for a number of years. However often the lender realizes it's in their best interest to work with the buyer to restructure the loan, provide a write-down, etc. Sometimes the govt mandates that help b/c the lender was negligent.

All this to say, it's not a simple matter of "crooks" and playing by the rules.

 Eilif wrote:

A more concrete example:
Someone stops paying on their house, they aren't a crook, the house might taken away and the borrower's credit slashed for a number of years.

Soooo...do we take Argentina away from the Argentinians?

Where do we displace them to? The US Border of course!

 WarOne wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

A more concrete example:
Someone stops paying on their house, they aren't a crook, the house might taken away and the borrower's credit slashed for a number of years.

Soooo...do we take Argentina away from the Argentinians?

Where do we displace them to? The US Border of course!

Hmm, foreclosing on a country, an interesting, (perhaps ridiculous) but ultimately unworkable idea. The only real choice is to negotiate with them or shut them out of the bond market.

As for the US border, there aren't many Argentinians in the current border flood. For all it's problems, Argentina is heaven compared to the parts Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador that the current mass of immigrants are fleeing.

That's a real shame for the Argentinians. I'm glad those greedy hold outs don't get squat though.

When nations default on loans, no one makes them loans. People act like the US is unique for being so far in-debt. What they don't realize is that even China is 5 trillion in the whole. The countries that don't have much debt - Libya, Central African Republic, Grenada - tend not to be the best places.

Argentina is in for an even bumpier ride than the one it was already on.

 LoneLictor wrote:
When nations default on loans, no one makes them loans. People act like the US is unique for being so far in-debt. What they don't realize is that even China is 5 trillion in the whole. The countries that don't have much debt - Libya, Central African Republic, Grenada - tend not to be the best places.

Argentina is in for an even bumpier ride than the one it was already on.

And the roads will be even bumpier without funds to fix them.

Also, do they have to liquify their national soccer team to make ends meat? I bet the US can pick up a player or two at less than their original value.

President Fernandez has been mismanaging Argentina for too long, the country hasnt a good economy in the best of times, and these are not the best of times.

Frankly I am surprised it hadn't happened sooner, our local Argentinian Dakkaites gave us some pointers as to the extreme protectionist policies of the current administration and how he had to go to Uruguay to get gaming materials.

Protectionism never helps, especially if you dont have much to trade beyond agricultural produce.
Actually a solid agricultural base is all Argentina really has, they are blessed wityh some of the richest lands in the world, with regards to soil quality.

While President Fernandez has a face that can curdle milk, ever she has not managed to wither crops yet , through probably not for lack of trying. If anyone alive can feth up a breadbasket economy its her, well her and Robert Mugabe.
maybe they should get married, they have much in common.


Anyways the default is not good news in one respect, once debts are written off Argentina can go buying again, and allowing how Fernandez has placed an awful lot of focus on 'recovering' the Falklands she might just try to buy the tools for the job.
Better keep a weather eye on the South Atlantic in a year or twos time..

 kronk wrote:
They should have done better at the World Cup. That would have boosted their economy enough!

Not to worry... They're about to place 4th in the Rugby Championships later this month

Time to station a few nukes on the Falklands I think.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Time to station a few nukes on the Falklands I think.

We keep all out nukes on submarines anyway so this isn't necessary. Anyway we wouldn't need, or want to use them. Our conventional forces are enough to squash the argies, we don't want to go throwing nukes around over some rocks in the south atlantic.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Time to station a few nukes on the Falklands I think.

We keep all out nukes on submarines anyway so this isn't necessary. Anyway we wouldn't need, or want to use them. Our conventional forces are enough to squash the argies, we don't want to go throwing nukes around over some rocks in the south atlantic.

Who're you gonna borrow carriers from?

 Seaward wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Time to station a few nukes on the Falklands I think.

We keep all out nukes on submarines anyway so this isn't necessary. Anyway we wouldn't need, or want to use them. Our conventional forces are enough to squash the argies, we don't want to go throwing nukes around over some rocks in the south atlantic.

Who're you gonna borrow carriers from?

The Royal Navy, presumably?