The unravelling of the global financial system

American Task Force Argentina???????

Are they going to invade? US financial activities seem more and more like a modern reflection of the loan and extortion tactics used by ancient Roman equites and Senators, backed by the power of the Roman state to enforce extraterritorial judgements. (Eg Brutus and Ariobarzanes III of Cappadocia.)

“Obviously, if the nationalities were reversed, with foreign ‘vultures’ upsetting a debt-restructuring agreement negotiated by, say, a U.S. city, within the U.S. political process, the Appeals court would have given the investors short shrift. Had the court somehow managed to decide in favor of the foreign party, the Supreme Court would certainly not have let the judgment stand.”

I am inclined to agree with the article but I wonder if there is any real evidence to support the “obviously” and “certainly” in these sentences.

Oh, I forgot. Here is a very good article on the matter of the Argentina vs. Elliot case.

That politics is at work in these matters is hardly cause for surprise. In numerous respects, the way governments have protected the interests of financial institutions at great cost to the public has been shameful. As you note, the results clearly reflect political power and there is little reason to expect that the results of reforms being implemented will make necessary corrections. As for Argentina, it knowingly negotiated the terms of the agreements under which it borrowed. It was a known risk that if the agreements did not specify that all would be bound once a specified majority agreed to terms, there could be holdouts. Consideration has been given, and doubtless more will be given in light of the current litigation, to agreements that will by their terms bind all. Likely this will raise borrowing costs somewhat but that is a matter for the parties to determine given how they weigh the risks.

Holdouts can take their chances in many situations under U.S. law; bankruptcies and class actions are but two examples.

What I find of interest is that financial parties (particularly including those who get fees from facilitating sovereign loans), are often against eliminating the risk that will be holdouts because it is not in their interest as transactional fee earners to raise borrowing costs. While I am not sure it is quite comparable, similar dynamics are I expect at work in student loan markets in the U.S. to the great detriment of many student borrowers. Borrowers are typically barred from accessing bankruptcy remedies, the argument being that if they could, it would raise student borrowing costs. Curiously, that argument seems to have little force in the commercial world where bankruptcy is a generally available remedy notwithstanding the impact on borrowing costs.

Otto @3, we may get a chance to find out. I looked a bit to see who’s holding Detroit paper … ees how you say eet? … and I see that Beijing Poly International Auction Company wants the court to order the city to borrow $1 billion from them against the art collection. For one thing.

Mario thanks … so the vultures aren’t even the people who suffered the loss when Argentina defaulted. They just want to be compensated against the lending banks failure to do good due diligence about risks. Because they can. We really need to get some virtue back into law as per Chris’ OP.

Sorry, this was a resply to Salem, comment the second.

The people in responsible have been sacked.
~

http://www.frontline.in/columns/Jayati_Ghosh/the-argentina-debt-case/article6189039.ece

@12: Yes, I read it. You didn’t even begin to demonstrate that Argentina v NML Capital was influenced by “political favoritism”, let alone that it was wrongly decided.

And no, the US doesn’t behave like that. The US doesn’t borrow under other countries’ laws, or indeed promise to obey other countries’ laws in any way.

As for Mario’s point: it’s an advert, with extremely limited space. No, it doesn’t mention that Argentina promised to obey US law. It also doesn’t mention the name of the case, the fact that this is a case of Argentina refusing to pay its debts, the legal reasons why Blackman’s comments were so ill-advised and shocking, or any number of highly relevant facts. I count 128 words total in that advert, including footnotes, logos, and everything else. It’s not intended to be a summary of the case, just bringing to light some of the most egregious conduct. Which I think it does, very successfully.

Salem,

“And no, the US doesn’t behave like that. The US doesn’t borrow under other countries’ laws, or indeed promise to obey other countries’ laws in any way.”

But the US government and departments act around the world in ways to try to make other countries follow US laws or alternatively even against US home laws and what everyday US citizens would want to further elite US interests. Thus is an example I found about Henry Kissinger’s dealings with Argentina. Maybe if such things had not happened Argentina would not have become indebted under these conditions or at all.

“Washington, August 27, 2004 – A newly declassified document obtained by the National Security Archive shows that amidst vast human rights violations by Argentina’s security forces in June 1976, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told Argentine Foreign Minister Admiral Cesar Augusto Guzzetti:

“If there are things that have to be done, you should do them quickly. But you should get back quickly to normal procedures.”

Kissinger’s comment is part of a 13-page Memorandum of Conversation reporting on a June 10 meeting between Secretary Kissinger and Argentine Admiral Guzzetti in Santiago, Chile.

After a series of pleasantries, Guzzetti went into the substance of the meeting by stating: “Our main problem in Argentina is terrorism. It is the first priority of the current government that took office on March 24. There are two aspects to the solution. The first is to ensure the internal security of the country; the second is to solve the most urgent economic problems over the coming 6 to 12 months. Argentina needs United States understanding and support….”

Replying to Guzzetti’s report on the situation, Secretary Kissinger said: “We have followed events in Argentina closely. We wish the new government well. We wish it will succeed. We will do what we can to help it succeed.”

At a time when the international community, the U.S. media, universities, and scientific institutions, the U.S. Congress, and even the U.S. Embassy in Argentina were clamoring about the indiscriminate human rights violations against scientists, labor leaders, students, and politicians by the Argentine military, Secretary Kissinger told Guzzetti: “We are aware you are in a difficult period. It is a curious time, when political, criminal, and terrorist activities tend to merge without any clear separation. We understand you must establish authority.”

Only two weeks earlier, on May 28, Ambassador Robert Hill had presented a U.S. demarche on human rights to Admiral Guzzetti. The Embassy was deeply concerned about the kidnapping and torture of three American women, among them the Fulbright coordinator for Argentina, Elida Messina, and the wave of attacks against political refugees from the Southern Cone. In contrast to Hill’s efforts, according to the memorandum of conversation Secretary Kissinger told Guzzetti:”In the United States we have strong domestic pressures to do something on human rights… We want you to succeed. We do not want to harrass [sic] you. I will do what I can….”

Another document recently unearthed by the National Security Archive and posted for the first time here, shows that on July 9, 1976, Secretary Kissinger was explicitly briefed on the rampant repression taking place in Argentina: “Their theory is that they can use the Chilean method,” Kissinger’s top aide on Latin America Harry Shlaudeman informed him, “that is, to terrorize the opposition – even killing priests and nuns and others.”….”

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB133/

How did we handle this sort of thing before the New World Order where the USA was definitively on top?

It’s time for Argentina to… Stop Disrespecting U.S. Courts

Fur-Q

I haven’t studied the legal issues, so I have no opinion on them. I don’t care to get into the political issues real imagined. What I want to know is what’s the point of this ad? Who is it supposed to persuade, and to do what?

Can we crowdfund some advertisements to run in the same publication(s) as that one? Since they’re sure to have audiences with a high level of respect for the law and the courts, I think we could try something like this:

Would You Tell a Judge That You’re Going to Break the Law?

That’s What Cliven Bundy Did.

For years, Cliven Bundy has stiffed the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. taxpayers for more than a million dollars.

With U.S. courts closing in on this massive violation of U.S. law, Bundy tells the press and taxpayers that he flat out does not respect America’s laws or courts.

We definitely don’t recognize [the BLM director’s] jurisdiction or authority, his arresting power or policing power in any way.

…I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing…

Really?

As stated by the editorial staff of The Salt Lake City Tribune:

When some manage to avoid justice by extralegal means, the rule of law is weakened for all Americans.

It’s Time for Welfare Cowboy Cliven Bundy to Obey America’s Laws and Stop Disrespecting America’s Courts.

And then there’s FATCA…