6 ms·

Really? After 90 days of govt.? "in a profound unpayable debt"? Compared to Kirchner's administration, Macri's waaaay better. This is a sample of Kirchner's g

by lucio 11y ago

Really? After 90 days of govt.? "in a profound unpayable debt"? Compared to Kirchner's administration, Macri's waaaay better. This is a sample of Kirchner's gov: http://www.eltrecetv.com.ar/telenoche/impactante-video-el-hijo-de-lazaro-baez-cuenta-millones-de-dolares-en-la_084912 http://www.eltrecetv.com.ar/telenoche/impactante-video-el-hi... You can see in the video, the son and the accountant of a major contractor from Kirchner's Administration. They're counting corruption money, and drinking a scotch to celebrate afterwards. Looks like a hollywood script. Reality surpasses fiction.

vamur 11y ago
The new government will also be corrupt. And they have agreed to repay questionable old debt by taking on new loans, and will probably receive kickbacks from the vultures.
raverbashing 11y ago
Yes, it is Complainers are usually Kirchner "fans" that can't stand that people were fed up with her and kicked her out It's their strategy
- the_af 11y ago
  Well, she wasn't running for re-re-election so she couldn't have been kicked out (personally, I think if she had run, she would have won against Macri, but lost because her party ran with Scioli, a highly divisive and uncharismatic politican, but I admit that's speculation on my part. Let's remember on her first re-election she won with 54% of the votes on the first round, almost unprecedented). I assume you meant her party was kicked out. Since 49% of voters voted for this party, and Macri's (somewhat fragmented) coalition only won on ballotage, I'd say it was a pretty close call... and now the country is highly divided. Regardless, the political left doesn't like either Kirchner or Macri, and their criticisms are valid.
rafaelm 11y ago
Yeah, same thing is happening here in Venezuela. Chavistas now want the new Assembly to fix what chavismo has been destroying here (still is) for 18 years.
- the_af 11y ago
  I'm not very familiar with Venezuela's history (I have a vague notion of events like the "Caracazo", but not too much). What was there before the rise of Chavismo, and was it successful and good for the country?
the_af 11y ago
Yes, the almost complete surrender to the terms of the holdouts and vulture funds, Paul Singer included, will sink the country into a debt I don't see how it can ever be paid. All within 90 days, quite a feat! Alleged contractors corruption cases are a serious deal which should be investigated, no-one is denying that, but I don't think corruption alone is all that matters in a country. I'm more worried about disastrous policies. A perfectly honest politician can lead a country to ruin, and many of us don't think Macri is clean in any case.
- cjensen 11y ago
  The US had a lot of debt to "Vulture Funds" after the Revolution. The US paid. Like the US, Argentina's decision to pay its debts will enable the country to borrow, which is useful if you want to invest in stuff which will improve your economy.
  - the_af 11y ago
    I'm unfamiliar with that part of US history, can you provide me with a brief recap (or better yet, a link to an article) explaining how their creditors behaved like vulture funds? (edit: do you mean this? https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/loans https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/loans) This isn't about regular creditors, but about vulture funds, sovereign debt, ruining countries, and the never-ending cycle of incurring even more debt to pay for existing debt.
    - cjensen 11y ago
      After the Revolution, the US owed money to many including soldiers who served in the War. After a few years, it seemed like the payments would never be made, and speculators began buying up the debt at steep discounts. These speculators basically acted exactly like the "Vulture Funds" did in the Argentine situation. Many were naturally for paying what was due to soldiers, and against paying off the speculators who were "preying" on the situation. By paying it all off, Alexander Hamilton demonstrated the (a) the US would make good on its debts and (b) US debts can be can be liquidated bought and sold freely without exception. Both of these points make it easier for a country to obtain new finances on demand at lower cost. Point (a) means the lender can be assured the country will not disown the loan. Point (b) because debt which can be freely sold gives the lender much more flexibility. [1] http://www.historycentral.com/NN/economic/Hamiltontorescue.html http://www.historycentral.com/NN/economic/Hamiltontorescue.h...

by lucio 11y ago

vamur 11y ago

The new government will also be corrupt. And they have agreed to repay questionable old debt by taking on new loans, and will probably receive kickbacks from the vultures.

raverbashing 11y ago

Yes, it is Complainers are usually Kirchner "fans" that can't stand that people were fed up with her and kicked her out It's their strategy

the_af 11y ago
Well, she wasn't running for re-re-election so she couldn't have been kicked out (personally, I think if she had run, she would have won against Macri, but lost because her party ran with Scioli, a highly divisive and uncharismatic politican, but I admit that's speculation on my part. Let's remember on her first re-election she won with 54% of the votes on the first round, almost unprecedented). I assume you meant her party was kicked out. Since 49% of voters voted for this party, and Macri's (somewhat fragmented) coalition only won on ballotage, I'd say it was a pretty close call... and now the country is highly divided. Regardless, the political left doesn't like either Kirchner or Macri, and their criticisms are valid.

rafaelm 11y ago

Yeah, same thing is happening here in Venezuela. Chavistas now want the new Assembly to fix what chavismo has been destroying here (still is) for 18 years.

the_af 11y ago
I'm not very familiar with Venezuela's history (I have a vague notion of events like the "Caracazo", but not too much). What was there before the rise of Chavismo, and was it successful and good for the country?

the_af 11y ago

Yes, the almost complete surrender to the terms of the holdouts and vulture funds, Paul Singer included, will sink the country into a debt I don't see how it can ever be paid. All within 90 days, quite a feat! Alleged contractors corruption cases are a serious deal which should be investigated, no-one is denying that, but I don't think corruption alone is all that matters in a country. I'm more worried about disastrous policies. A perfectly honest politician can lead a country to ruin, and many of us don't think Macri is clean in any case.

cjensen 11y ago
The US had a lot of debt to "Vulture Funds" after the Revolution. The US paid. Like the US, Argentina's decision to pay its debts will enable the country to borrow, which is useful if you want to invest in stuff which will improve your economy.
- the_af 11y ago
  I'm unfamiliar with that part of US history, can you provide me with a brief recap (or better yet, a link to an article) explaining how their creditors behaved like vulture funds? (edit: do you mean this? https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/loans https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/loans) This isn't about regular creditors, but about vulture funds, sovereign debt, ruining countries, and the never-ending cycle of incurring even more debt to pay for existing debt.
  - cjensen 11y ago
    After the Revolution, the US owed money to many including soldiers who served in the War. After a few years, it seemed like the payments would never be made, and speculators began buying up the debt at steep discounts. These speculators basically acted exactly like the "Vulture Funds" did in the Argentine situation. Many were naturally for paying what was due to soldiers, and against paying off the speculators who were "preying" on the situation. By paying it all off, Alexander Hamilton demonstrated the (a) the US would make good on its debts and (b) US debts can be can be liquidated bought and sold freely without exception. Both of these points make it easier for a country to obtain new finances on demand at lower cost. Point (a) means the lender can be assured the country will not disown the loan. Point (b) because debt which can be freely sold gives the lender much more flexibility. [1] http://www.historycentral.com/NN/economic/Hamiltontorescue.html http://www.historycentral.com/NN/economic/Hamiltontorescue.h...