4 ms·

Are you going to answer my point, or just the degree of relevance of my citation? You presented Argentina's dire situation as a consequence of its currency cris

by ez77 15y ago

Are you going to answer my point, or just the degree of relevance of my citation? You presented Argentina's dire situation as a consequence of its currency crisis, when in fact devaluation (i.e., the "currency crisis") was a great relief. One, by the way, Greece is unable to do unless it abandons the Euro. One, by the way, Argentina was unable to do by law during nine years [1]. Did you read craig's short comment? It talks about devaluation, not default. Now, it so happens that Argentina chose to pay just what it owed the IMF and effectively get out of "the world credit establishment" with a big, unpaid debt. Guess what? No Argentinean government could have set in motion state intervention/"stimuli" of any kind had most of its resources been devoted to pay an unbearable foreign debt. (Debt interests, in fact.) As you surely know, even though Argentina's debt is proportionally [2] smaller than the that of the US, the payback rates it gets are prohibitive, unlike America's 3%. Just for clarity, what was your point? That Argentina would have been better off without default? Without devaluation? Both? Let me reiterate, there is nothing stupid about thinking otherwise... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_peso#Peso_convertible.2C_from_1992 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_peso#Peso_convertible... [2] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

jessedhillon 15y ago
My point is that default, or any other sort of fuck-the-system type of approach (e.g. let the largest banks become insolvent) is not a serious option. First, the time for such a thing has passed; second, even if it were now the time for it, give me expensive stimulus and bailout every day of the week. Sovereign debt and deficit spending are not what's killing us -- 70% of GDP is half what Argentina's debt was and it's well within acceptable limits. I believe that calls for austerity are foolishly, and derived from free market dogma. crag suggested that the mere fact that Argentina recovered from such a staggering blow to its economy was indicative of something -- the implication, it seems, is that the fact of recovery is enough to warrant severe measures such as default. That's stupid, for the reasons I laid out above. You, however, seem to be supporting the original reasoning by employing an appeal to authority and suggesting that certain credible thinkers agree with crag's premise. However the one example you provided did not bear evidence of that. I don't know what else your point is -- I don't care to debate Argentina except that you seem to be using it as an example of something. I don't know about "what if" and the hypothetical situation in which Argentina did not default. I know what did happen --default, followed by an IMF-imposed austerity program, led to 50% poverty. It's only when people got behind so-called "big government" measures that they actually started to see real recovery.
- ez77 15y ago
  I can't believe you don't look for a long-trend indicators, let alone (again) when you feel entitled to throw around terms like "stupid". Default didn't yield social chaos; rather, it was seen by most political factions as the only way to end it. You see, Argentina's unemployment [1] and poverty [2] rates soared during Menem's worship-the-system 90's. These rates happened to peak, respectively, in 2001 and 2002, basically around the time Argentina defaulted, among many other measures. Now, with a discipline as complex as economics, given all the variables floating around, it is hard to conclude rigorously that defaulting contributed to reversing this trend, but it sure is harder to claim the opposite! [1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=argentina+unemployment+1980-2011 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=argentina+unemployment+... [2] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=argentina+poverty+rate+1980-2011 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=argentina+poverty+rate+...
  - jessedhillon 15y ago
    Without agreeing with your interpretation of the facts, how do I tell you that I don't give a fuck about Argentina for the purposes of this conversation? Not only that, you've conceded the only point I had about it: it is hard to conclude rigorously that defaulting contributed to reversing this trend You're having a conversation with yourself at this point. Please follow more closely the points being made before following any compulsion to chime in.
    - ez77 15y ago
      A brief recap of your enriching comments: What a stupid thing to say. Have you ever read about the currency crisis? This is from a Wikipedia article you could have found in 30 seconds [...] I don't give a fuck about Argentina for the purposes of this conversation [...] [...] follow more closely the points being made before following any compulsion to chime in. Maybe you should spend more than 30 seconds on a topic (and give a fuck about it) before giving in to your compulsion to chime in. In particular if you feel like being arrogant and isulting at the same time, calling others' ideas "stupid". Well done... Edit: For the record, you have conceded in the points of substance, particularly considering the minutiae you are addressing and all that you are surprisingly leaving out. You stated earlier: I know what did happen --default, followed by an IMF-imposed austerity program, led to 50% poverty. And yet poverty went down right after default and devaluation ("currency crisis"), as shown clearly in the two plots given above. Do you get that? If the rate in question (i.e., poverty) goes down after your chosen event (i.e., default), it's plain nonsense to claim said event pushes the rate up! Talk about the complexity of the "mixed yield" of simultaneous default and devaluation if you will, but just don't bring up stats because they will destroy your point, counselor. This is what you have been in this thread: an arrogant, cocky lawyer who gets his most vital piece of evidence hilariously backwards.

by ez77 15y ago

jessedhillon 15y ago

My point is that default, or any other sort of fuck-the-system type of approach (e.g. let the largest banks become insolvent) is not a serious option. First, the time for such a thing has passed; second, even if it were now the time for it, give me expensive stimulus and bailout every day of the week. Sovereign debt and deficit spending are not what's killing us -- 70% of GDP is half what Argentina's debt was and it's well within acceptable limits. I believe that calls for austerity are foolishly, and derived from free market dogma. crag suggested that the mere fact that Argentina recovered from such a staggering blow to its economy was indicative of something -- the implication, it seems, is that the fact of recovery is enough to warrant severe measures such as default. That's stupid, for the reasons I laid out above. You, however, seem to be supporting the original reasoning by employing an appeal to authority and suggesting that certain credible thinkers agree with crag's premise. However the one example you provided did not bear evidence of that. I don't know what else your point is -- I don't care to debate Argentina except that you seem to be using it as an example of something. I don't know about "what if" and the hypothetical situation in which Argentina did not default. I know what did happen --default, followed by an IMF-imposed austerity program, led to 50% poverty. It's only when people got behind so-called "big government" measures that they actually started to see real recovery.

ez77 15y ago
I can't believe you don't look for a long-trend indicators, let alone (again) when you feel entitled to throw around terms like "stupid". Default didn't yield social chaos; rather, it was seen by most political factions as the only way to end it. You see, Argentina's unemployment [1] and poverty [2] rates soared during Menem's worship-the-system 90's. These rates happened to peak, respectively, in 2001 and 2002, basically around the time Argentina defaulted, among many other measures. Now, with a discipline as complex as economics, given all the variables floating around, it is hard to conclude rigorously that defaulting contributed to reversing this trend, but it sure is harder to claim the opposite! [1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=argentina+unemployment+1980-2011 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=argentina+unemployment+... [2] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=argentina+poverty+rate+1980-2011 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=argentina+poverty+rate+...
- jessedhillon 15y ago
  Without agreeing with your interpretation of the facts, how do I tell you that I don't give a fuck about Argentina for the purposes of this conversation? Not only that, you've conceded the only point I had about it: it is hard to conclude rigorously that defaulting contributed to reversing this trend You're having a conversation with yourself at this point. Please follow more closely the points being made before following any compulsion to chime in.
  - ez77 15y ago
    A brief recap of your enriching comments: What a stupid thing to say. Have you ever read about the currency crisis? This is from a Wikipedia article you could have found in 30 seconds [...] I don't give a fuck about Argentina for the purposes of this conversation [...] [...] follow more closely the points being made before following any compulsion to chime in. Maybe you should spend more than 30 seconds on a topic (and give a fuck about it) before giving in to your compulsion to chime in. In particular if you feel like being arrogant and isulting at the same time, calling others' ideas "stupid". Well done... Edit: For the record, you have conceded in the points of substance, particularly considering the minutiae you are addressing and all that you are surprisingly leaving out. You stated earlier: I know what did happen --default, followed by an IMF-imposed austerity program, led to 50% poverty. And yet poverty went down right after default and devaluation ("currency crisis"), as shown clearly in the two plots given above. Do you get that? If the rate in question (i.e., poverty) goes down after your chosen event (i.e., default), it's plain nonsense to claim said event pushes the rate up! Talk about the complexity of the "mixed yield" of simultaneous default and devaluation if you will, but just don't bring up stats because they will destroy your point, counselor. This is what you have been in this thread: an arrogant, cocky lawyer who gets his most vital piece of evidence hilariously backwards.