4 ms·
> It is unclear to me what a default is supposed to indicate when the the collectors are the ones holding and freezing the assets that easily could be used to p
by monkeydreams 5y ago
> It is unclear to me what a default is supposed to indicate when the the collectors are the ones holding and freezing the assets that easily could be used to pay it.
Should an alleged thief be able to pay his lawyers with the proceeds of that theft? Should a charged murderer inherit their victim's property so they can defend the murder charges? Should Russia be free of their obligation to pay their debts just because the nations (not the organisations) to which they owe the debt are implementing punative measures due to an alleged illegal act?
- s1artibartfast 5y agoIm not in debating the morality, but rather asking what markets will make of this new type of default. Default is bad because being too poor to pay up scares away creditors. If Russia maintains the ability to pay the debts to creditors when allowed, how will different creditors feel about that? Traditional default is undesirable because of what it means. It remains to be seen what this default will mean.
- atoav 5y agoWhether one cannot buy in the village store because they A.) have no money or B.) sexually harassed the grocerers daughter is functionally the same: They cannot buy there anymore. Or framed differently: There are certain preconditions someone has to meet before you can do transactions with them. Money is one of those preconditions, but not the only one.
- tsol 5y agoOkay but there are a lot of grocery stores including ones where they didn't get on anyone's bad side, so it would seem to me as though if a power like say India or China wants to trade with them they would easily ignore the default as unusual circumstances