3 ms·

The US is not the global or continental lender of last resort. The IMF traditionally holds that role and it appears to be at its limit with regard to Argentina

The US is not the global or continental lender of last resort. The IMF traditionally holds that role and it appears to be at its limit with regard to Argentina due to serial defaulting, political instability, corruption, and overall lack of credibility. Not compelling at all to say the US just generally has an imperative to buy debt or lend to countries whenever they're least creditable just because China might do it anyway.

nradov 1y ago
Well that was my point. Argentina probably can't borrow any more from the IMF so that leaves the USA or China. China might do it for political reasons even if they lose money so we need to consider whether we're willing to accept the negative geopolitical consequences of that.
- estearum 1y ago
  If the US had any desire to maintain influence in the Americas (or anywhere else), it wouldn't be calling their leaders drug lords, cutting off foreign aid, engaging in extrajudicial killings off their shores, threatening them with carrier groups, violating previously agreed-upon trade deals, etc. Argentina also would not be getting some special treatment. There are far more strategically important and similarly struggling economies in the Americas and elsewhere that the US could choose to assist and is not. There's just no coherence to this theory. This is rich guys helping out their rich guy buddies using taxpayer dollars.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - zmgsabst 1y ago
    The US is playing nice with Argentina and El Salvador while harsh with Colombia and Venezuela due to the perceived difference in their politics. Carrot, stick. > This is rich guys helping out their rich guy buddies using taxpayer dollars. Almost all foreign aid is this, complete with kickbacks such as donations to the Clinton Foundation, etc. Even domestically, eg, the high percentage of homeless and poverty support disappearing into NGO pockets.
    - igor47 1y ago
      What does "the high percentage" mean? I donate plenty of money to both foreign and domestic non-profits and a pretty bad overhead is 20% in my experience. I generally aim for overhead ratios of 10% or so and have no problems finding lots of quality orgs in that range.
      - zmgsabst 1y ago
        That far more than 20% disappears into petite bourgeoisie pockets in government programs — what we were talking about in this thread. Eg, of the budget in Seattle.
        estearum 1y ago
        It's crazy how you can't just like give specific information about what exactly you're talking about. Is it just vague gesticulation all the way down?
        zmgsabst 1y ago
        It’s an intentionally difficult to parse network of public and private groups. I did say specifically what I was talking about — public funds like Seattle, where $18000/homeless per year disappears through the network into employee pockets while delivering substantially less to those it’s nominally for. https://www.pacificresearch.org/despite-big-budgets-homeless-agency-is-clueless-in-seattle/#:~:text=Divide%20the%20amount%20spent%20on,just%20over%20%2417%2C900%20a%20head. https://www.pacificresearch.org/despite-big-budgets-homeless... I think you’re being intentionally dense.
        estearum 1y ago
        "A lot of money is spent and the outcome is not as good as expected" does not indicate "an intentionally difficult to parse network of public and private groups" where money "disappears through the network into employee pockets." Here's another possibility: the problem is much more challenging or more expensive to solve than one would expect from the outset. Or the challenge of the problem just vastly outstrips the talent of the people dedicated to solving it. I don't know about you, but I encounter unexpectedly hard problems or insufficiently talented problem-solvers probably 1,000 to 10,000 times more frequently than I encounter complex conspiracies to steal money. I think you need far more evidence than you have to make the claims you're making. Which is why they aren't specific.
  - hulitu 1y ago
    > it wouldn't be calling their leaders drug lords, cutting off foreign aid, engaging in extrajudicial killings off their shores, threatening them with carrier groups, violating previously agreed-upon trade deals, etc. The world policeman is doing world policeman things. Luckily things are starting to get worse for the world policeman so those things might happen less.
    - actionfromafar 1y ago
      Why would it happen less? Empires don't go down in peace. The dying Soviet empire morphed into the incredibly violent, dying Russian empire under Putin.
    - estearum 1y ago
      > The world policeman is doing world policeman things Actually a lot of this is extremely aberrational, even measured by the United States' own "unique" standards.
mrcwinn 1y ago
I don't know, it sounds pretty compelling to me.
hulitu 1y ago
IMF is an US intrument.
- estearum 1y ago
  Up to you if you want to describe holding a 16% controlling stake as "its instrument," but I don't think many would. In practice, your point is demonstrably false by the fact that IMF is likely backing away from further financing to Argentina while the US is stepping in.

nradov 1y ago

Well that was my point. Argentina probably can't borrow any more from the IMF so that leaves the USA or China. China might do it for political reasons even if they lose money so we need to consider whether we're willing to accept the negative geopolitical consequences of that.

estearum 1y ago
If the US had any desire to maintain influence in the Americas (or anywhere else), it wouldn't be calling their leaders drug lords, cutting off foreign aid, engaging in extrajudicial killings off their shores, threatening them with carrier groups, violating previously agreed-upon trade deals, etc. Argentina also would not be getting some special treatment. There are far more strategically important and similarly struggling economies in the Americas and elsewhere that the US could choose to assist and is not. There's just no coherence to this theory. This is rich guys helping out their rich guy buddies using taxpayer dollars.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- zmgsabst 1y ago
  The US is playing nice with Argentina and El Salvador while harsh with Colombia and Venezuela due to the perceived difference in their politics. Carrot, stick. > This is rich guys helping out their rich guy buddies using taxpayer dollars. Almost all foreign aid is this, complete with kickbacks such as donations to the Clinton Foundation, etc. Even domestically, eg, the high percentage of homeless and poverty support disappearing into NGO pockets.
  - igor47 1y ago
    What does "the high percentage" mean? I donate plenty of money to both foreign and domestic non-profits and a pretty bad overhead is 20% in my experience. I generally aim for overhead ratios of 10% or so and have no problems finding lots of quality orgs in that range.
    - zmgsabst 1y ago
      That far more than 20% disappears into petite bourgeoisie pockets in government programs — what we were talking about in this thread. Eg, of the budget in Seattle.
      - estearum 1y ago
        It's crazy how you can't just like give specific information about what exactly you're talking about. Is it just vague gesticulation all the way down?
        zmgsabst 1y ago
        It’s an intentionally difficult to parse network of public and private groups. I did say specifically what I was talking about — public funds like Seattle, where $18000/homeless per year disappears through the network into employee pockets while delivering substantially less to those it’s nominally for. https://www.pacificresearch.org/despite-big-budgets-homeless-agency-is-clueless-in-seattle/#:~:text=Divide%20the%20amount%20spent%20on,just%20over%20%2417%2C900%20a%20head. https://www.pacificresearch.org/despite-big-budgets-homeless... I think you’re being intentionally dense.
        estearum 1y ago
        "A lot of money is spent and the outcome is not as good as expected" does not indicate "an intentionally difficult to parse network of public and private groups" where money "disappears through the network into employee pockets." Here's another possibility: the problem is much more challenging or more expensive to solve than one would expect from the outset. Or the challenge of the problem just vastly outstrips the talent of the people dedicated to solving it. I don't know about you, but I encounter unexpectedly hard problems or insufficiently talented problem-solvers probably 1,000 to 10,000 times more frequently than I encounter complex conspiracies to steal money. I think you need far more evidence than you have to make the claims you're making. Which is why they aren't specific.
- hulitu 1y ago
  > it wouldn't be calling their leaders drug lords, cutting off foreign aid, engaging in extrajudicial killings off their shores, threatening them with carrier groups, violating previously agreed-upon trade deals, etc. The world policeman is doing world policeman things. Luckily things are starting to get worse for the world policeman so those things might happen less.
  - actionfromafar 1y ago
    Why would it happen less? Empires don't go down in peace. The dying Soviet empire morphed into the incredibly violent, dying Russian empire under Putin.
  - estearum 1y ago
    > The world policeman is doing world policeman things Actually a lot of this is extremely aberrational, even measured by the United States' own "unique" standards.

mrcwinn 1y ago

I don't know, it sounds pretty compelling to me.

hulitu 1y ago

IMF is an US intrument.

estearum 1y ago
Up to you if you want to describe holding a 16% controlling stake as "its instrument," but I don't think many would. In practice, your point is demonstrably false by the fact that IMF is likely backing away from further financing to Argentina while the US is stepping in.