3 ms·

> “We believe,” he wrote, “that the interest — widely shared in the financial community — in maintaining New York’s status as one of the foremost commercial cen

> “We believe,” he wrote, “that the interest — widely shared in the financial community — in maintaining New York’s status as one of the foremost commercial centers is advanced by requiring debtors, including foreign debtors, to pay their debts.” So I guess that means this judge never lets companies or individuals file for bankruptcy either. The one policy you can always count on our government to enforce is "protect bondholders at all costs." The article talks a lot about how it's hard to be sympathetic to the Argentinian government, a perspective I mostly agree with. But who's the bigger heel, Argentina, or the idiots who lent them money expecting to get any of it back?

pdabbadabba 12y ago
The difference is that we have a statute allowing companies and individuals to declare bankruptcy. Here all we have are the written terms of Argentina's debt agreement. All we can do is attempt to enforce them. Is it really a viable option to pretend the agreements do not exist? Perhaps we need an international process, analogous to bankruptcy, by which a nation can escape its debt burden. But I don't see how it is a federal judge's prerogative (or responsibility) to create one.
cpwright 12y ago
> The one policy you can always count on our government to enforce is "protect bondholders at all costs." Unless of course those bondholders are institutional investors, and the other creditor is the UAW. When governments are so intimately involved in these kinds of proceedings, the only thing that we can be sure of is political expediency.
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  You must not have been following the Argentina saga very closely if you think the courts are ruling out of political expediency. The U.S. government has appeared in this case multiple times in support of Argentina, but the courts rule against them anyway. The U.S. government (the executive branch, that is) would clearly rather the courts allow Argentina to wipe out the bondholders and start over. This litigation has become a major point of friction between the U.S. and Argentina diplomatically.

pdabbadabba 12y ago

The difference is that we have a statute allowing companies and individuals to declare bankruptcy. Here all we have are the written terms of Argentina's debt agreement. All we can do is attempt to enforce them. Is it really a viable option to pretend the agreements do not exist? Perhaps we need an international process, analogous to bankruptcy, by which a nation can escape its debt burden. But I don't see how it is a federal judge's prerogative (or responsibility) to create one.

cpwright 12y ago

> The one policy you can always count on our government to enforce is "protect bondholders at all costs." Unless of course those bondholders are institutional investors, and the other creditor is the UAW. When governments are so intimately involved in these kinds of proceedings, the only thing that we can be sure of is political expediency.

pdabbadabba 12y ago
You must not have been following the Argentina saga very closely if you think the courts are ruling out of political expediency. The U.S. government has appeared in this case multiple times in support of Argentina, but the courts rule against them anyway. The U.S. government (the executive branch, that is) would clearly rather the courts allow Argentina to wipe out the bondholders and start over. This litigation has become a major point of friction between the U.S. and Argentina diplomatically.