She's from Argentina, She knows whats up

[Lawrence of Arabia]

So was she hot or not????

yeah, she wasnt.

If she wasn't hot, then she isn't Argentine either

i think 1/2 argentine, and 1/2 british (had the accent)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
no no no no no no. the IMF rates the country's credit,

And that's NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the austerity plans that IMF forces countries to take in return for refinancing their dictators' debts. In return for new loans, they are forced to jack their own rates up, ostensibly as an inflation fighting measure. What it means, though, is that the country is more easily looted.

[Japher]

I have no idea, but I must say

Argentina has a sheity inflation/depreciation rate... meaning it had been generally stagnant. You need an active economy, a fluctuating one, and to do so you need to rate your currencies off of foreign markets in order to better gauge yourself... i.e float.

Arg. had been such a non-entity in the 80s and 90s as far as the world market was concerned, and they don't need to be.

You want to argue why that country is having problems? THe answer is that they poise no competition in any market of any worth.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

The people shouldn't be responsible for the debts of dictators.

Simply cancelling debts would mean the bankruptcy of most major banks in the 1st world and a world wide depression due to lack of credit. In 1982 (there about) Mexico defaulted on its debts and Bank of America only survived because the government bailed them out. a way must be found to restructure debtts without crashing the 1st world.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
And that's NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the austerity plans that IMF forces countries to take in return for refinancing their dictators' debts. In return for new loans, they are forced to jack their own rates up, ostensibly as an inflation fighting measure. What it means, though, is that the country is more easily looted.

If a country imports most of it's goodies (like most developing countries) then a fall in the currency will lead to crippling inflation. That inflation must be dealt with or else economic recovery simply won't be possible. It's strong medicine but at this point a country's economy is so screwed up anything positive will be difficult to achieve.

I really don't see how you can claim a country is being looted when most IMF deals also include debt write downs or out right cancellations. The bankers are getting hosed they are not making the killing you claim.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Simply cancelling debts would mean the bankruptcy of most major banks in the 1st world and a world wide depression due to lack of credit.

Then they shouldn't go around giving money to gangsters and thugs. It's completely immoral to force the victims of a dictator to keep paying that dictator's debts once they've finally gotten rid of him.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I really don't see how you can claim a country is being looted when most IMF deals also include debt write downs or out right cancellations.

Because they don't. They get their debts refinanced, not forgiven. All that means is they get stretched out so the country can make lower payments. It's only very recently that some loans have started to be forgiven.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I'm talking about the austerity plans that IMF forces countries to take in return for refinancing their dictators' debts. In return for new loans, they are forced to jack their own rates up, ostensibly as an inflation fighting measure. What it means, though, is that the country is more easily looted.

look, I dont know where you are getting this from - they are only forced to jack up their rates if they have hyperinflation. Sometimes, the IMF gets carried away and instead of asking them to reduce it to say 20%, they force them to get it under 10%. regardless, the idea of bundling the money with restructuring plans (austerity) is in general a good one. the country is in the ****ter because of the way it has been run, so you gotta change things up because obviously what you are doing now is a problem.

frankly, im trying to figure out what youre saying but im a little lost.

then theres this bit

In a way. Part of the deal getting the loan is requiring high intrest rates in the receiving nation's banks. Initially this wouold mean a large inflow of capital, which would be available to loan in country, but when those loans fail to be repaid, the system collapses quickly and depositers pull their money out overnight.

you talk about loans as if they all fail. The lendors want the loan to succeed, i dont see why they would all fail. Its bad for both sides if the country defaults, so they wont spend usually out of their league, or borrow out of their league, and will usually invest smartly.

again dealing with this 'lootin' while totally ignoring the flip side of the issue: the LDC gains from these increases in capital inflows. now look, its pointless to talk about hypothetical situations. maybe you have an example where the world bank/imf lent money to a dictator, and then that directly led to the looting and fall of the country.

(also note: the 1st world investor has no reaseon to want to see their investment fail. since the amount they can get from the interest rates are pocket change compared to if their projects turn out, i cannot see why they would want the countries financies to crash and burn. futhermore, they arnt investing there to put money in the bank - its too risky. they invest to make returns from their investment greater than those available in the 1st world)

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Then they shouldn't go around giving money to gangsters and thugs. It's completely immoral to force the victims of a dictator to keep paying that dictator's debts once they've finally gotten rid of him.

oh ok, because the people living under gangstas and thugs arnt starving right?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


oh ok, because the people living under gangstas and thugs arnt starving right?

The loans aren't going to them.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The loans aren't going to them.

yeah,not directly, but they go to stabilise the govt, and improve their credit. (if not all, then a portion of it, the part that doesnt get hijacked by the dictators family.) and those 'austerity' plans? well they go to weakening the dictatorship, and try tot make sure the money helps the people.

sure its not perfect, and many times it fails, but these people need help even more then people living in democratic LDCs.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


yeah, she wasnt.



i think 1/2 argentine, and 1/2 british (had the accent)

Ah, the British explains it. Argentines are always hot.


Here is the future Duchess of Cornwall.

[Dr. Nick]

i think 1/2 argentine, and 1/2 british (had the accent)

No wonder, the british genes must have ruined her.

you talk about loans as if they all fail. The lendors want the loan to succeed, i dont see why they would all fail. Its bad for both sides if the country defaults, so they wont spend usually out of their league, or borrow out of their league, and will usually invest smartly.

This is actually quite interesting, and I think it's wrong to assume that creditors always want the loan to survive. The country was so indebted that by the late 90s the bonds it issued paid ludicrously huge interest rates. A lot of banks bought them, got rich on interest payments on those bonds, and then when it was obvious that it was all going down the crapper they quite literally tricked thousands of small investors to become creditors by buying up these bonds. See Italy, Germany and Japan, where the banks got rid of the bonds, took the money of small investors and now the small investors are screwed, and not the banks, which actually made a lot of money while the interest payments took place.

So no, the creditors that initially buy up the bonds aren't necessarily interested in seeing the bonds mature, they can always crash and burn provided they make money between buying the bond and reselling it.

and those 'austerity' plans? well they go to weakening the dictatorship, and try tot make sure the money helps the people.

Austerity plans began with democracy, another reason why everybody is still so bloody disillusioned with the democratic system of government.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The country was so indebted that by the late 90s the bonds it issued paid ludicrously huge interest rates.

actually i think what happened was that the IMF gave argentina good credit rating in the late 90s, so they were able to get cheap loans, and then all of a sudden, the creditors turned around and raised the rates tremendously beause things werent as good as the IMF said they were.

look, if you owe a bank $1000 thats your problem. if you owe them $140 millon, thats the banks problem. bank of america almost failed when the mexican peso dropped in 1995.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Simply cancelling debts would mean the bankruptcy of most major banks in the 1st world and a world wide depression due to lack of credit.

I'm sufficiently much of a rightwinger to feel this is what should happen. Banks that lend money to 3rd world dictators that spend them on guns deserve to go bankrupt, and countries that make their economies dependent on such banks deserve depression.