MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina launches defaulted bonds swap with a 66.3% discount
Argentina offered new bonds to holders of 20 billion US dollars of sovereign debt left out of an earlier settlement, seeking to end a nine-year default and regain access to international capital markets. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesOne of the few countries that in the middle of the global crisis is willing to pay its debt and has money to do it. Others cannot say the same. Holdouts should take that into account!!!
Apr 16th, 2010 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge you have such screwed up logic, how is offering 1/3 of what you owe paying your debt? If you let someone borrow $1 and they pay you back $0.33 is that paying what you owe? The only reason this is even being offered at this time is because ARG is U$12B short in funding and they are hoping they can float some new bonds.
Apr 16th, 2010 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#2 fredbdc !
Apr 16th, 2010 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and his compiled remarks from Anglo Saxophone Media !!
A debtor who doesn't pay has no credibility !
Apr 16th, 2010 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0gdr I don't even know what you are talking about, its just simple math,sorry you don't understand it.
Apr 16th, 2010 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 05. You are the one who doesn't understand. What happens here is normal. That is whatdefaulted debt countries always do. You will know it if your country continue the same path, don't worry!!! :-)
Apr 18th, 2010 - 08:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0www.marketoracle.c0.uk/article18622.html
Apr 18th, 2010 - 08:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0sorry there is need to big “A” character £££££££
Apr 18th, 2010 - 08:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article18622.html
geo, that was very interesting. Maybe the brits should read it, they think that is only the argentine case. Poor of them!!! :-)
Apr 18th, 2010 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks geo and Jorge, there's no getting away from the fact that the UK economy is in deep trouble, but even so we will pay our debts, not like Argentina who defaults and has done several times since the 1820s.
Apr 18th, 2010 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0J.A ( 10) this is technical discussion ! I am here to ........
Apr 18th, 2010 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0as you know here ..my remarks are objective ....
England unfortunately can't pay back it's debts ..but
it makes “” covered swaps “” by it's Internationaized Commercial Banks
permanently !.... postpones permanently !......... how far !?
this is reality that this Economy on the brink of collapsing !
Geo and Jorge, the arguments you make only reinforce that Argentinians are corrupt and untrustworthy. It is part of your culture to be untrustworthy so I don't think I can ever explain to either of you why it's wrong to not pay debts. In your way of thinking you are doing the right thing. It is why your country can never succeed.
Apr 18th, 2010 - 12:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let me see if I have this right.. I invest 1 dollar in Argentina, again, and I get in return 43.7 pennies... no interest no nothing... where do I sign up.. jorge this is not servicing debt..
Apr 19th, 2010 - 01:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, 33 cents, even worse..
Apr 19th, 2010 - 01:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0J. A. ROBERT, solamente los mediocres como usted recurren constantemente al pasado para criticar o despotricar en contra de un pais, porque esta usted tan seguro que mi pais no va a pagar la deuda?, el hecho de que en varias oportunidades la argentina haya entrado en cesacion de pagos, no significa que vaya a suceder una vez mas, es evidente lo poco que sabe usted acerca del estado de la economia argentina, siga leyendo (el pais de españa), o el finantial times, y va a seguir siendo tan ignorante como siempre, cuando yo me informo acerca de la realidad de mi pais, lo hago con medios que estan a favor, y en contra del gobierno, luego saco mis conclusiones, no tengo duda que la argentina va a seguir pagando su deuda, y que vamos a crecer fuertemente este año, hasta los economistas mas ortodoxos afirman esta teoria.
Apr 19th, 2010 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Por otra parte, acerca de la deuda es evidente que usted no sabe, que la deuda que estamos pagando es ilegitima y fraudulenta, porque fue obtenida mayormente durante la ultima dictadura, hay un fallo del juez ballesteros, por el cual le pide al congreso que tome la iniciativa para investigar y tomar una decision con respecto al hecho de seguir pagando una deuda ilegitima.
Entre otras cosas me gustaria saber en donde aprendio usted historia argentina, usted siempre afirma que durante los tiempos coloniales hasta 1880, ni españa, ni argentina ejercieron control alguno sobre la patagonia, dejeme decirle que los controles existieron, y se encontraban a lo largo de algunos puertos patagonicos, ningun pais controla lo que no le pertenece, no le parece?, yo siempre olvidaba de recalcar este hecho, por eso no lo habia dicho antes.
FREDBDC, tus comentarios confirman una vez mas cuan ignorante e idiota es usted, que autoridad moral tiene usted para involucrar a todos los argentinos, y afirmar que parte de nuestra cultura es corrupta?, conoce usted profundamente argentina?, no tiene usted suficiente capacidad para pensar que en argentina hay gente valiosa y corrupta como en cualquier pais del mundo?, ni usted ni nadie tiene ningun derecho a involucrar a todos los argentinos como corruptos, si nuestras autoridades finalmente fueron corruptas o inutiles, no es nuestra culpa, nosotros confiamos en ellos , y ellos traicionaron nuestra confianza y fe.
Apr 19th, 2010 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Con respecto a la deuda, dejeme decirle que la deuda que estamos pagando, es ilegitima y fraudulenta, porque fue obtenida mayormente durante la ultima dictadura militar, hay un fallo del juez ballesteros en el cual le pide al congreso nacional que investigue la deuda, y tome una decision acerca de seguir pagando une deuda que es ilegitima.
A lo mejor yo tampoco pueda lograr que usted me entienda, porque a la gente ignorante, necia y soberbia como usted es muy dificil que escuchen la opinion de otras personas.
Axel, I am basing my knowledge of Argentinians moral capacity on the 5 years I lived there. If you have corrupt politicians, police etc it is absolutely the responsibility of the population to fix it. It is not out of your control. Corruption has not been fixed because it is endemic and a part of your being. Argentinians like the fact they can pay the police to look the other way or bribe an official to skirt the law. I know I lived there and this is why I moved. It is very sad that you don't see it and that is why you are doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes.
Apr 20th, 2010 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0The debt you are calling illegitimate was mostly accumulated during the 90s under Menem a democratically elected government it is legitimate. You need to read your history. and understand your economy.
Let's wait and see what happens Axel. I mention history because it has a habit of repeating itself. As for the debt being somehow “illegal” because you were ruled by a dictatorship, how do you explain that to your debtors? That makes absolutely no sense. The world recognised that government, the UN recognised it. As far as the rest of the world is concerned you owe that money.
Apr 20th, 2010 - 07:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps you can explain how you equate a claim with control. The King of Spain claims Jerusalem, but everyone knows he does not control Jerusalem. Equally Spain/Buenos Aires/Argentina did not have control over the majority of Patagonia until the 1870s even though they this had been claimed. This is a well known fact. It is true that there was control of some ports, like Carmen de Patagones but the fact is the rest of the territory was not controlled by Spain/Buenos Aires or Argentina until the Conquest of the Desert. Bahia blanca was built as a “fortaleza”. Why was it necessary to build a fort inside Argentine territory if Argentina had control over that territory? I've asked that specific question before, but you've never addressed this. Even contemporary accounts say that Buenos Aires' control did not reach much further than Azul.
And another question I have asked you before, but you always duck. If Spain/Buenos Aires/Argentina had control of Patagonia then why was an act of conquest necessary? Even the contemporary Argentines called it “conquest”. Surely you can't conquer your own territory?
10. No digas “Buen día antes de que amanezca”!!!!!!
Apr 20th, 2010 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 012. You are an idiot! We know it's wrong not to pay, but the mess was done in 2001, now we have to reach an agreement, if companies didn't trust Argentina, then why are we growing like never before?!?!?!
You don't know a bit of our reality man!!!
13. It is called “restructuration”. Many countries have done it and many will do it (UK).
OMG!!!!! Now it turns out that all the brits who post here have lived in Argentina!!!!
You are so funny!!!
Nest months will be the most interesting!!! (economicaly talking) :-)
FREDBDC, you are not only an idiot, you are a hipocrite too, i recognize that we have many bad aspects as a society, but we have good aspects too like all the rest of the societys, do you think that you can find corruption cases only in argentina?, please, if you lived here for 5 years, you could see not only the bad side of our society, you could see our good side too.
Apr 20th, 2010 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the other hand if you want to talk about corruption, and the responsability of our society, let me remind you that your responsable society voted a guy like bush twice, beside you voted hes father firstly, and finally hes son took your country to the biggest recesion after the great depresion, before criticising another society, why dont you see what's going on inside of your borders.
when we vote a candidat, that's because we trust him, if that guy was finally a corrupter or a useless, that's not our fault, because we were deceived by him, beside most our ex presidents are very rejected by our soicety, only alfonsin was respected, because he was HONEST.
About our debt, this is evident how ignorant you are, your knowleadge is so little, i dont think that judge ballesteros is an ignorant like you, like it or not, part of our debt is illegitimate, and we need to survey, and the congress must take a deciton about it.
J. A. ROBERT, i repeat that only a mediocre like you recur all the time to the past to criticise another country, that only shows your lack of objetivity.
Apr 20th, 2010 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you dont want to accept that part of our debt is illegitimate, that's your problem, is not an insignificant issue, it's very easy for you to criticise our posture, because you dont have to pay it, we want to honor our debt, but we reject the illegitimate part of it, ecuador did the same, and the ecuatorians only paid the legitimate part of their debt.
About the patagonia, keep on thinking whatever you want about it, accept it or not, spain and our authoritys excercised controls in diferent ports along the patagonic territory, but it was populated only by the indigenous people untill 1880, anyway if patagonia wasen't ours, then how do you explain our control over that territory.
About the fuertes, those were built to repel the rejection of the native people, anyway i told you that in some aspects i dont agree on what roca did.
About the word conquest, i dont agree on it, i think that the right word is ocupation, because we can't conquest our own territory, the history is full of wrong assertions, on the other hand, i dont agree on the phrase, the discovering of america, our continent was allready descovered, it was populated by the indigenous people, i think that the right word is redescovering, during my carear as profesor i learnt about these falacys of the history, it's not only mi idea.
Oh, Axel, so since I disagree with you that's a “lack of objectivity”. On that basis, you are not very objective yourself - and and intellectually mediocre to boot. Like I said before, history has a habit of repeating itself. Looking back can be a very good way of learning to deal with problems in the future - and I'm sure Argentine bond holders are doing exactly that.
Apr 20th, 2010 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“About the fuertes, those were built to repel the rejection of the native people” In other words, you did not control Patagonia, the native people did. My point all along.
I did not disagree that Spain/BsAs/Arg controlled some ports, but the fact is - and you cannot dispute this, because it is a fact, Spain/BsAs/Arg did not control the whole of Patagonia until the 1870s. This is not me “thinking whatever I want about it”. This is independently verifiable fact.
I did not ask if you thought the word conquest was the right one or not. I'm not sure if you are deliberately ducking my question again. The fact is word “conquest” was used at the time, by those who planned, organised and took part in the Conquista de Desierto. My question was, why does a country need to “conquer” its own territory? If Patagonia had truly been Argentine territory, then surely those at the time would not have used the word “conquest”?
www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article18788.html
Apr 20th, 2010 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0this article is different from (#8)
J. A. ROBERT, i am not going to parrot all the time, think whatever you want about our debt, that's your problem, i dont care in absolut.
Apr 20th, 2010 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0About the patagonia, i will repeat for the last time that, if my country excersided controls along diferent ports of all the patagonic territory, how can you say it wasen't ours?, if it wasen't ours, then why did we control it, what you say about it, is false.
About the word conquest, those who organized that campain could use the words that they wanted, but it doesen't mean that they were right.
The people who studyed a carear like me, knows very well that the history is full of wrong assertions, i allready told you what i think about it, you can think whatever you want, i respect your assertions, but i dont agree with you, y punto.
That's fine Axel, I don't hold Argentine bonds, so I don't really care either.
Apr 21st, 2010 - 07:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just because you controlled a couple of Patagonian ports and a small area around them, does not equate to the control of the whole of Patagonia. Even in the Pampas south of the Salado river there are very few towns with a foundation date before 1840. The fact is control did not extend very much further than that - and Alsina's zanja gives you a good idea of where control ended in the 1860s. What I say is not false, it's fact. It's not my opinion. There is a mountain of evidence to support what I am saying. You just need to open your eyes.
You still miss the point about the word “conquest”. Whether they were right or not to use the word at the time is irrelevant. What is important is that they used the word “conquest”, which has a very specific meaning. If you studied history, you would immediately realise how significant this is. The language THEY used at the time is of huge relevance.
I'm not expecting you to agree with my opinions, but sometimes facts cannot be ignored.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!