Argentina heading for a repeat of 2001 collapse

[cypherdoc]

3. Debt is very often forgiven. You would do well to look at the history of sovereign credit crises. Hell, haircuts were given on Greek debt as recently as last year. A haircut is textbook 'debt forgiveness'. Also your statement about bank bailouts debasing the currency is a non-sequitur - please elaborate.

4. Yes, money printing is a great way to achieve a 'soft default' via monetary inflation, but only if the debt is denominated in a currency for which you control supply! This debt is USD denominated, so Argentina can print as much money as it likes and it will have no effect on this debt in real terms (but will create rampant inflation and probably reduce NGDP domestically!)

bailouts are achieved by the Fed printing money and buying up the toxic distressed assets from the banks.  that's debasing the currency.

yes, haircuts are given when no other option exists but never is the debt forgiven entirely.

[PirateHatForTea]

bailouts are achieved by the Fed printing money and buying up the toxic distressed assets from the banks.  that's debasing the currency.

In that case bank bailouts debase the currency exactly as much, no more an no less, than ordinary OMOs (open market operations) which are used by the Fed to target the interest rate path. In both cases the Fed 'prints' money and uses it to buy assets at market price. Since the bank bailouts are no different than OMOs in terms of debasing the currency, your focus seemed a little weird.

You could argue that the Fed was overpaying for the toxic assets, (ie not paying market price) in which case the currency is being debased not only in the same way it is by OMOs (which under Quantity Theory can cause inflation) but also by a reduction in backing of the currency by the Fed's balance sheet (which Backing Theory/Real Bills Theory claims is the only way inflation can arise).

However the Fed has since made a very healthy profit on those 'toxic' assets, which seems to suggest that they did not overpay for them.

yes, haircuts are given when no other option exists but never is the debt forgiven entirely.

Haircuts are debt forgiveness. Your claims was that debt is not ever forgiven which you have at least now admitted was bogus. As for the special case of 'debt forgiven entirely' yes even this happens, though less frequently since bondholders will always try and claim whatever is left after a default and that is rarely zero. But google Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative and you will see some recent examples of total debt forgiveness.

[Erdogan]

[...]
However the Fed has since made a very healthy profit on those 'toxic' assets, which seems to suggest that they did not overpay for them.
[...]

At the time, they overpaid. If not, a bailout would not be necessary. Maybe the risk disappeared and they gained again.

When a company is bailed out, it will be profitable in the future, because they are now a part of the crony economy.

[PirateHatForTea]

At the time, they overpaid. If not, a bailout would not be necessary.

Does not follow. A necessary (but not sufficient) condition for a bailout is merely that the bank is insolvent, ie that liabilities > assets.

I'm not sure what conditions are "sufficient" for a bailout to become necessary, because I don't think we should ever bail out banks.

In any case I don't see why the government considering it necessary for a bank to be bailed out implies that it must overpay for the assets of the bank. Are you saying that it's because for a bailout to be necessary there must be no other buyers (as buying the bank's is a loss-making proposition, hence the insolvency), so there is no price discovery? I guess that makes sense.

And actually, if they sold the assets for profit later, it is not correct to say 'at the time they overpaid'. An asset value is equal to its discounted future cash flows. So a posteriori we know that they did not overpay, in fact they were just better (or luckier) at estimating the net value of the assets than the market.

What you really mean is 'they paid more than the equilibrium price in the market would have been were they not participating'.

[cypherdoc]

bailouts are achieved by the Fed printing money and buying up the toxic distressed assets from the banks.  that's debasing the currency.

In that case bank bailouts debase the currency exactly as much, no more an no less, than ordinary OMOs (open market operations) which are used by the Fed to target the interest rate path. In both cases the Fed 'prints' money and uses it to buy assets at market price. Since the bank bailouts are no different than OMOs in terms of debasing the currency, your focus seemed a little weird.

You could argue that the Fed was overpaying for the toxic assets, (ie not paying market price) in which case the currency is being debased not only in the same way it is by OMOs (which under Quantity Theory can cause inflation) but also by a reduction in backing of the currency by the Fed's balance sheet (which Backing Theory/Real Bills Theory claims is the only way inflation can arise).

However the Fed has since made a very healthy profit on those 'toxic' assets, which seems to suggest that they did not overpay for them.

while they both represent debasement of the currency, i'd argue bailouts are much more destructive and hence "inflationary" to the currency than POMO's.  why?  b/c the recipients of those bailouts should have been allowed to fail and "learn" from the follies of their actions.  what they learned instead was that reckless speculation is to be rewarded by their mother Fed and the American ppl who subsidize those bailouts thru inflation of the currency.  failures act to clean out the bad actors from the financial system and replace them with the more prudent and perhaps smarter actors.  bailouts represent moral hazard.  those "profits" as you call them were never guaranteed to happen.  to claim, in hindsight, that it was a good idea is ludicrous.  i could easily just argue the counterfactual; that letting those banks go would have resulted in a much healthier, more robust economy that would be functioning in a much fairer and healthier way for the average American.  plus, it's questionable whether profit was ever made given the shady accounting that has been given to those assets currently.  and how do the ordinary citizens benefit from any profits made?  they don't.  most of those assets have yet to be repurchased by those same banks at there newly inflated prices.  so in essence, we are stuck with a monetary base that is now 5-6x what it was prior to the bailouts.  

and why was mortgage principal forgiveness never an option for ordinary Americans?  Geithner argued it was "illegal".  my ass.  he just preferred to give the bailout money to his buddies at the banks that had been irresponsible for making those toxic loans in the first place.  he even admits that it was unfair yet is trying his best to rewrite history here:

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/extended-interviews/z9b8f1/timothy-geithner-extended-interview

all you have to do is listen to that video to know he's a snake.  furthermore, by your logic, since housing prices have recovered since 2008, he made a mistake in not bailing out ordinary Americans mortgages thru principal forgiveness at the time.

yes, haircuts are given when no other option exists but never is the debt forgiven entirely.

Haircuts are debt forgiveness. Your claims was that debt is not ever forgiven which you have at least now admitted was bogus. As for the special case of 'debt forgiven entirely' yes even this happens, though less frequently since bondholders will always try and claim whatever is left after a default and that is rarely zero. But google Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative and you will see some recent examples of total debt forgiveness.

you should probably reread what i said:

3. rules can be bent but rarely is debt ever forgiven, especially for the big boys.  We saw this in the GFC of 2008 when most of the bailout monies were handed over to big boy creditors at the expense of debasing the dollar.

doesn't it say "rarely"?  that's not the same as "never" as you've quoted me.

perhaps you can give me some examples of when debt forgiveness was doled out during a crisis in a "equally fair" way to both banks and citizens.  even if you find one, history shows that debt restructurings almost always favor banks at the expense of a sovereign or its citizens.

[Erdogan]

At the time, they overpaid. If not, a bailout would not be necessary.

Does not follow. A necessary (but not sufficient) condition for a bailout is merely that the bank is insolvent, ie that liabilities > assets.

They would not consider it necessary. I never do that, it is illegal and immoral and therefore there is no point in considering it.

I'm not sure what conditions are "sufficient" for a bailout to become necessary, because I don't think we should ever bail out banks.

In any case I don't see why the government considering it necessary for a bank to be bailed out implies that it must overpay for the assets of the bank. Are you saying that it's because for a bailout to be necessary there must be no other buyers (as buying the bank's is a loss-making proposition, hence the insolvency), so there is no price discovery? I guess that makes sense.

It the company has a future in the market, there will be someone to recapitalize it privately. If there were no buyers, because the market need some time to consider it, there would be a private company to supply the funds needed in the meantime. (... repeat)

And actually, if they sold the assets for profit later, it is not correct to say 'at the time they overpaid'. An asset value is equal to its discounted future cash flows. So a posteriori we know that they did not overpay, in fact they were just better (or luckier) at estimating the net value of the assets than the market.

No, this is a common fallacy. There was a low price at the time, due to the market conditions. Later, there was a gain.

What you really mean is 'they paid more than the equilibrium price in the market would have been were they not participating'.

Exactly.

[PirateHatForTea]

Dude we are singing from the same hymbook, relax.

You are bending the definition of inflationary to try and make a point though. Don't. It's not necessary. The bank bailouts were undoubtedly destructive. That doesn't magically make them somehow 'more inflationary' than other asset purchases. Unless you have another theory of inflation you'd like to propose.

I don't claim that it was a good idea to bail out the banks, I agree with nearly everything you said. A few points though:

it's questionable whether profit was ever made given the shady accounting that has been given to those assets currently

They bought some assets for x nominal dollars. They sold them for x + (strictly positive) y. What's questionable?

how do the ordinary citizens benefit from any profits made

Via the reduction in the deficit that accrues to treasury from the profit they made.

why was mortgage principal forgiveness never an option for ordinary Americans

It was.
Principal forgiveness is an element of the strategy that has been used to tackle the problem of underwater mortgages. See here for an example of BofA forgiving 3 billion. I agree that they should have used it more, as does Calculated Risk. In the case of Freddie and Fannie, an FHFA analysis indicated that principal forgiveness for that protfolio was less cost-effective (for taxpayers) than alternatives.

furthermore, by your logic, since housing prices have recovered since 2008, he made a mistake in not bailing out ordinary Americans mortgages at the time

Wrong, as I previously stated I am against bailouts for the same reason you are (moral hazard etc). It was not a mistake not to bail out these mortgages, but had they done so the treasury would have made a healthy profit assuming they are no longer underwater (hint: many of them are!).

Geithner is a prick, plain and simple. Not sure what you think he has to do with the bailout though, which was passed by congress under Bush and implemented by Treasury.

you should probably reread what i said

Sorry, you're right you did say 'rarely' originally. The 'never' part came from:

never is the debt forgiven entirely

However haircuts are not even rare, which is the implication of your original statement. Haircuts are relatively common. And your 'never' statement was also wrong - I pointed to examples of total forgiveness as well. However I think we are arguing past each other here, as I suspect the point you really wanted to make was:

debt restructurings almost always favor banks at the expense of a sovereign or its citizens

Once you accept default, restructuring favours whoever has the most negotiating power. The default event inherently favours the debtor, and then it's up to the creditor to negotiate as much back as they can. You're probably right in some regards, but a it's a bit weird to think that a restructuring, which always result in less favourable conditions for bond holders than if there had not been a credit event, always favours bond holders.

Perhaps you are just against credit in general?

[boumalo]

Dude we are singing from the same hymbook, relax.

You are bending the definition of inflationary to try and make a point though. Don't. It's not necessary. The bank bailouts were undoubtedly destructive. That doesn't magically make them somehow 'more inflationary' than other asset purchases. Unless you have another theory of inflation you'd like to propose.

I don't claim that it was a good idea to bail out the banks, I agree with nearly everything you said. A few points though:

it's questionable whether profit was ever made given the shady accounting that has been given to those assets currently

They bought some assets for x nominal dollars. They sold them for x + (strictly positive) y. What's questionable?

how do the ordinary citizens benefit from any profits made

Via the reduction in the deficit that accrues to treasury from the profit they made.

why was mortgage principal forgiveness never an option for ordinary Americans

It was.
Principal forgiveness is an element of the strategy that has been used to tackle the problem of underwater mortgages. See here for an example of BofA forgiving 3 billion. I agree that they should have used it more, as does Calculated Risk. In the case of Freddie and Fannie, an FHFA analysis indicated that principal forgiveness for that protfolio was less cost-effective (for taxpayers) than alternatives.

furthermore, by your logic, since housing prices have recovered since 2008, he made a mistake in not bailing out ordinary Americans mortgages at the time

Wrong, as I previously stated I am against bailouts for the same reason you are (moral hazard etc). It was not a mistake not to bail out these mortgages, but had they done so the treasury would have made a healthy profit assuming they are no longer underwater (hint: many of them are!).

Geithner is a prick, plain and simple. Not sure what you think he has to do with the bailout though, which was passed by congress under Bush and implemented by Treasury.

you should probably reread what i said

Sorry, you're right you did say 'rarely' originally. The 'never' part came from:

never is the debt forgiven entirely

However haircuts are not even rare, which is the implication of your original statement. Haircuts are relatively common. And your 'never' statement was also wrong - I pointed to examples of total forgiveness as well. However I think we are arguing past each other here, as I suspect the point you really wanted to make was:

debt restructurings almost always favor banks at the expense of a sovereign or its citizens

Once you accept default, restructuring favours whoever has the most negotiating power. The default event inherently favours the debtor, and then it's up to the creditor to negotiate as much back as they can. You're probably right in some regards, but a it's a bit weird to think that a restructuring, which always result in less favourable conditions for bond holders than if there had not been a credit event, always favours bond holders.

Perhaps you are just against credit in general?

The Argentina government took loans and promise to pay it back by taxing your citizens and promise to tax their children and unborn

To take more loans they took loans in USD, loans they can't repay just by printing new money

They ask the loaners to suffer a loss and decide not to pay them back and they have the worse end in the deal??

Loans are supposed to be repaid, I think it should be illegal to take a loan taking the upcoming revenues of children and unborn as a collateral; I can't do it with my children, they shouldn't be able to do it with their unborn citizen; I prefer a restructuration than a devaluation because it is more straightforward and less harmful; Argentina did both

[howardb]

Dude we are singing from the same hymbook, relax.

You are bending the definition of inflationary to try and make a point though. Don't. It's not necessary. The bank bailouts were undoubtedly destructive. That doesn't magically make them somehow 'more inflationary' than other asset purchases. Unless you have another theory of inflation you'd like to propose.

I don't claim that it was a good idea to bail out the banks, I agree with nearly everything you said. A few points though:

it's questionable whether profit was ever made given the shady accounting that has been given to those assets currently

They bought some assets for x nominal dollars. They sold them for x + (strictly positive) y. What's questionable?

how do the ordinary citizens benefit from any profits made

Via the reduction in the deficit that accrues to treasury from the profit they made.

why was mortgage principal forgiveness never an option for ordinary Americans

It was.
Principal forgiveness is an element of the strategy that has been used to tackle the problem of underwater mortgages. See here for an example of BofA forgiving 3 billion. I agree that they should have used it more, as does Calculated Risk. In the case of Freddie and Fannie, an FHFA analysis indicated that principal forgiveness for that protfolio was less cost-effective (for taxpayers) than alternatives.

furthermore, by your logic, since housing prices have recovered since 2008, he made a mistake in not bailing out ordinary Americans mortgages at the time

Wrong, as I previously stated I am against bailouts for the same reason you are (moral hazard etc). It was not a mistake not to bail out these mortgages, but had they done so the treasury would have made a healthy profit assuming they are no longer underwater (hint: many of them are!).

Geithner is a prick, plain and simple. Not sure what you think he has to do with the bailout though, which was passed by congress under Bush and implemented by Treasury.

you should probably reread what i said

Sorry, you're right you did say 'rarely' originally. The 'never' part came from:

never is the debt forgiven entirely

However haircuts are not even rare, which is the implication of your original statement. Haircuts are relatively common. And your 'never' statement was also wrong - I pointed to examples of total forgiveness as well. However I think we are arguing past each other here, as I suspect the point you really wanted to make was:

debt restructurings almost always favor banks at the expense of a sovereign or its citizens

Once you accept default, restructuring favours whoever has the most negotiating power. The default event inherently favours the debtor, and then it's up to the creditor to negotiate as much back as they can. You're probably right in some regards, but a it's a bit weird to think that a restructuring, which always result in less favourable conditions for bond holders than if there had not been a credit event, always favours bond holders.

Perhaps you are just against credit in general?

The Argentina government took loans and promise to pay it back by taxing your citizens and promise to tax their children and unborn

To take more loans they took loans in USD, loans they can't repay just by printing new money

They ask the loaners to suffer a loss and decide not to pay them back and they have the worse end in the deal??

Loans are supposed to be repaid, I think it should be illegal to take a loan taking the upcoming revenues of children and unborn as a collateral; I can't do it with my children, they shouldn't be able to do it with their unborn citizen; I prefer a restructuration than a devaluation because it is more straightforward and less harmful; Argentina did both

Perhaps its time to re-introduce the old english concept of debtors jail!

[boumalo]

Dude we are singing from the same hymbook, relax.

You are bending the definition of inflationary to try and make a point though. Don't. It's not necessary. The bank bailouts were undoubtedly destructive. That doesn't magically make them somehow 'more inflationary' than other asset purchases. Unless you have another theory of inflation you'd like to propose.

I don't claim that it was a good idea to bail out the banks, I agree with nearly everything you said. A few points though:

it's questionable whether profit was ever made given the shady accounting that has been given to those assets currently

They bought some assets for x nominal dollars. They sold them for x + (strictly positive) y. What's questionable?

how do the ordinary citizens benefit from any profits made

Via the reduction in the deficit that accrues to treasury from the profit they made.

why was mortgage principal forgiveness never an option for ordinary Americans

It was.
Principal forgiveness is an element of the strategy that has been used to tackle the problem of underwater mortgages. See here for an example of BofA forgiving 3 billion. I agree that they should have used it more, as does Calculated Risk. In the case of Freddie and Fannie, an FHFA analysis indicated that principal forgiveness for that protfolio was less cost-effective (for taxpayers) than alternatives.

furthermore, by your logic, since housing prices have recovered since 2008, he made a mistake in not bailing out ordinary Americans mortgages at the time

Wrong, as I previously stated I am against bailouts for the same reason you are (moral hazard etc). It was not a mistake not to bail out these mortgages, but had they done so the treasury would have made a healthy profit assuming they are no longer underwater (hint: many of them are!).

Geithner is a prick, plain and simple. Not sure what you think he has to do with the bailout though, which was passed by congress under Bush and implemented by Treasury.

you should probably reread what i said

Sorry, you're right you did say 'rarely' originally. The 'never' part came from:

never is the debt forgiven entirely

However haircuts are not even rare, which is the implication of your original statement. Haircuts are relatively common. And your 'never' statement was also wrong - I pointed to examples of total forgiveness as well. However I think we are arguing past each other here, as I suspect the point you really wanted to make was:

debt restructurings almost always favor banks at the expense of a sovereign or its citizens

Once you accept default, restructuring favours whoever has the most negotiating power. The default event inherently favours the debtor, and then it's up to the creditor to negotiate as much back as they can. You're probably right in some regards, but a it's a bit weird to think that a restructuring, which always result in less favourable conditions for bond holders than if there had not been a credit event, always favours bond holders.

Perhaps you are just against credit in general?

The Argentina government took loans and promise to pay it back by taxing your citizens and promise to tax their children and unborn

To take more loans they took loans in USD, loans they can't repay just by printing new money

They ask the loaners to suffer a loss and decide not to pay them back and they have the worse end in the deal??

Loans are supposed to be repaid, I think it should be illegal to take a loan taking the upcoming revenues of children and unborn as a collateral; I can't do it with my children, they shouldn't be able to do it with their unborn citizen; I prefer a restructuration than a devaluation because it is more straightforward and less harmful; Argentina did both

Perhaps its time to re-introduce the old english concept of debtors jail!

I love Argentina but it is very hypocrite to say you are in a bad situation because of the guy who loan you money and lost more than 50% of what he loaned you even if the loan was bought back and the guy who bought it back got it cheaply, you are responsible for your debt

It would be nice not to allow to run debts on the children and unborn's future revenues

[howardb]

Dude we are singing from the same hymbook, relax.

You are bending the definition of inflationary to try and make a point though. Don't. It's not necessary. The bank bailouts were undoubtedly destructive. That doesn't magically make them somehow 'more inflationary' than other asset purchases. Unless you have another theory of inflation you'd like to propose.

I don't claim that it was a good idea to bail out the banks, I agree with nearly everything you said. A few points though:

it's questionable whether profit was ever made given the shady accounting that has been given to those assets currently

They bought some assets for x nominal dollars. They sold them for x + (strictly positive) y. What's questionable?

how do the ordinary citizens benefit from any profits made

Via the reduction in the deficit that accrues to treasury from the profit they made.

why was mortgage principal forgiveness never an option for ordinary Americans

It was.
Principal forgiveness is an element of the strategy that has been used to tackle the problem of underwater mortgages. See here for an example of BofA forgiving 3 billion. I agree that they should have used it more, as does Calculated Risk. In the case of Freddie and Fannie, an FHFA analysis indicated that principal forgiveness for that protfolio was less cost-effective (for taxpayers) than alternatives.

furthermore, by your logic, since housing prices have recovered since 2008, he made a mistake in not bailing out ordinary Americans mortgages at the time

Wrong, as I previously stated I am against bailouts for the same reason you are (moral hazard etc). It was not a mistake not to bail out these mortgages, but had they done so the treasury would have made a healthy profit assuming they are no longer underwater (hint: many of them are!).

Geithner is a prick, plain and simple. Not sure what you think he has to do with the bailout though, which was passed by congress under Bush and implemented by Treasury.

you should probably reread what i said

Sorry, you're right you did say 'rarely' originally. The 'never' part came from:

never is the debt forgiven entirely

However haircuts are not even rare, which is the implication of your original statement. Haircuts are relatively common. And your 'never' statement was also wrong - I pointed to examples of total forgiveness as well. However I think we are arguing past each other here, as I suspect the point you really wanted to make was:

debt restructurings almost always favor banks at the expense of a sovereign or its citizens

Once you accept default, restructuring favours whoever has the most negotiating power. The default event inherently favours the debtor, and then it's up to the creditor to negotiate as much back as they can. You're probably right in some regards, but a it's a bit weird to think that a restructuring, which always result in less favourable conditions for bond holders than if there had not been a credit event, always favours bond holders.

Perhaps you are just against credit in general?

The Argentina government took loans and promise to pay it back by taxing your citizens and promise to tax their children and unborn

To take more loans they took loans in USD, loans they can't repay just by printing new money

They ask the loaners to suffer a loss and decide not to pay them back and they have the worse end in the deal??

Loans are supposed to be repaid, I think it should be illegal to take a loan taking the upcoming revenues of children and unborn as a collateral; I can't do it with my children, they shouldn't be able to do it with their unborn citizen; I prefer a restructuration than a devaluation because it is more straightforward and less harmful; Argentina did both

Perhaps its time to re-introduce the old english concept of debtors jail!

I love Argentina but it is very hypocrite to say you are in a bad situation because of the guy who loan you money and lost more than 50% of what he loaned you even if the loan was bought back and the guy who bought it back got it cheaply, you are responsible for your debt

It would be nice not to allow to run debts on the children and unborn's future revenues

Yeah, AND you cheat at football (or should we call it handball?) 

[windjc]

This thread title makes me think of the World Cup.

Just saying.

[okthen]

Argentina is practically a dictatorship. They can't move money out of the country.
Their little witch president practically made Repsol, a Spanish company, move out of the country (which means, no business will want to go there now if there's risk of expropriation).
Hope all this makes Argentinians invest in Bitcoin!

[howardb]

Argentina is practically a dictatorship. They can't move money out of the country.
Their little witch president practically made Repsol, a Spanish company, move out of the country (which means, no business will want to go there now if there's risk of expropriation).
Hope all this makes Argentinians invest in Bitcoin!

Usually when they get in real trouble they start drumming up nationalism over the British Falkland Islands to distract.

[PirateHatForTea]

http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2014/04/04/fernandez-distracts-argentines-from-inflation-by-putting-falklands-on-banknotes-oh-wait/

[Benjig]

And they wont even win the world cup so the only way to make happy their people is by adopting bitcoin as a currency

[boumalo]

And they wont even win the world cup so the only way to make happy their people is by adopting bitcoin as a currency

They may well win the Word Cup since they will not have play Germany or Brazil until the final

Bitcoin as a currency for Argentina will not happen with the current government

[zimmah]

If they win Mondial, then they will forget they are in crysis.

if you mean the world cup, i don't think they have a good chance.

They will most likely have to face the Netherlands even before the finals, and if they miraculously win that match they have to face Germany or Brasil most likely.

Argentinians should be smart and put everything they have in bitcoins. That's the only way to protect their wealth.

[tspacepilot]

And they wont even win the world cup so the only way to make happy their people is by adopting bitcoin as a currency

They may well win the Word Cup since they will not have play Germany or Brazil until the final

Bitcoin as a currency for Argentina will not happen with the current government

Exactly, the gov't isn't going to switch over to btc.  However, individuals very well may do so.  This wouldn't be terrible for bitcoin prices either.  However, i think that folks who put money in bitcoins in argentina probably aren't goign to do so for money they want to spend, but for money they want to save.  That's my guess.  I suppose it's probably hard to find a grocery store in argentina that accepts btc.

[CEG5952]

So people think this might cause a Cypress-like price rise like we saw in early 2013? Personally, I think the effect of that event was quite overplayed, and I think people's expectations for BTC that are based on economic turmoil may not be met in the future. But we'll see.