Archivo de Autor

LORENZETTI: ¿JUZGA O PREDICA?

26 febrero, 2016

ARGENTINA SALVAJIZADA

Con anterioridad, hemos destacado nuestra sorpresa por la actitud del Presidente de la Corte Suprema Nacional de Argentina. Habla mucho y falla poco, creo era uno de nuestras aseveraciones, pero usando el termio FALLAR como acto de JUZGAR. Porque estabamos acostumbrados a Jueces que jamas haban oralmente, sino que lo hacen en nuestro procedimiento judicial escrito, dictando sus sentencias. Esencialmente importantes y educativas cuandose trata de nuestro maximo Tribunal, y resulta para mi personalmente sorprendente, que su Presidente hable como si fuese un Estadista, en vez de firmar escritas sentencias como JUEZ, o peor aun, a firmar sentencias escritas su Corte Suprema, pero no las hacen cumplir en forma forzosa, designando una intervencion judicial en nombre de ese Tribunal, como en el caso del ex procurador de la Provincia de Santa Cruz. La Corte juzgo que debia ser repuesto, pero no se animo o atrevio o no tuvo el valor…

Ver la entrada original 733 palabras más

DÓLARES PARA MAS PRODUCCIÓN Y EMPLEO PRIVADO

26 febrero, 2016

http://www.infobae.com/2016/02/26/1792969-repatriacion-capitales-el-desarrollo
Es tan obvio lo que el autor propone que Macri debería implementarlo ya, antes de que la inflación erosione la confianza en un modelo productivo en serio, nacional y popular. Que necesita que el ahorro argentino quede en bancos honestos de Argentina, para ser prestado a mediano y largo plazo a la actividad privada, para financiar producir bienes imprescindibles que no existen por falta de ahorro suficiente en bancos argentinos.
Nuestro blog desde su inicio lo impulsa, eso requiere terminar con la inflación, reinventando la moneda SERIA que Duhalde destrozó en enero de 2002, luego del infame corralito cambiario de Fernando de la Rúa y su ministro Cavallo, que motivó lo echaran de la Presidencia, para nominar a un amigo de la inflación que enriquece a los amigos del Presidente de turno y empobrece a la gente, por falta de suficiente ahorro en el país para otorgar créditos a mediano y largo plazo al sector privado, y así producir todo lo que Argentina necesita. Comenzando por Trabajo, viviendas, escuelas, hospitales, carreteras…etc. Pero los gobiernos bandidos prefieren robar emitiendo dinero inflacionario, y así crece el desempleo privado. La Historia enseña que la mejor receta contra el hambre es el trabajo productivo privado, los Estadistas alientan el ingreso de capitales e inversiones. ¿Existen hoy Estadistas en Argentina? Temo que no.
Me fundo en que la gente sensata y honesta sabe que la inflación es el resultado de emitir dinero excesivo el Estado, con eso deprecia el valor del dinero nacional, y empobrece a la enorme mayoría de los trabajadores, que perciben sueldos en actividad publica y privada. El peronismo desde siempre prometió mejorar el nivel de vida de la población, una promesa imposible, porque no son los gobernantes quienes generan trabajo productivo, sino mayoritariamente los empresarios privados. El Estado Nacional gasta demasiado en cosas improductivas, es mejor que la economía sea impulsada por la actividad privada, como en USA a que sea el Estado quien intente suplir la falta de inversores, como en Cuba.

Morning report on Argentina – Feb 25, 2016 from Sue Littleton

26 febrero, 2016

Morning report on Argentine
Gente
SUE LITTLETON
Para GERMAN PIRAN feb 25 a las 12:58 P.M.

Moi et les cuarte chats joyeux =*>:) devil= =*>:) devil= =*>:) devil= et Romeo =*>:) devil=

Sue, the following is a report on Argentine from my morning reports. Greg

Argentina appears to have reached a deal with its creditors after having spent more than a decade in financial limbo. NML Capital and Aurelius Capital Management, two funds that hold some of Argentina’s defaulted foreign debt, announced as much Wednesday, and with the announcement comes two important developments: NML and Aurelius may eventually be able to receive payment for what they are owed, and, more important for Argentina, the government in Buenos Aires will be able to borrow abroad freely.
NML and other creditors had previously refused Argentine debt restructuring offers, and a lengthy legal dispute ensued. This, combined with Argentina’s insistence on not paying these and other bondholders — colloquially referred to as holdouts — led to a U.S. court decision to block Argentina from making payments on foreign debt in 2014.

Concluding a deal with NML and other creditors is crucial for Buenos Aires because it affords Argentina access to more foreign capital. Without substantial foreign lending, Argentina is unable to adequately finance its development, at least in the near to medium term. Buenos Aires now intends to repeal a domestic law preventing the country from making deals with holdout bondholders — an arrangement entirely separate from any deal reached with previous creditors. Barring last-minute mishaps, the pieces are set for Argentina to restore some semblance of normalcy to its relationships with foreign financial institutions.

With this agreement in place, Argentina hopes to close a major rupture in its recent political history. The move would erase one of the lasting drivers of populism in domestic Argentine politics. Understanding the influence and scope of the lengthy battle between bondholders and the government is key to understanding why Argentina behaved in the manner it did, and how that behavior changed over time.

Argentina defaulted on nearly $82 billion in foreign debt in December 2001. The default triggered an economic and political crisis that severely reduced Argentines’ standard of living for several years. It also kicked off nearly 15 years of legal disputes between the government and foreign creditors holding the debt that Argentina defaulted on. In separate negotiations in 2005 and 2010, Argentina managed to restructure some of its defaulted debt. Some bondholders, including NML, did not join these processes. Instead, they sued Argentina for the full value of their bonds. For a while, however, Argentina was able to ignore these demands.

And so, for the better part of a decade, Argentina relied mainly on rising commodity prices to boost its economy. Argentine agricultural exports such as soybeans, wheat and corn commanded increasingly higher prices abroad throughout the 2000s. The political fallout from the foreign debt default gave the governments of Nestor Kirchner and his wife, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, the political mandate to pursue a very populist policy at the expense of economic stability. Giving in to the holdouts and quickly settling the issue of outstanding debt was simply not a politically palatable option — let alone a political priority — for Buenos Aires under the Kirchners.

The issue came to a head in 2014, when the Argentine government exhausted its final appeals against the holdouts and was blocked by a U.S. court from making foreign debt payments. With barely a year and a half left in her term, Fernandez simply left the issue for the next president to resolve.

Now, President Mauricio Macri is tasked with settling the issue with the bondholders. A settlement will undoubtedly be unpopular with the Argentine left. It may also rankle certain legislators from Fernandez’s opposition Front for Victory. The opposition could realistically delay a settlement by refusing to repeal the so-called lock law, which prevents Argentina from offering different terms to bondholders not included in previous restructurings. However, it is more likely that the issue of the lock law will involve some negotiation over domestic issues. This makes more sense than letting the issue devolve into a conflict between the Front for Victory and Macri’s Cambiemos coalition.
With the bondholder dispute on the verge of being concluded, Macri’s priorities lie with longer-term economic development. Macri has already taken a major step forward by lifting currency controls and allowing money to flow freely in and out of the country. But the president’s next four years will be a transitional period in which public spending will be cut, further investments from abroad will be encouraged and subsidies will be slowly phased out. Yet there are still many uncertainties ahead for Argentina. The removal of subsidies could raise inflation even higher than it is already, in turn risking social unrest spearheaded by the poorer classes most affected by price hikes. Argentina will also encounter slower global commodity markets than before, in addition to a tumbling Brazilian economy and a much slower Chinese economy.

Still, Argentina has set its plan for future growth in motion, and that plan includes putting an end to the debt dispute. Buenos Aires is at the start of an economic transition, and closing the door on the debt issue is a key part of moving that transition forward.

Greg Gossett
Gossett, Harrison, Millican & Stipanovic, P. C.
2 South Koenigheim
P. O. Box 911
San Angelo, Texas 76902-0911
325-653-3291

******************************************************************************
This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521, and is legally privileged. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. This email may also be subject to the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product privilege or be otherwise confidential. Any dissemination, copying or use of this email by or to anyone other than the designated and intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you have received this message in error, please delete it from your system immediately and notify our office at once by telephone at (325) 653-3291. Thank you for your cooperation .
*******************************************************************************

Responder Responder a todos Reenviar Más
Hacer clic en Responder, Responder a todos o Reenviar

Creo a Nisman lo asesinaron

25 febrero, 2016

ARGENTINA SALVAJIZADA

Muchos estamos convencidos que Nisman fue asesinado, por distintos motivos e ignoramos quien o quienes lo hicieron.

Mi convencimiento surge de que usaron una bala punta hueca calibre 22. Esto permite matar con una sola bala, porque al penetrar en el cráneo, el plomo se esparce y destroza el cerebro, garantiza muerte segura. Sin punta hueca, Nisman hubiera podido sobrevivir y delatar a quien le disparó. Sé de que quien intentó suicidarse y se disparó 3 proyectiles 32. cerca de la oreja derecha, y sobrevivió, pero usó balas comunes y viejas, en vez de punta hueca.

Si Nisman hubiera recibido dos o mas balas en su cabeza, señalaría que otro las disparó, su asesino. Ergo, si una sola punta hueca 22 garantiza muerte, un asesino adiestrado hubiera usado esa única bala para aparentar suicidio. Mas de una bala implica asesinato seguro.

Pero: ¿su amigo Lagomarsino le prestó su pistola cargada…

Ver la entrada original 348 palabras más

Morning report on Argentina – Feb 24, 2016 (from Sue Littleton)

25 febrero, 2016

Morning report on Argentine
SUE LITTLETON
Para GERMAN PIRAN Hoy a las 12:58 P.M.

Moi et les cuarte chats joyeux =*>:) devil= =*>:) devil= =*>:) devil= et Romeo =*>:) devil=

Sue, the following is a report on Argentine from my morning reports. Greg

Argentina appears to have reached a deal with its creditors after having spent more than a decade in financial limbo. NML Capital and Aurelius Capital Management, two funds that hold some of Argentina’s defaulted foreign debt, announced as much Wednesday, and with the announcement comes two important developments: NML and Aurelius may eventually be able to receive payment for what they are owed, and, more important for Argentina, the government in Buenos Aires will be able to borrow abroad freely.
NML and other creditors had previously refused Argentine debt restructuring offers, and a lengthy legal dispute ensued. This, combined with Argentina’s insistence on not paying these and other bondholders — colloquially referred to as holdouts — led to a U.S. court decision to block Argentina from making payments on foreign debt in 2014.

Concluding a deal with NML and other creditors is crucial for Buenos Aires because it affords Argentina access to more foreign capital. Without substantial foreign lending, Argentina is unable to adequately finance its development, at least in the near to medium term. Buenos Aires now intends to repeal a domestic law preventing the country from making deals with holdout bondholders — an arrangement entirely separate from any deal reached with previous creditors. Barring last-minute mishaps, the pieces are set for Argentina to restore some semblance of normalcy to its relationships with foreign financial institutions.

With this agreement in place, Argentina hopes to close a major rupture in its recent political history. The move would erase one of the lasting drivers of populism in domestic Argentine politics. Understanding the influence and scope of the lengthy battle between bondholders and the government is key to understanding why Argentina behaved in the manner it did, and how that behavior changed over time.

Argentina defaulted on nearly $82 billion in foreign debt in December 2001. The default triggered an economic and political crisis that severely reduced Argentines’ standard of living for several years. It also kicked off nearly 15 years of legal disputes between the government and foreign creditors holding the debt that Argentina defaulted on. In separate negotiations in 2005 and 2010, Argentina managed to restructure some of its defaulted debt. Some bondholders, including NML, did not join these processes. Instead, they sued Argentina for the full value of their bonds. For a while, however, Argentina was able to ignore these demands.

And so, for the better part of a decade, Argentina relied mainly on rising commodity prices to boost its economy. Argentine agricultural exports such as soybeans, wheat and corn commanded increasingly higher prices abroad throughout the 2000s. The political fallout from the foreign debt default gave the governments of Nestor Kirchner and his wife, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, the political mandate to pursue a very populist policy at the expense of economic stability. Giving in to the holdouts and quickly settling the issue of outstanding debt was simply not a politically palatable option — let alone a political priority — for Buenos Aires under the Kirchners.

The issue came to a head in 2014, when the Argentine government exhausted its final appeals against the holdouts and was blocked by a U.S. court from making foreign debt payments. With barely a year and a half left in her term, Fernandez simply left the issue for the next president to resolve.

Now, President Mauricio Macri is tasked with settling the issue with the bondholders. A settlement will undoubtedly be unpopular with the Argentine left. It may also rankle certain legislators from Fernandez’s opposition Front for Victory. The opposition could realistically delay a settlement by refusing to repeal the so-called lock law, which prevents Argentina from offering different terms to bondholders not included in previous restructurings. However, it is more likely that the issue of the lock law will involve some negotiation over domestic issues. This makes more sense than letting the issue devolve into a conflict between the Front for Victory and Macri’s Cambiemos coalition.
With the bondholder dispute on the verge of being concluded, Macri’s priorities lie with longer-term economic development. Macri has already taken a major step forward by lifting currency controls and allowing money to flow freely in and out of the country. But the president’s next four years will be a transitional period in which public spending will be cut, further investments from abroad will be encouraged and subsidies will be slowly phased out. Yet there are still many uncertainties ahead for Argentina. The removal of subsidies could raise inflation even higher than it is already, in turn risking social unrest spearheaded by the poorer classes most affected by price hikes. Argentina will also encounter slower global commodity markets than before, in addition to a tumbling Brazilian economy and a much slower Chinese economy.

Still, Argentina has set its plan for future growth in motion, and that plan includes putting an end to the debt dispute. Buenos Aires is at the start of an economic transition, and closing the door on the debt issue is a key part of moving that transition forward.

Greg Gossett
Gossett, Harrison, Millican & Stipanovic, P. C.
2 South Koenigheim
P. O. Box 911
San Angelo, Texas 76902-0911
325-653-3291

******************************************************************************
This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521, and is legally privileged. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. This email may also be subject to the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product privilege or be otherwise confidential. Any dissemination, copying or use of this email by or to anyone other than the designated and intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you have received this message in error, please delete it from your system immediately and notify our office at once by telephone at (325) 653-3291. Thank you for your cooperation .
*******************************************************************************

Responder Responder a todos Reenviar Más
Hacer clic en Responder, Responder a todos o Reenviar

EN ARGENTINA ALGO CAMBIA

25 febrero, 2016

German rafael Piran
Para Gaston A. SAINT MARTIN MD Hoy a las 11:08 A.M.
en Argentina algo cambia, ahora hay algo de intranquilidad, se entra a sospechar que Macri es bandido rodeado de bandidos, y tendría un pacto tácito para que Cristina no vaya presa. Quizás sucede algo distinto: el país quedó arrasado porque se llevaron casi todo, dejaron sin pagar gastos Nacionales, Provinciales, Municipales pero hay millones de empleados públicos que cobran salarios mensuales, comenzando por maestros y policías y otros gremios fundamentales. ¿Que sucede cuando las reservas de un país no alcanzan? De algún lado deben – en el siglo XXI – aparecer, y Macri no estaría bien asesorado por sus economistas. Si emite billetes, aumenta la inflación. Si aumenta impuestos, no llega a tiempo, y pierde atractivo político. Pedir dolares prestados es la opción, pero ¿a quien pedirlos? Si los busca del extranjero debe arreglar con los hold outs primero, es lo que intenta hacer. Podría buscarlos simultáneamente en el país, haciendo que cada Provincia emita “cuasi monedas” tipo los ex Patacones de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, para que cada gobernador se haga responsable de los gastos provinciales, aceptando que existe un sistema Federal, pero la mentalidad UNITARIA sigue vigente: los gobernadores peronistas exigen que Macri los ayude, argumentando que las Provincias no tienen maquinita de imprimir dinero. Olvidan, o mejor dicho, eligen olvidar que pueden aumentar impuestos provinciales (o municipales) pero eso es impopular, los hoy gobernanadores e intendentes perderían popularidad y votos. Ergo, exigen que Macri adelante los fondos, sabiendo que el dinero Nacional mayoritariamente fue robado desde que termino la convertibilidad el 1 de enero de 2002 por los siguientes Presidentes de turno: Duhalde, Nestor y Cristina Kirchner.
Recordá que con la convertibilidad, solo podían emitirse pesos convertibles mediante la compra de un peso pagando con un dolar norteamericano. Y por eso Argentina no podía producir inflación, ya que había renunciado por ley a emitir pesos inflacionarios descontrolados. La estabilidad se logró, pero desde Duhalde decidieron que la inflación ayuda a los Presidentes a enriquecerse mas rapido, y por eso la derogaron, pero para conseguirlo debieron derrocar en forma incruenta al Presidente de la Rúa, y terminar cambiando la ley de Acefalía, para nombrar a Duhalde presidente interino y evitar las elecciones a Presidente y Vice que había convocado el interino Presidente Adolfo Rodriguez Saa para que el pueblo votáramos en marzo de 2002. El cambio fue que la Asamblea Nacional (diputados y senadores juntos) podían elegir al presidente interino, cuando la acefalia se producía luego de transcurrir la mitad del mandato presidencial. Si sucedia antes, hay que convocar a elecciones porque no puede el pais dejar de elegir a los nuevos presidente y Vice. Esto fue una trampa a la Constitución, pero los politicos senadores y diputados actuaron como bandidos que aman enriquecerse desde el Poder. Sin convertibilidad, la inflación renació para quedarse, mintieron diciendo que Menem fue un mal presidente, cuando es el ÚNICO capaz de reinventar la moda naional destruida a partir de la inflación del primer peronismo.
¿Es Macri el Estadista capaz de reinventar la moneda confiable que Duhalde nos destruyó, aquel peso convertible a dólar? No lo es, dice que intenta derrotar a la inflación. Pero sabemos que cuando a la moneda nacional se le pierde confianza, la solución es RE INVENTARLA, creando moneda confiable nueva.Eso funcionó con éxito para terminar la antigua hiperinflación alemana y la argentina inventada por el Alfonsinismo, mezcla de radicales ladrones y gastos enormes de los militares que inventaron la guerra de Malvinas. Ergo, mientras Macri insista en arreglar la moneda destruida, seguiremos sin moneda y la confianza que inicialmente le permitió derrotar a Duhalde en el balotaje se irá perdiendo, y los politicos deberán seguir usando la maquina de imprimir dinero. ¿Vendrá el Estadista que reinvente la moneda estable que Duhalde destruyó para poder emitir dinero y enriquecerse los Presidentes? Es dificil creer que aparecerá pronto, tendremos que aguartar a un Presidente timorato que ira perdiendo prestigio mientas la inflación continúe. Es una pena, porque la Constitucion dice que es el Congreso Nacional quien debe fijar el valor de la moneda, y los Presidentes ultimos lo olvidaron. Prefieren emitir y robar desde el Poder, al estilo peronista. Con la inflación no se nota tanto desde el Pueblo que al pueblo lo roba el Presidente de turno. Eso sí se noto cuando Galtieri inventó Malvinas para perpetuarse en el Poder desprestigiado y perdimos la guerra, y hubo que emitir tanto dinero inflacionario que el electo presidente Alfonsin tuvo que renunciar seis meses antes de terminar su mandato por aquello de hiperinflacion = hipercorrupción.
¿Le ves a Macri nivel de Estadista para reinventar la moneda, aunque mas no sea, al estilo ecuatoriano usando al dolar norteamericano como moneda nacional? Los europeos estaban cansados de inflaciones e inventaron el Euro, que no todos aceptaron, con la esperanza de entre todos, derrotar al dolar norteamericano. Pero no lo lograron, el mas confiable de los paises europeos eligió seguir usando su tradicional libra esterlina. Y ahora analizan retirarse de la Unión Europea, en desacuerdo con varias cosas.
Argentina, sin moneda creíble, se ha vuelto salvaje, ni siquiera Macri presidente propone reinventar la moneda, por uno de dos motivos: Cree que la moneda peso argentino todavía puede ser estabilizada. O sabe que sería mejor reinventar moneda nueva usando al dolar como patrón argentino de medir contratos y obligaciones, pero prefiere evitarlo, para mantener la chance de emitir dinero inflacionario cuando lo necesita, para ayudar a quien desea, y no ayudar al resto. Es el concepto viejo donde es el Gobierno quien ayuda a las provincias y a los intendentes, eso no funciona en paises como USA donde cada intendente, gobernador y presidente deben CUIDAR y RESPETAR el dinero nacional, porque el propietario son los norteamericanos, y no el Estado.
¿Cuanto tardaría la estabilización del peso argentino? ¿6 meses, 1 año?,Temo 2 años sería demasiado, el país tendría ganas de cambiar de Presidente por incapaz. Y la democracia electoral se volvería a quebrar, como cuando Alfonsin y Duhalde se aliaron para echar a Fernando de la Rúa y que la inflación terminada por la convertibildiad menemista pudiese volver para seguir enriqueciendo a los desgobernantes ladrones. ¿lo lograron? .
Sí, la mejor prueba es que NADIE hoy habla de reinventar la moneda argentina porque ella HA MUERTO. Recordarás la Ley de las Cuatro C para reinventar una moneda perdida difundida desde mi ex incultura argentina com ar que está incluida en argentina salvajizada wordpress.com
Abrazo de German R. Pirán

CAVALLO y su idea NAZI de moneda (6-12-2001 en ex incultura argentina .com )

23 febrero, 2016

CHARLA 116ª DEL CURSILLO DE ECONOMÍA CRIOLLA – 6-12-01
CAVALLO Y SU IDEA “NAZI” DE MONEDA.

MONEDA: UNA MERCADERIA CON VALOR PROPIO
MONEDA Y SISTEMA FINANCIERO
SOMOS HOY BARBAROS SIN MONEDA
EL ESQUEMA DE LA CONVERTIBILIDAD
EL RECIENTE PAPELON INTERNACIONAL
¿POR QUÉ SE EQUIVOCARIA CAVALLO?
CAVALLO NO ENTIENDE EL CONCEPTO DE MONEDA
SISTEMA FINANCIERO EN ARGENTINA
LA MONEDA ES LA RUEDA QUE MOVILIZA EL INTERCAMBIO
SOLO OPERACIONES CONTABLES
LA CRISIS DEL SISTEMA ES TERMINAL
¿SIRVE EL BANCO CENTRAL?
EL SISTEMA FINANCIERO NORTEAMERICANO

Los argentinos estamos en el “ojo del Huracán” , al cual fuimos llevados por la curiosa concepción DIRIGISTA Y ANTIDEMOCRÁTICA del duo de cordobeses que nos gobierna, los doctores Cavallo y De la Rua.

Esta vez, analizaré al problema desde el exclusivo angulo de la concepción que ambos tienen sobre la MONEDA, ese elemento imprescindible para que una sociedad civilizada pueda ponerse DE ACUERDO en la forma de “medir” los valores de los distintos bienes y servicios que necesitan intercambiar en forma “civilizada”, es decir, NO POR LA FUERZA, los miembros de la sociedad. (A quienes interese el tema con mayor profundidad, lo trato en ¿Dónde estan los Estadistas?, que puede verse cliqueando sobre su nombre en la pagina inicio de este sitio web).

MONEDA: UNA MERCADERIA CON VALOR PROPIO

La historia enseña que la MONEDA fue aquella mercadería que cada sociedad consideraba el valor material más adecuado para medir el valor de las restantes mercaderías, bienes o servicios, en una forma CONSENSUADA, y por libre aceptación. De alli la gran evolución que sufrioó en lo que podriíamos llamar el último “milenio” en el mundo occidental. Jamás se hubieran inventado las monedas de oro y plata, si la sociedad no hubiese ACEPTADO que dichos metales constituían el VALOR que mejor podía servir para calcular los precios de los restantes valores. Porque, al fin y al cabo, la MONEDA era una cantidad determinada de metal fino “encapsulada” en una pieza que estaba “sellada” en sus caras y en sus cantos, para que la gente SUPIESE A CIENCIA CIERTA que valor metálico contenia, y evitarse así el engorroso trabajo de analizarlo, es decir, calcular el peso y la pureza del contenido.

MONEDA Y SISTEMA FINANCIERO

Ese “gran acuerdo nacional” que constituía el poder medir todos con una mercadería cuyo valor parecía el MAS ESTABLE, permitía que funcione el sistema financiero con su clásica formula que contiene “capital” e “interes”. El capital se calculaba precisamente en terminos de la moneda, el valor par, al que podriamos equiparar con el FIEL de una balanza. El interés, se media en “porcentajes” de ese capital que variaba conforme al riesgo de quien prestaba el dinero y al plazo de la operación.

Posiblemente los anglosajones fueron los que mejor desarrollaron el sistema monetario en los últimos siglos, y cabe recordar que para ellos el “metro” o patron de medida estuvo constituido por el metal PLATA, en su tipo de aleación llamado “STERLING”. Esto significaba que una libra “sterling” estaba constituida por una cantidad de metal PLATA de esa pureza llamada Sterling, cuyo PESO era una libra, es decir, aproximadamente cuatrocientos cincuenta gramos de hoy.

Gracias a eso, y a la tradicional seriedad de los británicos, la moneda llamada libra esterlina sirvio durante SIGLOS para desarrollar y mejorar una de las mejores herramientas de progreso de la humanidad: el SISTEMA FINANCIERO SENSATO TRADICIONAL. Con el transcurso del tiempo se fueron desarrollando algunos otros elementos DENTRO DE ESE SENCILLO SISTEMA BASICO que permitieron usar cada vez mejor el ahorro de la sociedad para crear trabajo y producción, es decir, para elevar el nivel de vida de la sociedad. De alli que el sistema financiero SENSATO fue uno de los elementos mas importantes para el predominio de la cultura occidenta, y hoy LO SIGUE SIENDO.

PERO LAMENTABLEMENTE LOS PUEBLOS BARBAROS NO LO COMPRENDEMOS CABALMENTE.

SOMOS HOY BARBAROS SIN MONEDA

Quizás el principal motivo de la decadencia argentina HOY – aparte del DIRIGISMO ECONOMICO INEFICAZ QUE NOS IMPONE EL DICTADOR DOMINGO F. CAVALLO – está dado porque NUEVAMENTE hemos perdido la moneda, y por eso estamos como estamos. Alguien dijo – no se si fue Carlos Marx u otro ideólogo comunista – que para destruir a una sociedad occidental bastaba con DESTRUIRLE SU MONEDA, lo cual es absolutamente cierto. Y el doctor Cavallo lo consiguió….

En “¿Dónde estan los Estadistas?” explico esto con más detalle, asi que ahora me circunscribo a lo que nos sucedió en Argentina desde la convertibilidad hasta hoy.

He sostenido que quien nos restituyo la perdida MONEDA fue Carlos Menem, cuando tomo la Decisión Política de permitirnos usar al valor del dólar norteamericano como MONEDA NACIONAL, mediante el sencillo esquema de la ley de Convertibilidad, que habia sido inventado DECADAS ANTES para salir de terribles hiperinflaciones. Me remito a mi articulo “Los economistas y la convertibilidad”, publicado en La Nueva Provincia en el año 1993, que puede verse cliqueando en OTROS ARTICULOS DE GERMAN R. PIRAN, en el margen izquierdo de la pagina inicio de este sitio.

EL ESQUEMA DE LA CONVERTIBILIDAD

Para los argentinos, que durante décadas no tuvimos moneda seria, y que entre 1975 y 1991 directamente NO LA TUVIMOS, la Convertibilidad de Carlos Menem fue posiblemente la DECISIÓN POLÍTICA mas acertada del siglo veinte, porque nos restituyó ese PATRON DE MEDIR VALORES QUE HABIAMOS PERDIDO POR CULPA DE NUESTROS GOBERNANTES DICTATORIALES E IRRESPONSABLES.

Pero ¿cuál fue en SÍNTESIS la esencia del cambio, y porque le atribuyo TAL IMPORTANCIA?

Porque para los argentinos, el dólar se habia convertido en una “mercaderia” más, de uso corriente, y era aquella que considerábamos por CONSENSO SOCIAL el valor que mejor media el factor CAPITAL CONSTANTE dentro del pais. Y SUPONGO QUE ESTA CREENCIA fue naciendo a partir de la inflación peronista que comenzo digamos alrededor del año 1947.

Por lo tanto, la convertibilidad significó que nuevamente, después de décadas de sucesivos desencuentros en materia de economía, podiamos volver a medir CAPITAL constante con un metro en el cual mal que mal la mayoría casi absoluta de la población confiaba. Es decir, volvíamos a medir valores con esa mercadería particular, un papel verde emitido por el gobierno norteamericano, que sabíamos constituye la MERCADERIA CON MAYOR DEMANDA UNIVERSAL.

A partir de ese momento, el dia 1 de abril de 1991, se suponía que el Gobierno Argentino había desistido para siempre de manipular el valor de la moneda, y asi dejaba de estafar a la sociedad, tal como lo había venido haciendo a partir de 1947. Y esto constituia algo muy positivo y civilizado, porque al fin y al cabo, el DERECHO a medir bienes del mundo “material” con el mejor metro o patron de medicion, constituye algo asi como un derecho natural de las sociedades de gente libre.

Porque hay cosas elementales que pertenecen a la “sociedad” y no al Estado, como por ejemplo, el idioma, el calendario, la hora oficial, y los elementos o unidades para calcular MEDIDAS de distancia, peso, volumen, etc. Y esa recuperación de una moneda que no habiamos tenido desde 1975 a 1991 permitió que durante algunos años – hasta 1996, digamos – nuestra economía recuperase buena parte de lo que habiamos perdido durante los anteriores dieciséis años, sin moneda.

Este esquema financiero con MONEDA DÓLAR, disfrazada de peso argentino convertible – continuó funcionando aun cuando nuestros gobernantes cometieron gravísimos errores en estos ultimos diez años. Los ahorros y los capitales crecieron en el sistema financiero, porque los argentinos teníamos la tranquilidad de que nuestros ahorros estaban protegidos en cuanto a su valor por la seriedad del Gobierno Argentino, que aparentemente HABIA APRENDIDO LA LECCIÓN, al punto tal que la Ley de Convertibilidad solo podria modificarse con una ley del Congreso, y parecia prácticamente imposible que semejante proyecto BARBARO E INCULTO pudiese ser convertido en Ley.

Sin embargo, y sin Ley expresa del Congreso, Cavallo se las ingenió para “violar la ley de la convertibilidad” meses atrás, cuando estableció un tipo de cambio diferente para “alentar las exportaciones” (Ver charla 22 “Acabamos de perder la Moneda” del 9-6-01de este Cursillo).

A partir de ese momento, dejamos de tener UNA moneda común para todos los argentinos, y empezamos a tener DOS, una para algunas cosas, y otra para exportar. Y con eso, CAVALLO REIMPLANTO SU CONCEPTO “NAZI” sobre que la moneda es algo cuyo valor no corresponde fijar a la sociedad, por consenso, sino AL SOBERANO ESTADO, que es quien DEBE DIRIGIR LA ECONOMIA, es decir, ordener, vigilar, programar, y PROHIBIR desde el dictatorial Ministro de Economía todo lo que los argentinos debemos hacer y no hacer en materia de producción de bienes y servicios.

EL RECIENTE PAPELON INTERNACIONAL

Es increíble el terrible mal que puede significar a una sociedad el estar manejada por gente que tiene conceptos perimidos NAZIFASCISTAS sobre que la economia debe ser DIRIGIDA desde el Estado, como nos sucede hoy con este extraño duo de cordobeses, Cavallo y De la Rua.

El drama de Cavallo no está dado TANTO por el hecho de ser tan bárbaro e inculto como los somos TODOS LOS ARGENTINOS – COMENZAND POR MI, ACLARO SIEMPRE – sino por otras dos características: su irrefrenable impetuosidad, y posiblemente su ciega admiración por los esquemas extranjeros que tienen éxito en sus paises de origen, sin comprender que no pueden IMPLANTARSE automáticamente en forma igual en Argentina. A eso me referia como “LA INCULTURA CIPAYA” (cliquear en el margen izquierdo de la pagina inicio).

Desde hace algun tiempo, algo más de dos años, calculo porque debe haber sido hacia el final de su mandato presidencial, el AGUILA Carlos Menem manifesto que era conveniente DOLARIZAR TOTALMENTE la economía, porque esto nos daría más confianza desde el exterior y serviría para abaratar el costo de la tasa de interés dentro de Argentina. Por mi parte, DESDE MUCHO ANTES vengo sosteniendo eso mismo, no solo en “¿Dónde estan los Estadistas?” sino en articulos publicados varios años antes (cliquear en OTROS ARTICULOS DE GERMAN….., margen izquierdo pagina inicio).

Por lo tanto, la respuesta lógica a ciertos temores sobre si Argentina pagaría o no sus obligaciones, pudieron haberse resuelto favorablemente – en mi opinión, desde luego – dolarizando la economía meses atrás, antes que bajaran las reservas del Estado Argentino. Pero Cavallo se negó, quizás porque se cree – erróneamente – el Padre de la convertibilidad, de la cual se quiere “apropiar” quizas con la esperanza de que lo nombren Premio Nobel. Y en este sentido, es notable el disparate que Cavallo cometio cuando convencio a nuestros irresposables Congresistas que aceptaran que el fondo de reserva creado por la ley de Convertibilidad para mantener el valor de nuestra moneda nacional (el dólar disfrazado, repito) tenia que ser mitad dolares y mitad euros, en vez de estar constituida TOTALMENTE POR DOLARES, como indicaba el sentido comun.

Esto me hace sospechar que el concepto de MONEDA para el doctor Cavallo es algo muy diferente del que enseña la cultura monetaria. Es decir, MONEDA no debe ser una cifra o un numero abstracto, sino UNA MERCADERIA DETERMINADA CON VALOR PROPIO, es decir, la que por consenso nacional es la que mejor sirve para medir.

¿POR QUÉ SE EQUIVOCARIA CAVALLO?

A esta altura, muchos suponen que el doctor Cavallo esta hundiéndonos INTENCIONALMENTE porque es miembro de un grupo perverso que quiere dominarnos, del cual De la Rua tambien formaria parte.

No obstante, discrepo. Prefiero creer que cualquier Gobernante, corrupto o no, prefiere hacer las cosas bien y ser aplaudido, que sufrir el encono, el desprecio y el odio. ¿Acaso el doctor De la Rua no se siente molesto cada vez que aparece en publico y el pueblo lo rechifla, al punto tal que prefiere viajar por el exterior, donde menos gente lo conoce? Y el propio Doctor Cavallo ¿no se “enloquece” cada vez que le señalan sus fracasos, y tiene que inventar teorias cada vez mas ridículas para sostener que sus fracasos son en realidad técnicas inteligentes para “aumentar el riesgo argentino” y asi poder negociar mejor con nuestros acreedores internacionales?

Sostengo, en cambio, que el doctor Cavallo quiere hacer las cosas bien, pero NO LE SALEN porque su mentalidad DIRIGISTA le impide conocer la realidad de que la economia no es una ciencia exacta que se arregla nivelando las cuentas del Estado, sino una Ciencia Social que requiere otro tipo de inteligencia y técnica diferente a la de LLEVAR UNA PROLIJA CONTABILIDAD. Es decir, conducir a una sociedad a su felicidad es la misión de un Estadista, y no la de un tenedor de libros. Porque lo que NATURA NO DA, Salamanca (o Harvard) NO PRESTA.

CAVALLO NO ENTIENDE EL CONCEPTO DE MONEDA

Si Cavallo hubiese entendido que la moneda en un pais como Argentina funciona en la medida que sea aquella MERCADERIA CON VALOR PROPIO en la cual la sociedad confia como el mejor “metro” para calcular capital constante, – en nuestro caso es el Dólar -, no hubiese cometido tantos errores tan burdos que nos llevaron al DEFAULT.

Y para explicarlo, me veo obligado a volver a los FUNDAMENTALS de la moneda y del sistema financiero.

SISTEMA FINANCIERO EN ARGENTINA

Cuando un país había descendido tanto culturalmente que habia OLVIDADO LA MONEDA, como nos sucedió, para que volviese a funcionar el sistema financiero tradicional – esa herramienta extraordinaria de progreso social, que convierte a los ahorros, que siempre son a corto plazo, en créditos a corto, mediano o largo plazo para que exista empleo, producción y bienestar, era imprescindible REINVENTAR LA MONEDA, y eso MEMEM LO HIZO con su decisión política de permitirnos usar el valor del dólar como moneda nacional.

Por lo tanto, desde la convertibilidad, LA MONEDA ARGENTINA fue el valor de una MERCADERIA, es decir, de un bien que tiene UN VALOR INTRÍNSECO, como lo es el dólar. Por mas que sea un papel impreso inconvertible, el dólar es la “mercaderia” no solo con mayor demanda universal, sino la mas fácil de transportar, transferir o ahorrar, e incluso aquella con la cual mas fácilmente se consiguen comprar otros bienes y servicios en cualquier pais del mundo. Por lo tanto, nuestro sistema financiero estaba BASADO EN EL DÓLAR LIBRE COMO UNIDAD PARA MEDIR CAPITAL CONSTANTE.

Y aquí no puedo evitar referirme a la esencia del “viejo y tradicional sistema financiero”, que en realidad en un pais como USA ya no existe, porque consiguieron superarlo, pero que en Argentina todavía deberíamos utilizar debido a nuestro carácter de pais de gente bárbara e inculta.

LA MONEDA ES LA RUEDA QUE MOVILIZA EL INTERCAMBIO

Adam Smith explica bien que la MONEDA (aquel momento, 1776, cuando escribió su libro, nos habla de moneda METALICA, con valor intrínseco, recordemos) constituye la RUEDA con la cual la sociedad moviliza el intercambio de los bienes y servicios que produce.

Así, para movilizar el intercambio de determinada cantidad de bienes y servicios en Inglaterra, digamos, hacía falta contar con una determinada cantidad de MONEDA DE METAL, es decir, de una masa importante de bienes, cuyo valor INTRÍNSECO era un CAPITAL importantísimo: todo el metal plata acuñado en forma de monedas para permitir el intercambio. De alli que para evitar inmovilizar tanto capital en forma de MONEDA, con el transcurso de los siglos se fueron desarrollando mejoras en el sistema, y esto incluyó los billetes de banco, y luego el papel moneda…

Ahora bien, el siguiente concepto de Adam Smith era imporantísimo: el CAPITAL QUE ESTABA INVERTIDO EN LAS MONEDAS no formaba parte de la riqueza nacional propiamente dicha, sino que era una suerte de COSTO que entre los habitantes debian pagar para POSIBILITAR QUE CIRCULARAN LOS RESTANTES BIENES Y SERVICIOS.

Para mis compañeros estudiantes de Derecho, lo puedo expresar asi: vender un caballo a cambio de un moneda de plata podria parecerse más a la figura jurídica del contrato de compraventa, que a la del trueque, como por ejemplo, cuando se “cambiaba” un caballo contra cinco ovejas… Pero, sin embargo, la primera “operación”, caballo contra moneda, SEGUIA SIENDO FÍSICAMENTE UN TRUEQUE: porque la moneda era una mercaderia PLATA DE DETERMINADO VALOR, que se entregaba a cambio de otra MERCADERIA. Y jurídicamente, intercambiar DOS MERCADERIAS, se llama trueque.

Fue tal la evolucion de la moneda y del dinero, que luego se transformo en papel fiduciario sin valor INTRÍNSECO, QUE LA PALABRA TRUEQUE CASI PERDIO SU USO EN EL MUNDO MODERNO CIVILIZADO. Se usaba entre países con economías cerradas, tipo los paises comunistas, y eran operaciones de intercambio muy engorrosas, que los paises civilizados LIBRES simplifican a traves del uso de la moneda, el comun denominador de los restantes bienes y servicios en el mercado.

Por lo tanto, en el sistema de convertibilidad a partir de 1991, el factor CAPITAL pasó en el sistema financiero a estar representado por el valor del dólar billete, al cual para que circulara dentro de nuestro pais, se lo represento por un peso convertible a un dólar.

De esta forma, TODA LA CANTIDAD DE MONEDA QUE NECESITABAMOS LOS ARGENTINOS estaba constituida en su gran mayoria por pesos convertibles, aunque de hecho tambien se usaban DOLARES BILLETE.

Pero si queremos saber CUANTO ERA EL CAPITAL que representaba MOVILIZAR la riqueza argentina, es decir, la suma que CONFORMABA ESA RUEDA LLAMADA MONEDA, nos basta con saber cual era la cantidad de pesos argentinos convertibles que emitio el Banco Central de la Republica Argentina. Obviamente, esto no es exacto, porque como arriba espresé, tambien se usaban dólares, pero el dato nos es útil como base.

Supongamos entonces que sólo se hubiera emitido trece mil millones de pesos, lo cual significaba que el Banco Central de la Republica Argentina RECIBIO Y ATESORO POR CUENTA Y ORDEN DE ESOS TENEDORES ABSTRACTOS DEL DINERO ARGENTINO CIRCULANTE, un equivalente de trece mil millones de dólares, cuya mayor parte solía invertir en EE.UU. en forma tal de sacar un interés a una masa gigantesca que custodiaba como depositario, pero que no era de propiedad de la Nación Argentina.

Vemos así el efecto que aparentemente confunde a muchos economistas, y que les hace suponer que LA CONVERTIBILIDAD significo CREAR ARTIFICIALMENTE MONEDA DÓLAR en grandes proporciones. Esto es una ilusión óptica de gente poco familiarizada con lo que los estudiantes de derecho llamamos las obligaciones y las cesiones de créditos. Veamos.

Una misma PIEZA MONEDA, siglos atrás, o un mismo PESO CONVERTIBLE A DÓLAR, hasta la semana pasada, podía circular varias veces por dia, para permitir múltiples transacciones: desde una limosna, al pago de un transporte público, la compra de un diario, de un paquete de cigarrillos o llamadas telefónicas. Es decir, UN PESO puede movilziarse muchas veces, y servir de base también, SIN MOVILIZARSE EN ABSOLUTO, como unidad de medida para obligaciones y contratos: por ejemplo, para convenir el precio en un contrato de alquiler.

Por lo tanto, fue tanta la movilización de los trece mil millones de pesos emitidos, que sirvieron para asentar depósitos de ahorros en los Bancos por sumas muy superiores a dicho importe. De alli que HOY quienes suponen que no se podría DOLARIZAR LA ECONOMIA, lo hacen porque suponen que en Argentina NO HAY TANTAS DECENAS DE MILES DE MILLONES DE DOLARES como los que estarían depositados en nuestro sistema bancario, y por lo tanto, que el país estaría totalmente quebrado, y sin posibilidades de resurgir, a menos que exista alguna devaluación terrible, como sugieren los irresponsables del grupo autollamado “Los Economistas Argentinos”.

SOLO OPERACIONES CONTABLES

La gente olvida que el único que tenía derecho a exigir un dólar contra presentación de un peso, era el TENEDOR FISICO DE ESE PESO. Es decir, si alguien ahorraba pesos en un banco, y este NO SE LOS DEVOLVIA, el titular del credito NO TENIA FÍSICAMENTE EL PESO, y por lo tanto CARECIA DE DERECHO A RECLAMAR SU DÓLAR.

Es como el billete premiado de lotería: quien lo tiene físicamente, consigue que se lo paguen, porque es un vale AL PORTADOR, igual que el que nos dan en el guardarropas cuando dejamos el impermeable y el paraguas.

Por lo tanto, RETIRAR los pesos argentinos de circulación hubiese sido relativamente fácil unos meses atrás, antes de la terrible corrida bancaria de las últimas semanas. Pero lamentablemente, el doctor Cavallo se empecinó con su Convertibilidad, y no uso el sentido común.

HOY el problema es diferente: aparentemente, el Banco Central tiene depositados suficientes dólares para redimir TODOS LOS PESOS ARGENTINSO CONVERTIBLES, de modo que existiría la posibilidad de dolarizar la economia, porque el ESTADO todavía no habría tomado la decisión POLÍTICA de volver a ESTAFAR al pueblo argentino que puso sus ahorros en los bancos.

Pero el problema es más bien político: tan grande es el DESPRESTIGIO DE LA DUPLA DE CORDOBESES, que la gente quiere llevarse sus ahorros de los bancos, y estos no tiene como devolverlos a la vista porque los tienen invertidos, y en parte, han hecho mal negocio si tenían bonos de un Estado Argentino que esta en default.

Pero la cosa pasa por otro sitio: algunos bancos extranjeros SERIOS, tipo el Banco de Boston, supongo que podría conseguir devolver a sus ahorristas los fondos, pidiéndolos a su casa matriz, SI LAS NORMAS ECONOMICAS, BANCARIAS Y CAMBIARIAS EN ARGENTINA FUESEN SENSATAS. En cambio, otros bancos menos sólidos, y aquí incluyo a bancos argentinos privados y eventualmente tambien públicos, NO PODRÍAN AFRONTAR ESA CORRIDA, porque están demasiado invertidos en créditos de dudosa recuperación o en prestamos al propio Estado Nacional o Provincial, y NO CUENTAN CON UNA CASA MATRIZ DEL EXTERIOR para “financiarles” transitoriamente los fondos que necesitarían para cubrirse de un corrida temporaria de depositos.

LA CRISIS DEL SISTEMA ES TERMINAL

El dirigismo fascista de Cavallo quiere evitar la realidad de que el sistema NEFASTO llegó a su fin, y no se lo puede emparchar, sino que hay que reemplazarlo por otro basado en la libertad.

Por lo tanto, es imprescindible DEVOLVER A LA SOCIEDAD LA MONEDA QUE CAVALLO LE QUITO, y la única forma es dolarizando la economía.

Esto puede significar que algunos bancos argentinos sufran graves perjuicios, o incluso, que deban cerrar, pero al mismo tiempo, debemos recordar que hay BANCOS INTERNACIONALES SERIOS dispuestos a cumplir la funcion social de la banca, es decir, recibir ahorros y otorgar créditos, y que cuentan con el respaldo de sus casas matrices.

¿SIRVE EL BANCO CENTRAL?

A juzgar por los resultados, desde la epoca de Martinez de Hoz hasta hoy, el Banco Central fue inútil para controlar la seriedad de los bancos argentinos. En aquel entonces, los bancos eran robados directamente por sus propios propietarios o directores, que se quedaban con el dinero de los depositantes, aprovechando la irrestricta garantia que el Estado les habia dado. Tan de guante blanco fueron esas operaciones, que tengo entendido que quien fue presidente del banco privado mas grande de aquella epoca hoy se retiró a vivir confortablemente a México, desde donde dicta cursos universitarios como profesor de ETICA o algo parecido….

Esto hace pensar que los argentinos deberíamos tener la opcion de utilizar bancos extranjeros que NO REQUIERAN APROBACIÓN O CONTROL DE NUESTRO INOPERANTE BANCO CENTRAL. Por ejemplo, si me piden depositar en un banco serio norteamericano SIN CONTROL DEL BANCO CENTRAL, o en uno de capitales argentinos “controlado por el BCRA”, confío mucho más en el primero, porque estoy temeroso de que a la larga o a la corta, los propietarios el segundo se quedarán con mi dinero… La triste experiencia lo demostró….

Hoy, si se implantara la dolarización, el Banco Central no tendría nada que supervisar en materia de MONEDA, y seria útil que se dedique a controlar a los banquitos argentinos. Y respecto a los extranjeros, hay que exigirles una garantia directa de sus casas matrices, Y DARLES TOTAL LIBERTAD PARA COMPETIR.

Y de ese modo, los beneficiados seriamos los argentinos, porque habria mas competencia para ofrecernos mejores servicios bancarios privados, como en los paises civilizados.

Pero obviamente, para eso tenemos que volver a tener moneda – hoy esta prácticamente MUERTA, PORQUE EL ESTADO nos impide usarla con las restricciones bancarias – como primera medida. Y la unica forma posible, luego de los groseros errores cometidos por Cavallo, es dolarizar ya mismo la economía.

Lo opuesto, la “devaluación” implicaría la hiperinflación y el retiro masivo de ahorros del sistema financiero no bien la gente pudiese retirar sus fondos,.

La incapacidad de Cavallo para prever las reacciones de la gente estuvieron dadas por todo el tiempo perdio sin tomar medidas sensatas, de modo que lo que nos sucede es consecuencia de su DIRIGISMO economico que le permite PASARPOR ENCIMA DEL DERECHO DE PROPIEDAD DE LOS AHORRISTAS ARGENTINOS, porque actúa como si fuese el Fuhrer. Pero obviamente, la culpa es de De la Rua, que creyó que Cavallo podía salvarlo de su desprestigio presidencial…Como diria Don Zoilol, la culpa no es del chancho…….

EL SISTEMA FINANCIERO NORTEAMERICANO

Para lo norteamericanos, cuyo sistema financiero evolucionó en el sentido “técnico” creo que resulta difícil comprender al nuestro.

El principal motivo fue que HOY ellos tienen una moneda seria, que fabrican y preservan ellos mismos con eficacia, contra la inflación, a la cual NO CONSIDERAN UNA MERCADERIA, sino simplemente un numero.

Y esto es algo IMPORTANTE DE SEÑALAR: para un norteamericano el dólar es un número, un valor o un billete, pero tan acostumbrados estan a confiar en ´él, que posiblemente NO LO MIRAN COMO SI FUESE UNA MERCADERIA O COMMODITY, porque es algo que la Reserva Federal puede emitir a gusto, según las circunstancias.

De alli que el sistema de la Reserva Federal permite aguantar los problemas financieros gigantescos de algunos bancos, actuando como una barrera de contención, y en ultima instancia, la RESERVA FEDERAL puede emitir todos los dólares que necesite para salir de la situación comprometida, obviamente después de evaluar las consecuencia, y los pros y los cons. Esto lo vimos luego de los atentados terroristas del once de septiembre.

Y este concepto HABITUAL de los norteamericanos, que surge de su propio sistema financiero evolucionadísimo, posiblemente les hace olvidar la existencia de otros sistemas financieros NO TAN AVANZADOS, como por ejemplo, el que tuvimos desde la convertibilidad y hasta que Cavallo lo destrozó.

Con una dolarización total, nuestro sistema financiero podria funcionar relativamente bien, tanto como lo hacían los sistemas serios en los cuales la moneda era una MERCADERIA, y no necesitamos tener al SISTEMA DE LA RESERVA FEDERAL COMO REASEGURO.

Me explico. Para los argentinos, el dólar ES una mercaderia, y la mejor. ( mientras que para los yanquis, su dólar es tan solo su dinero…….). Por lo tanto, podríamos tener un sistema financiero más o menos primitivo, pero EFICIENTE, basado en efectivos mínimos razonables que deban ser custodiados seriamente, si nuestra moneda fuese el dólar.

Esto aseguraria que en caso de una corrida bancaria, los bancos responderían frente a su ahorristas. Y como hoy en dia, los bancos extranjeros serios son cada vez mas importantes y confiables dentro del mercado, lo lógico es que quienes sirvan de contención a dichos bancos sean sus propias casas matrices del exterior, que están interesadas en mantener su prestigio y saben bien como manejar el negocio bancario.

En cambio, los ineficaces bancos argentinos, privados o públicos, tendrán que ir desapareciendo del mercado. Y los bancos argentinos EFICACES podran expandirse, incluso hacia el expterior.

Lo importante NO ES EL TITULAR DEL BANCO, sino la forma en que éste presta un servicio a la sociedad. Si un banco norteamericano ofrece préstamos a tasas bajas y largos plazos de amortización – supongamos que con garantía hipotecaria – está dando un buen servicio a la sociedad argentina, porque alentará el trabajo y la producción.

Por lo tanto, la mercadería de los bancos, extranjeros o argentinos, es el ahorro y los depósitos de la sociedad argentina, y es preciso que estos sean canalizados en la forma mas eficiente posible, para que nuestro país vuelva a crecer.

Pero lamentablemente, temo que muchos de los analista norteamericanos que opinan sobre Argentina, acostumbrados a SU PROPIO SISTEMA FINANCIERO DONDE NO SE CONSIDERA AL DÓLAR COMO UN COMMODITY, no llegan a comprender que nosotros si podemos tener un buen sistema económico y bancario si IMPLANTAMOS YA MISMO LA DOLARIZACION, en vez de “devaluar” a un peso argentino que carece de valor propio, porque solo representa el valor del dólar……..

Y debido a esto, nuestros analistas y economistas argentinos que REPITEN COMO LOROS lo que leen desde USA, están contribuyendo a sembrar mayor incertidumbre y a aumentar el ya existente pánico de la sociedad.

En estos momento difíciles, DOLARIZAR es la única solucion civilizada. Y por eso, DEBEMOS ESCUCHAR a quien nos lo sugiere, que ya tiene un antecedente FAVORABLE: el AGUILA Carlos Menem, el restaurador de la Moneda, cuando destruyó de un solo tajo a la hiperinflación….(a mis amigos, vuelvo a aclarar que ni soy amigo de Menem, ni soy peronista, pero si quiero reconocerle su gran mérito de haber reimplantado la moneda que fue destruida por nuestros bárbaros incultos y corruptos gobernantes en el pasado, y que ACABA DE SER DESTRUIDA UNA VEZ MAS).

FIN DE

Fue una necedad abortar el ALCA en Mar del Plata x Domingo Cavallo

23 febrero, 2016

Domingo Cavallo
Domingo Cavallo
Para grafpi1@yahoo.com.ar Hoy a las 11:05 A.M.
Domingo Cavallo
Fue una necedad abortar el ALCA en Mar del Plata
Posted: 22 Feb 2016 03:52 PM PST
Cuando el Presidente George W Bush visitó Argentina en noviembre del 2005 para la cumbre en la que se debió haber avanzado en la conformación del Acuerdo de Libre Comercio de las Américas, Néstor Kirchner lideró la oposición a la iniciativa estadounidense y le hizo un insólito desplante al Presidente Norteamericano al permitir que el dinero de Chávez financiera una cumbre paralela anti ALCA en Mar del Plata.
Fue como pegarse un tiro en el pie. Canadá, Chile, México, Colombia, Perú y Panamá, así como los demás paises de America Central y varios del Caribe, tienen hoy tratados bilaterales de libre comercio con los Estados Unidos. Eso les asegura un acceso privilegiado al mercado de ese país.
En la actualidad y probablemente por muchos años en el futuro inmediato la economía de los Estados Unidos será una de las de más rápido crecimiento en el mundo. Sólo los países de Asia siguen creciendo más, pero a ritmos más lentos que los que entre 2003 y 2012 permitieron que se produjera el boom de las materias primas.
Ojalá la visita de Obama y la nueva actitud del gobierno de Brasil, que ahora reconoce la importancia de tener libre comercio con Europa y los Estados Unidos, le permita a Macri reiniciar conversaciones para revitalizar el ALCA, o, al menos, iniciar negociaciones bilaterales semejantes a las que arribaron a buen puerto en los países de América que hoy corren con ventajas.

You are subscribed to email updates from Domingo Cavallo.
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States
Responder Responder a todos Reenviar Más
Hacer clic en Responder, Responder a todos o Reenviar

ARGENTINE UPDATE – Feb 22 & 23, 2016

23 febrero, 2016

1. ARGENTINA’S NEW PRESIDENT TAKES ON DEBT, DRUGS AND TERRORISM (The Washington Post)

2. JUDGE DEALS SETBACK TO HOLDOUTS IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH ARGENTINA (The New York Times)

3. ARGENTINA IN CONDITIONAL VICTORY AGAINST ‘HOLDOUT’ HEDGE FUNDS (FT.com)

4. ARGENTINA SIGNS, SEALS AND DELIVERS $1B BOND DEAL ON LOOSE LEAF (CNBC.com)

5. AN END IN SIGHT: ARGENTINA WINS A VICTORY AGAINST ITS HEDGE-FUND CREDITORS (The Economist)

6. ARGENTINA RULING TO SUPPORT BONDS AS HOLDOUTS LOSE LEVERAGE (Bloomberg Business)

1. ARGENTINA’S NEW PRESIDENT TAKES ON DEBT, DRUGS AND TERRORISM (The Washington Post)
By Lally Weymouth
21 February 2016

During their joint 12-year rule, Presidents Cristina Fernà¡ndez de Kirchner and Néstor Kirchner isolated Argentina from the world, cut it off from the global economy and drained its treasury. Now the country has a new leader: Mauricio Macri, just two months into his first term, is trying to restore Buenos Aires’s standing. His immediate task is to end a dispute with U.S. creditors that began after the country defaulted on its debt in 2001; American hedge fund managers argued in a U.S. court that Argentina shouldn’t be allowed to pay new bondholders until it paid off the old ones, thus freezing it out of international credit markets. Macri spoke with The Washington Post’s Lally Weymouth in his office in the Casa Rosada, Argentina’s White House, about the economy, Venezuela and alleged Iranian terrorists in the nation’s capital. Edited excerpts follow.

We made possible what was really impossible. At some moment the Argentinian people decided to change and move forward, and lose the ties with our past and to better our future.

Yes, unfortunately they succeeded in isolating Argentina. But the Argentinians have decided that this is the time to move forward. In addition to incredible natural resources, we have unique human resources. Even if what we have inherited from the past government is not the best scenario, it will not stop us from developing the country and fulfilling my principal commitments.

Yes, hundreds of millions. It’s pretty incredible. TV, newspapers and radio.

Exports, imports, outflows, inflows – we have unified the exchange rate.

Yes.

They were afraid it would cause a worse crisis than the one we were suffering. But I was sure that our problem wasn’t the exchange rate. Our problem is trying to reduce inflation. My main commitment that I assumed during the campaign is to gain a country with zero poverty.

Yes, keeping the electricity subsidies for lower-class people and reducing them for the other social levels.

We are trying to solve all the conflicts that we inherited with the world – starting with the holdouts [among the U.S. hedge funds mulling the bond deal]. I am quite optimistic. We have already reached an agreement with some of them, and we expect to reach a reasonable agreement with all of them in the next couple of weeks.

Yes, we have an open and fair attitude to a final agreement; that is what we have already expressed to the [American] mediator named by the judge [Thomas Griesa, a New York federal judge presiding over the case].

Yes. . . . The origin of this inflation is that we had a government that, even though it increased taxes, still accumulated increasing deficits. We are committed to reducing our expenses so as to keep reducing inflation. We expect to come back to one-digit inflation in less than three years.

Now it is at 28 or 30 percent.

That is right. I am ready for a long-term, mature relationship that is productive for both of us. We want to be part of the 21st century. There is no room for isolation. . . . The only people who were damaged were Argentinians. [The day after this interview, President Obama announced that he will visit the country in March.]

In the tough moments that we suffered under the military government here, we had many refugees from Argentina going to live in Venezuela. Venezuela always cared for our human rights. So I am doing exactly what they have done in the past for us.

I am ready to be the voice to defend human rights in the whole world. Argentina wants to be part of the nations that are battling against terrorism and drug trafficking and defending human rights and democracy.

First, we have to recognize we have a problem. The last government always denied that we were having a huge increase in drug trafficking in Argentina. Now we are starting to work seriously on the matter, purchasing radar to control our frontiers. But things are not going to change overnight.

They did the same thing with inflation. They fired the experts who worked at the National Bureau of Statistics and started to declare what they wanted, not what was really going on. Now we are committed to work with the truth. Ruling a country means that you have to be committed to the truth.

In Argentina we are changing to a whole new generation of politicians. They share my idea that Argentina has to be part of the 21st century and has to have an important role in Latin America and the world. Under my agenda of zero poverty and improving the quality of our democracy, many leaders of the opposition are willing to work together.

Both subjects are related. The prosecutor was denouncing the president and her cabinet, saying this [agreement] was illegal. Suddenly, a couple of days after this, Nisman was found dead. So now we have to solve both questions – was Nisman right to denounce the [deal]? Second, why is Nisman dead? His family and others are saying he was murdered. So we need to know the truth. Again, for me, ruling a country is saying the truth.

We are talking about renewable energy in addition to shale gas [and food-prodution]. … Strategic sectors can grow a lot, and we can double our exports in less than 10 years.

The best years for Latin America, yes. It depends on what happens in the future with China.

It affects everybody in the world. But the prices we get, especially for our agribusiness produce, are good.

Yes, but they didn’t build up a long-term relationship. China was a way to solve short-term problems [with currency swaps]. My idea is to transform this relationship in a strategic way. We need to export more value-added products to China, not only commodities. And we can buy from them some of the infrastructure we need.

Back to contents

2. JUDGE DEALS SETBACK TO HOLDOUTS IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH ARGENTINA (The New York Times)
By Alexandra Stevenson
Feb. 19, 2016

A federal judge presiding over a long-running battle between Argentina and a group of New York hedge funds said on Friday that he would lift an injunction that had locked Argentina out of international markets.

The ruling represents a sharp turnaround by Judge Thomas Griesa of the United States District Court in Manhattan, who had previously prevented Argentina from raising new money or paying its creditors before paying investors holding its defaulted debt.

These investors — known as holdouts — include a group of hedge funds led by NML Capital, a unit of the billionaire Paul E. Singer’s Elliott Management. They have battled with Argentina for more than a decade in a fight that stems from 2001, when the country defaulted on nearly $100 billion of debt.

Argentina later offered twice to restructure the bonds for new and cheaper ones, but the holdouts refused and won a series of victories in the United States courts in recent years. Friday’s ruling now weakens the hand of the holdouts in negotiating with Argentina.

In his ruling on Friday, Judge Griesa said he would drop the injunctions after Argentina repeals domestic laws that prevent the country from making payments to the holdouts and makes full payments to bondholders who settle with Argentina by Feb. 29.

The creditors and Argentina’s previous president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, reached an impasse after years of mudslinging and rulings that led the country to default on its debt again in 2014.

Ms. Fernández de Kirchner and her administration called the hedge funds “vultures” and “financial terrorists,” and went as far as denigrating Judge Griesa.

All those years, Argentina “never seriously pursued negotiations toward settlement,” Judge Griesa wrote in his ruling on Friday.

“All that has changed,” the judge added, referring to the newly elected president, Mauricio Macri, who has pledged to resolve the debt dispute as part of a bigger plan to overhaul Argentina’s economy.

In recent weeks, Mr. Macri’s administration has moved to settle with several other holdouts, striking a $1.35 billion settlement with a group of Italian investors, among several other deals. On Feb. 5, after a week of intense negotiations with the group of six holdout hedge funds, it offered to pay $6.5 billion in an effort to put the battle behind it.

Two hedge funds — Montreux Partners and Dart Management — accepted the proposal, which would amount to three-quarters of a $9 billion claim on defaulted bonds.

The four others funds, which include NML Capital and Aurelius Capital Management, a hedge fund run by the former Elliott trader Mark Brodsky, have continued to reject the proposal.

If the court were to refuse to vacate the injunctions now, “it would unfairly deny those plaintiffs the opportunities to resolve their disputes amicably with the Republic,” Judge Griesa wrote on Friday.

He added that “vacating the injunctions serves the public interest by encouraging settlement to resolve disputes generally — particularly such protracted ones — as well as the concern for finality in this particular litigation.”

The ruling is also conditioned on a federal appeals court giving Judge Griesa the green light to go ahead.

“To think that after all that Elliott’s been through, that they could be outfoxed at this late hour — incredible, Macri’s a genius,” said one hedge fund manager who has not been involved in the dispute, but has watched it closely and has investments in Argentina.

Aurelius declined to comment, as did a spokesman for NML Capital.

Argentina had hoped to get the injunctions vacated first, so it could raise new money to pay the settlements it is reaching. But referring to Judge Griesa’s decision that the government pay the bondholders as a condition for his lifting the injunctions thereafter, Yael Bialostozky, the chief spokeswoman for Argentina’s Finance Ministry, said: “There was no surprise here. We keep progressing to close out agreements with the greatest possible number of bondholders.”

Back to contents

3. ARGENTINA IN CONDITIONAL VICTORY AGAINST ‘HOLDOUT’ HEDGE FUNDS (FT.com)
By Benedict Mander
February 21, 2016

After winning a victory in its decade-long battle with a group of US hedge funds in a New York court, attention now switches to Argentina’s congress.

Judge Thomas Griesa said on Friday that he would lift a controversial financial blockade preventing Argentina’s access to the international capital markets.

The ruling was made on the condition that Argentina repeals laws stopping it from paying “holdout” creditors that refused debt restructurings after its 2001 default on $100bn, and then pays in full those holdouts that reach an agreement with Buenos Aires before the end of February.

The injunction was put in place after the holdouts, led by US billionaire Paul Singer’s Elliott Management, won a legal victory in 2012 in which Judge Griesa ordered Argentina to pay them in full at the same time as holders of restructured debt. The refusal to pay the holdouts by former president Cristina Fernández precipitated the eighth default in Argentina’s history in 2014.

But the victory of the market-friendly Mauricio Macri in November’s presidential elections led to a radical change in Argentina’s approach, with an offer to pay the holdouts $6.5bn earlier this month for claims of $9bn.

“Put simply, President Macri’s election changed everything,” wrote Judge Griesa in the ruling late on Friday, explaining why he was willing to lift the injunctions. “The injunctions must not be turned through changing circumstances into an instrument of wrong,” he added.

Although Judge Griesa currently lacks jurisdiction to lift the injunction immediately due to a pending appeal, the indicative ruling made clear how he will proceed when he does have jurisdiction.

Observers were surprised by the speed of the 85-year-old judge’s 35-page ruling, which came just a day after the holdouts filed lengthy arguments to the court justifying why the injunctions should remain in place, at Argentina’s request. There was no oral hearing despite requests for one by the holdouts.

The centre-right Mr Macri, who is on a mission to attract much-needed foreign investment, must now convince Argentina’s congress to revoke the laws currently preventing payouts to holdouts as requested.

Congress is likely to support Mr Macri, according to Juan Germano, a political analyst, even if there may be a noisy negotiation process. “We are on course to untangle this conflict,” he said.

“For Argentina, this is very important. It clears the way for the solution of the problems we are trying to solve,” said Daniel Marx, a former finance secretary. It will allow Argentina to return to the international stage after a long period of isolation, he said, while enabling the country to borrow at lower interest rates and finance the economic transition that is under way after a decade of populist and interventionist policies.

Nicolás Dujovne, an economist, explained that Argentina’s ability to borrow abroad again would help in its battle to reduce inflation of about 30 per cent, which many analysts see as the biggest challenge facing Mr Macri as sensitive wage negotiations with trade unions begin.

While the previous government resorted to printing money to finance a bulging fiscal deficit, which only fuelled inflation, a resolution to the holdouts saga would enable the government to issue foreign debt instead.

Although a removal of the injunction would put an end to Argentina’s 2014 default and allow it to resume paying the owners of restructured debt, it would not guarantee an end to the dispute with the holdouts, as they could appeal against the judge’s decision. “This may turn into a pyrrhic victory if indeed litigation now swamps further negotiations,” said Charles Blitzer, a former IMF official.

But Mr Dujovne is optimistic, arguing that there is willingness on both sides to reach a deal, and that their positions are not far apart. He said that Argentina was offering a similar deal to the one that the holdouts allegedly accepted before the default in 2014, which the government then withdrew.

“It seems difficult for there not to be a deal,” said Mr Dujovne, venturing that an agreement could even be announced by the end of the month.

If Argentina succeeds in overturning the legislation as requested by the judge and proceeds to pay the holdouts who accept a deal, a lifting of the injunction would weaken the holdouts’ leverage in the negotiations.

But they could appeal against the move, potentially triggering a renewed legal battle that could make what has been dubbed the “trial of the century” for sovereign debt drag on for even longer if a swift deal is not reached.

4. ARGENTINA SIGNS, SEALS AND DELIVERS $1B BOND DEAL ON LOOSE LEAF (CNBC.com)
By Dawn Giel
Saturday, 20 Feb 2016

The 15-year saga of Argentina’s record debt default took a step closer to closure this week with an unusual court filing.

The standoff finally hit a turning point when Argentina ushered in its new president, Mauricio Macri, who vowed to resolve the bitter legal dispute. On February 5, following face-to-face negotiations between creditors and representatives from Macri’s administration, Argentina unveiled publicly a tender offer to pay $6.5 billion—of the total $9 billion—owed to the leading debt holders.

As a result, the South American nation settled a nearly $1 billion obligation with hedge fund EM Limited, one of six major bondholders locked in a long running legal dispute with the country. According to a court document filed this week, the deal was sealed in a decidedly unorthodox way: It was drafted and signed by both parties on a sheet of loose-leaf paper.

“The parties agree to cooperate with each other in all respects to accomplish this settlement and to execute all papers necessary to accomplish this objective,” the document read. It was signed by a representative for EM and Luis Caputo, Argentina’s secretary of finance.

Also included in the document was an email between lawyers representing both Argentina and EM Limited, delineating the settlement amount as just in excess of $849 million.

However, the settlement is subject to two conditions. The Argentine Congress must approve the deal, and an injunction that has been in place since 2012 must be lifted. That clause essentially prevents Argentina from paying existing bondholders of its restructured debt unless holdout creditors are also paid.

The latter condition was given the green light on Friday when the U.S. District Judge overseeing the case, Thomas Griesa, ruled in Argentina’s favor and agreed to remove the injunction—albeit, the ruling is dependent on a federal appeals court ruling.

In 2001, Argentina’s suffered what was at the time the world’s largest sovereign debt default. Although much of that debt was restructured, some of the country’s more aggressive bondholders legally have been battling for full payment in various jurisdictions across the globe for more than decade.

NML Capital, a subsidiary of billionaire Paul Singer’s Elliott Management and one of the six major creditors, even went as far as Ghana to detain an Argentine Naval vessel, the ARA Libertad, in an attempt at repayment.

Another hedge fund, Montreux Partners—who together with EM Limited account for about 14 percent of the total outstanding claims—also accepted Argentina’s proposed settlement terms. Together, both settlement deals exceed $ 1 billion.

Elliott Management declined to comment to CNBC on Judge Griesa’s decision. However, in a court document filed Thursday, the holdout creditors stated that “granting the relief Argentina seeks would simply delay resumption of negotiations by requiring Plaintiffs to return to the Second Circuit.”

5. AN END IN SIGHT: ARGENTINA WINS A VICTORY AGAINST ITS HEDGE-FUND CREDITORS (The Economist)
Feb 21st 2016

A new ruling in New York augurs well for a long-awaited resolution with holdout bondholders

ARGENTINA has had plenty of setbacks in its efforts to resolve its mammoth sovereign default of 2001. Although some of its jilted bondholders accepted a big write-down of the money they were owed in restructurings agreed in 2005 and 2010, others held out for full payment. They enlisted the support of an American judge, Thomas Griesa (the original bonds were written under American law). He not only upheld their claim, but barred any banks with operations in America from facilitating payments on the restructured bonds until the holdouts were paid in full. That prompted a fresh default, in 2014. The Argentine president of the day, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, railed against the “senile” Mr Griesa and the “vulture funds” he was helping. But Mr Griesa has now done Argentina a favour.

On February 19th Mr Griesa said he would lift the injunction that prevents Argentina from servicing its restructured debts under certain conditions. The judgment is a blow to the remaining holdout creditors, led by Elliott Management, a hedge fund, who had used it to press Argentina for full payment. Mr Griesa’s change of heart stems from a change in Argentina’s government. In December Mauricio Macri replaced Ms Fernández, vowing to resolve the dispute with the holdouts. The new government has already struck deals with some of the curmudgeonly creditors. Earlier this month it settled with a group of Italian holdouts. On February 5th it made a new proposal to the American ones, offering to pay $6.5 billion of their $9 billion claim. Two of the six largest American holdouts accepted the offer. It is a far cry from Ms Fernández’s flat refusal to reward the holdouts in any way for their intransigence. “President Macri’s election changed everything,” Griesa wrote. “The Republic has shown a good-faith willingness to negotiate.”

The latest ruling deprives the remaining holdouts of crucial leverage over the Argentine government and improves the chances of a swift resolution to the debt saga. “It’s the most important development in the last couple of years,” says Juan Cruz Díaz of Cefeidas, an advisory firm. “There is now light at the end of the tunnel.”

The light is still some way off, however. Argentina had sought to overturn the injunction at the Court of Appeals, which will now have to remand the case back to Mr Griesa’s court to enable it to be lifted. And then there are Mr Griesa’s conditions: he wants Argentina to pay those who accept a deal by the end of the month. He also wants the government to repeal legislation designed to block deals with the holdouts. The “Ley Cerrojo” (Padlock Law) was passed in 2005 to prevent the debt-restructuring deal Argentina had just struck from being reopened at a later date. It was suspended to allow for a second restructuring in 2010, but remains on the books.

Repealing the law will be the first big test of the government’s ability to garner support from parties outside its governing coalition. “We’re optimistic,” Marcos Peña, the cabinet secretary charged with liaising with Congress, said in a radio interview on February 20th. “There is an understanding in Congress that we have to resolve this. We’ll start negotiations in the coming days but we’ve been chatting about it for a while already.”

The challenge has become somewhat easier since February 3rd, when 18 deputies from Front for Victory (FPV), the party of Ms Fernández, broke away to form their own, more moderate, “Justicialist Bloc”. The defection means the FPV is no longer the biggest group in the lower house. That will make it harder to block the new government’s proposals. Diego Bossio, one of the defectors, says the bloc wants to work with the new government to repeal the Padlock Law. By exploiting divisions within Peronism, Mr Macri hopes to be able to release Argentina from a dispute which has distracted its politicians for long enough.

6. ARGENTINA RULING TO SUPPORT BONDS AS HOLDOUTS LOSE LEVERAGE (Bloomberg Business)
By Katia Porzecanski, and Bob Van Voris
February 22, 2016

Ø U.S. judge moved to end injunction that hedge funds sought

Ø Bank of America predicts restructured notes will rally

Argentina is on the cusp of returning to international capital markets for the first time since its 2001 default as a favorable U.S. court ruling puts pressure on creditors to settle their legal claims against the government.

Bank of America Corp. said the country’s bonds are likely to rally after a judge agreed Friday to drop orders that barred Argentina from issuing new notes or paying restructured debt, part of a decade-old court battle with hedge funds. The dispute had dragged on growth and left Argentina exposed to creditors’ attempts to seize its assets.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa’s decision means that investors led by billionaire Paul Singer’s Elliott Management Corp. have lost much of the leverage they had to push for better terms in talks over compensation for bonds left over from the $95 billion default. Argentina has already agreed to pay more than $1 billion to other creditors as newly elected President Mauricio Macri makes good on pledges to reach deals that would lure investment and financing to South America’s second-largest economy.

“We expect many more funds to accept the offer now as they are losing much of their bargaining power,” said Jane Brauer, a strategist at Bank of America in New York. “We’ve been overweight Argentina in anticipation that a settlement might take place in the next four to five months, but this is going faster than we expected. We think the bonds have more room to run.”

Griesa’s decision is contingent on the nation repealing laws that bar paying the holdouts, and on the approval of a federal appeals court. If that happens, the injunctions will be automatically lifted as soon as Argentina pays investors who have settled their claims by Feb. 29. Once the injunctions are removed, Argentina will no longer be blocked from paying those investors who agreed to debt exchanges in 2005 and 2010.

Daniel Marx, a former Argentine finance secretary and head of consulting firm Quantum Finanzas, said last week that the country will need to issue as much as $20 billion of debt this year to settle with the holdouts and finance a fiscal deficit.

The country’s benchmark bonds due 2033 have jumped this year to a record 118 cents on the dollar as of Friday. They were little changed on Monday, with the yield up two basis points at 6.36 percent at 6:03 a.m. in New York.

“Argentine bonds can go a bit higher, not necessarily much higher,” said Regis Chatellier, a strategist at Societe Generale SA in London. “The market largely anticipated a positive outcome.” For new bonds, “there should be high demand because carry is still a big decision factor,” he said.

‘Credit Positive’

The nation stopped payments on the securities in 2014 because of the court ruling, which said it couldn’t service that debt without paying the holdout creditors. Argentina owes $3 billion in overdue interest on the restructured bonds, according to Bank of America.

“This is credit positive for the country, which is now just a step away from returning to capital markets,” said Alejo Czerwonko, a New York-based emerging markets strategist at UBS Wealth Management. “The next step will be to get congressional support, which we’re confident won’t be a problem.”

Argentine cabinet chief Marcos Pena said Saturday that the government, provincial governors and lawmakers generally agree that repealing the law is necessary, according to an e-mailed statement. Argentina’s congress reconvenes in March.

Ahead of Griesa’s decision, the holdouts had argued the injunctions should remain in place because dropping them would “upend the negotiations that only now are just beginning in earnest.”

Market Pariah

They also said that Argentina hadn’t spent much time meeting with the bondholders before going public with a settlement offer they called an “ultimatum” that favors some creditors over others. Under the proposal, some bondholders will be repaid 100 percent of their claim, while others will suffer losses of as much as 30 percent.

Michael O’Looney, a spokesman for Elliott, declined to comment on the decision.

Argentina has been a pariah in global markets since the 2001 default. Under President Nestor Kirchner and then his wife, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, the government took a growing role in the economy and seized private businesses. By the time Fernandez left office in 2015, the country was seeing anemic economic growth amid a shortage of dollars and inflation that exceeded 25 percent.

Macri, a 57-year-old Buenos Aires native, had campaigned on a pledge to quickly reverse much of the Kirchners’ policies and open up the economy to investment.

“Markets should rejoice on this surprise decision” by the U.S. court, Siobhan Morden, the head of Latin American fixed-income strategy at Nomura Holdings Inc., said in a note. “This marks an end to a historic era.”

TUESDAY

1. BUENOS AIRES ‘ON COURSE TO UNTANGLE CONFLICT’ WITH HOLDOUTS; ARGENTINA: RETURN TO CAPITAL MARKETS (Financial Times)

2. ARGENTINA REACHES SETTLEMENT WITH SEVERAL BONDHOLDERS (Dow Jones Institutional News)

3. PRESS RELEASE: STATEMENT OF DANIEL A. POLLACK, SPECIAL MASTER IN ARGENTINA DEBT LITIGATION, FEB. 22, 2016 (Dow Jones Institutional News)

4. ARGENTINA MOVES TO DROP U.S. APPEAL OVER LOCAL BOND PAYMENTS (Reuters News)

5. ARGENTINA BONDS JUMP AS JUDGE SAYS COULD LIFT INJUNCTION (Reuters News)

6. AN END IN SIGHT; ARGENTINA WINS A VICTORY AGAINST ITS HEDGE-FUND CREDITORS (News Analysis from Economist.com)

7. WILL ARGENTINA’S ECONOMY FINALLY START TO RECOVER IN 2016? (Forbes.com)

8. ANCIENT ARMORED MAMMAL FROM ARGENTINA WAS A HUGE ARMADILLO (Business Insider)

1. BUENOS AIRES ‘ON COURSE TO UNTANGLE CONFLICT’ WITH HOLDOUTS; ARGENTINA: RETURN TO CAPITAL MARKETS (Financial Times)
By Benedict Mander
22 February 2016

New York judge poised to lift financial blockade against the country, subject to conditions

After Argentina’s victory in its decade-long battle with a group of US hedge funds in a New York court, attention now switches to the country’s congress.

Judge Thomas Griesa said on Friday he would lift a financial blockade barring Argentina’s access to the international capital markets. The ruling was made on the condition that Argentina repeals laws stopping it from paying “holdout” creditors that refused debt restructurings after its 2001 default on $100bn, and then pays in full those holdouts that reach an agreement with Buenos Aires before the end of February.

The injunction was put in place after the holdouts, led by US billionaire Paul Singer’s Elliott Management, won a legal victory in 2012 in which Judge Griesa ordered Argentina to pay them in full, at the same time as it paid holders of restructured debt. The refusal by the former president Cristina Fernández to pay the holdouts precipitated the eighth default in Argentina’s history, in 2014.

But the victory of the market-friendly Mauricio Macri in November’s presidential elections led to a radical change in approach, with Argentina offering to pay the holdouts $6.5bn this month, for claims of $9bn.

“Put simply, President Macri’s election changed everything,” wrote Judge Griesa in the ruling late on Friday. “The injunctions must not be turned through changing circumstances into an instrument of wrong,” he added. Although he cannot lift the injunction immediately, as an appeal is pending, the indicative ruling made clear how he will proceed when he does have jurisdiction.

Observers were surprised by the speed of the judge’s ruling, which came a day after the holdouts filed lengthy arguments, at Argentina’s request, justifying why the injunctions should remain in place. No oral hearing took place despite requests by the holdouts.

The centre-right Mr Macri – who is keen to attract much-needed foreign investment – must now convince Argentina’s congress to revoke the laws stopping payouts to holdouts.

Congress is likely to support Mr Macri, according to Juan Germano, a political analyst, though the negotiation process may be noisy. “We are on course to untangle this conflict,” he said.

Daniel Marx, a former finance secretary, said: “For Argentina this is very important. It clears the way for the solution of the problems we are trying to solve.” Once the injunction is lifted, he said, Argentina will be able to return to the international stage after a long period of isolation; it will also be able to borrow at lower interest rates and finance the economic transition that is under way after a decade of populist and interventionist policies.

Nicolás Dujovne, an economist, explained that Argentina’s ability to borrow abroad again would help in its battle to reduce inflation, which is about 30 per cent. Many analysts see this as the biggest challenge facing Mr Macri as sensitive wage negotiations with trade unions get under way.

While the previous government resorted to printing money to finance a bulging fiscal deficit, which only fuelled inflation, a resolution to the holdouts saga would enable the government to issue foreign debt instead.

Although a removal of the injunction would put an end to Argentina’s 2014 default and allow it to resume paying the owners of restructured debt, it would not guarantee an end to the dispute with the holdouts, as they could appeal against the judge’s decision. “This may turn into a Pyrrhic victory if indeed litigation now swamps further negotiations,” said Charles Blitzer, a former IMF official.

But Mr Dujovne is optimistic, arguing that there is willingness on both sides to reach a deal, and that their positions are not far apart. He said that Argentina is offering a similar deal to the one that the holdouts allegedly accepted before the default in 2014, which the government then withdrew.

“It seems difficult for there not to be a deal,” said Mr Dujovne, venturing that an agreement could even be announced by the end of the month.

Back to contents

2. ARGENTINA REACHES SETTLEMENT WITH SEVERAL BONDHOLDERS (Dow Jones Institutional News)
22 February 2016

NEW YORK—Argentina has reached a settlement with several bondholders for $250 million and €185 million, a court-appointed mediator said Monday as the country continues work toward ending a debt crisis that has damaged its ability to maneuver financially abroad.

The latest deals boost to more than $1.5 billion the amount Argentina has committed in deals since President Mauricio Macri took office on Dec. 10.

Court-appointed mediator Daniel Pollack has announced a string of agreements over several weeks after Argentina announced it expected to pay about $6.5 billion to settle claims of about $10 billion by bondholders, including U.S. hedge funds.

The latest settlements involve bondholders including Lightwater Corp, Old Castle Holdings, VR Capital, Procella Holdings and Capital Ventures International, Mr. Pollack said.

The bondholders refused to swap their bonds at a steep discount when Argentina offered swaps in 2005 and 2010 to ease its financial crisis after it defaulted on $100 billion in bonds in 2001. They went to court instead, winning judgments.

Meanwhile, 93% of Argentina’s creditors accepted the exchange offers, trading their bonds for new ones worth between 25% and 29% of the original value of the bonds.

Mr. Pollack announced the latest settlements the day Argentina asked a Manhattan federal appeals court to drop oral arguments scheduled for Wednesday in one of several cases involving bondholders.

Argentina said in court papers filed with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that it had decided to drop the appeals since Mr. Macri took office.

Lawyer Michael C. Spencer, representing bondholders involved in the cases set to be heard Wednesday, filed papers late Monday saying a lower-court judge was too eager to vacate court orders protecting bondholders and the appeals court should ensure bondholders remain protected by blocking their dismissal.

Mr. Spencer, saying he represented several hundred people and small-fund bondholders with claims of more than $832 million, complained that Judge Thomas Griesa was rushing to collapse the force of court orders against Argentina.

In a written ruling Friday, Judge Griesa noted that President Macri’s government has consistently declared a desire to resolve its disputes with foreign investors and that the new stance has been welcomed in the U.S., where Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew has commended it efforts.

Mr. Griesa said he recognized Argentina’s “earnest efforts to negotiate and its striking change in attitude” since Mr. Macri took office and was prepared to automatically lift court orders standing in the way of agreements with bondholders as soon as Argentina repeals all legislative obstacles to settlements and once it satisfies the terms of its deals.

“Allowing the republic to re-enter the capital markets will undoubtedly help stimulate its economy and thus benefit its people,” the judge wrote. “It might even encourage other indebted nations to choose compromise over intransigence.”

Back to contents

3. PRESS RELEASE: STATEMENT OF DANIEL A. POLLACK, SPECIAL MASTER IN ARGENTINA DEBT LITIGATION, FEB. 22, 2016 (Dow Jones Institutional News)
22 February 2016

Statement Of Daniel A. Pollack, Special Master In Argentina Debt Litigation, Feb. 22, 2016

PR Newswire

NEW YORK, Feb. 22, 2016

NEW YORK, Feb. 22, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Daniel A. Pollack, Special Master presiding over settlement negotiations between the Republic of Argentina and its “holdout” Bondholders issued the following statement today:

As Special Master, I am pleased to report that Agreements in Principle have now been reached by the Republic of Argentina with five other Bondholders for a total amount of approximately $250 million plus 185 million Euros. These Bondholders include Lightwater Corp, Old Castle Holdings, VR Capital, Procella Holdings and Capital Ventures International. I am continuing to work with the Republic of Argentina and all interested Bondholders to help them arrive at Agreements in Principle. These Agreements in Principle, like all others, are subject to two conditions: first, the lifting of the Lock Law and the Sovereign Payment Law, and second, the lifting of the Injunction by Judge Griesa. These Agreements in Principle are all within the framework of the February 5 Proposal issued by the Republic of Argentina, available to all Bondholders. I will have no further comment on this tonight.

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-of-daniel-a-pollack-special-master-in-argentina-debt-litigation-feb-22–2016-300224203.html

Back to contents

4. ARGENTINA MOVES TO DROP U.S. APPEAL OVER LOCAL BOND PAYMENTS (Reuters News)
22 February 2016

NEW YORK, Feb 22 (Reuters) – Argentina on Monday moved to drop its appeal of a U.S. judge’s ruling that blocked Citigroup Inc last year from processing interest payments to holders of $2.3 billion in bonds issued under the country’s local laws.

A federal appeals court in New York had been set to hear the case on Wednesday. But in court papers, Argentina’s lawyers said recently elected President Mauricio Macri’s administration had decided not to pursue the appeal.

The motion came after U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa on Friday signaled his willingness to lift injunctions placed on debt payments owed to creditors that participated in past restructurings after the country’s $100 billion default in 2002.

Argentina earlier this month proposed paying $6.5 billion to resolve litigation with creditors that did not participate in those 2005 and 2010 restructurings and had been suing for payment on defaulted bonds.

A key lawmaker and analysts said on Monday that Argentina’s Congress was likely to repeal two laws that have blocked it from settling the litigation, which has hobbled the country’s finances. (Reporting by Nate Raymond in New York; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)

Back to contents

5. ARGENTINA BONDS JUMP AS JUDGE SAYS COULD LIFT INJUNCTION (Reuters News)
22 February 2016

NEW YORK, Feb 22 (IFR) – Argentina’s bonds rallied by up to two points on Monday after a favorable ruling on Friday in the country’s legal battle against holdout creditors.

Argentina’s 2033 Discount notes were among the most active on Monday morning, jumping by around two points to 120 in early trading. The 2038 Par bonds, meanwhile, rose by about a point to 65.5, according to a New York-based trader.

Late Friday, the judge presiding over Argentina’s decade-long battle with creditors who did not participate in its 2005 and 2010 restructurings, signaled he would be willing to lift an injunction preventing Argentina from servicing its foreign debt.

The injunction – which was meant to bring Argentina and holdouts to the negotiating table – forced the sovereign to default on its restructured bonds in 2014.

US Judge Thomas Griesa said that it would serve the public interest to lift the injunctions, provided that Argentina repeals two laws concerning its debts and pays all creditors who agree by February 29 to settle.

“It was the first favorable ruling from (US judge) Griesa towards Argentina and took the market by surprise,” said Siobhan Morden, head of Latin America fixed income strategy at Nomura.

A key Argentine lawmaker and analysts said on Monday that Congress is likely to repeal the two laws blocking settlements with creditors, Reuters reported.

Some profit-taking emerged after the early rise in prices with the Discounts quoted at 119 as of 09:00am.

“It’s hard to say (if there is more upside),” said a New York-based trader. “Flows here are two-way.” (Reporting by Davide Scigliuzzo; Editing by Jack Doran)

Back to contents

6. AN END IN SIGHT; ARGENTINA WINS A VICTORY AGAINST ITS HEDGE-FUND CREDITORS (News Analysis from Economist.com)
21 February 2016

A new ruling in New York augurs well for a long-awaited resolution with holdout bondholders

ARGENTINA has had plenty of setbacks in its efforts to resolve its mammoth sovereign default of 2001. Although some of its jilted bondholders accepted a big write-down of the money they were owed in restructurings agreed in 2005 and 2010, others held out for full payment. They enlisted the support of an American judge, Thomas Griesa (the original bonds were written under American law). He not only upheld their claim, but barred any banks with operations in America from facilitating payments on the restructured bonds until the holdouts were paid in full. That prompted a fresh default, in 2014. The Argentine president of the day, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, railed against the “senile” Mr Griesa and the “vulture funds” he was helping. But Mr Griesa has now done Argentina a favour.

On February 19th Mr Griesa said he would lift the injunction that prevents Argentina from servicing its restructured debts under certain conditions. The judgment is a blow to the remaining holdout creditors, led by Elliott Management, a hedge fund, who had used it to press Argentina for full payment. Mr Griesa’s change of heart stems from a change in Argentina’s government. In December Mauricio Macri replaced Ms Fernández, vowing to resolve the dispute with the holdouts. The new government has already struck deals with some of the curmudgeonly creditors. Earlier this month it settled with a group of Italian holdouts. On February 5th it made a new proposal to the American ones, offering to pay $6.5 billion of their $9 billion claim. Two of the six largest American holdouts accepted the offer. It is a far cry from Ms Fernández’s flat refusal to reward the holdouts in any way for their intransigence. “President Macri’s election changed everything,” Griesa wrote. “The Republic has shown a good-faith willingness to negotiate.”

The latest ruling deprives the remaining holdouts of crucial leverage over the Argentine government and improves the chances of a swift resolution to the debt saga. “It’s the most important development in the last couple of years,” says Juan Cruz Díaz of Cefeidas, an advisory firm. “There is now light at the end of the tunnel.”

The light is still some way off, however. Argentina had sought to overturn the injunction at the Court of Appeals, which will now have to remand the case back to Mr Griesa’s court to enable it to be lifted. And then there are Mr Griesa’s conditions: he wants Argentina to pay those who accept a deal by the end of the month. He also wants the government to repeal legislation designed to block deals with the holdouts. The “Ley Cerrojo” (Padlock Law) was passed in 2005 to prevent the debt-restructuring deal Argentina had just struck from being reopened at a later date. It was suspended to allow for a second restructuring in 2010, but remains on the books.

Repealing the law will be the first big test of the government’s ability to garner support from parties outside its governing coalition. “We’re optimistic,” Marcos Peña, the cabinet secretary charged with liaising with Congress, said in a radio interview on February 20th. “There is an understanding in Congress that we have to resolve this. We’ll start negotiations in the coming days but we’ve been chatting about it for a while already.”

The challenge has become somewhat easier since February 3rd, when 18 deputies from Front for Victory (FPV), the party of Ms Fernández, broke away to form their own, more moderate, “Justicialist Bloc”. The defection means the FPV is no longer the biggest group in the lower house. That will make it harder to block the new government’s proposals. Diego Bossio, one of the defectors, says the bloc wants to work with the new government to repeal the Padlock Law. By exploiting divisions within Peronism, Mr Macri hopes to be able to release Argentina from a dispute which has distracted its politicians for long enough.

Back to contents

7. WILL ARGENTINA’S ECONOMY FINALLY START TO RECOVER IN 2016? (Forbes.com)
By Nathaniel Parish Flannery
FEB 22, 2016

Argentina will be an interesting country for investors to watch in 2016. Like the rest of Latin America, Argentina faces a difficult external environment for commodity exports. Argentina posted a $3 billion trade deficit in 2015. Argentina’s northern neighbor, Brazil, continues to struggle as well. General Motors has made the decision to cut automobile production in Argentina. Overall automobile production in Argentina fell by double digits in 2015 with exports dropping by more than 50%. Citigroup also recently announced a plan to sell its retail units in Brazil and Argentina. With a new president who is backed by the business community Argentina seems poised to start a new chapter. On February 19 a U.S. court lifted an injunction that had barred Argentina from issuing new bonds. “Put simply, President Macri’s election changed everything…The Republic has shown a good-faith willingness to negotiate with the holdouts,” Judge Thomas Griesa explained. At the same time, although there are some signs for optimism, Argentina still struggles with some of the worst inflation in the world. Argentine companies have made impressive growth in e-commerce but global online retailers such as Amazon and Wal-Mart still seem to paying more attention to Mexico than Argentina when it comes to e-commerce. To get a sense of what investors should expect from Argentina in 2016 I reached out to Jason Marczak, the Director of the Latin America Economic Growth Initiative at the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center in Washington, D.C.

Nathaniel Parish Flannery: There seems to be some optimism about newly inaugurated President Macri. How big of a change is Macri from Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner?

Jason Marczak: In electing Mauricio Macri, Argentine voters chose the antithesis of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. The eight years of Fernández de Kirchner ostracized Argentina from the global economy, while domestically, institutions weakened, insecurity festered, and cronyism ran rampant. Macri promised during the campaign to take the necessary measures—some unpopular—to restore the Argentine economy and to tackle the root causes of the deep malaise pervading across society. He is already acting on this promise.

Ultimately, Macri’s mandate is not just to jumpstart his country’s flagging economy, but to restore credibility to its economic institutions after years of clientelism and abuse of power. Of course, we need to remember that he also faces a litany of domestic, non-economic problems.

Four key decisions by Macri have already improved the administration’s appeal to foreign investors: a repositioning of international ties, a focus on removing capital controls, re-appointment of credible accountants for handling inflation data, and putting in place a well-experienced cabinet of technocrats.

Other long-overdue reforms could help to shed Argentina’s inward-looking, statist model of the past decade and raise its profile in the region. This creates a timely opening for new foreign trade and direct investment. Beyond Argentina, a Macri presidency represents a potential moment for the Mercosur trade bloc to seize upon Brazil’s troubles—turn crisis into opportunity—and become more outward oriented as well.

Parish Flannery: What are the biggest challenges that Macri will face as he works to steer Argentina out of troubled waters?

Marczak: Macri’s biggest challenge will be forging a deal to end Argentina’s long-running legal dispute with its ‘holdout’ creditors who declined to restructure bonds left over from its historic 2001 default. Without an agreement, the country will remain effectively locked out of most international credit markets: it has a limited ability to borrow and its foreign reserves are at a nine-year low. Unlike his predecessor, Macri will probably succeed in striking a deal with the holdouts. Just a few weeks into his term his government made a first formal proposal to end the stalemate with U.S. creditors. Still, he faces a greater struggle selling any deal with the so-called “vulture funds” to both Congress and the Argentine public.

Macri’s narrow electoral victory—a mere 2 percentage points over his opponent, Daniel Scioli—also means the president has limited maneuverability in choosing painful but long-overdue reforms. He will have to balance implementing the necessary economic adjustments while maintaining popular support. This will be his greatest domestic challenge.

Already, the immediate decision upon taking office in December to lift the strict exchange controls brought a 30% drop in the peso. Abolishing the artificially high rate of the peso promises to lure both U.S. dollars and foreign direct investment when both are most needed. The inflated value was not sustainable. But letting the markets decide the currency price brought an immediate political cost right before the Christmas season. More adjustments will mean more short-term pain but with medium- to long-term payoffs.

Parish Flannery: What’s your take on Argentina in the medium term? How to you see Argentina’s economy developing in comparison to the rest of Latin America over the next few years?

Marczak: Compared to Brazil’s indecisiveness in dealing with its own economic challenges, Argentina merits a healthy dose of optimism for medium-term growth. Macri’s has named young and well qualified technocrats. I’m paying attention to people like Finance Minister Alfonso Prat-Gay and Central Bank President Federico Sturzenegger who should be able to work well together while facing daunting internal challenges. Their field knowledge, commitment, and political savviness bodes well for Macri’s chances of effectively moving the currency exchange rate, modifying the pace of fiscal spending, and reducing inflation in the medium term.

It won’t be easy but a revived Argentine economy could outpace its neighbors with investment flowing in to sectors including energy and agriculture. Macri will seek to diversify Argentine trade beyond the agricultural commodities popular with China by bolstering value-added exports. His decision to strengthen frayed ties with the U.S. and Europe will also help to ensure that the economy is not tethered to the volatilities of the Chinese market.

Closer commercial ties with both the United States and European Union, either through a coordinated Mercosur deal or on its own, would consolidate Argentina’s international presence both economically and politically. But inking new commercial deals is not the only way Argentina can show the world that it is open for business. The better business climate that will come with a Macri presidency is emblematic of a wholesale change he seeks to bring about to society. The good of the Fernández de Kirchner era, namely social programs for the needy, is here to stay but what will change is giving institutions back the credibility and independence they once enjoyed.

Back to contents

8. ANCIENT ARMORED MAMMAL FROM ARGENTINA WAS A HUGE ARMADILLO (Business Insider)
By Will Dunham
Feb. 22, 2016

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – DNA coaxed out of a 12,000-year-old fossil from Argentina is providing unique insight into one of the strangest Ice Age giants: a tank-like mammal the size of a small car with a bulbous bony shell and a spiky, club-shaped tail.

Scientists said on Monday their genetic research confirmed that the creature, named Doedicurus, was part of an extinct lineage of gigantic armadillos. Doedicurus was a plant-eater that weighed about a ton and roamed the pampas and savannas of South America, vanishing about 10,000 years ago along with many other large Ice Age animals.

“With a length of more than three meters (10 feet) from head to tail, it certainly looks like a small car, like a Mini or Fiat 500,” evolutionary biologist Frederic Delsuc of France’s Université de Montpellier, one of the researchers, said.

It was a member of a group called glyptodonts that shared the landscape with giant ground sloths, sabre-toothed cats and towering, flightless, carnivorous “terror birds.” Some glyptodonts made it as far north as southern portions of the United States, from what is now Arizona through the Carolinas.

The researchers were able to place Doedicurus and the other glyptodonts into the armadillo family tree after studying small fragments of DNA extracted from bits of the creature’s carapace. They used a sophisticated technique to fish mitochondrial DNA out from a soup of environmental contaminants that had leached into the fossil over the eons.

They determined the glyptodont lineage originated about 35 million years ago. The oldest armadillo fossil, from Brazil, was around 58 million years old.

Asked what someone might think upon encountering Doedicurus, another of the researchers, evolutionary biologist Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Canada said, “That’s the biggest armadillo-looking creature I’ve ever seen, and it has a tail like an Ankylosaurus. Yikes!”

Doedicurus resembles the dinosaur Ankylosaurus, which also was heavily armored and wielded a club-like tail.

The researchers said the resemblance was an example of “convergent evolution” in which disparate organisms independently evolve similar features to adapt to similar environments or ecological niches.

Scientists have debated whether humans contributed to the extinction of the glyptodonts. Poinar said he believed that humans played a role, saying most of the large mammals of that time were under pressure not only from climate change as Ice Age waned but also from human hunting.

The research was published in the journal Current Biology.

Responder Responder a todos Reenviar Más
Hacer clic en Responder, Responder a todos o Reenviar

INFLACION DELATA AL LADRON

23 febrero, 2016

ARGENTINA SALVAJIZADA

La inflacion surge cuando el Estado roba a su gente, por obligacion, como en el caso de Alemania que debia pagar demasiados gastos de reparacion a Francia, por haber perdido la guerra. O por incapacidad, estupidez o ignorancia de los gobernantes, que en el caso argentino son coincidentes todas. O sea, intencionalmente se roba a la gente, para enriquecerse los desgobernantes, tipico caso peronista que se contagio a los desgobiernos militares, al radicalismo de Raul Alfonsin. Pero que fue frenada en seco por Menem, con su inteligente convertibilidad, creada por Steve H. Hanke, del Cato Institute, ya que el recien electo presidente le pidio una solucion, sabiendo que una hiperinflacion voltea a los gobernantes. Alfonsin lo vivio yse fue seis meses antes de vencer su mandato, por inutil. Y luego, igual suerte sufrio Duhalde, cuando destruyo al peso convertible. Pero como la propaganda instalada dice que Menem no fue un…

Ver la entrada original 1.480 palabras más


Seguir

Recibe cada nueva publicación en tu buzón de correo electrónico.

Únete a otros 70 seguidores