Hey Bryan, thanks for pointing out that I had a typo with a letter of a word. That makes your points so much more valid. While I am in fact a good speller (but not perfect, and certainly not immune to a "typo" when I "type"), spelling (and vocabulary for that matter) has nothing to do with logic and facts. I never did attack you (other than the coffee house comment...fine, for that I'm sorry, but your comment about the military was and is very extreme). What is your basis for making such a leap about US plans or intentions. I am especially curious since your contention flies in the face of recent history (the billions we have given out, and the billions we have forgiven in debt, just to almost scratch the surface) and of common sense (considering the size of our economy and considering the nature of our policies).
first of all i don't drink coffee!!! as far as where i get this crap, hmmmmmmmmmm let's see, gosh maybe our own economy is a good example. do you know how much of our tax payments go to just service the debt. social security is a fraud. the dollar is losing value, gold prices are being suppressed by fed member banks. (see JPM derivatives monster thread) the avg joe works till june just to pay taxes.(it's probably worse than that, i am just being conservative) congress recently had to raise our debt ceiling so the govt wouldn't shut down. we can't keep up with our own debt and we are bailing out other countries then forgiving the loans. bush and his neo-cons are salivating at the opportunity to crush Iraq regardless of the cost. and we have the worlds strongest economy which all others are dependent on. why did the BOJ recently try to prop up the Dollar? should i continue???
What does any of this have to do with the suggestion the US will use its military to crush nations that don't pay us back our loans?
No, no, no!! The reason the US did not get involved with Argentina is that the exposure to a meltdown there is very small for US financial institutions. Who has exposure there? Spanish banks (Santander and BBVA) as well as some Canadian banks (Scotia). Now, Brazil? Major exposure for US banks. So obviously O'Neil quickly changes his mind about the whole thing. Makes sense now? http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/11/w...2ff4d&ei=5035&partner=MARKETWATCH&siteid=mktw
Babk, I mentioned that the US had more exposure to Brazil, not to mention Brazil has the biggest economy in Latin America (and hence the biggest potential spill over effect). However, Brazil also had sound economic policies in recent years, while Argentina has long slowly dug the hole that it now is in.
No argument there. I am <b>not</b> giving credit for this to the IMF. I think the idea for the restraint clause came from the present administration, acting through the IMF. It's basically our money anyway. My gut is that they had to do something and did their best to protect our interests. I'm amazed at the simple elegance of it, really. That doesn't mean that I don't think it can blow up in our faces; only that it was a marvelous solution under the circumstances.