[searkibia]

Since PICHARDO brought up Argentina, lets take a quick look at what is going on right now between Argentina and the IMF. I will direct you to 2 articles from Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4533696

"Argentina made a $3.15 billion payment to the International Monetary Fund due on Tuesday, Argentine Central Bank and IMF sources said, averting a new debt default with the lender. "


Now for an article less than 24 hours later:

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/040310/economy_argentina_8.html

"(IMF acting Managing Director Anne) Krueger said she plans to recommend that the fund's executive board issue $3.1 billion to Argentina under a $13.3 billion loan deal agreed in September."

It cannot possibly be any clearer than this. The IMF loans Argentina US$3Billion in order for Argentina to pay the IMF (et al) US$3Billion.

Porfio, congratulations on your Pyrrhic victory. Mr Texas Bill finally admits that the IMF has at least some responsibility.

[Nemerov]

Off topic? The topic is the IMF!

Oh, the part about you and others demeaning anyone who disagrees with you. Yea, you're right. That's off topic.

Someone really must try to explain how a quasi-governmental organization like the IMF can meddle in another country's affairs and then not be even partially responsible for the intended and unintended consequences of that meddling.

What you have failed to acknowledge all along is that the "meddling" has been at the invitation of the affected country! NO lending agency can FORCE a country to borrow beyound it's ability to repay what is borrowed! Organizations which lend credit(s) (either locally or internationally) will often place requirements on the borrower as to how those credits are to be used and/or accept, at face value, what the borrower SAYS he will use the credits for. If the borrower uses those credits for other items, then who is the cause of a default?? The lender or the borrower?? That, my friend is the point I've been trying to make! The lending agencies haven't hoodwinked the borrower, but rather the other way around! And I submit that the lenders are a stupid bunch if they continue to lend monies to incumbent administrations who have lied to them in the past. I really don't think that there is a conspiracy as your post suggest. There is a probability that a second (and subsequent) round of loans will have some rather severe stipulations attached, and I wouldn't blame the lenders at all for doing so. If the borrower can't, or won't clean his own house of dirt and filth, that isn't the fault of the lender!
In the case of the Doninican Republic(and other ""south of the border" countries), it is and has been a problem for many years; the administrations keep lying to the lenders and keep putting the money in their pockets to the detriment of that country's economy. I submit that if the lending organizations didn't keep shelling out, the entire "south of the border" economy's would collapse and thus place the world economy in jeapordy of the same event.
You can **** and moan all you want to, but the fault in all this mess lies in the individual administration of each political entity addresses. If you would take YOUR blinders off, you would see that!
I think it's safe to say that the fault is in the area of 50/50, not 100/0 as you imply.

Texas Bill

[occalmnab]

I don't have syntax under my belt as of yet, so don't kick my balls about it!
I would post in Spanish if I knew most of the Forum posters had the ability to read it as well as I do in my mother tongue, yet I find myself at the mercy of my self taught street English, please bare with me as I try to paste my humbled opinions and ideas here to engage in this dynamic medium so many outstanding and prolific minds that so eagerly and with the tension of an epee under ones chin impart a tongue in cheek to those of us who dared challenge the opium of this sanctimonious message board and cohorts.

[RCQDnMp5]

Does this mean that Mongongo and I get tenure at UM also? Go Canes!

[occalmnab]

You are afflitcted with a terminal case of naivitee.

Maybe I should cash in all my stocks and save them into the FDIC box to make them safe, you should learn a bit more about the inner workings of the FMI or IMF as you know it, since you think of it as an entity of one.

[occalmnab]

I do study world economy and trade relations in my free time, or as much as I can afford every time I visit the NYC public library at Bryant Park.

I analyzed the pre-condition and results of the Argentinian economy collapse with great passion as I could identified many symptoms currently present in the DR economy as of today, to say one can understand completely what happened and all the symptoms of the Argentinian House of cards it's a fallacy, yet all points of view are valid always that you don't deviate from the nucleus of the disaster, by this I mean you can't blame Argentina neither can you blame the foreign pressure that weighted the situation even more to the point when it collapsed, to say it happened because the IMF didn't bail them out it's totally a statement void of substance, not one thing can be said to support the view that such loans and guarantees would had avoided the collapse, worst yet it would had only prolonged it for a few more months maybe a year or two, but the end result would had been a country unable to replenish it's reserves at all in any given circumstance.

It's the facto a complex and sometime at mathematical odds situation, you can't keep providing to an economy that won't start-up no matter how much money you throw at it and at the same time you can't expect to salvage what little is there to begin with, kind of a catch 22 when you think of it.

George W. Bush called it "Fuzzy Numbers", William J. Clinton Called it "A Balancing Act", I myself call it "It's the economy stupid!" and leave it at it.

Like I said before it all depends on your point of view.

As for your question on considering English classes, heck yes! I want to!

[RCQDnMp5]

1. If you were an investment bank, would you have lent money to Hippo (without collateral) if the IMF did not exist?

2. Did the IMF and World Bank do Argentina a favor by not "bailing it out"? Was an even larger collapse caused by the fact that the IMF and World Bank had bailed out Argentina so many times before?

3. Will a large sum of the IMF's money be used by Hippo to try to buy reelection?

4. Will the rest go to Miami and Switzerland?

5. In the series of "bail outs" of the DR to come, will the IMF and World Bank demand that more and more of the DR's assets be sold to US and European investors?

If you answered these questions honestly, then you could not have failed to have seen the inescapable truth about the IMF.

...Maybe some posters will now look behind the headlines and start placing the blame in the correct place instead of a lot of inuendo about the foreign lending organizations.
Texas Bill

Jeez I'm sick of the blame game. I was going to write a metaphor about shared responsibility, but Texas and company would just write back that it's ALL the fault of the incredibly economically marginalized Dominicans and other poor nationalities who should stand up and fight their corrupt governments. What Texas and others don't dispute is that those corrupt governments are, through the IMF and other multilateral lenders, essentially backed by the full faith and credit of the New World Order.

Hey, Texas, you forgot to add the part about how anybody who disagrees with you must be a Casto-loving communist. You're slipping!

[Nemerov]

I'd answer you, but we would end up "OFF THREAD" again and I promised Robert I wouldn'd do that or be the cause.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Texas Bill

[Nemerov]

Yes....another IMF post. As reported in diariolibre.com, via DR1 News, University of Miami Professor Miachael Connolly states his opinion on IMF intervention. It is basically what some of us have been saying here on DR1 for a long time.

http://diariolibre.com/(g4etpnrhn5fjo0uk4j1dci45)/aspx/article.aspx?id=6655

Here is an excerpt from the interview:

"¿Cuál es la responsabilidad de los acreedores cuando prestan a un país que no les garantiza un retorno?

Los inversionistas asumen la ayuda externa de Rusia y cuando el país no les puede pagar, el FMI le entrega US$9,000 millones y ellos sacan su dinero. El FMI no ha rescatado a los inversionistas en el caso de Rusia ni en el caso de Argentina. Los acreedores deben correr el riesgo de no pago del país. Ellos pueden calcular cuáles son las recetas del Gobierno. Preguntarse: ¿me pueden pagar? Por desgracia, muchas veces dicen: bueno, si no pagan, seremos rescatados por el FMI.

¿Cuál es entonces el papel del FMI?

El dinero del FMI entra por una puerta y sale por la otra. El papel del FMI era hacer préstamos de corto plazo en casos de emergencia y poner condiciones. Pero en los últimos años han hecho préstamos para salvar a los inversionistas extranjeros que hicieron préstamos que sabían de antemano que no podían ser pagados. Pasó con Argentina y con Rusia. Ellos han creado un riesgo moral, porque están jugando el papel de prestamista de última instancia, que no es el suyo.

¿La intervención del FMI no produce un “salvataje” de las economías en crisis?

En algunos casos, cuando el gobierno es muy corrupto, el dinero sale directamente hacia Suiza. En otros casos, cuando el dinero se demora, sale directamente hacia Washington para pagar a los acreedores. En la mayoría de los casos el dinero sale del país. El dinero más bien produce en los gobiernos una falta de voluntad politica. Es un juego. "


BTW: yesterdays auction by the Central Bank was NOT the first time that they have issued 50%+ certificates. They have been doing this for over a month now. Furthermore, the highest interest rate they have paid is 60%.

Mondongo

Your post would be very interesting if I could read Spanish. How about doing all us expats who don't the favor of a translation? It surely would be helpful.
Before you castigate me for living here and not speaking the language, bear in mind that I'm 77 and the ole brain just isn't as absorbant as it was when I was 18-30.
I appreciate your posting, but by the time I get through stumbling through it, Codetel has kicked me off the system yet again.

Texas Bill

[searkibia]

Are either of you paying attention to what is happening in the DR? When Mejia decides to pay for fuel....when Mejia decides to make payments to creditors....where are these monies coming from?

Read the newspapers. Read how Mejia takes out loans to pay for electricity....to pay the interest and principal on the sovereign notes.

Ask yourself this question: through taxes and loans, the total intake by the Mejia govt over the last 4 years is over US$10Billion....thats right, over US$10Billion....where has all this money gone?

Has it gone to fix the electrcity problem? Has it gone to build schools and educate the populace? Has it gone to fix roads?

As Prof Connolly correctly alludes,most of this money gone to the pockets of the PRD. He correctly postulates that a lot of this money has gone outside the borders of the DR.

[occalmnab]

If you want to discuss Argentina and the IMF, do a DR1 search on my previous posts on the subject.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/040309/econo...entina_11.html


For starters, read this story out today about Argentina and IMF. Argentina is refusing (good for them) to pay the bondholders. They are only offering 25 cents on the dollar. They refuse to use their reserves to pay the debts. Only when the IMF offers to make another loan of US$13.3B, does Argentina make a payment of US$3B.

What does this tell you? It tells you that the IMF and the rest of the lenders are scared. They are trying to sweet talk Argentina into repaying 1/2 of the debt, instead of the 1/4 existing offer.

There is no international law that forces Argentina to repay. Where did you get that silly idea?

Let me impart some economy lessons here:

A country owns their monetary individuality yet they rely on the international market to obtain goods or services that otherwise they cannot afford to provide or manufacture themselves at home, in turn these goods or services are payable in international transactions with an acceptable form to all parties included in the trade of such goods or services, if country A has to provide for monetary goods to country B, then it shall be recognized that country A needs to obtain such funds they don't issue themselves from the open market{read world market} at face value{read country's A monetary rate at time of purchase} therefore it has to provide for a collateral of such funds it provides to obtain the foreign monetary liquid to cancel it's debt for goods or services in the form of Gold, Silver, etc to the entity which receives country's A issued monetary tool{read paper bill or note}, this collateral is held for a period until country A can provide the reserve{read US$ for the common or Euro} to re-cap their monetary collateral, when a country defaults it's payments their reserves which are used as collateral are embargoed until the country in question reaches and agreement with the collectors, otherwise you have a country like Argentina which depleted their national reserves and are now in the process of recapping those to achieve a lower inflation rate and a robust monetary tool.

If you can't understand it the way as I had to put it, then I'm afraid you slept too much in you economy classes in college...

[RCQDnMp5]

Off topic? The topic is the IMF!

Oh, the part about you and others demeaning anyone who disagrees with you. Yea, you're right. That's off topic.

Someone really must try to explain how a quasi-governmental organization like the IMF can meddle in another country's affairs and then not be even partially responsible for the intended and unintended consequences of that meddling.

[searkibia]

Yes....another IMF post. As reported in diariolibre.com, via DR1 News, University of Miami Professor Miachael Connolly states his opinion on IMF intervention. It is basically what some of us have been saying here on DR1 for a long time.

http://diariolibre.com/(g4etpnrhn5fjo0uk4j1dci45)/aspx/article.aspx?id=6655

Here is an excerpt from the interview:

"¿Cuál es la responsabilidad de los acreedores cuando prestan a un país que no les garantiza un retorno?

Los inversionistas asumen la ayuda externa de Rusia y cuando el país no les puede pagar, el FMI le entrega US$9,000 millones y ellos sacan su dinero. El FMI no ha rescatado a los inversionistas en el caso de Rusia ni en el caso de Argentina. Los acreedores deben correr el riesgo de no pago del país. Ellos pueden calcular cuáles son las recetas del Gobierno. Preguntarse: ¿me pueden pagar? Por desgracia, muchas veces dicen: bueno, si no pagan, seremos rescatados por el FMI.

¿Cuál es entonces el papel del FMI?

El dinero del FMI entra por una puerta y sale por la otra. El papel del FMI era hacer préstamos de corto plazo en casos de emergencia y poner condiciones. Pero en los últimos años han hecho préstamos para salvar a los inversionistas extranjeros que hicieron préstamos que sabían de antemano que no podían ser pagados. Pasó con Argentina y con Rusia. Ellos han creado un riesgo moral, porque están jugando el papel de prestamista de última instancia, que no es el suyo.

¿La intervención del FMI no produce un “salvataje” de las economías en crisis?

En algunos casos, cuando el gobierno es muy corrupto, el dinero sale directamente hacia Suiza. En otros casos, cuando el dinero se demora, sale directamente hacia Washington para pagar a los acreedores. En la mayoría de los casos el dinero sale del país. El dinero más bien produce en los gobiernos una falta de voluntad politica. Es un juego. "


BTW: yesterdays auction by the Central Bank was NOT the first time that they have issued 50%+ certificates. They have been doing this for over a month now. Furthermore, the highest interest rate they have paid is 60%.

[searkibia]

Some DR1 posters will eventually have to surrender their "the IMF and international banks have no culpability" binky.

[Nemerov]

Mondongo;

I must admit to the vagueness of some of my posts, but would hope that those posts have not been unqualified support of lending agencies (ie., IMF, World Bank, IDB, etc.)! If any of my posts have left readers with that impression, then MEA CULPA!!! I'm at fault for not being more clear in my use of idiom.

My main thrust in all the postings has been to deny that the lending agencies have been party to an on-going conspiracy (as Porfi would have us to believe, judging from his posts and inuendo) to enslave the economies of third world countries.

I have previously admitted that I think those lending agencies (and their administrations) have been guilty of stupidity in lending. That they have viewed applications for loans through rose colored glasses and with the addition of blinders, I will readily admit, because that is part of my interpretation of the events leading up to the crisis' that the countries being discussed have promulgated.

The administrations of these countries have lied, cooked the books, and continued their corruption in the face of disaster and that is the MAJOR FAULT that I have attempted to address, to the denial of some posters. They, the posters have NOT acknowledged that the fault has been elsewhere other than in the lap of the lending agencies. In all fairness, I cannot embrace such a scenario and must speak out against it!

Texas Bill

[occalmnab]

1. If you were an investment bank, would you have lent money to Hippo (without collateral) if the IMF did not exist?

Yes I would indee since international commerce law estipulates and provides a vast arsenal of ways to recap capital plus lost interest, which was in fact the the only guaranteed nations had to obtain loans(read Cuba and it's default getting it to halt all international loans and investments for quite a long time)

2. Did the IMF and World Bank do Argentina a favor by not "bailing it out"? Was an even larger collapse caused by the fact that the IMF and World Bank had bailed out Argentina so many times before?

Yes indee they did! the collapse of the Argentinian economy was due in major part to the insecurity and ill-divised recovery program put in place by the Argentinian Gov. and the rest fell in the shoulder of a mass of corrupted bank officials whom for a very long time were allowed to cook the books to cover for what we brand as an "Enron" today.

3. Will a large sum of the IMF's money be used by Hippo to try to buy reelection?

What do you think pinky? are you pondenring what I'm pondering?

4. Will the rest go to Miami and Switzerland?

Dominicans enjoy their loot at home, why else do you think he buys all those guayaberas...

5. In the series of "bail outs" of the DR to come, will the IMF and World Bank demand that more and more of the DR's assets be sold to US and European investors?

Funny that you mention that... but who in their right minds will follow on the trail of Edenorte and Edesur???? are you eating the green plantains without peeling them first???!!!

If you answered these questions honestly, then you could not have failed to have seen the inescapable truth about the IMF.

Munch, crunch, chew, chew...
Yep those Green plantains taste better without peeling first, now was that a pink elephant flying by me or what?..

[searkibia]

If you want to discuss Argentina and the IMF, do a DR1 search on my previous posts on the subject.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/040309/econo...entina_11.html


For starters, read this story out today about Argentina and IMF. Argentina is refusing (good for them) to pay the bondholders. They are only offering 25 cents on the dollar. They refuse to use their reserves to pay the debts. Only when the IMF offers to make another loan of US$13.3B, does Argentina make a payment of US$3B.

What does this tell you? It tells you that the IMF and the rest of the lenders are scared. They are trying to sweet talk Argentina into repaying 1/2 of the debt, instead of the 1/4 existing offer.

There is no international law that forces Argentina to repay. Where did you get that silly idea?

[searkibia]

Let me impart some economy lessons here:

A country owns their monetary individuality yet they rely on the international market to obtain goods or services that otherwise they cannot afford to provide or manufacture themselves at home, in turn these goods or services are payable in international transactions with an acceptable form to all parties included in the trade of such goods or services, if country A has to provide for monetary goods to country B, then it shall be recognized that country A needs to obtain such funds they don't issue themselves from the open market{read world market} at face value{read country's A monetary rate at time of purchase} therefore it has to provide for a collateral of such funds it provides to obtain the foreign monetary liquid to cancel it's debt for goods or services in the form of Gold, Silver, etc to the entity which recieves country's A issued monetary tool{read paper bill or note}, this collateral is held for a period until country A can provide the reserve{read US$ for the common or Euro} to recap their monetary collateral, when a country defaults it's payments their reserves which are used as collateral are embargoed until the country in question reaches and agreement with the collectors, otherwise you have a country like Argentina which depleted their national reserves and are now in the proccess of recapping those to achieve a lower inflation rate and a robust monetary tool.

If you can't understand it the way as I had to put it, then I'm afraid you slept too much in you economy classes in college...

PICHARDO, have you considered taking English classes?

Edited to Add: Look, PICHARDO, I am giving you analysis based on facts. Do you have anything factual to contribute?

[searkibia]

....the IMF doesn't bail out investors for the sake of saving them from total ruin but in fact bails out the country's economy before it collapses entirely

You are afflitcted with a terminal case of naivitee.

[occalmnab]

This turns out to be a load of fresh mixed with some old manure, the IMF doesn't bail out investors for the sake of saving them from total ruin but in fact bails out the country's economy before it collapses entirely, in which case the IMF and several other countries economic interests could be affected immensely.

Take Argentina as an example, when the IMF refused to bail out the collapsing Argentian economy every investor and lender saw their loan's interests and even the capital go up in smoke, the Gov. couldn't provide for all loans and capital interests at all, in turn you had an economy stalled to a grinding halt bringing the sources of income plummeting down just as a house of cards blown away in seconds, the hole porpoise of capital gain it's to keep the earnings coming on a timely manner for the planned amount of time, otherwise how can you pay dividends to all your stock holders and expect those same holders to keep their liquids in your investment fund to achieve the maximum R.O.I and capital gain that were the intended goals in the first place, lenders want to squeeze every penny possible from your pocket not ruin you so you can't repay the loan and in turn they lose capital gain on the interests, simple math tells you this.

The IMF was set to provide countries with a viable influx of funds for direct upgrades on the infrastructures which in turn could spell a foment in the industrial development of such country, resulting in the re-investment of such funds to help a maximize those developing industries into the world market to achieve more bang for the buck for international trading and investors, in black and white.

Since most underdeveloped countries suffer from acute rampant corruption the funds provided by the IMF find their way into the pockets of these "circle of corrupts" yet some of it does end up at their targeted goals and do in fact keep giving these "failing economies" a wing and a prayer to hold on a few more miles before they inevitably crash and burn themselves up in flames.

"Don't shoot the messenger but the reason behind the bad news"