by Adrian Salbuchi
August 12, 2014
In recent decades, dozens of sovereign nations have fallen into
ever-deepening trouble by becoming indebted with the "private megabank
over-world" for amounts far, far in excess of what they can ever pay back.
It takes two to dance the tango
Recurrent sovereign debt crises reflect neither "over-lending mistakes" by
bankers and investors, nor "innocence" on the part of successive governments
in deeply indebted nations.
Rather, it all ties in with a global model for domination driven by a system
of perpetual national debt which
I have called "The Shylock Model".
As with the tango which requires rhythm and bravado, Argentina is again
dancing centre-stage to global mega-bankers' financial tunes after falling
into a new "technical default".
Not just because the country is unable to
pay off its massive public debt by heeding the "rules of the game" as
written and continuously re-vamped by global usurers, but now with added
legal immorality and judicial indecency on the part of New York's Second
District Manhattan Court presided by Judge
Thomas Poole Griesa.
Griesa has shown no qualms in putting U.S. law at the service of immoral
parasitic "bankers and investors" such as Paul Singer of the Elliott/NML
Fund and Mark Brodsky of the Aurelius Fund.
The mainstream media inside and outside Argentina refer to these parasitic
money "sloshers" as "vulture funds"; a conceptual mistake because one might
then be led to believe that other funds and bankers,
...are not "vultures" when, in fact, the very foundations of
banking system lie on parasitic pro-vulture rules and laws coupled with an
overpowering lack of moral values.
John Moore / Getty Images / AFP
Sovereign debts are a major problem in just about every country in the
world, including the U.S., UK and EU nations. So much so, those debts have
become a Damocles' Swords threatening the livelihood of untold billions of
workers around the world.
One often wonders why governments indebt themselves for so much more than
they can ever hope to pay…
Here, Western economists, bankers, traders, Ivy
League academics and professors, Nobel laureates and the mainstream media
have a quick and monolithic reply:
Because all nations need "investment and
investors" if they wish to build highways, power plants, schools, airports,
hospitals, raise armies, service infrastructures and a long list of et ceteras, economic and national activities are all about.
But more and more people are starting to ask a fundamental common-sense
Why should governments indebt themselves in hard currencies,
decades into the future with global mega-bankers, when they could just as
well finance these projects and needs far more safely by issuing the proper
amounts of their own local sovereign currency instead?
Here is where all the above "experts" go berserk & ballistic, shouting back:
"Issue currency? Are you crazy?? That's against the
'rules & laws' of
economics!!! Issuing national sovereign currency to finance the real
economy's monetary needs leads to inflation and lost jobs and chaos and…
(puts us nice mega-bankers out of a job…)!!"
That's when they all gang-up
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!!" mode.
Then you ask them:
What happens when countries default on their unpayable
sovereign debts - as they invariably and repeatedly do - not just in
Argentina, but in,
Again the voice of the "experts":
"Then countries must 'restructure' their
debts kicking them forwards 20, 40 or more years into the future, so that
your great, great, great grandchildren can continue paying them".
Oh, I see!
The truth is that countries need public spending to maintain their economies
resilient and buoyant, their citizens working, prospering and happy; their
nation-states sovereign, strong and secure.
OK: happy, secure and working populations cannot be defined as a formula
that can be readily integrated into "expert" economists' spreadsheets.
However, there's a basic truth that should be obvious by now: Finance (which
is the virtual world of bankers, investments, speculation and usury) should
always be fully subordinated to the Real Economy (which is the world of
work, production, buildings, milk & bread and services).
All this begs the obvious question: Since governments have a natural
tendency to overspend and end up getting themselves into too much debt,
which is the better option then:
that their "red numbers" (aka sovereign debt) should be owed to
themselves; their own nation-states (debt in local currency that in the last
instance can be written off, even if a bad bout of inflation cannot be
stopped, countries can always revamp their currencies as Argentina
repeatedly did over the past forty years), whereby the whole "debt crisis"
basically becomes a short-term internal affair (albeit painful!), or…
to convert those "red numbers" into foreign currency debt (U.S. Dollars or
Euro) fully controlled by powerful far-away, well-organized
creditor-technocrats and global mega-bankers sitting at,
the FED and
the European Central Bank in Frankfurt
or perched in eager
expectation in their Wall Street vulture nests?
Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me
This tongue-twister, which famously proved too much for
Bush to muster,
is a fitting description of how the hellish sovereign debt system really
works in the long-term.
Argentina's recurrent defaults and debt restructuring go back many decades.
For brevity's sake, let's just point to 1956 right after President
Domingo Perón was ousted by a very bloody 1955 U.S.-UK (and mega-banker)
sponsored military coup.
Argentina's political leader and former president
Juan Domingo Peron and his
wife Isabel Peron
Perón was hated for his insistence on not indebting Argentina with the
the mega-bankers got rid of him in 1956, they shoved Argentina into the IMF
and created the "Paris Club" to engineer decades-worth of sovereign debt for
vanquished Argentina, something they've been doing until today.
But each sovereign-debt crisis cycle became shorter, more virulent and more
By December 2001, Argentina had collapsed financially sinking into the
largest sovereign debt default in history. Immediately, the IMF's deputy
manager Anne Krueger proposed some "new and creative ideas" on what to do
She published them in 2002
in an article on the IMF's website:
Countries like Argentina be able to declare themselves bankrupt?", in which
she said that "the lesson is clear: we need better incentives to bring
debtors and creditors together before manageable problems turn into
full-blown crises", adding that the IMF believes "this could be done by
learning from corporate bankruptcy regimes like Chapter 11 in the U.S.".
She pointed this out as,
"a possible new approach", adding that "of course
many practical and political obstacles to getting such an approach up and
running" needed to be overcome, the "key features would need the force of
law throughout the world", creating "a predictable (global) legal
From the stance of global mega-bankers' geopolitical long-term planners, Ms
Krueger's proposal consisted of first gradually driving countries into
receivership, and then sequentially into full-fledged bankruptcy.
Then as if nations were private corporations like Enron or WorldCom - they
could be broken up into as many "digestible" pieces as possible, to be
gobbled up by international creditors in some global vulture-fest banquet.
These ideas were developed in greater detail in her IMF essay, "A New
Approach to Debt Restructuring", and in a "Foreign Affairs" (mouthpiece of
the powerful New York-Based Elite think-tank,
Council on Foreign Relations)
article published in July/August 2002 by Harvard professor Richard N Cooper:
11 for Countries".
Here, Cooper very matter-of-factly recommends that,
"only if the debtor
nation cannot restore its financial health are its assets liquidated and the
proceeds distributed to its creditors - again under the guidance of a
(global) court" (!).
During those turbulent years,
the global press - Time and The New York
Times, for example - even suggested that the
immensely rich Patagonia
southern region should secede from Argentina as a defaulted debt payment
In June 2005, however, a new sovereign debt bond mega-swap was instrumented
by Argentina's new president, Nestor Kirchner, and his Finance Minister
However, as Argentina became more and more structurally mired in debt, its
sovereign debt crisis cycle grew shorter and shorter so that by 2010 a new
debt crisis was in the books involving yet more debt reengineering, this
time by President Cristina Kirchner and her Economy Minister (and today
prosecuted Vice President) Amado Boudou.
But that too failed to hold for long, and today Singer's NML/Elliot Fund and
Brodsky's Aurelius Fund have pushed Argentina again into default, this time
with the legal backing of local Manhattan Federal Judge
Thomas Poole Griesa and the U.S.
The very fact that today the fate of Argentina's sovereign debt lies with
the U.S. Judiciary is an eloquent sign of things to come.
Don't kill the hen that lays golden eggs!
Surprisingly, Ms Krueger recently came out in "defense" of Argentina
recommending Judge Griesa and his "Vulture Nest" boys should not act hastily
killing off the Argentine hen that lays golden eggs.
In an article published July 2014, she warns that the,
"U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Argentina
adds a new wrinkle, and may very well further increase the risk attached
to holding sovereign debt and this, to the cost of issuing it."
The specialized and mainstream media - Financial Times, New York Times, Wall
Street Journal, The Economist - are also recommending Judge Griesa and his
vulture chicks to show more restraint because in today's delicate post-2008
banking system, a new and less controllable sovereign debt crisis could
thwart the global elite's plans for an,
"orderly transition towards a new
global legal architecture" that will allow orderly liquidation of
financially-failed states like Argentina.
Especially if such debt were to be
collateralized by its national territory (what else is left!?)
Will yet another sovereign debt bond mega-swap be imposed upon Argentina,
this time with large swathes of its national territory - especially
Patagonia - being used as collateral guarantee?
That would mean that in a few years' time
the Shylocks in Wall Street and
London will do everything they can to yet again push Argentina into default,
since that would pave the way for them to "legally" take over its territory
cashing in on their collateral as "compensation".
usurer Shylock drooled at the mouth whilst sharpening his knife
preparing to cut deep into Merchant Antonio's heart. He didn't give a damn
about the 3000 ducats owed him: he just wanted the pound of flesh "legally"
Is this what the coming "Sovereign Debt Model" will look like?
If we tie this all in with what the unfolding of "Act III" in
Israel-Palestine crisis whereby
re-settling millions of Israeli civilians
into southern Argentina might be on the drawing board, we can then begin to
understand how nicely Argentina's next debt crisis will tie in: The global,
...will be able to "legally" take over Patagonia, and then
"legally" hand it over to whomever
they wish without a single shot being fired!
If this is what's really happening behind-the-curtains regarding Argentina,
does anybody believe it will stop there?
...the world government is marching in!