Get PJ Media on your Apple

Roger’s Rules

A Lesson in Economics for Argentina

July 31st, 2014 - 12:48 pm

Ok, you economists, this is a quick exercise in free association:  When I say “South America”  what do you think?  If you said “default,” go to the head of the class. Really, it’s the whole bloody continent (think “Mexico,” amigo), but let’s just look at Argentina, an economic basket case if there ever was one. The only question I have is why, given its recent history of fiscal incontinence (not to mention political barbarousness), anyone would lend them a nickel. 

The latest episode, which has been much in the news lately, involves more than $1 billion that Argentina owes to Elliott Management, a New York-based hedge fund. Things came to a head yesterday (well, I am writing from New Zealand, and somehow lost Thursday: it happened on Wednesday in New York) when Argentina failed to make  a $500 million bond payment and slid, officially, into default.  As the New York Times reported, Argentina had the money on to make the bond payment, but a right-thinking New York federal court judge had ruled that the spendthrift country had to pay its other creditors first. Clever work!

Of course, the New York Times is all pursed-lips about this.  It describes the head of Elliott Management, Paul Singer, as “a billionaire,” i.e. a bad guy, and goes on to note with distaste that the hedge fund’s pursuit of Argentina “is motivated by a desire to make money.” You don’t say? Is that a bad thing?

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
You would not believe the level of brainwashing here. Of course it is happening in the US too. They think they can "take from the rich" for ever and solve every problem that way. Producing things, working hard, applying ingenuity to live better ... no! none of that! Take from those who "have" until everyone is a "have not" and all will be solved. It is a sad case to contemplate.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
I write to you from Buenos Aires and perhaps you may benefit from learning the local point of view. The problem of this default is quite obvious. The country made the deposit to pay the outstanding bill but an order from Judge Griesa froze the money impeding the timely payment of the dues. Argentina could pay Elliot the measly 1.5 billion they require but in doing so it will unleash an avalanche of lawsuits by other investors who took lesser payments when the debt was restructured. Argentina painted herself into a corner.

And here comes the most important part of what I have to say. Of course Argentines will say I am wrong and may be others will share that view. But I am right as right is right. I can assure you Argentina has only one problem: an incompetent ruling class so shortsighted it does not matter if they are on the left or on the right. They always chose the wrong path.

Before you congratulate yourself and think of the great advantages of living in the US -- a blessed country if there is one -- think that the basic policies of the US present administration and those of Juan Peron and his successors are not that different.

The case has been presented in this very venue so I will not repeat the similarities. Only brace yourself for what's to come because it is coming and at this point no one --NO ONE-- can stop it.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
Lending and expecting to be paid back (with a premium for the risk and other lost opportunities) is predatory capitalism.
Not lending at all is arrogance, chauvinism and racist.
Private concerns can't lend without payback so . . . enter the US taxpayer - lending without a payback. Which is theft of our labor.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (44)
All Comments   (44)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
You're in New Zealand? What are you doing down here? You should contact a blogger named David Farrar, whose blog - "Kiwiblog" - is the most read in the country, and see if you can do a guest column for him.

It would certainly set the tail-feathers of the local lefties on fire!
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
Isn’t it time it grew up and acted responsibly?

No, not if the goal is to have all people in all States everywhere dependent upon a single Utopian world government where everyone is equally miserable, but equal nonetheless.

Mises.org has been writing about the coming default in Argentina since 2002. Of course the reason they knew so far in advance, is that Austrian Economics (i.e. the study of Capitalism) is based on fundamental realities. When you understand the truth of something in the real world, it's easy to apply its principles across the board.

Argentina and the other South American continent countries are all far more socialistic with their economies than these United States, thus when one applies the parking brake of socialism to a capitalist engine, there's not enough horse power to keep dragging the society forward.

Here, we had just over 100 years of nearly pure capitalism before the Progressives began to stand on that same parking brake. They've slowed things down, and now the engine is running hot and toward the red, but we're still grinding forward.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
Uhmm I wonder what's your definition of socialism. If it's the size of the Government in proportion to the economy, there's no real difference between the US and South American countries.

Government spending as % of GDP:
USA - 41.6%
Argentina - 40.9%
Bolivia - 35.4%
Brazil - 39.1%
Cuba - 66.7%
Ecuador - 44.0%
France - 56.1%
Norway - 43.9%
Sweden - 51.2%
Venezuela - 40.1%

So your conclusion that the size of the public sector leads to debt problems is wrong.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
The numbers you show are illusory. The US is moving towards socialism, and the increase in spending is one of the causes of our economic decline. The difference between ourselves and Argentina is that we started with a massive economic machine, whereas they were fragile to begin with. After WWII Argentina had a standard of living equal to France. Then their communist revolution began and it went to hell. Compare that with Chile, which in 1972 had a disastrous, socialist economy, far far below that of Argentina. When Pinochet took over and privatized everything, setting up a capitalist system (on the advice of the "Chicago Boys"), Chile became the economic miracle of South America. Look around the world. Successful economies are capitalist and they pay their debts. Every time the US moved towards socialism it faltered...Wilson. Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, Carter and Obama. Every time we moved towards capitalism we flourished...Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and G W Bush. Margret Thatcher saved the British economy through capitalism. Hong Kong and Singapore are the best performing economies in the world, both highly capitalistic. The WSJ Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom makes clear, the freer the economy (more capitalistic) the more successful. And make no mistake. Economic freedom exists hand in glove with personal freedom. Argentina is but one sad example of a mismanaged government run economy.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
How many Latin Americans does it take to change a light bulb?
None. They sit in the dark and curse capitalist imperialism.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
It is erroneous to lump all of Latin America in with Argentina. As an expat, I know Panama is in far better economic condition than both Argentina and the United States. If anything, Panama will de-peg the Balboa from the U.S. Dollar at some point to avoid being taking down by Uncle Sam's financial mismanagement.

The key difference between Argentina and the United States is the size of the financial fraud and corruption that has occurred. Argentina's mismanagement is petty theft by comparison. The U.S. Government gets away with it (for now) because the dollar has been the world's reserve currency post-World War II. That's about to change.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, of course, every particular country has their own specific history and characteristics. But you can't deny that Latin American countries have faced debt crises at around the same historical moments: first and last quarter of the nineteenth century; late in the twentieth century.

Fully agree with you about the USA. Some posters here don't understand that not all countries can get away with printing more and more money.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
I commend Matt24 for his understanding of history. If only his knowledge of human nature and economics were as good. You distinguish between corrupt politicians and the government borrowing the money. Those corrupt politicians are the government.

Dealing with the motives of that "small" percentage of bond holdouts does not serve to inform the debate. However, capitalism 101, (capitalism being guiding principle for the economic system that is the most compassionate, the most productive, the most protective force for personal freedoms, the environment etc, known to man), does tell us a lot. It requires protection for private property as an absolutely necessary tenant. The propaganda that you spew as to a greater good if these bondholders stepped aside is just that....leftist propaganda. Argentina will be far better off if it pays what it owes and rejects the theft from the bondholders and the people that their governments have engaged in for over a century.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, thanks for the compliment (if that was a compliment lol).

But as I told JaycenR, you can't put all the blame on politicians. They aren't stupid. Sure, they can be corrupt. They're only in power to amass a fortune. Yet... why would they ruin their chances for possible re-election by taking up more and more unsustainable debt?

It's not just corruption; it's also got to do with the workings of the global economy and the financial system that condemns developing and primary-goods exporting countries to run balance of payments deficits (This was the case for most of Latin America's history. You could make an argument that with the 2000s commodities boom the Singer-Prebisch hypothesis has been disproven, but it remains to be seen if this can ever be repeated) and depend on foreign capital for companies to modernize and invest in new technology (imported from abroad too).

Still, leaving the causes aside for a moment, Argentina can't just pay off all that mikesall. That debt has/had reached unsustainable levels. In 2002, external PUBLIC debt consisted of 164% of the GDP! From 2005 (the year of the restructuration) it got to 91.4% of the GDP. And now it's only 39% (2012 stat). Trying to pay off all of the 2001 defaulted debt would mean years of recession and austerity... for futile results, because we can't ignore how Greece and Spain are dealing with the same situation Argentina and other Lat. Am countries dealt some years ago, but trying a different solution (that of paying off the debt and cutting back spending) to no avail.

Why should these hedge funds make Argentina a new Greece? And we're not only talking about Argentina here, but this can also affect other countries who went through similar situations. Now no country will ever be able to get its creditors to agree to relieve their debt.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
Your prognostications are silly. Yes, paying debts can be painful, but in the long run it is healthy. As I wrote above, there was a great deal of pain when Thatcher privatized government industries, when Pinochet did the same in Chile, and when Coolidge inherited massive unemployment deficits and debt from Wilson, but still cut government spending by 50%, lowered the top tax rate from 77% to 20% and brought about prosperity rivaled in the 20th century only by the Reagan recovery..

The IMF has demanded Greece put their foot on the gas (lower spending) and the brake (higher taxes) at the same time. BTW Japan has a debt of 200% of GDP. No one knows what level of debt can be carried before a government fails. But we do know that a government that pays its' debts borrows cheaper than one that doesn't.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
The lesson is simple: don't loan to sovereigns. As for the hedge funds, they have a fiduciary duty to their clients. They are not charities. No one forced those countries in to borrowing and those countries sold themselves as being able to pay their debts. Latin America's inability to over come its primary goods problem is directly related to it's ruling classes. Who in their right mind wants to invest a dollar more than necessary when you always run the risk of having your property confiscated either de jure or de facto?
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
One of the possibilities in play here is that the "vulture funds" discover where the corruption money is hiding: could be Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Nevada "corporations," etc. and manage to find a DA that will grab those funds. Something like what they did with Noriega Inc. In the greatest of scenarios RICO is applied to those nefarious activities in the US and the whole top of the crony-corrupt end up in a comfortable federal condo keeping company to Manuel Noriega.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
LOL Right, because that would be enough to pay the hedge funds.

If you're talking about the Kirchners (as I presume you are) their personal wealth went from US$1.4 million in 2003, to US$14.1 million in 2010.

The "vulture funds" are demanding a pay of around US$1.4 BILLION. You'd have to multiply the Kirchner's wealth 100 times to get to that.

Let's stop pretending the debt can be easily paid off - even as a joke. It's a serious matter.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
That won't pay the investors but it will uncover the extent of the corruption and may lead to an era of "transparency" and a healthy change in Latin American politics. If those who rob are exposed and given the lamppost treatment, future politicians may think twice before selling out.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
I wouldn't even call it a "system", mikesall. Capitalism is simply the word for when people are free to trade with each other uncoerced.

That's the purest definition of the term, and when viewed from that angle anything else is an artificial construct that eliminates freedom through brute force.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
Wow, I honestly can't believe this article nor some of the comments here. It shows a severe lack of understanding of not only Argentina's, but also Latin America's economic history.

Argentina's *foreign* public debt goes all the way back to 1822, and it's always been linked FROM ITS STARTING POINT to fraudulent dealings between bankers and politicans. For example, that first loan taken out in 1822 (from Baring Brothers) was supposed to amount to a million sterling pounds, but guess what? Intermediaries got 100,000 pounds for their services, and Baring Brothers discounted two years of interest payments in advance... so the money received was just around £560,000. OUT OF A MILLION POUNDS LOAN. And not even in actual cash but in securities.

And so it began. That first loan would only be fully paid in 1904 (80 YEARS LATER), and in total, the country had to pay EIGHT times the money received.

After that experience (Already an incredibly fraudulent and unjust enterprise, if you agree with me), in 1873 the State was forced to take up more debt as the country experienced sustained deficits in the Balance of Payments (understandable in the times of the Gold Standard)... etc etc; debt basically went up and down during those decades at an intermitent pace.

Then in 1952, during Juan Domingo Perón's government (the so called socialist and fascist by some people here), the country paid off the full foreign debt and became for the first time a creditor state. What happened next? Well, evidently this ruined the business for many international banks which made juicy financial contracts with Argentina. And in 1955, Perón was overthrown by a military coup and in that same year the de facto government took out a loan for 700 million dollars which was supposed to be paid... In 1956. Obviously it couldn't be paid, and so the country had to renegotiate with its creditors (who would become the "Paris Club"). Shocking that this debt is STILL being paid after an agreement THIS VERY SAME YEAR. Almost 60 years later.....

The story is repeating and never-ending really. Debt just kept going up after that, especially after yet another military government which had the great idea of attracting foreign investment by... ensuring unsustainable short-run profits on deposits. And for this the country would've needed a high quantity of US dollar reserves which... it didn't have. What's more, the totalitarian government incurred in useless spending (such as spending 10 billion dollars in arms for the Armed Forces). But LET ME REMIND YOU, this increase in foreign debt wasn't just public. No folks, much of it was private too. When investors' confidence shook and capital outflows surged; in 1982 the State rescued the debts of these companies (part of it by direct nationalization).

By the late 1980s, the debt was unsustainable: that's the reason why the country ended up facing hyperinflation. The debt kept being refinanced during those years and in the 90s, this time under the close watch of the USA (such as the Brady bonds, for example) and imposing through it neoliberal policies to the government (I'm sure I don't need to explain the Washington Consensus to y'all). In the end, all of this was unsuccessful: debt just kept piling up; especially due to all the increasing interest payments and the fact that a fixed exchange rate to stop inflation generated deficits again in the BoP.

Conclusion of the story? Argentina's debt (as the ones from other Latin American countries) is not the result of irresponsible governments that do not want to pay a loan they accepted. Or rather, FORMER irresponsible politicians are to blame for accepting more and more debt in behalf of the country when it was already impossible to pay.

The country went on default, as we know, in 2001. In 2005 and in 2010, the new Government negotiated with its creditors and restructured its debt, managing to wipe out 70 cents for every dollar they owed. And they got 92.4% of its bondholders to agree to this plan. This debt relief allowed the country to get back on its feet, and so it experienced an incredible economic expansion from 2005 to 2009.

And what happens now?? Well, an infinitesimal number of the bondholders who didn't agree to the swaps in 05 and 10 (the "holdouts") are now demanding full payment of their financial securities. Roger says: "Is that (the fact they're motivated by a desire to make money) a bad thing?". Well, IT IS. For two main reasons:
1- If Argentina happens to pay these holdouts the full value of the contracts (as they're demaning and as the judge ruled), the rest of Argentina's creditors who agreed to swap their defaulted bonds would now be entitled to be paid the same amount as it was paid to the holdouts (according to a clause in their bonds). Paying the holdouts would mean US$15 billion (half of Argentina's foreign reserves) and paying the whole of its defaulted 2001 debt could cost the country US$150 billion - enough to
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
Note: the US and Britain owed money to Argentina in 1946. The equivalent of about 40 billion of today's money. They refused to pay in cash, there were negotiations... then "coincidentally" Peron's government had to face internal problems and was deposed by a military coup in 1955. First order of the day for the new government was to get the country in debt for 700 million dollars (of that time.)

During the 70's Argentina lend $1 billion to Cuba. They never paid back a red cent. Ha! The debt was forgiven in the 80's.

The problem of Argentina is that their governments do not realize that the rest of the world is as dishonorable as they are. They don't quite "get" the way the game is played. Their lack of political and financial acumen always leaves them holding the bag.

I wish Argentina well but they have to lose that naivete. Their case is not different than that of any of our neighbors who gets too many credit cards and bank loans and ends up in debt up to his eyeballs.

Countries can be as stupid as ordinary people.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
"in 1873 the State was forced to take up more debt..."

This statement alone shows that you know nothing about economics. No state is "forced" to borrow money. You wrote a very lengthy post packed with dates etc, but you do not understand what you are writing about.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
Uhm no, excuse me, I don't think you read my post with care.

For one thing, I made pretty clear the link between the country's political elite and the financial world in the first debt dealings.

But most importantly, I explicitly pointed out in that VERY SAME sentence (go ahead, read it again) that from 1873 the country experienced sustained deficits in the Balance of Payments. So in this case, the State WAS forced to take up debt. Tell me, if you import more than you export, how do you cover the difference?? Oh yes, you would have to get indebted! The fact that you don't know about the problems a Third World country faces when its terms of trade deteriorate suggest you know nothing about development economics.

So please, inform yourself better next time.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
" Tell me, if you import more than you export, how do you cover the difference??"

Matt, Import/Export deficits or surpluses are private corporation figures, and decisions.

For example, when China exports more to the U.S. than they take in, that does not run up the debt of the U.S. Government. It just means that U.S. consumers bought more stuff from China than Chinese consumers bought from the U.S. And who is to say that those consumers did not pay in full?

So it has nothing to do with the government.

You are peddling disinformation.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
You're absolutely wrong! Not every country has the privilege that the US has of paying for foreign goods with its own currency. The rest of the world needs to convert local currency to dollars. And when dollar reserves are low... the Government DOES have to take up debt to cover this debt. How else can it pay? Sure, it can devalue the currency, but that's not always possible because of fixed exchange rates to dollar/gold etc.

I think it's you who's peddling disinformation.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
Matt24, you're steadfastly intellectually dishonest.

The government of Argentina wasn't forced into the first loan, nor was it forced into any subsequent debt. The leadership chose their path every step of the way.

Would it have been unpleasant to avoid future debt after the first bad decision? Yes. But had they avoided any new debt, they would have immediately begun the slow march toward economic solvency.

I guess the problem is you think that doing things the right way, slowly, is unacceptable. Perhaps you assume that suffering the consequences of one's bad decisions is an unacceptable alternative. It's not. It teaches you important lessons, assuming you're capable of learning those lessons.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't see why I'm being intellectually dishonest:

You say the political leaders chose this path. It's true that politicians in power evidently didn't take into account the problems this would generate to the country later on. But if you look at the bigger picture, this represents a similar situation in all Latin American countries. Quoting from a paper of the CEU: "In the 1820s, the new independent governments of Latin America approached the burgeoning international capital markets of London and Amsterdam. In 1822, government bond issues were floated by Colombia, Chile, Peru, and the fictitious “Poyais” with a face value of £3.65 million; in 1824, there were new issues by Colombia and Peru, plus Buenos Aires, Brazil and Mexico to the tune of £10.4 million; and in 1825, Peru (yet again) plus Brazil, Mexico, Guadalajara, and Central America issued bonds for a further £7.1 million.”

This passage illustrates how Latin American debt fit into the context of the world economy. True, the countries couldn’t have been forced to take up debt per se; however, their economies were incredibly dependent on (especially British) imports and capital inflows. How could they refuse? Remember that in the nineteenth century, the continent followed the classical economics theory of comparative advantage. It had NO INDUSTRY, it lived off the sales of primary products (which didn’t employ most of the work force by the way) to Great Britain. If it didn’t offer good investment opportunities and if the State didn’t attract these investors, capital outflows would leave the country’s economy in hell. Politicians are corrupt, yes, but they’re not that stupid to waste their chances to get re-elected with pathetic debt deals. “Sold at an average discount of almost 25 percent, these £21 million in government bonds (that I mentioned above) realized on net only £16 million for the borrowers. When fiscal burdens escalated with the wars of independence and subsequent civil wars, a wave of defaults ensued.”. Look how soon the countries defaulted! In 1826, Chile, Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador & Colombia did. Argentina and Mexico in 1827. Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua & El Salvador in 1828.

This was just the first stage of Latin America’s debt saga, yet the situation put these countries at a disadvantage in the international capital markets: “New loans were not extended to the region until the defaults were resolved and political and economic stability seemed more assured, a process that took years and, in some cases, decades."

In summary, you say new debt could’ve been avoided. But I don’t think so. When you need your creditors to run an economy integrated in the global market, you’re tied to their conditions and to new debt restructurations which many times multiply the original amount lent. Moreover, there’s also the fact that in the times of the Gold Standard, it was almost impossible to avoid BoP deficits.

I agree, one has to learn the lesson. But don’t you think that the poor working classes of these countries have suffered enough trying to pay this insurmountable debt? They suffered hyperinflation in the late 80s. Then defaults in the 90s. It wouldn’t hurt to relieve them of the burden that this debt means. And Argentina is a case in point with its debt restructuration. The debtors were allowed some relief, and the creditors are being paid more over a greater period of time. It’s a win-win situation. The lesson has been learned, because most Latin American countries CONTINUE paying it to this day.

Please explain to me why it would be alright to appease to these multimillionaire hedge funds that want to screw the whole restructuration just because they say they want their profit of 1,600% on their bonds. Because I sincerely don’t get how that’s fair for any indebted country that’s tried to solve their situation by paying its debtors as its economy grows. No wonder why left-wing governments have sprung up from Latin America. If the USA wanted no more Chavez, it would’ve been smarter to ignore these “vulture funds”. Who knows what the real consequences of Griesa’s ruling will be in the long run....
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
you makes some sense here. I had not considered the problem of not being able to pay debts with own currency. that inserts a new variable into the problem.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
HAHAHAHA!

concisely: "I, Argentina, am a irresponsible helpless child and I won't pay!"
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
I write to you from Buenos Aires and perhaps you may benefit from learning the local point of view. The problem of this default is quite obvious. The country made the deposit to pay the outstanding bill but an order from Judge Griesa froze the money impeding the timely payment of the dues. Argentina could pay Elliot the measly 1.5 billion they require but in doing so it will unleash an avalanche of lawsuits by other investors who took lesser payments when the debt was restructured. Argentina painted herself into a corner.

And here comes the most important part of what I have to say. Of course Argentines will say I am wrong and may be others will share that view. But I am right as right is right. I can assure you Argentina has only one problem: an incompetent ruling class so shortsighted it does not matter if they are on the left or on the right. They always chose the wrong path.

Before you congratulate yourself and think of the great advantages of living in the US -- a blessed country if there is one -- think that the basic policies of the US present administration and those of Juan Peron and his successors are not that different.

The case has been presented in this very venue so I will not repeat the similarities. Only brace yourself for what's to come because it is coming and at this point no one --NO ONE-- can stop it.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
Bury Peron and hang a few socialists is what Argentina needs to start to recover. The other problem Argentinians have is they want to live like and be like Europeans without having a Western European economy.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
Not all government corruption is socialist, but all socialism is corruption. The government cannot steal from some in order to give to others and maintain a moral compass. Sadly, Argentina has toxic doses of both corruption and socialism.

The default is simply an extension of socialism and corruption. Borrowing money and refusing to pay it back is simple theft. That's what socialists do so I'm sure it feels natural. An "incompetent ruling class" would not be so bad if there were no ruling class to start with. Corruption flows inevitably from too much government power. I'm not preaching at you - we're going down the same road here. I'm trying to warn my fellow Americans. Don't worry, they're not listening.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
You would not believe the level of brainwashing here. Of course it is happening in the US too. They think they can "take from the rich" for ever and solve every problem that way. Producing things, working hard, applying ingenuity to live better ... no! none of that! Take from those who "have" until everyone is a "have not" and all will be solved. It is a sad case to contemplate.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
There comes point in Socialism/Tyrany where there is no longer anything left to steal or tax at home. So they cast their eyes abroad. In the European past when this point was reached they fixed bayonets and invaded their neighbors.
I don't think things have changed that much over time....
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
Do you mean the two news links in the first paragraph to point to Apple.com?
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
The new York slimes strike again
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
So in this strip club, we're slotted in somewhere between Argentina and China while the New York Times splays out on a cheap mattress upstairs waiting for its afternoon visit from their BFF billionaire Carlos Slim, whose fortune rests on electronic transfer fees from Mexican peasant illegals wiring cash back home from the jobs they stole from blue-collar workers in Duluth or Orlando who used to be able to raise a few rug rats doing drywall finishing but now have to send the kids to school for all their federally-subsidized meals while they drown their sorrows in a PBR tallboy purchased with pennies found stuck to the pavement outside the Circle K.

And people wonder whether there's going to be a populist uprising someday.

16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All