New York Judge tells Argentina it has to turn over its 51% stake in its state oil company to pay $16 billion judgement
Posted by ObjectiveObserver420@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 332 comments
raphcosteau@reddit
This is like making Haiti pay for its own revolution. The US is (SHOCKER!!!) once again meddling with the present and the future of a Latin American country with significantly less capital.
Through the magic of paperwork drawn up by the empire, the locals suddenly owe the Monroe Doctriners. Foreigners profit for decades from Argentina's labor and resources but it's not enough. They try to claw back a fraction of what was taken from them by nationalizing a company and the empire functionally seizes their assets.
poincares_cook@reddit
It's not even the US, as in US gov. It's some random judge. I don't get how he has jurestiction for such laughable verdicts, and what's his ability to enforce this if the US gov simply disagrees
piray003@reddit
They were listed on the NYSE, that’s why he had jurisdiction. They weren’t forced to be listed, they did it to raise capital from private investors, then screwed those investors by refusing to pay fair market value for their shares when the government at the time nationalized them.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
That seems like a natural risk of investing in foreign assets. Being listed on the NYSE shouldn't invalidate a country's national sovereignty or the right of their people to self-determination in regard to natural resources. It should not be the job of US courts to protect investors from losses incurred when a foreign government changes their laws, let alone demand compensation from said government that would risk destroying the country. They're essentially saying that Argentina needed to starve their own public services to offshore billions purely to compensate American investors who took a gamble on assets that will be clear targets of nationalization.
erebuxy@reddit
On the contrary, Argentina changing their law also doesn’t invalidate the rule of NYSE and US law’s protection on US based investment.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
Which just sounds like allowing US investment is indistinguishable from surrendering self-rule and puts the country at risk of having US courts or politicians crush their economies with excessive punitive judgements to make an example of them. Which just adds to the risk of depending on US investment in the future.
People keep framing this as if the letter of the law should be the only consideration as if laws don't have negative externalities.
sarges_12gauge@reddit
Yes? If you sell something to people from another country and promise to follow their laws about paying those people back then say “haha actually we’re just going to take it back, suck it” you run the risk of that country taking your assets there in return.
If Canada decided to seize all real estate purchased by Chinese citizens over the years and give it to Canadians, China would absolutely be justified in seizing Canadian assets in return
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
Except that's not what the ruling says. They're demanding that the nation sell off assets in their own resources to compensate the investors.
This tit for tat logic is not really the best way to handle disputes. Between peers, it results in trade wars, which are usually lose-lose. A small country risks destabilization, meaning they have every incentive to break laws that put the government in a bad position.
Your argument is that the fair outcome would be to bankrupt the country, impose austerity, destroy prospects for a generation, possibly bring down the government, or even set off a civil war that could easily bleed into regional conflict. Because it's not fair that investors lost assets when a country changed its laws.
sarges_12gauge@reddit
The fair outcome would be to honor the previous agreements made. And yes, when you take other countries investments they are going to be unhappy about it and will engage in tit-for-tat, if for no other reason than to dissuade other countries from taking the investments they own as well. Is that destabilizing? Yeah probably, but that’s the risk a country takes when nationalizing things.
It seems like you’re 100% casting this as “poorer countries deserve to do anything they’d like, and richer countries should be fine with it” which is… not realistic to say the least.
Is it fair that when Argentina breaks an agreement they face more serious consequences than the US or China doing so? Nope, I agree with you there. But tossing aside more “rules based” order than is already excepted is going to be even worse for the less powerful countries
valentc@reddit
No, you're the one saying the Empire and its nobles need to be compensated by the colonies and that they should be grateful for the opportunity to do so.
Billionaires who poisoned America for over 2 decades got a smaller fine than what they made in profit. Most large businesses don't get fines that cripple the business so they have to go under.
You're treating national sovereignty like it's a common commodity and its fucking gross. Your attitude is exactly why capitalism is such a shit show.
sarges_12gauge@reddit
Do you think there should be universal principles or not? They aren’t universal principles if some countries should follow them and some don’t.
If principles should be followed by everyone, then Argentina is clearly in the wrong.
If they don’t need to be followed, then this is exactly what you’d see more of: stronger countries pushing around weaker ones
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
That's the entire point. The US does not abide by any international laws. We have literally invaded and overthrown governments. We have incited coups. We have funded terrorism. We have stolen and sabotaged and bribed and exploited and tortured and assassinated. Every crime you can imagine and some you never thought of. We have illegally bombed multiple protected sites in multiple countries just this year, killing dozens of civilians.
So when you are talking about how small countries are obligated to follow laws made by America for the sole benefit of America, even though America gleefully and blatantly violates those laws on the regular because "universality" it's just plain incorrect on the facts let alone morality.
The US does not need incentive or excuse to do crimes. We do it all the time to allies and enemies alike. This is about the small countries trying to survive doing what they can to survive a superpower with zero accountability and even less respect for international law.
sarges_12gauge@reddit
Like I said, you don’t believe in principles except that weaker countries are always right when taking things, and stronger countries are always wrong
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
I think weaker countries are right to survive and promote their own interests when the laws are intended from the outset to keep them in perpetual poverty and dependence. But apparently, you believe that slavish obedience to the world's biggest criminal enterprise should be the only metric of morality in international law. Countries have no obligation to their people, only their superiors, no matter how many people are killed in the process, right?
I'm guessing you also believe it was wrong for colonized countries to subvert empires so they could manage to survive the enslavement and plunder. That seems to be the logical outcome of your obedience at any price argument. Or do those get grandfathered in once the history books tell you what to think?
sarges_12gauge@reddit
I don’t think international morality is a thing. I think both “weak” and “strong” countries always promote their own interests, and pretending countries are people with multi-century lives and a continuity of “goodness” is asinine.
With that said, I think naked pursuit of what you can take is nowadays less palatable, but if Argentina decides they want to go back to night makes right, they’ll find why “weaker” countries still want as much “rules-based order” as they can get, even without historical fairness.
And no, I don’t believe for example, French citizens should cheer if all of Africa seizes everything French on the continent. That would be stupid of them in the extreme, even if you would rejoice at seeing it happen
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
The question is why you don't appear to see the vulture capital square attempting to bankrupt millions of people for personal gain falls squarely in that category.
You appear to have complete tunnel vision about Argentina doing something that is entirely legal and within their rights but is subject to a CIVIL LAWSUIT in a foreign country as the prime example of taking advantage here.
And somehow, you've forgotten the desperation in this case. Deciding that it could only have been both malicious and stupid. While the vulture capitalists are the real victims here.
If your argument is just "might makes right" and the victims of neocolonialism must simply submit to their place in the hierarchy or be destroyed, then don't pretend it's about law or contracts. It's about the raw exercise of power and the private gains on a handle full of billionaires who have manipulated the system to impoverish the world for their own benefit.
sarges_12gauge@reddit
Seems like it’s the fault of the Argentinians for seeking investments in their country.
And yes, I get it. You hate the West and think they should all be consigned to ruin for the sins of their ancestors, you don’t have to say it 1000 times in different verbiage.
Frankly, I think the “West” should not invest in the South whatsoever by that logic. Just pull everything out and let them build their own countries how they want. No business dealings, just let them have their own go at it since any kind of trade or investment is seen as inherently evil
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
Trade should not be a trap that impoverishes the country, forces them into permanent dependence and drains their natural resources at far below market value. Fair trade is good. Gross exploitation is bad. I'm not sure what part of that very simple concept is so hard for you to grasp. Or do you just live in this fantasy world where global trade is actually an exchange of value for value.
Though I suspect you're more the type to claim that agreement trumps all no matter how unfair or coerced and accountability should be a matter of power so the dominant party has no enforceable limits while the weaker has no room to move.
sarges_12gauge@reddit
Well with the power differential it’s inherently impossible to have a fair exchange. In a relative sense poorer countries will always be coerced because they will always be in a worse position by definition ¯\(ツ)/¯.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
And your answer is to maximize the suffering and exploitation at every possible opportunity and with no regard to the cost because might makes right and rules don't actually matter.
In which case the only rational answer and the only way for smaller countries to survive is to subvert the rules, ignore the law, and use every means available to weaken the system until it collapses. Yes, very rational and sound way to operate. Constantly forcing trade partners into collapse until it inevitably comes back to bite us.
FinancialEvidence@reddit
Why are you positioning Argentina as some poor colony incapable of following the rule of law and making mutually beneficial business agreements?
erebuxy@reddit
The ruling is not excessive. You cannot support the rule ony when it benefits you. You cannot just take the money, and say rule no longer applies to you.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
What that means in practice is the permanent enforcement of colonial relationships under threat of national destruction. That's not a sound way for a global economy to operate and only incentivises breaking the rules since that becomes the only viable way to advance national interests.
That's the same argument used to postpone the end of slavery. We can't take the slavers property without compensation, and compensating them would crash the economy. Which ultimately meant that the only way to change the system was to violently dismantle it in a bloody civil war. Yes, that's an extreme example. But the argument that exploitation must be allowed to continue until the exploiters can be ensured a financial windfall from its change is not sound logic because systems can break and often break violently, so there is a good reason to make room for independent polities to change even if it means investors have to swallow a loss.
If you create an exploitative system and leave no plausible legal routes of escape, the only solution becomes violence. Personally, I'd like us to reach the point of civilization where we're not willing to destroy nations to insulate investors from risk.
erebuxy@reddit
Yes, when you try to sell a product, take customers’ money and suddenly don’t want to deliver the actual product, there is no plausible way of escaping, other than a fucking refund.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
It's not a product. It's an investment. Investments are inherently risky. One risk of investment is the change of laws. It should be patently obvious that this standard is selectively enforced.
Investors should be protected from acts of fraud, deceit, and gross mismanagement. The democratic election of a new government and the national self-determination to nationalize an asset are none of those. The change in government and laws are a natural risk of investment. Essentially, what you're saying is that world democracy must be subordinate to great power financiers or else the country can be rightly destroyed. Which, again, leads us back to making violence inevitable.
Democracies can't nationalize assets without compensating foreign investors, even if that would destroy the economy and make the move worthless. But if the government gets overthrown in a violent civil war, then all deals can be voided. It's not hard to see how this model undermines the very foundations of democracy.
Investors are not entitled to compensation if a ship sinks or if a war breaks out or if the government they made a deal with falls. That's what insurance is for.
serg06@reddit
They agreed to the NYSE rules then broke them, it's that simple...
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
You say that like the country can be penalized separately from the people. What you're actually demanding is that people in the country mortgage their future for the next several generations to make sure that a few foreign financiers get their payday plus damages. Generations of austerity and worsening economic crisis for the entire population to make an example of them.
I disagree with destroying a country as punishment for inconveniencing American investors, yes. That should not be a hard concept to grasp.
That applies to treaties, not investors. If financiers could sue every time a policy change hurts their returns, all forms of government would just be plutocracy with extra steps. But, of course, that's the goal of moves like this. Can't have a little thing like democracy interfere with the market.
Thedaniel4999@reddit
No one made them list on the NYSE. By doing that you have rules you need to follow. Yes investors when they invest in a foreign market need to know there is a risk to their money especially in a country with a history of nationalization. But at the same time that country can’t just come back, say “my bad” and ask to get off the hook free. Finance doesn’t work like that. I can’t buy a house using a loan, not pay back the loan, and then be shocked when the bank gets annoyed and tries to repossess my asset
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
It's not a loan. It's an investment. No one is entitled to a return on their investment. They're not even entitled to assurances that their asset will be legal tomorrow or that the business will exist next week.
serg06@reddit
Why is that even relevant? They broke a contract and that's that.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
Buying stock is not a contract. Buying stock in a private company is most definitely not a contract with the government where the company is incorporated. There was no contract with the government in any way. The company was private when the stocks were sold, the government nationalized it. The most anyone could argue is that the stockholders were owed compensation for their assets, but that is subject to the laws of Argentina not US law.
serg06@reddit
Your response seems rational, but I don't have enough context to understand it, and I'm not willing to read through all the massive paragraphs you wrote. Some brevity would've been helpful 😅
within16letters@reddit
If all countries played by the rules you're suggesting, investment in capital poor countries would go to zero or become very very expensive for those countries.
The reason this investment happened in the first place was because Argentina lacked the capital necessary to build out the infrastructure to extract the oil. So they went to the most capital rich market in the world and sold a share of that company to the American public in return for dollars (this is the product that was sold in the earlier example btw).
Several years later, the Argentine government decided to steal the property from American citizens because they got what they wanted from them. Now Argentina is suffering the consequences of that decision: they will either follow the courts ruling, find some alternative agreement with their debtors, or be excluded from American capital markets.
Atmoran_of_the_500@reddit
Huh, is that so...
serg06@reddit
You joke, but imagine if USA just stopped acknowledging its debt to other countries. They'd fine us and everyone related to us out the ass. 😅
biteme4711@reddit
They around have stuck to the stock exchange in Buenos Aires. They voluntarily put themselves in this position.
theglassishalf@reddit
Who is "they"? Is it the people of Argentinian who will have to pay for it? Or was it previous highly-corrupt governments who sold off the national assets?
biteme4711@reddit
Does it make a difference? The population elected thise highly corrupt officials. The population was eating up the promises of peronism. They got the governments they deserved.
have_you_eaten_yeti@reddit
Did you actually read the article?
Illiander@reddit
Looks at the Trump regime...
have_you_eaten_yeti@reddit
Breh, Argentina seized a private company and nationalized it, that’s a bit beyond just “changing their laws”
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
That's not even an argument. It's just stating a thing that laws do, frequently, in every country regardless of the system of government.
There are many laws in the US that empower the government to seize private property. Eminent domain allows the government to seize private property for public use, including selling it to another private owner that will pay a higher tax rate. Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to seize any property they believe is associated with a crime; it requires no due process, no compensation, and you can't sue for damages if the government wrongfully took your property because it's within their power to do it. Those are just two of the broadest.
Accelerator231@reddit
Very well then. Your wish is granted. From now on, no american is allowed to invest into Argentina. Also, no american platform is allowed to invest into Argentina. And no import from America is allowed into Argentina either.
Solarwinds-123@reddit
District court judges absolutely don't have that kind of authority
Accelerator231@reddit
Straw man. I didn't say that it was the district judge doing it. It's simply the end result of what the original poster wanted.
Boollish@reddit
Investing in listed foreign stocks isn't supposed to be done exotic vehicle only for the super wealthy, though. When you offer shares for sale to the American public, you have to abide by US laws, at least if you want to have continued access to US capital markets.
If you want to talk about national sovereignty, this is just a judgment. The judge in the US cannot enforce the judgment so easily...unless Argentina's government holds assets on US soil or in US friendly jurisdictions which could be subject to seizure. If Argentina withdraws their foreign assets, they can in theory just refuse to pay.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
Losing access to the capital market is not the same as being made to liquidate national assets to compensate investors many times the market value of their assets, at the risk of collapsing the economy and destroying millions of livelihoods.
Continuing to seize assets and freeze bank accounts from countries that adopt national policies contrary to US financial interests is only going to accelerate divestment from the US system. We're in a multi-polar world now, the US has legitimate competition. Our economic position is actually pretty fragile right now. Belligerent overreach that attempts to intimidate other countries is likely to backfire in the long run and put us at risk of a much more serious fall in the future. If countries see allowing US investment or holding assets in dollars as an unacceptable risk, it would have devastating consequences for our economy. These kinds of bully tactics are dangerous to our future.
Commentator-X@reddit
As is the entire GOP right now
One_Community6740@reddit
And this is great! Let America exercise the extraterritoriality of their laws! Do not let realpolitik cloud your mind, "American law is the best law and should be applied beyond borders of America". Realpolitik is for suckers!
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
That seems to be the general tone of this thread.
Boollish@reddit
When it comes to Argentina, the former is part and parcel at this moment. They desperately need dollar reserves after their peso spent years in a state of hyperinflation, and even with the current shock and awe monetary policy is still inflating at like 50% per year.
What will probably end up happening is some sort of settlement that preserves the ability of Argentine enterprises to access capital markets while giving an acceptable deal to debtors and shareholders. Otherwise, the world losing faith in Argentine business is the last thing that the country needs right now. The fact is that the US is still the only country that will let people use its currency, no strings attached.
Certain other countries that have heavily invested in African ports are going to do the same thing (or worse) if those ports were to be nationalized.
purplemagecat@reddit
Pay up with what money? print more money to pay off these new foreign debts, like the had been doing before causing more hyperinflation?
silverionmox@reddit
Then it's a "natural risk" too to get your ass find in the competent court if you do so.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
It's definitely the US' sovereign right then to protect the resources of their investors then too.
If Argentina can seize oil companies from US investors, why can't the US seize compensation from Argentina? You just want rules for everyone else but not for you.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
That logic does not work. You're just saying that if other countries want to have national sovereignty, the US should have the right to enforce economic domination and exploitative neocolonial relations by any means necessary on the grounds of protecting investment.
This is the logic draining US coffers with foreign wars and entanglements trying to keep governments compliant through force or bribery.
HunterD9543@reddit
You can’t just raise capital from foreign investors and then say haha tricked you and run off with the money
wtf is this thread smoking lmao
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
Electing a new government is not a "trick". Pretending that it is undermines the entire concept of democracy.
HunterD9543@reddit
Electing a new government doesn’t void all the previously agreed upon agreements. If an agreement to buy raw materials is signed under Biden, can the US just decide to take them without paying once Trump is elected?
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
Clearly yes, as we have done exactly that with several treaties. Or did you miss the whole thing about the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) that Trump campaigned on shredding his first term.
Your statement fails to distinguish between treaties signed between soveign governments and domestic laws which may impact foreign nationals. Private citizens are not entitled to protection from laws that impact their investments. Nor does privatization preclude a country from nationalizing in the future.
Investment protections are intended to guard against malpractice, not lawful actions by soveign countries or other natural risks. That is what you buy insurance for and why you diversify assets. I'd argue that they're already way too generous to investors in relation to private businesses, investors should not be able to sue a company for making a long-term investment in the workforce (safety, training, wages, etc) for example. But a civil court attempting to invalidate policies of another soveign country, let alone impose punitive judgements, is absurd.
ScrupulousArmadillo@reddit
Any country can pass any law and break/cancel any treaties. Agree.
Exactly, but in a different way than you expected. Argentian sold its company stocks in the US, so it should abide by the US law.
Again, the stocks were sold in the US, and Argentinian law is not relevant here.
If a US resident goes to Argentina and buys something there, the sale would be in Argentine jurisdiction, not in the US.
silverionmox@reddit
Stunts like this is exactly why the Argentine peso is in the gutter and their economy along with it: no foreign investors trust them.
So you certainly can try to continue to do so, but then you're on your own when it comes to foreign investments.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
You say that like foreign investment is a magic pill that would solve their problems. Untangling the fallout of colonialism is never going to be a tidy process, but you can't pretend like everything would be paradise for the Global South if they just sold all their natural resources to foreign companies and agreed to provide an endless supply of cheap labor forever. That system hasn't been working, which is why people are seeking to change it.
silverionmox@reddit
Clearly they wanted foreign investment, because otherwise why would they list the company on the NYSE?
The Argentinian government chose to list the company on the NYSE themselves.
Straw man.
Again, they chose to pursue foreign investments. That's their choice. What I think they should do doesn't even figure in it.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
One government chose one policy, a different government chose a different policy. This is generally how democracy is supposed to work.
You say this like the government is an individual who knowingly misrepresented their plan. Instead of a series of policy choices made by different governments over decades.
silverionmox@reddit
No, they can't just do whatever they want, that's how dictatorships work. Democracies are bound by the rule of law, even with regards to their own citizens, and more so towards others, who aren't subjected to their authority.
Or do you think that the US government can just order their fleet to start raiding the Argentinian coast, saying "It's a different government, we made piracy legal, lol"?
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
Democracies are bound to the rule of THEIR laws, not to the rule of New York above theirs. Nationalizing an industry does not violate equal treatment under the law.
That's a wild statement. Government owe more to deference to foreign investment capital than to their own citizens?
Piracy is subject to international law, it's a peremtory norm and part of international maritime law. It is absolutely not equivalent to claiming that foreign governments are subordinate to NY state laws.
silverionmox@reddit
The NYSE is bound to NY law, yes. So why do they think they can overrule that?
Why should a foreign government be able to violate the rights of foreign citizens in their own country?
Do you think the USA should be able to nationalize the investments of Argentinian investors in a US company in Argentina?
So are property rights.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
Why do you keep reaching for completely irrelevant examples where the US invades another country's sovereign territory? The US does not have authority over property in other countries, that includes whether an industry is private or nationalized. Do you honestly believe that investing in a foreign asset gives you ownership over the government and country?
The equivalent would be for the US to nationalize oil fields in Montana, which would be entirely legal regardless of where the investors lived. Russian nationals living in Russia would not have the right to sue the US government for that decision just because they put money into the stock exchange. At most, they could be entitled to a portion of the market value, but that would be on the government's terms. No one would argue that foreign investors are entitled to force the government to reprivatize asset, let alone bankrupt the state of Montana to satisfy their grievance
silverionmox@reddit
Argentina is nationalizing an Argentinian company on a US stock exchange partially owned by US investors. I just turned the nationalities around. It's completely relevant.
Now that is whataboutism. If you wish we can look at those invasions on a case by case basis, I won't hesitate to condemn them if I think they're actually unwarranted, like eg. the Iraq war.
But either way, this doesn't change whether Argentina's actions are warranted or not.
So I repeat the question: would you mind if the US would nationalize a company that was on the Argentinian stock exchange, thereby expropriating Argentinan investors?
Well no, expropriation without compensation and due cause is illegal pretty much everywhere, for good reason. You can choose to change that, but obviously, the result is that you won't much foreign investment after that, and you won't have much opportunity to use it at all in the future.
historicusXIII@reddit
Democratic decisions have practical limits and can come with consequences.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
And geopolitics is not the same as claiming that a change in government is somehow defrauding investors.
Let's not pretend that Europe and the US have ever abided by the law when there is a political advantage to be gained.
This isn't about law or just compensation. It's about stomping the life out of a small struggling economy for the sake of maintaining dominance.
unknownredundancies@reddit
It's just a bunch of tankies who think you should be able to nationalize your assets while expecting to be treated like an equal partner because of "neocolonialism" or "punching up" or whatever their sociology professor taught them. No sane person would tolerate being stolen from and continue to lend money to the person who stole from them
silverionmox@reddit
No, I'm not. I'm saying that you can't sign up for a soccer game and then act surprise when you get penalized for grabbing the ball with your hands.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
The analogy is invalid because it assumes two equal parties who have mutually agreed to abide by one third party authority with the same rules for both parties.
This is a dominant country demanding that smaller countries subordinate their democracy to the benefit of American financiers, making laws only that benefit them at the expense of their own people or else the dominant power will use every means available to destroy them. Lawfare is one step, but training and funding a militant group to overthrown the government is not off the table.
You can't just pretend that this is separate from geopolitics and think you're making a valid point.
Czart@reddit
Argentinian company trading on NYSE isn't some colonialism. I swear some of you just try to bring that up as a "i win" card.
ThatHeckinFox@reddit
should is the operative word of those sentences.
The Melian dialogue is still very much actual
theglassishalf@reddit
Not even that. The assets were bought by a vulture capital fund after the nationalizaion. The winner is not even shareholders, its the worst part of wall street.
CABJ_Riquelme@reddit
YPF was nationalized by one of Argentins most corrupt presidents. She is currently about to go to jail.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
Which is not relevant to the question at hand.
HoidToTheMoon@reddit
Investing isn't actually supposed to be risky for rich people. That's something they tell poor people to make them stop whining about wealth inequality.
ScientificSkepticism@reddit
So to clarify, because Repsol executives listed the company on the NYSE, and then strip-mined the company to pay for assets, the government owes the investors?
While if an investment banking firm buys Toys-R-Us, and strip mines it for resources and then lets it fail, they don't have to pay investors, because they let it fail, but if the state steps in to take over before the failure, it suddenly becomes the state's responsibility to pay the investors even though they had nothing to do with the decisions that management was making?
Interesting idea. Sounds like horseshit to me.
johannthegoatman@reddit
Yes, if the US government nationalized toys r us, they would have to pay shareholders. It's in the constitution.
ScientificSkepticism@reddit
It literally isn't.
And Argentina isn't the US in any case. You might want to take a geography class.
johannthegoatman@reddit
It's called the 5th amendment.
You are the one who brought up Toys R Us, a US company, being taken over by the state
ScientificSkepticism@reddit
Of course that assumes the private property is being lawfully used and maintained. If you lose your license to DWI and keep driving your car, you will find the government takes your property. If you bought your property with drug money, you'll find the government can take it. If your property is threatening those around them, you'll find you lose it. Your "private property rights" are contingent on you obtaining that property through legitimate means, and not abusing that property to become a threat to the lives and livelihoods of those around you.
If they were exploiting Argentina's resources in an illegal and fraudulent manner, then they are liable to lose them.
Prosthemadera@reddit
That's fine to me. Nationalizing an energy company is more important than that investors make a profit.
moderngamer327@reddit
It’s not about profit it’s about trying to use a US exchange while simultaneously ignoring the rules of it when it’s convenient to you. Argentina cannot eat their cake and have it too. Also nationalizing foreign investment is a short sided idea most of the time anyways
CakeTester@reddit
He had jurisdiction over the NYSE stock exchange listing, that's all.
What's to stop Argentina (seeing as they already have the money from selling the shares) to declare bankrupcy for the company, delist or ignore the NYSE and just change the name of the company and open with the new name on Monday?
frostcanadian@reddit
Not were, they are still listed per the article. So yes, the US court has authority over the company. Redditors don't read the full article before getting their pitchfork and torch. Sure, the US has shown more than once that they have imperial ambitions, but in that specific case the NY court has jurisdiction over companies listed on the NYSE. Should've listed your company elsewhere if you did not want a US court oversight
No_Conversation3553@reddit
They can’t enforce it it’s a us verdict. Im assumming this company was seized like it said and the share or stake holders at the time weren’t compensated. Not saying whether I think it’s fine or not just what probably happened.
Boollish@reddit
Well, US based assets could be seized. And there is always access to dollars that can be leveraged.
No_Conversation3553@reddit
They would pry just be disallowed from doing business in US which they pry already can’t do. US Argentina did not get along for long time now. I doubt there’s any US assets that exist.
Boollish@reddit
Well their president wants to heavily dollarize the economy to harden their currency value, and attract foreign investment .
Argentina also holds $20B in dollar reserves, so there's that.
ScientificSkepticism@reddit
I really doubt that those plans are staying in place. Given the instability of the dollar, I think most countries are switching plans to the Euro at the moment.
No_Conversation3553@reddit
Last I knew euro was losing out on reserves more than the dollar it’s more people are switching out of foreign currency’s in general and swapping to there own.
ScientificSkepticism@reddit
Given how much the dollar has fallen this year, lolololol.
Dollar has fallen 10.8% this year. SO FAR. The year is half over.
No_Conversation3553@reddit
Down 10% vs what sent most currency’s down?
No_Conversation3553@reddit
Which is why he’s appealing he’s pry gonna reach out to trump. And as long as it doesn’t get political they’ll pry make a deal. It’s good idea for both sides Argentina really needs the US to support it. It has not been good for it to not be on the US good side. Whatever you think of that it makes sense for them to try and make a deal.
Prosthemadera@reddit
Are you shortening "probably"?
No_Conversation3553@reddit
Yes.
Hellish_Elf@reddit
Pry is already a word, maybe try prolly/probs.
No_Conversation3553@reddit
It’s a pretty common abbreviation for probably online as well but just for you I’ll try to do that in the future but only if you try to state your actual problem deal?
HoboSkid@reddit
The majority shareholder was paid out 5 billion dollars (spanish firm) so that Argentina could take a controlling stake, but the minority shareholders were left out to dry, and these are the people that are suing.
Virtual-Pension-991@reddit
The problem with the US is that corpo and privates have completely owned the government.
Turkino@reddit
And this is why every time I see in the video game space someone saying "oh yes cyberpunk's such a cool theme" they forget it's also a dystopia where you have companies stronger than governments do whatever the f*** they want.
Zefrem23@reddit
It happens to be the dystopia we currently live in.
Shejidan@reddit
And we don’t even have true AI or cybernetic enhancements. This cyberpunk dystopia sucks.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
When we do finally get those things this cyberpunk dystopia will reach levels of suck you cannot dream of right now…
travistravis@reddit
Accidentally lost your job due to AI advances and can't pay your augment bill? They'll just turn off your legs, repo your eyes, and put you to work in the VR mines.
Radiant-Sentence-552@reddit
I just wanted the cool holographics and lights man
RETVRN_II_SENDER@reddit
we're already glued to our phones, it's not that different from having them surgically implanted into our bodies.
HeftyArgument@reddit
we’ve lived in it ever since the east india company invented the concept
Distracted_Unicorn@reddit
Remember, it's not a dystopia when we're living it. Then it's reality.
GolDAsce@reddit
I believe there's a term for that. Countries can choose not to get sued. Ask the victims of agent orange and minefields how their lawsuits against the US gov turned out. Watch out for the can of worms this opens up.
goofytigre@reddit
The judge is from the Southern District of New York (SDNY), which covers Manhattan and, more importantly, Wall Street. The oil company, YPF, is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Because the SEC enforcement doesn't really have teeth, the SDNY can work along side the SEC to give its enforcement some bite.
Dunno, but I'm sure the threat of being delisted could bring the Argentine government to the negotiating table to discuss a settlement. Other than that, I'd guess asset seizure (of assets/bank accounts outside of Argentina) is possible if Argentina fails to comply.
Whole_Sheepherder_97@reddit
is Argentina not able to take this up to a higher court?
puffinfish420@reddit
Well, since the company was traded on the New York stock exchange, it essentially consented to US court jurisdiction. And it’s not just a random judge, it’s a federal judge. They’re appointed by presidents and sit for life.
If you want to raise capital by being publicly traded on the New York stock exchange, you have to consent to our laws and the jurisdiction of our courts.
That means you can’t just nationalize shit and use that as an excuse to steal. That’s why they lost the judgement
TheColdestFeet@reddit
This has been a tool of US economic hegemony for decades. The US overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala occurred because the US legal system ruled that United Fruit was entitled to a larger settlement than the Guatemalan government was willing to pay.
The Guatemalan government was seizing unused land that UFC had purchased but did not cultivate or develop. They offered to pay UFC the value of the land the UFC reported on their taxes.
The US legal system is designed to protect the interests of corporations above all else. It provides the legal structure by which imperialism can be performed to protect overseas assets and to take more. The example I gave is not an isolated incident by any means.
merelyadoptedthedark@reddit
It's a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange. That's why this is being ruled on by a NY judge.
Modo44@reddit
He doesn't, but why would that stop any lawyers from trying?
Zefrem23@reddit
Jurisdiction
NEEEEEEEEEEEET@reddit
They're listed on the NYSE.
MrOaiki@reddit
Well, Argentina did seize control over a privately owned company without the consent of its owners. What do you suggest the owners were to do? What would you do, just lean back and accept?
HoidToTheMoon@reddit
Lose out on their investments because a public resource became publicly owned.
Y'all are the same people who would demand compensation for slavers because freeing a slave is stealing from them.
huysocialzone@reddit
You do realise that most of the effort to abolish slavery was accomplishe through compensated emnacipation right? The US civil war was an *extremely* special case.
Nevertheless, you seemed to have a extreme good guy-bad guy mindset, but economic is alway more complicated than that. How much are they "hoarding" as oppose to just legally trading on a available goods?
What is considered a "public resources"?
HoidToTheMoon@reddit
Hey look, somebody who actually thinks slavers should be compensated for the people they imprisoned.
Yes, buddy, bad things happened in the past. Including compensating evil people for owning other people.
Boollish@reddit
This won't go the way you seem to think it will.
Argentina needs access to US dollars, so while the judge in NYC can't really force the government to pay, Argentina holds tens of billions in USD as foreign exchange reserves, plus billions more in loans from the World Bank of which the US still has quite some power.
If it comes down to it, the US government could restrict access to US capital markets until The Argentine government pays up.
HoidToTheMoon@reddit
Do... do you think I don't know that the US government will bend over backwards to serve corporate interests? We literally have toppled multiple SA countries for them already.
Boollish@reddit
In this case, it's not corporate interests, it's investors.
But no, I don't think there will be any bending over backwards. All the US really needs to say is "pay up or we seize your dollar reserves to pay for it".
InvestigatorUnfair19@reddit
In this case it's not even investors, it's a vulture fund
HoidToTheMoon@reddit
It's not a shovel, it's a spade!
surestart@reddit
Corporate interests are its investors. Those are the same thing. Corporations are legally bound to maximize profit for their shareholders on threat of being sued by their investors in court and likely losing. The corporate structure is specifically designed to prevent employees and agents of the corporation from acting against maximal profit, especially if it's for ethical reasons.
johannthegoatman@reddit
The corporation in this case is the oil company. You are very confused
NEEEEEEEEEEEET@reddit
After they sold it to them and collected their share of taxes on the oil as well? The government was also losing $1B/year for 10 years before they sold it off. Repsol spent $15B on acquiring the company and invested even more, in return it gets taken away and they get given 1/3rd of what they spent in Argentinian bonds, which their government regularly defaults on.
HoidToTheMoon@reddit
Yeah, we really should compensate Cletus. After all, those people came and just took the chains off of Django. Fucking stole his property, they did.
No_Conversation3553@reddit
Wild take away from that your behaving like a child.
HoidToTheMoon@reddit
The wild take here is that some wealthy Americans have a right to the oil in Argentina and the profits from extracting it. Like I said, it is analogous to claiming slavers should be compensated when the people they had imprisoned gain their freedom. They had no legitimate right to the oil or the human life beforehand, and they should not be compensated now.
NEEEEEEEEEEEET@reddit
The company that bought YPF is in Spain. The company that won the lawsuit is in the UK and purchased the shares mid-lawsuit. The only thing American here is that Argentina listed it on the NYSE. The only interest the US has in it is that they don't want their stock market being used by countries to run scams.
This also worked out great for Argentina their peso cut in half within 3 years of doing this. It has since fallen 99% in value, but hey maybe stealing the $1b/year in oil profits will work out for them though who knows!
No_Conversation3553@reddit
So no corporation an exist outside they’re country of origin got it. Reasonable and sane world view.
NEEEEEEEEEEEET@reddit
"We're too incompetent to run the most profitable industry in the world, pay us to set it all up so we can take it from you when you've got it running smooth" I'm sure they're going to be great and won't run it into the ground like Venezuela.
silverionmox@reddit
Nobody forced them to list the company on the NYSE. They also could at any time buy back the shares.
Civsi@reddit
I would probably start with not spending decades destabilizing Argentina.
Oh, I'm sorry, are we all just pretending like none of that happened and that this matter is entirely unrelated? Like America can covertly prop up and install a military dictatorship in a nation, apply all the pressure possible to force a nation to privatize their assets, and then sit back and profit as that nation is economically fucked?
Ok_Currency_617@reddit
All the communists/socialists coming out screaming that government should steal from the people to enrich the poor lol.
HoidToTheMoon@reddit
FTFY
Ok_Currency_617@reddit
Exactly, let's steal from those rich foreign investors! That'll show them! They definitely won't just cut us off and embargo us!
HoidToTheMoon@reddit
Robin Hood is a horror story to you, huh
Ok_Currency_617@reddit
Robin Hood is a simplistic story told to children, the same people who think the government can just print a million and give it to everyone to make them all rich.
I think a great example is food. For instance in a closed economy what happens if we give everyone 2x more money and take it from the King? Can they magically purchase 2x more food or does food just 2x in value as production is relatively fixed?
Robinhood takes money from the rich and gives it to the poor. So the poor in that area buy more for themselves. But that purchase of food+clothes causes other areas to experience shortages/price inflation. Thus Robinhood is taking from the rich and giving from the poor who take from the other poor.
Atmoran_of_the_500@reddit
You actually think robin hood is the villain holy shit lmao.
Well no, assuming food prduction is analagous to actual productivity food production is not relatively fixed. We have enough food to feed literally everyone in this hypothetical kingdom that is rotting away because food vendors keep driving up the prices while not increasing the wages to preserve their bottom line.
If you have fuck-all for regulation then sure, food vendors can agree within themselves and extort the populace as much as they like. Which is where instead of kings social governments come in and they defend populations interests against corporate interests. Since the power results from the people the interests of the people always triumph that of corporarions, the interests of people always triumph that of corporations.
This is a crime against the concept of epistomology, statistics, logic and causality.
Elon Musk is that you ?
I have no idea where you got this regarded idea that productivity hasnt been increasing. Its showing in your stupid example too.
The overall productivity has been doubling every couple of decades dude, live in the real world. Yet wages have stagnated for almost half a century now as prices increases and living situation is untenable for most.
Your solution is literally keep doing the same thing that brought us here, literal insanity.
Ok_Currency_617@reddit
"You actually think robin hood is the villain holy shit lmao." It's a simplistic view of things. Venezuela, Mao's China, Cuba, and many others have stolen from the "rich" during their revolutions/takeovers to poor results. Venezuela is a great example because they pumped a bunch of money from that back to the people which led to rampant inflation.
You argue food vendors were hoarding stock but there's no evidence of that in Robinhood plus it would be illogical. Also there's no evidence that they wouldn't just hoard more and raise prices in response to more spending in that case.
HoidToTheMoon@reddit
The countries with the best living standards, to a rule, have robust taxation keeping currency moving in their economy and robust government programs.
You unironically think Robin Hood is a villain lmao. I can't with you people.
silverionmox@reddit
However, if Robin Hood did so consistently, it would cause production to shift away from jewelry towards fodo and clothing.
You can't assign causality just like that.
Taxing the rich is reducing waste.
Sugaraymama@reddit
Your weak analogies are boring
imdefinitelywong@reddit
It's like the trade federation's blockade in Naboo all over again..
dood9123@reddit
And I thought me and Qui Gon Jin, could Talk the federation into maybe, Cutting them a little slack
Chewbacca_The_Wookie@reddit
We need to be on the look out for any small gifted children fleeing Argentina in the company of a wiser, older man.
Peripatetictyl@reddit
These are not the billions you are looking for.
Elloitsmeurbrother@reddit
Man, that happened a long, long time ago. Not even local to our galaxy.
custardbun01@reddit
A short time ago, in a country an 8, maybe 12 hour flight away…
Illustrious-Ant6998@reddit
This is getting out of hand!
ChemicalDeath47@reddit
Here's how much power this ruling has. "I AS A REDDIT USER DEMAND RUSSIA REFUNDS ALL REDDIT USERS FOR THEIR FLAIR BECAUSE THEY WRECKED THE SYSTEM!!!".
Did I do it guys!?!?
ReeferEyed@reddit
You have to delacre it to make it official, " I declare...."
StoopSign@reddit
They did this to Venezuelas state oil company PDVSA
22stanmanplanjam11@reddit
What? The company was listed on the New York Stock Exchange and they voluntarily sold shares to the public. They could have just not done that and nationalized the company without defrauding investors.
theREALbombedrumbum@reddit
Iran, too. Here's a comment from 10 days ago highlighting how they went through much of the same:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1lhajc3/comment/mz3cqet/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
You know you should really read the article. The top level comment minimum character limit encourages you to quote the article, not just go on a longer rant about what you think the headline is about.
PrabowoGaySex@reddit
He thought he would be safe from intervention just because he's made from the same libertarian cloth.
slicerprime@reddit
I don't agree that an objectively corrupt and financially irresponsible Argentinean government under Fernández should be cast as you have, as some kind of benevolent underdog "claw[ing] back a fraction" for her people. It's naive at best and intentionally fraudulent at worst to cast her and her government in that light.
If you have problems with US involvement in the region (which I would understand)...make them. But, in this case, you don't have a lot going for you with the Argentinean players in this particular nationalization instance. Fernández and her cohorts are anything but sympathy inducing. A possibly better argument might be the timing of this ruling and its impact on Fernández's successor and his challenges. (Though, honestly I don't know for sure about even this yet. I admittedly haven't read up enough on him.)
Don't like Trump or the US? That's fine. Make your case. There's plenty there. Just choose better ideological opposition examples than Fernández, her government and their widely questioned policies and actions "for" their country.
HoidToTheMoon@reddit
Shockingly, a fucking confederate apologist is crying about capitalists losing their stolen wealth to the people who should rightfully own it.
Accelerator231@reddit
Lmao.
slicerprime@reddit
I'm anything but a confederate apologist, and I'm not defending stolen wealth. Apparently you don't actually read and absorb what's actually said. Why should you when its so much easier to make assumptions and pick out-of-context targets than to put everything into context and actually think. Especially when you go hunting just for those targets.
What I am is someone who actually looks beyond clickbait-depth comments and deals with the issue at hand, no matter how difficult it may be for even my own POV. I don't use complex issues as simplistic karma trolling tools to attract appreciation from people who claim to support justice when what they're really after is a worthless thumbs-up from their equally shallow brethren.
You know the type, right? The ones who swoop in just long enough to drop a snarky quip because they don't have anything actually constructive to add to the discussion?
Puffycatkibble@reddit
US judges can't even control their own politicians what makes them think they can dictate to sovereign countries?
RogueAOV@reddit
My concern is those politicians thinking they can just seize control of another countries oil reserves and assets, possibly to help pay for even more tax cuts to a certain class of people.
historicusXIII@reddit
The US didn't "seize control" over Argentina's state oil company. Said oil company was listed on NYSE to acquire foreign investments, but then was later nationalised without proper compensation to the investors.
RogueAOV@reddit
I did not say they had 'seized control'
'thinking' is not 'thought' which would be past tense.
Trump thought he was entitled to seize all of Ukraine's mineral assets based on nothing, when he hears '51% of ownership' he is likely to think the court case decided the USA now owns a controlling interest in Argentina's oil. He is a moron, and he is surrounded by people who will not say he is wrong.
Statement_I_am_HK-47@reddit
Hopefully this undermines a neoliberal dipshit like Milei
Ok_Currency_617@reddit
It's like inviting someone to invest in developing your nation's oil reserves using foreign money then seizing the development once it's complete.
If the government wants to develop it's own local resources it's welcome to do so with it's own money. But that's expensive and risky while requiring specialized knowledge/experience/skills thus most governments invite foreign companies to do so.
Stealing to enrich yourself once things are good and fixed costs are paid is a great strategy for nations, but it also poisons their investment environment such that no one will trust them again. It also turns the nation of those investors against them as no nation is going to let you steal from their citizens/companies. Venezuela, Cuba, and others have found this out the hard way.
silverionmox@reddit
As a rule of thumb, GOP governments create more debt and deeper deficits.
Lingotes@reddit
No this time, no. Argentina really fucked up by using eminent domain and trying to pay peanuts for it. Then, they downplayed the litigation and didn't really have a good defense. They could have settled before the judgment, too.
Freethecrafts@reddit
It’s the incorrect action to nationalize. It’s better to tax exports proportional to development.
eyesmart1776@reddit
They literally put milei in office
Palpitation-Itchy@reddit
Mate inform yourself. We will fight this ruling to the end but it could have been avoided if Kicillof had more than two working neurons. I'm unsure if the ruling is technically unjust or not, seems like it's not
NEEEEEEEEEEEET@reddit
YFP was acquired by a Spanish company in 1999 after the Argentinian government listed it on the NYSE in 1993. They ran it and eventually discovered the largest oil field in the world at the end of 2011. The Argentinian president then privatized it within months. The Spanish company sued in the US and sold their shares mid lawsuit to a British company. The US isn't meddling, they're hardly involved in this ordeal, they're just not allowing Argentina to co-opt our stock market to scam foreign companies.
Kahzootoh@reddit
Except it isn’t.
The company is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, allowing the plaintiffs to sue in a US court.
Fernandez De Kirchener was a subhuman thug, she seized the state owned company to use it as a new asset to borrow against after she’d exhausted everything else. She wasn’t just a criminal, she was stupid beyond all possible explanations for a human being.
This verdict was entirely foreseeable, you can’t seize a company’s assets, make yourself liable in a foreign jurisdiction, and then expect to prevail in the case when the evidence is clear that you violated obligations to shareholders.
It is an indictment of the entire Argentine race that Fernandez De Kirchener was not placed in an asylum as soon as it became apparent that she was obviously not a human being.
Imagine being stupider than the Saudis, that is how stupid the Argentines are. If Argentina wanted to nationalize its oil company, there was already a successful model to follow- and yet they did not do it.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
Wow, way to be racist about it. Tell us how you really feel.
derpmeow@reddit
Did I miss the news that Trump has been deposed?
Bloodgiant65@reddit
Steals something
Court orders you to give it back
“Oh no! How could this ever happen!”
Any idiot could have seen this coming.
HackPhilosopher@reddit
If Ben and Jerry’s decided to go on the Buenos Aires stock exchange to raise billions of dollars in capital and then trump, seeing the money raised, decided to nationalize Ben and Jerry’s. Nobody would be defending trump in the comments. Yet here we are with a cesspool of people defending Argentina.
State-sponsored propaganda or tankies. You decide.
qjxj@reddit
Capitalists should be familiar with the concept of risk. Nothing Argentina did was illegal.
KJongsDongUnYourFace@reddit
Yeah exactly. Wanna play capatalism? Don't complain when you get outexploited.
Capatalism is a predatory system, this time the rich got fucked and the US (as always) is trying to help them.
moderngamer327@reddit
Capitalism is inherently against government intervention. Forcefully nationalizing a companies assets is about as antithetical to capitalism as you can get.
Capitalism is not inherently predatory although it certainly can be
DorianGre@reddit
All foreign investment carries a political risk. If you are not calculating that into your investment, then you are the greater fool. It doesn’t happen often, but it does happen. Examples: every foreign casino and hotel owner in Cuba, current and ongoing seizures in Russia of foreign owned investments, 2023 Austrailian nationalization of a foreign owned hospital, Bahrain’s nationalization of the Bahrain Oil Company set up and owned by Standard Oil, just all of Bolivia currently, etc
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
That's why people were investing in the company in NYSE and not buying Argeninian corpo bonds or doing it on Buenos Aires stock exchange -- to lower their risk of themselves getting screwed.
DorianGre@reddit
Then, this was a regulatory failure, pure and simple. There is no reason for a company whose assets consist wholly of Argentine oil leases to be on the stock exchange of another company. A multi-national headquartered in the U.S.? Sure. This company? No. Blame the SEC and the NYSE for allowing them to be traded to begin with.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
I feel like you don't understand what a stock exchange is...
moderngamer327@reddit
Sure it happens but the fact that it’s a possibility doesn’t make it justified
kenkanoni@reddit
LOL
Capitalism needs the state to back it up. You are delusional.
moderngamer327@reddit
Capitalism does not require the state to do anything although it does work better having an entity protect property rights. That being said it’s still antithetical to capitalism for the government to interfere in the economy
dakta@reddit
Capitalism depends on a strong state to uphold its ownership model.
moderngamer327@reddit
A state makes ownership easier but it’s not fundamental to it’s existence. Regardless that has nothing to do with my point
ThePromise110@reddit
Trying holding a plot of land against the entire world without a state to back up your claim using men with weapons.
Grow up.
moderngamer327@reddit
If there is no state then then entire world wouldn’t be after your plot of land only people locally would which weapons would be very effective against
shumpitostick@reddit
The risk of having your stuff stolen?
sarges_12gauge@reddit
Isn’t this the risk Argentina took when doing so as well?
jqpeub@reddit
Yeah, and now they own their oil reserves. Seems like an easy decision
sarges_12gauge@reddit
Well… unless the US seizes assets apparently
Select-Blueberry-414@reddit
I don't know if it was illegal but it was very dumb.
aipitorpo@reddit
It literally was illegal
sojuz151@reddit
What a terrible argument. Do you believe you should not be able to sue anyone because you " should be familiar with the concept of risk"? Someone robs you at gunpoint? Well, this was a risk you should have been familiar with.
historicusXIII@reddit
The risk is mainly with Argentina in that this made it even harder to attract foreign investments.
sight_ful@reddit
It literally was illegal. That's why the judge ruled against them and they have to pay all this money back.
moderngamer327@reddit
It was legal because Argentina said it was legal but that doesn’t mean it will be recognized as legal elsewhere
hannes3120@reddit
Neither was the holocaust.
Just because it's legal (in your country) doesn't mean it's correct to do.
nacholicious@reddit
I'm pretty sure there's some difference between ice cream and a country's access to their own natural resources
frostcanadian@reddit
Legally, there's no difference. We could pick a similar company if you prefer. What if the Australian government decides to nationalise Rio Tinto ? As the shares are listed on the NYSE and London Stock Exchange, they have to abide by the laws of both jurisdictions. There is a process you must follow. Not following the process and screwing the investors will most likely result in lawsuits
Civsi@reddit
Oh, ok, neat! And where in the process does "destabilizing the nation via CIA coups, hostile economic policies" come into play?
In this lovely Ben and Jerry's example, did Argentina spend 40 years secretly trying to get America to become it's little bitch?
Loose_Substance@reddit
Im pretty left leaning but what kind of cool aid are you drinking. Just because the US and a South American country are named in a story doesn’t automatically mean the US is wrong in the situation. Just usually, but not always.
Civsi@reddit
The fuck does your political leaning have to do with historical fact?
Or are you just indirectly implying that the past century of history is not at all relevant in this situation?
There's this lovely thing that Westerners love to do - present all situations only within their immediate context while completely ignoring any relevant history.
Why did Argentina privatize it's oil industry in the first place? Under what guidance did Argentina reform it's economy? What results did these reforms have, and did they contribute to Argentina's decision to re-privatize their oil? What events happened in the lead up to the economic downturn in the lead up to the privatization of their natural resources?
Loose_Substance@reddit
Why do fuckheads like you love to twist everything to fit their world view. I understand the irony because I am 100% certain you believe the same about me but I promise you just because a Westerner has a point of view does not mean it has always been twisted or neglects historical context. It’s this lovely thing Non-Westerners love to do in order to appear as if they understand the true order of the world and all Western action is blinded by uneducated prejudice or greed. The why’s help frame the argument but at the end of the day they listed themselves on the NYSE so they must do right by their investors and follow the laws that the NYSE operates under. I do not believe the amount is completely justified but Argentina is not faultless. I understand you will never take a Westerners opinion as anything but complete blasphemy that they actually allowed themself to have a POV within a Western lens on any particular argument. But honestly I’m done with the last decade of allowing Non-Westerners the presumption of correctness regarding literally every social issue and I’m glad the world is moving past it.
Civsi@reddit
>but I promise you just because a Westerner has a point of view does not mean it has always been twisted or neglects historical context.
It absolutely doesn't, and yet you ignored the historical context in your post right after I referenced it.
>The why’s help frame the argument but at the end of the day they listed themselves on the NYSE so they must do right by their investors and follow the laws that the NYSE operates under.
And there you are doing it again while maliciously pretending like you totally are taking the context into account.
Does it matter that Argentina listed YPF on the NYSE in alignment with policies pushed down from the IMF and World Bank, following the same exact doctrines that have been used to pillage dozens of other nations in the Global South?
Does it matter that the crisis Argentina was desperately trying to escape in the 90s was caused by debt taken on by the very same military Junta that the CIA installed in Argentina through operation Condor?
Does it matter that the debt taken on by the US backed dictatorship was largely provided without any oversight, and was in large part funneled right back into American and European banks as well as real estate purchases?
Does it matter that the IMF/World Bank perspired policies implemented in the 90s only helped to exacerbate capital flight out of Argentina into Western nations, making Argentina's problems even worse in the long term?
See, you just say "they listed themselves on the NYSE so they must do right by their investors" in the same fucking way your American settlers would point at bullshit laws they forced onto the indigenous peoples and say "look, they signed away all their rights and now we're free to indirectly genocide them by displacing them off their land, totally not our fault".
It's almost like the very exact argument you're making is the same one that's been made thousands of times throughout the past by colonialist and imperialist powers, and has been described and defined time and time again through terms like colonial legalism or jurisdictional imperialism
>It’s this lovely thing Non-Westerners love to do in order to appear as if they understand the true order of the world and all Western action is blinded by uneducated prejudice or greed.
Odd then, does this apply to me as someone who lives in the imperial core?
>I understand you will never take a Westerners opinion as anything but complete blasphemy that they actually allowed themself to have a POV within a Western lens on any particular argument.
Your statehood has nothing to do with the legitimacy of your argument, and me not taking your opinion as anything other than self-serving bullshit has nothing to do with your status as a Westerner, and everything to do with the argument itself. I wouldn't have mentioned the West at all if the argument you were making wasn't the most common run-of-the mill "hurr durr why are these foreigners so evil" crap ever.
>But honestly I’m done with the last decade of allowing Non-Westerners the presumption of correctness regarding literally every social issue and I’m glad the world is moving past it.
That's so fucking cute that you think the last decade has been defined by anything other than the same American imperialism that defined the previous decades. Really shows how entirely ignorant you are of the world you live in.
frostcanadian@reddit
Forget that it's about a country for a moment and remember that this is a lawsuit between shareholders. If Twitter shareholders decided to sue Musk because they believe that he tanked the share price so that he could get it at half the price, nobody would be claiming that the NY court is overstepping its authority. The share prices dropped by more than half their value in the two months preceding the nationalisation. This isn't the US trying to destabilise a foreign government. Heck, Biden even tried to limit the jurisdiction of the court by claiming that its judgment cannot be applied to Argentina as it is a foreign country, but that failed. Why ? Because the company is listed on the NYSE. So it must abide by the law and regulations of NY
Civsi@reddit
I love how you're just completely ignoring all the relevant history and saying "well, the law says...".
Yeah, and Americans also legally seized the land owned by America's indigenous populations. Operation Condor was also absolutely legal in America. So are the current ICE raids. So were concentration camps. So are all of the ways you get fucked in your society today.
You know I was talking about recent history, right?
Awkward_Cheetah_2480@reddit
The Company and the reserves are two different things. Argentina still can surrender the Company and stripe It of exploration rights.
loscapos5@reddit
The issue is more like you said, except Trump got that money for himself, ran it to the ground and then after he finished his 4 years, Obama came and started fixing the economy, just to get a lawsuit that, since Trump nationalized the company under the US government, Obama has to pay.
We argies are not mad that this is considered illegal under US law; it's that the penalty is extremely harsh and will affect the country as a whole instead of the ones responsible of this madness, like the egyptian architect and soviet midget; AKA Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and Axel Kicillof, respectively.
Civsi@reddit
What a neat example! And in this example, did Argentina spend decades funding Coups and destabilizing the much weaker and smaller US economy?
I'm sure we all remember that time back in the 70s when Argentina installed a military dictatorship in America to protect its own selfish economic interests and an ideological cold war!
Oh, we don't remember that? That's odd, perhaps it has something to do with the observed reality that Americans have a selective memory that doesn't seem to go back more than 4 years?
Accelerator231@reddit
This is a wonderful example. I think that the Americans should do it again.
Boollish@reddit
I think it's general ignorance, not outright tankie propaganda.
Of course, with nations, you always have the option of the sovereign just refusing to pay, but most people in this thread don't seem to understand that refusing to pay will make it hard for people to lend to you.
maxi1134@reddit
Bruh, Argentina defaulted 9 times on its debt. No one is giving us shit anyway.
Nationalize all the US property if you ask me.
moderngamer327@reddit
Nationalizing all foreign investments is a fantastic way to make sure no one will ever invest in your economy again
maxi1134@reddit
Again: We defaulted 9 times, NO ONE WILL GIVE US MONEY ANYWAY.
moderngamer327@reddit
And no one ever will if they keep doing things like this. The answer is not to double down
22stanmanplanjam11@reddit
People could have said the same thing after the 8th default but there still ended up being loans handed out that let a default happen for a 9th time.
frostcanadian@reddit
It won't just impact the Argentina government, it will also impact all current Argentinian entities listed on a foreign stock exchange. What kind of signal does that send to current and potential investors? That could result in a sharp selling of Argentinian assets as investors will worry about losing their investments without any recourse
Xtrems876@reddit
If Trump decided to nationalize ExxonMobil with no compensation I'd cheer for him.
But that hypothetical is like "what if the pope denounced jesus"
SWatersmith@reddit
Ice-cream isn't a strategic national resource, you absolute wet wipe.
It's genuinely a fascinating ordeal to try to recognise the ideological framework that allows someone to compare the nationalisation of a strategic energy resource to the hypothetical seizure of an ice cream company.
Even the very belief that the private control of vital infrastructure by foreign capital is normal, even desirable, while public ownership in the interest of national welfare is automatically suspect.
Oil is not a luxury. It’s essential to the functioning of a modern society. Control over energy is not about profit margins or quarterly reports. It’s about whether a population can heat its homes, power its hospitals, and maintain the basic conditions of sovereignty.
When a country like Argentina reasserts control over its own energy, that’s not “propaganda.” It’s an attempt within a severely constrained global economic system to redirect resources toward public use rather than private extraction.
Hilariously, we actually do have an example just as ridiculous as yours: consider the reaction to the United States forcing the sale of TikTok. A private company, pressured under threat of a national ban, based on claims of strategic risk. There was no outcry about authoritarianism. No declarations about the sanctity of private enterprise. Because in that case, the power being asserted aligned with Western interests. Tell me - do shortform meme videos rank above oil on your list of things a nation should retain control over?
The same oil that has resulted in blood being spilled on every continent. Ben & Jerry's does not dictate the cost of living for 45 million people. Oil does. Your whole comparison rests on pretending that resource sovereignty and boutique consumer brands are equivalent. They are not. When a foreign firm owns your oil, it owns your economy. It owns your future. And it tells your people their suffering is just the cost of doing business.
You are not upset because they took what was not theirs. You are upset because they refused to keep giving away what was never yours.
Argentina’s move was not radical. It was rational. What’s radical is the idea that the people who live atop a country’s natural resources shouldn’t have any say in how they’re used.
MeGustaMiSFW@reddit
This comparison only makes sense if ice cream was a national resource. You moron.
TheGalator@reddit
I don't care about Argentinian and I hate tankies
But i hate current america more so yeah. Go Argentinia!
drkhead@reddit
MAGA would 100% support Trump nationalizing anything. They've been screaming about the debt and republicans have added to the debt every chance they have had.
Chalibard@reddit
Lol we're talking Big Oil here.
The Standart Oil Trust (and it's modern names ExxonMobil, Chevron, Marathon Oil...) have been indistinguishable from the US government for as far back as the the end of the 19th century, and they basically nationalize foreign reserve constantly.
Rockefeller was famous for hating the "ruinous competition", he became rich by illegal anti-competition schemes to consolidate american oil raffineries into a single blob of planned economy, his descendents still hold the reins of american foreign politics.
Oil companies are the politburo of the western world minus the humanitarian pretense, but if you do a fraction of what they do daily you are a tanky.
Thisconnect@reddit
Because US government would privatize it shortly after - thats what happened every time US stepped in.
Tho because its argentina.... yeah
likely-to-reoffend@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
The comment you submitted includes a link to a social media platform run by fascist/authoritarian oligarchs and has been removed. Consider re-commenting with a link using alternative privacy-friendly frontends: https://hackmd.io/MCpUlTbLThyF6cw_fywT_g?view
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Full_Distribution874@reddit
What's the difference?
simonbleu@reddit
My opinion as an Argentinian
Did we screw ourselves at the time? Yes, by going to the NY stock market something something
Were we screwed by the ruling? Absolutely and to a ridiculous degree
Should we abide? Not at all, we are a sovereign country. We SHOULD pay the investors, but on our own reasonable terms
Does that has consequences? I mean, probably? I sincerely do not think the us will go as far as to deny negotiations and keep pushing, but honestly, they are asking for too much. It is reasonable to expect retribution but what it is asked of us is not reasonable in context. It doesn't matter if they think it's fair or not, international ethics have a tendency to apply only when it matters to someone in power, therefore why on earth when we have an ounce of a day in this should we bend over? It is to be seen, and again consequences exist but--
wasdlmb@reddit
Surely you can't possibly be suggesting that my country would screw over a much smaller Latin American country while the rest of the world looks the other way, right? I have no idea about the merits of the amount decided here, and I'm far from an expert in either stock exchange law or international law, but I very much suspect that you're right and the US will mostly get her way, no matter how fair it actually is.
Loose_Substance@reddit
Why do fuckheads like you love to twist everything to fit their world view. I understand the irony because I am 100% certain you believe the same about me but I promise you just because a Westerner has a point of view does not mean it has always been twisted or neglects historical context. It’s this lovely thing Non-Westerners love to do in order to appear as if they understand the true order of the world and all Western action is blinded by uneducated prejudice or greed. The why’s help frame the argument but at the end of the day they listed themselves on the NYSE so they must do right by their investors and follow the laws that the NYSE operates under. I do not believe the amount is completely justified but Argentina is not faultless. I understand you will never take a Westerners opinion as anything but complete blasphemy that they actually allowed themself to have a POV within a Western lens on any particular argument. But honestly I’m done with the last decade of allowing Non-Westerners the presumption of correctness regarding literally every social issue and I’m glad the world is moving past it.
Palpitation-Itchy@reddit
Dear everyone, this was handed the worst way possible by our genius Kicillof, as far as I know the ruling is not unjust. Of course we will still fight it because it's a lot of money. But everything that was done regarding this was done irresponsibly. I do believe we got what we voted for as a country, this surprises nobody back home.
This is just the result of populism, YPF was / is inscripted under new York city law, not locally in Argentina.
MeGustaMiSFW@reddit
Why did New York City have authority over an Argentine oil company though?
Palpitation-Itchy@reddit
Because the company was inscribed under nyc law, something like that
MeGustaMiSFW@reddit
Yeah…. But why does an American company get to own your natural resources?
Accelerator231@reddit
Because that company tried to get foreign investment by going to the America stock exchange. If Argentina doesn't like the ruling, they can leave
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
It's not an american company, it's an Argentinian company that's "incorporated" in america so that they could list on NYSE. It's the same as Alibaba, it's a chinese company but it's listed on NYSE (or actually Nasdaq I think but same shit) and needs to follow basic property laws.
XAMdG@reddit
Because you allowed them to? And not Americans only, the global public in general, since you know, that's what it means "going public". Anybody can buy.
22stanmanplanjam11@reddit
It was a private company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. They sold shares.
datknee56@reddit
It states in the article that the company was once a state run company that was privatized
aipitorpo@reddit
It's an Argentinian coompany that was operating under NYC law at the time.
Palpitation-Itchy@reddit
I don't remember exactly, but basically a series of fuckups and corruption
brodies@reddit
It’s a federal district court in NYC, not NYC itself. The district court has jurisdiction over the dispute because the Argentina and YPF (the oil company) agreed to accept the court’s jurisdiction when Argentina raised a bunch of money (over 7 billion USD, adjusted for inflation) via an IPO on the NY Stock Exchange. Basically, YPF was a state-owned corporation. Argentina decided to sell part of it in 1993 via the IPO and most of the rest in 1999, making billions on the sales, and agreed that the court in NYC would have jurisdiction over stock disputes involving the company.
XAMdG@reddit
Yeah, there are ways to nationalize a company that are (somewhat) fair to the state and to the investors. This was not the case.
DeviantPlayeer@reddit
Anyway, one stupid NY judge shouldn't get to tell a foreign country what to do. Like who the fuck is that nobody?
puffinfish420@reddit
It’s a federal judge, not a NY judge. And if you want to trade on the New York stock exchange, you subject yourself to US jurisdiction, meaning that a US federal judge can adjudicate claims against you.
Argentina can appeal the verdict all the way to the Supreme Court of the US if they want to. So it’s not really just a US district court judge making the decision. But I’m pretty sure they’ll lose in whatever court they litigate the issue in, since it’s pretty cut and dry that they essentially stole the property when they nationalized it
frostcanadian@reddit
It's not one stupid judge from NY telling a foreign country what to do with its assets. It's a NY judge telling a majority shareholder in a company listed on the NYSE that it must abide by the laws of the NY state if it wants to use the NYSE. The judge settled the grief between shareholders. It just happens that the majority shareholder is a foreign government
Palpitation-Itchy@reddit
It was our own politicians that decided to inscribe YPF under New York's law, so it is correct at the end of the day. There are other things to argue, for example they are using argentinian's legal logic to calculate interests instead of US's, this a priori sounds contradictory so we will see
I don't think the outcome is under question but the dollar value of damages, interests, etc.
DeviantPlayeer@reddit
Dammit bro, that's some shit happening in Argentina.
Palpitation-Itchy@reddit
Science has demonstrated it is impossible to get bored in Argentina...
DeviantPlayeer@reddit
Same
Palpitation-Itchy@reddit
I figured lol
anime_titties-ModTeam@reddit
Your submission has been removed as it violates:
Make sure to check our sidebar from time to time as it provides detailed submission guidelines and may change.
Please feel free to send us a modmail if you have any questions or concerns.
StoopSign@reddit
The NY court has no jurisdiction in Argentina. This is straight out of the Venezuela playbook. The US regime is less legitimate than the governments it claims are illegitimate. This is a laughable judgment.
Efficient-Okra-7233@reddit
This isn't true though, the YPF was inscribed under new york law. That was a choice YPF made for access to the NYSE.
tre-marley@reddit
The investors made an extremely risky investment and understood the consequences.
The seized investors should be paid back, but how could they expect to see their money back after such a risky investment
Hans0000@reddit
This is the most stupid take I've seen so far...
If your car gets stolen, don't file a police report to get it back, you just make a risky investment.
tre-marley@reddit
Buying a car that’s notorious for getting stolen in the area you plan to park it is a similar bad investment.
Would you investment billions of dollars into a company that’s at extremely high risk of getting seized by the government without off-setting that risk?
ChiefIndica@reddit
This is the most braindead false equivalence take I've seen so far. You cannot possibly be that stupid, but just in case:
My car didn't come with a huge bold warning that someone could win it off me fair and square at any moment.
Buying a car is not the same as throwing your money at a roulette table in the hope your winning streak continues.
Hans0000@reddit
Dumbfuck, shares in a company is a stake of ownership, same any owning anything else, you are protected by the law, a country seizing your property is a breach of said laws.
dakta@reddit
Ownership is whatever the State says it is. That's part and parcel of the entire concept of sovereignty. It's also the fundamental risk of making foreign investments: foreign investments are subject to the whims of the foreign sovereign.
ChiefIndica@reddit
Read more, speak less - cretin.
Hans0000@reddit
The cycle of low education leading to being poor is on full display here.
Try to take a look at yourself before hating on investors and people richer than you.
ChiefIndica@reddit
Doing pretty well for myself thanks :) and I earned it all myself too
Hans0000@reddit
You know, it's incredibly admirable how much sheer effort you're willing to put in for a dollar. Meanwhile, the 'smarter' folks are busy figuring out how to make those same dollars multiply while they sleep. But hey, if physical exertion for minimal returns is your passion, don't let anyone stop you from 'doing well' your way!
ChiefIndica@reddit
I'm still amused by the semantic argument for a mechanical problem.
You will use the resources at your disposal to increase your wealth, and others will do exactly the same. Others still will use theirs to take your money, legitimately or not, and you are free to use said resources again to protect it.
If your money is worth protecting, putting it in a very risky place is an objectively stupid thing to do. As is whining about the inevitable consequences of investing in an Argentinian oil company.
smallbluetext@reddit
Your car is not on a stock exchange. Stocks/commodities have risk. Pretty basic econ stuff.
Hans0000@reddit
If you buy shares and they go a value of zero, you still own them, these shared were worth $300 millions and were unlawfully taken away from investors, Mr basic econ.
smallbluetext@reddit
Yes that is the risk of buying any investment. You could lose 100% of your investment.
FinancialEvidence@reddit
You can also lose 100% of your car. Risk of buying a car.
smallbluetext@reddit
I may as well be arguing with a concrete wall because you keep trying to compare car theft to stock risk
FinancialEvidence@reddit
The point being basic laws apply to all property ownership. Stocks (fractional ownership of companies) are not unique.
smallbluetext@reddit
Stocks are in fact unique compared to a physical asset. You can go learn about it since you actually think they are the same.
FinancialEvidence@reddit
They are not the same, but similar ownership laws apply, and stocks represent a share of physical (and other) assets. A car is a tangible object most people understand, since this thread is filled with people who think they know more than subject matter experts (judges).
wontonphooey@reddit
Investors are expected to take on the risk of their investments falling in value, not the risk of some government stealing them.
Key-Tie2214@reddit
You see, you've fallen for the trap of assuming that the rich operate under the rules as the poor. For the poor, investments are indeed risks, however for the rich, they are guaranteed profit, and if they don't profit, the government will step in and fuck everyone else to give the rich their money.
XAMdG@reddit
Consequences of poorly thought out nationalizations. A common theme in South America.
This is not pro or anti nationalization of companies. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it does not. It just is common that governments around here always seem to do it in a mishap way that leads them vulnerable to lawsuits that erode any benefit nationalization had.
GalcticPepsi@reddit
So the original judgement was to pay 14.38billion. of which 7.5 billion is damages and 6.85 billion in interest... 14.35 billion in fines and damages for a 300 million dispute? How does that make sense lol?
MrOaiki@reddit
It makes sense in the sense that Argentina forcefully took over private property without paying the full price for it
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
How would that justify essentially bankrupting an entire country, which seems to be the goal here. Fun, the US investors get a pretty payday, while the nation of Argentina gets plunged into another generation of destitution and imposed austerity leading to further destabilization.
This seems like a good way to further radicalize the Global South against American investors, creating a more volatile global economy.
elperuvian@reddit
It wouldn’t milei is a traitor
MrOaiki@reddit
That’s a normative discussion. It’s not relevant in a civil case, the people who had their property taken don’t need to take into consideration the state security and finances of the country that took it. Nor does the civil court.
emid04@reddit
That's how WW2 started.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
That's a terrible argument. If the civil court is imposing punitive judgements, they ought to consider the consequences, whether it is required or not. Otherwise, the court becomes a bigger threat to peace and stability than the law breakers. When the court and police become the biggest thieves in a society (as in the US), the foundations of law crumble. In this case, we stand the risk of making abiding by the law more expensive and dangerous than breaking it.
MrOaiki@reddit
I respect that you have that opinion.
HDK1989@reddit
That's always been the aim of America
hypnodrew@reddit
You do them a disservice! They're just greedy and think consequences should be the remit of the poor
Boollish@reddit
I mean, if the Argentines don't pay, and the US wants to force the issue, the endgame is cutting off access to US capital markets, of which Argentina currently owns like $20B, and possibly even development banking, which is currently providing something like $10B in funding to rebuild the country.
The whole campaign of Milei was to reduce public expenditure, and heavily dollarize to attract foreign investors. Kinda hard to do if you don't play by US rules.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
All of which is a good way to convince countries to dedollarize, reduce US holdings, and accept fewer American investments in order to insulate their economies from belligerent US policy. Which is a far greater threat to the American economy than allowing investors to bear the risk of risky assets.
The question isn't whether it's legal according to US law. It's whether this gambit is overly aggressive in a world with rapidly shifting dynamics. There is a real risk of scaring countries off of US finance just when other options are starting to become viable. If America expects to survive in the long run, let alone remain a great power, we need to switch strategis and start being a sound long-term investment that can grow stable democratic economies instead of relying on bully tactics.
ycnz@reddit
Yeah, picking up the phone and calling Beijing to say hi wouldn't be an outcome the 'Muricans would be psyched about
MrOaiki@reddit
”The US” here being a civil court, following the law. Why would a court in a civil case take into consideration the politics of Argentinian state finances? The case isn’t about that.
Boollish@reddit
The court doesn't care about Argentine politics, the court cares about making investors and lenders whole, and if they have legal means to seize Argentine assets, especially those based in the US, they have the option to go after them.
If investors and lenders can't trust in the security of Argentine companies, the ability of those companies to access capital markets is going to plummet. The backing of the US courts is what gives foreign companies doing business in the US value to US shareholders and lenders.
MrOaiki@reddit
Well, yes?
Palpitation-Itchy@reddit
No, this radicalises us against the braindead populists that took us to this point. Overall the sentiment is that Kicillof is an irresponsible and idiot cunt, and if he wasn't, we wouldn't be where we are
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
Those aren't incompatible. You can think the policy was handled poorly without absolving the foreign agents intentionally trying to crash the economy to make an example of the country.
GalcticPepsi@reddit
In no way does that justify damages and interest of that amount lol straight up extortionate.
MrOaiki@reddit
What do you suggest the damages are to have your property taken away from you for 10 years?
imunfair@reddit
Well even with stock market returns over 10 years it would only be $778m total, much less normal bond rates. So a judgement of 14.5x that does seem a bit extreme - 300m to 2b would be an excellent payday at 3x normal returns, punitive, but still within the realm of reason.
MrOaiki@reddit
A P/E forward of 14 is normal.
imunfair@reddit
Price to earnings ratio isn't expected returns on an average stock, not sure what made you pick that random statistic.
MrOaiki@reddit
It’s relevant in pricing the asset.
imunfair@reddit
You don't just go (price 10 years ago * 14) - if that was true the average market return would be way higher than 10%.
If you had argued that the stock had a P/E of 14 on a value of $300m (21.5m earnings) and their earnings had grown X amount in the past 10 years, I could see that being a valid argument. But it would have to be pretty stratospheric growth in earnings from $21.5m to $1027m in 10 years. Somehow I doubt the company grew 4700% in 10 years.
MrOaiki@reddit
No, the value today. You can’t just stop at 10 years ago and disregard what their asset would have been worth today had they not been forced to hand the asset over to the state.
imunfair@reddit
Nationalization happened a little over 10 years ago, 2012 according to the article. My point stands, you can't use the P/E the way you claim it's just a random statistic you pulled out of your ass. Feel free to show your math of ((2025 earnings / 2012 earnings) * 14) - I'm betting your number comes out far lower than the judgement.
MrOaiki@reddit
Sure, if you insist, I can give you the math but I’m not really the court. The valuation has already been established through the ruling. But ok, here we go…
Argentina seized 51% of the company. The plaintiffs in this case are Petersen Energia Inversora and Eton Park Capital who owned about 25% of the company. The market cap is about 13 billion dollars today and was higher at the time. The court used the valuation from 40 days before April 16, 2012 (when the decree took effect). So about 8 billion was taken from the owners, and was supposed to be ”paid for over time” as a kind of forced loan, as the court called it. Now add accumulated interest to that over 10 years and, and you have almost 16 billion total (including the initial value) alone. Not even adding the punitive damages.
But I’ll take your word for it, that you would have calculated it differently. I wish you the best in your law practice.
imunfair@reddit
Congrats on using completely different numbers than we were just discussing. Zero 14x multiple, looks like you didn't know what you were talking about and just looked up the case to quote the court decision.
And yes, a 2x multiple is in line with what I said in my original post, although I was under the impression their valuation was much lower based on other comments here.
It looks like the $300m the other comment mentioned may have been conflating a deal from a year or two ago that they made with another creditor that claimed it was owed $14b. So if these guys are getting full value rather than junk debt payoffs they got a pretty sweet judgement.
OnlyRadioheadLyrics@reddit
Whatever standard gets applied in this case, can it also be applied equitably across all cases?
MrOaiki@reddit
Given US civil law is based on case based precedents, I would guess so? You tell me.
OnlyRadioheadLyrics@reddit
It most certainly isn’t or we’d be having a very serious discussion about reparations.
GalcticPepsi@reddit
Anything less than 100% would probably be alright. Not the 5,000,000% (or whatever it is) that this is...
I-Drink-Printer-Ink@reddit
It makes sense to financially hamstring a struggling country for a corrupt action in which almost 0 people had a say in?
Wow, guess the Swedish jokes aren’t jokes after all.
MrOaiki@reddit
How is the ”financially hamstring” the opposing party relevant to the plaintiff? And how is it relevant to a civil court?
I-Drink-Printer-Ink@reddit
How is 300m over 10 years equivalent to 16Billion?
Also, look at who’s covering the costs should they pay it
johannthegoatman@reddit
Probably has to do with the fact that the company would still be losing shit tons of money every year without those investors, and now is super profitable
Bloodgiant65@reddit
Punitive damages are probably significant out of that 7.5, though I haven’t been able to find the full details on how they came to that number.
MeGustaMiSFW@reddit
Was the crime having nationalized oil? Fuck.
ETA: automod deleting comments only for length is really stupid. Especially for a sub with this dumb of a name.
Peeepeeepoopooo hope this makes daddy mod happy.
ETA: automod deleting comments only for length is really stupid. Especially for a sub with this dumb of a name.
Peeepeeepoopooo hope this makes daddy mod happy.
OkabesRazor@reddit
I'm not paying
empleadoEstatalBot@reddit
Maintainer | Source Code | Stats