Trump is bailing out Argentina. ‘America first’ is becoming 'Trump first'.

#126
#126
hog88 said:
That is two entirely different subjects. Unless you WANT him to break the law he couldn't direct that 20 billion to SNAP if he wanted to.
Click to expand...

No, you're right. My point - aside from the legality of all of it - is that Trump's "America First" policy does NOT jive with what he's doing with Argentina. Surely you agree with that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79
#127
#127
MontyPython said:

Overview of US-Led Bailouts of Foreign Countries​


The United States has a long history of providing financial bailouts to foreign nations, often through direct loans, guarantees, or coordination with institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), where the US holds significant influence as the largest shareholder. These interventions, dating back to the post-World War II era, aim to stabilize economies, prevent contagion, promote US strategic interests (e.g., countering communism or terrorism), and foster global trade. However, their effectiveness remains debated among economists, policymakers, and critics.


Historically, these bailouts have yielded mixed results: some have delivered clear economic and geopolitical benefits, accelerating recoveries and opening markets for US exports; others have prolonged crises through austerity measures, moral hazard (encouraging risky behavior by recipients expecting future rescues), and political backlash. Success often hinges on recipient-country reforms, the scale of aid relative to GDP, and alignment with US interests. Failures frequently stem from delayed debt restructuring, over-reliance on fiscal tightening, and ignoring local contexts.


Overall, while not uniformly "good" or "bad," evidence suggests they have been net positive for US policy when tied to strong conditionality and strategic goals (e.g., rebuilding allies), but detrimental when imposed without flexibility, leading to deeper recessions and eroded trust in multilateral institutions. A 2015 IMF literature review highlighted that bailouts can create a "Spiral of Doom" if austerity overlooks cultural and economic nuances. Recent analyses, like those from the Cato Institute, argue foreign aid (including bailouts) often retards growth by distorting incentives, while Brookings reviews find modest positive effects on growth (e.g., +1% per capita from sustained 10% GDP inflows).
Click to expand...

Thanks Chat GPT.

Guess we all better get used to debating computer programs here on out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, rekinhavoc, marcusluvsvols and 4 others
#128
#128
MontyPython said:
No, you're right. My point - aside from the legality of all of it - is that Trump's "America First" policy does NOT jive with what he's doing with Argentina. Surely you agree with that?
Click to expand...

No, I can't agree with that without more data. As you posted earlier "I actually support foreign bailouts, where appropriate", tell us why this particular bailout isn't appropriate?

Now, I will admit that I oppose this particular bailout simply because it's not going to benefit Argentina. It will only benefit US banking interests like most every other foreign bailout in our history. We need to stop guaranteeing loans to foreign governments, if banks, the IMF or World Bank wants to loan a struggling country money they need to be on the hook when the loan goes bad.
 
#129
#129
MontyPython said:
Which I agree with. But Donald's "America First" policy? Why are we dropping $20 BILLION on Argentina, while our government here is closed and SNAP folks won't be getting food?
Click to expand...
I think advancing American interests above China’s in that region is a solid “America first” measure.

I do agree that govt should reopen and bills get paid. As I understand it, Rs have proposed a bill that continues govt funding at levels previously agreed upon by both parties as acceptable at the time it was passed.

I think the Congress should pass the bill continuing at current funding levels, and then deal with negotiations on what the spending levels should be for the next budget.

Prior shutdowns seem to have happened due to Rs being sore losers about Dems prevailing on spending. This one seems to be the reverse.

Ultimately, however, I don’t see Argentina support and the government shutdown as being related in terms of cause and effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#131
#131
MontyPython said:
For the love of God man.

I didn't have *advance* knowledge that Trump was going to do the currency swap. Did you?
Click to expand...
Sounds like you need better financial advisors.
Shame you missed out on the big score 😂
I’m dancin round like Big Bunny…might buy a new truck..haven’t decided on that or the Porsche yet.
 
#134
#134
hog88 said:
That is two entirely different subjects. Unless you WANT him to break the law he couldn't direct that 20 billion to SNAP if he wanted to.
Click to expand...
Bro. When did following the law mean anything to Trump? Serious question.
 
#135
#135
It's just 20 Billion, wasn't this same board saying "it's just xx dollars, that's nothing" when Elon was cutting USAID.....??
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79
#136
#136
hjeagle1vol said:
Sounds like you need better financial advisors.
Shame you missed out on the big score 😂
I’m dancin round like Big Bunny…might buy a new truck..haven’t decided on that or the Porsche yet.
Click to expand...
You're finally gonna be able to get that 1999 Boxster you've been saving up for. Probably the best 2k you'll ever spend.
 
#137
#137
Ritzwatch said:
Seems to be cutting off any opportunity for China to intervene and gain a foothold there.

In other words, a continuation of American foreign policy since WWII - economic might leveraged to ensure security.
Click to expand...
except for China buying more from Argentina because Argentina is selling less to America due to the tariffs.

Our socialist bailout of Argentina, and socialist tariffs, is letting China worm its way into Argentina via capitalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython and FLVOL_79
#139
#139
hog88 said:
Thanks Chat GPT.

Guess we all better get used to debating computer programs here on out.
Click to expand...
Debating online can be challenging since you lose the benefit of body language and tone of voice, but by following a few key strategies, you can make your arguments much more effective and constructive.
 
#140
#140
FLVOL_79 said:
Debating online can be challenging since you lose the benefit of body language and tone of voice, but by following a few key strategies, you can make your arguments much more effective and constructive.
Click to expand...

When are you going to follow those strategies?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#147
#147
jmacvols1 said:
Click to expand...

The US government has not shared specific details about the repayment schedule for the $20 billion currency swap agreement with Argentina's central bank (BCRA), finalized on October 20, 2025. While broad mechanics—such as the reversible nature of the swap, interest accrual, and expectation of repayment—have been outlined in public statements, granular terms like exact timelines, drawdown triggers, or maturity dates remain undisclosed as of November 11, 2025.

As of November 11, 2025, the US still holds Argentine pesos as collateral from the initial exchanges and direct purchases. So any claim of already making a "profit" ignores the fact that the trade is not complete. These pesos are part of the Treasury's Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) and serve as backing for the dollars provided. If Argentina repays early, the US would return the pesos; otherwise, they remain in US possession until maturity.

Despite this opaque "stabilization" using taxpayer money, it's details remain hidden to taxpayers, and the Argentine peso (ARS) has already depreciated by approximately 1.5% against the US dollar (USD) in the 3 weeks since the deal.

At this rate, if we did, indeed, charge Argentina a 10% fee for the swap, then this "profit" will actually result in a *loss* to the US after another 17 weeks of depreciation occurs.

So, at a minimum, Scott Bessent is masking the truth from all American taxpayers. And that truth is that we don't know if the US will or will not make a profit off this swap.
 
Last edited:
#148
#148
MontyPython said:
The US government has not shared specific details about the repayment schedule for the $20 billion currency swap agreement with Argentina's central bank (BCRA), finalized on October 20, 2025. While broad mechanics—such as the reversible nature of the swap, interest accrual, and expectation of repayment—have been outlined in public statements, granular terms like exact timelines, drawdown triggers, or maturity dates remain undisclosed as of November 11, 2025.

As of November 11, 2025, the US still holds Argentine pesos as collateral from the initial exchanges and direct purchases. So any claim of already making a "profit" ignores the fact that the trade is not complete. These pesos are part of the Treasury's Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) and serve as backing for the dollars provided. If Argentina repays early, the US would return the pesos; otherwise, they remain in US possession until maturity.

Despite this opaque "stabilization" using taxpayer money, it's details remain hidden to taxpayers, and the Argentine peso (ARS) has already depreciated by approximately 1.5% against the US dollar (USD) in the 3 weeks since the deal.

At this rate, if we did, indeed, charge Argentina a 10%fee for the swap, them this will actually result in a loss to the US after another 18 weeks of depreciation occurs.
Click to expand...

Hasnt it gone from 1 USD =.00069* on 10/20 Peso to 1 USD = .00071;today?

* Think it was between .00068 and .00069
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top