stiglitz272_Matías BagliettoNurPhoto via Getty Images_martinguzmanargentinadebtimf

Economics

重组阿根廷私人债务的必要性

May 6, 2020 Joseph E. Stiglitz , Edmund S. Phelps, and Carmen M. Reinhart

纽约—COVID-19疫情将人类推向了现代史上最严重的全球衰退。公共财政压力巨大，特别是在已经背负了高昂债务的发展中国家。

在这一特殊情况下，世界银行、国际货币基金组织（IMF）和联合国采取了多项措施缓解公共债务负担。第一步，G20国家同意冻结世界76个最贫穷国家的官方双边债务。

这一刻是对国际金融体系的终极考验。“可持续性”如今成为全球金融和投资界的大热词，理应如此。其所包含的原则有利于构建更好的世界——如联合国可持续发展目标。对于困难的发展中国家的主权债务，这些原则也非常重要。

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Neglect the insights of women, particularly in economics, and society suffers. At PS’s next virtual event, What Economics Is Missing, Minouche Shafik, Dani Rodrik, Vera Songwe, and others will debate how to create the conditions for achieving genuine inclusivity in economics.

Joseph E. Stiglitz

Writing for PS since 2001
320 Commentaries

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics and University Professor at Columbia University, is a former chief economist of the World Bank (1997-2000), chair of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers, and co-chair of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices. He is a member of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation and was lead author of the 1995 IPCC Climate Assessment.

Edmund S. Phelps

Writing for PS since 1997
37 Commentaries

Edmund S. Phelps, the 2006 Nobel laureate in economics and Director of the Center on Capitalism and Society at Columbia University, is author of Mass Flourishing and co-author of Dynamism.

Carmen M. Reinhart

Writing for PS since 2014
47 Commentaries

Carmen M. Reinhart, a former chief economist of the World Bank Group, is Professor of the International Financial System at Harvard Kennedy School.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 28 Comments on this article

Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo May 10, 2020

We thank the academic PASS Joseph Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs and the other important personalities who have signed for their wisdom, humanity and solidarity with Argentina and the other peoples who want to pay but in a sustainable way.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
michael schmitt May 10, 2020

This analysis is spot on and needs be applied to creditors public and private globally. Restructuring --whether through negotiations or bankruptcy--rather than bailouts!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Johnston May 10, 2020

Of course Argentina's debt needs to be "restructured," but of course not the first time and hardly likely to be the last for an economy based on agricultural and oil exports with long-term declining terms of trade. No prospect in sight for restructuring the economy to become long-term viable. Obviously playing around with the debt changes nothing of the underlying calculus.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mirek Fatyga May 10, 2020

How many times has this happened before, in the last 100 years? How does this story actually end, rather than continue as an endless cycle?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Claudio Migliore May 7, 2020

3+136!

Argentina's current government seems to have gotten good mileage out of appointing as Economy Minister an obscure young academic (in the picture) who happened to be a student under Mr. Stiglitz, if nothing else by the impressive show of support:

Three signatories plus one hundred and thirty six co-signers, in order of fame, not alpha, for greater effect, and many carrying weight among the circles of international relations and finance bureaucracy. Indeed it is the first time I see such a display on Project Syndicate!

It is painful that Argentina's rulers have managed to squander once more the credit, reputation and honour of the country to feed both its rich and poor parasitic classes. And once more, there is no way they could keep their word, since the debt is clearly beyond repayable.

In reality though, regardless of how marginally good or bad a deal Argentina ends up cutting with creditors, the country has the leverage of having nothing to lose and, especially, the benefit of negotiating and pleading mostly not with those who will really experience the losses, but rather with scores of intermediaries who can fudge their fiduciary duty at no personal cost or risk.

This only reinforces the clarity that, as long as any country's ruling class don't mind frittering away the future of those on its soil, they can take from the world over and over and never have to repay.
- Andrés Galia May 10, 2020
  
  Guzmán told the bondholders "we are not asking them to lose, but to earn less". Argentina is willing to pay, but in order to pay Argentina has to be able to grow and the only way to grow is to use part of its GNP to invest in the Economy.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Andrés Galia May 10, 2020
  
  What you do not mention is that the debt was not created by that unknown young man, much less the current government. What you "forget" to mention is that the debt was created by the previous government for promoting policies that made it possible. And worse still, what you don't mention either is that the previous default was a consequence of the same policies that are the most faithful representation of the neo-liberal Gospel.
  
  Lo que usted no menciona es que la deuda no la creó ese joven ignoto y mucho menos el gobierno actual. Lo que usted "se olvida" de mencionar es que la deuda la creó el gobierno anterior por promover políticas que lo hicieron posible. Y peor aún, lo que usted tampoco menciona es que el anterior default fue consecuencia de las mismas políticas que son la más fiel representación del Evangelio neo-liberal.
  - Claudio Migliore May 10, 2020
    
    No need to mention it and I do not forget. He was just appointed.
    
    The point of my commentary is that this current and prior governments, including
    
    *** oh surprise! ***
    
    *** the prior round of the current rulers just four years ago ***
    
    simply borrow through intermediaries, like investment banks, quasi governmental financial institutions, large banks, that could not care less if the debt is finally paid, since they make their money at issuance and then again as advisors during endless restructuring, while the loss is diluted around the world.
    
    In the end, the deficit side of the equation is enjoyed by the corrupt politicians and corrupt managers and by the unemployed masses that consume, be it champagne for politicians, be it cheap beer for favelas' dwellers, and never pay.
    
    The party is paid for by the young who are unable to study, work and grow because the country stagnates in the hands of populist thugs.
    
    And, Mr. Galia, I suggest you keep the "Neoliberal Gospel" babble only in the Spanish version for domestic consumption, since it serves no serious purpose in a rational discussion. There is nothing "neoliberal" about spending more than what is collected in a maze of subsidies, inefficiency and political weakness to resist the demands of the mafias.
    - Andrés Galia May 10, 2020
      
      You forget that the politicians corruption is a consequence of a broader corruption. Where do you think politicians come from? I challenge you to show me a virtuous society ruled by corrupted leaders. I presume you must read Spanish. So, I would like to recommend you to read "Tiempos recios" by Vargas Llosa. You will see there that corruption is not just a problem of Latin American or African governments. Even simpler: look what Volskwagen did with the emission tests or what British Energy did in the name of "efficiency" with the spill in the Gulf of Mexico or Union Carbide did in Bopal or the corruption of the financial institutions that led to the crisis in the US in 2008.. Regarding the neo-liberal gospel, there is something worse than spending more of what you make, it is called Social Darwinism, which is what the neo-liberal gospel promotes.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Nikolas P May 6, 2020

When the “markets” know that they will get paid no matter what, then they demand 100 cents on a dollar.
And this is what they have learned in the past, in the great looting of 2008 and as late as 2 weeks ago. Joseph Stiglitz is a great economist and a good man but he is talking about… a wish.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
federico carballo May 6, 2020

It is impossible not to offer support for this article as it is written. But it has two sentences that merit some review -1) "Only an economy that grows sustainably can meet its financial commitments over time" and 2) "while the country fights COVID-19 and works to restore growth". While this is absolutely clear, what Argentina has failed to do, is to explain to its creditors what policies they will implement going forward to restart sustainable economic growth. Furthermore, I'm sure that many of the signatories to this letter will agree that many of the policies currently being implemented by the Argentine government are not actually pro "sustainable" growth.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public May 6, 2020

When a company over-borrows it can declare itself bankrupt. Its salvageable assets/operations will pass to creditors and previous shareholders are protected from unpaid debts by limited liability. When a country over-borrows, there is no way out - it creates a perpetual state of servitude to the creditors, where the children of the country must pay 'a pound of flesh' in perpetuity for the sins of others.
- VICTOR DANIEL ZANCADA ROSSI May 6, 2020
  
  It is true what you say about children poverty,but polítics should be aware of this risk when over borrowing expecting future governments solve the problem with a simple méthod: not honoring their own irresponsable debut.
  - Andrés Galia May 10, 2020
    
    Maybe you should inform yourself better before making statements about "irresponsible" debut. Maybe you ignore that the debt was created by the previous government and everybody but the government itself said what they were doing was crazy. Even the former President after he left power he recognized it. They did not even send a project to discuss the take of debt to Parliament.
    - VICTOR DANIEL ZANCADA ROSSI May 10, 2020
      
      Sr Galia: estoy absolutamente informado acerca de la situacion de la economia argentina. De hecho,suscribo totalmente los enunciados de sostenibilidad en general. Sin embargo, dentro de ese mismo marco,se podría "negociar" con los acreedores de manera amigable y no tan confiscatoria. hay que resaltar que una negociacion amigable brindará resultados mas sostenibles que una hostil.
      Por otro lado,dudoque el argumento usado mil veces que el gobierno anterior es el responsable sea muy efectivo a ésta altura aunque suscribo con esa culpabilidad. Le recuerdo que hemos padecido en los ultimos años 2 hiperinflaciones , 3 pedidos de ayuda a los muchachos del FMI en los últimos 20 años y varios defaults internos llevados a cabo por gobiernos de diverso paisanaje y pelaje.
      Desde el punto de vista personal,le sugiero muy cordialmente,no comenzar sus comentarios con recomendaciones despectivas como que debiera estar mejor informado, debiera ud considerar que hay gente con ideas diferentes y eso no es alabar a los Caputo o a los Kicilloff que han sido de lo peor. Respetuosamente, Victor Daniel-
      - Andrés Galia May 10, 2020
        
        Si usted estaba tan bien informado debería haber mencionado que este gobierno heredó la situación con la que tiene que lidiar. Usted nunca puso eso en claro, y de ahí mi sugerencia, de que se informara antes de opinar. Entonces lo que le sugiero es que no escriba sin poner todos los hechos sobre la mesa, porque nadie puede adivinar lo que usted no dice. Los tres pedidos de ayuda en los últimos 20 años y las dos hiperinflaciones fueron como consecuencia de la deuda que heredó el gobierno de Alfonsín después de los 80.000 millones de dólares de deuda que le dejó de regalo Martínez de Hoz y sus Chicago Boys y la convertibilidad de Cavallo que terminó en el default del 2002.
        
        Con respecto de lo "amistoso" de la negociación como usted está tan bien informado, seguro debe saber que uno de los representantes de los fondos deudores le dijo a las autoridades que ellos tenían espaldas para aguantar hasta que viniese otro gobierno dispuesto a pagar lo que ellos pretendían. ¿Usted puede ser amistoso con alguien que le dice eso? El gobierno no pretende que ellos pierdan, como bien dijo el ministro de Economía, lo que pretende es que ganen menos.
        
        VICTOR DANIEL ZANCADA ROSSI May 10, 2020
        
        Sr Galia: Lo he mencionado genericamente pero esa no es la cuestión de fondo ya que coincido con la reestructuración. Simplemente,creo que el Sr Guzmán no ha actuado conforme en perspectiva conforme ala situacion y dimensión del problema.. No olvide Ud. que la situacion heredada es una muy buena razón para el mercado interno pero para afuera no ya que los dos titulos en cuestión no fueron emitidos por el Toto Caputo,por esarazon hablo de todos los gobiernos que supimos conseguir como dice el himno.Hablando de sostenibilidad ,coincidirá Ud conmigo que una negociación amigable es muchisimo mas sostenible que una hostil.
        respètuosamente
        daniel
        
        Andrés Galia May 10, 2020
        
        Sr. Rossi
        
        No sé, quizá el problema sea mío porque no soy capaz de "entender generalidades" a menos que las vea escritas explícitamente. Yo estoy absolutamente de acuerdo con usted en que una negociación amigable es mejor que una hostil, pero creo que así como yo estoy de acuerdo con eso usted estará de acuerdo conmigo de que Alberto Fernández, antes de las elecciones dijo que la deuda había que pagarla pero no con el hambre de los que menos tienen. Y yo estoy de acuerdo. Y no fui el único a juzgar por el resultado de las elecciones; ¿usted cree que los deudores externos, que prestaron dinero a tasas exorbitantes, porque sabían el riesgo que había, se avenirían a discutir en esos términos?
        
        Con igual respeto,
        
        Andrés Galia
        
        VICTOR DANIEL ZANCADA ROSSI May 12, 2020
        
        Señor Galia; no he percibido eso de ud. sino justificar la actuación del Sr Guzmán citando los "errores" del Sr Caputo....Desde mi punto de vista,los acreedores no toman en cuenta es por eso no lo menciono ni otros.
        respetusamente
        Daniel
        
        Andrés Galia May 13, 2020
        
        Sr. Zancada, la verdad es que no entiendo sobre qué estamos discutiendo. Guzmán no creo que necesite ni que haya mencionado los "errores" de Caputo para fundamentar la posición argentina sobre la sustentabilidad de la deuda. Guzmán simplemente sigue los lineamientos que Alberto Fernández enunció siempre sobre esta cuestión: Argentina quiere pagar pero no con el hambre de los que menos tienen. Usted empezó por mencionar "their own irresponsable debut" y cuando yo le contesté usted criticó la agresividad de la propuesta argentina y yo le contesté al respecto y también le hice un a pregunta de la cual todavía sigo esperando su respuesta.
        
        Atentamente
        
        Andrés Galia
        
        VICTOR DANIEL ZANCADA ROSSI May 13, 2020
        
        tiene razon Sr Galia,nos hemos enroscado en una discusión bizantina.Lo cierto es que considero que nuestra deuda no está siendo negociada como debe ser sin importar quien la ha contraído. Sin embargo,como atenuante debo decir que si así lo hace es porque su jefe se lo permite. Vea Ud los cambios habidos desde aquel famoso y bravucón " tomelo o dejelo " al dicho de ayer de "escuchamos propuestas en intereses,plazos quitas y demás". Ya sabíamos ,inclusive los mas legos,que ésto sucedería.Acaso desde las bibliotecas de Columbia,no?
        
        Andrés Galia May 13, 2020
        
        Bueno, usted cree una cosa y yo creo otra. Para mí lo que importa es que la Argentina negocie con la premisa de que esto no lo terminen pagando los "conocidos de siempre". Si se logra ese objetivo me daré por satisfecho.
        
        Atentamente
        
        Andrés V. Galia
        
        VICTOR DANIEL ZANCADA ROSSI May 13, 2020
        
        Dios quiera aunque no dudo que lo pagaremos todos como todas las deudas soberanas aunque en los "paises serios" solo se paga una i´nfima parte ya que se rnuevan constantemente.En nuestro caso los defaults nos han quitado esa posibilidad.El precio: inflación y pobreza que parecen ser imposibles de erradicar .Le hago una pregunta algo indiscreta Sr Galia: ¿vive ud en la Argentina?
        lo saluda respetuosamente
        daniel
        
        Andrés Galia May 13, 2020
        
        No, vivo en Canadá, me fui en 1990, ¿le dice algo?
        
        Saludos.
        
        Andrés
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Nasser Riccard May 6, 2020
  
  That is also why countries get lower interest rates than companies. Bonds under discussion include the 2005 re-restructuring (same gob party), recent "Macri" bonds (opposite gob party), never ending story. The moralist stories should be told about the rest of LATAM (except Vzla), with less natural resources, manageable deficit, no inflation, borrowing with no issues at low rates.
  - Andrés Galia May 10, 2020
    
    Yes but the debt in 2005 and this one were not created by those governments. The government that was in power in 2005 left power in 2015 and at that time they have cancelled the external debt to a point that Argentina's debt/GNP ratio was one of the lowest in the world. The debt existing in 2005 and the one created after 2015 were created for the same reason: The neo-liberal Gospel.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- P. Kamath May 6, 2020
  
  Well said , simply put and no jargons!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.