Triumph of the shitbags

At a quarter million page views I think I can say this blog has proven some sort of staying power. Ya, I know, considering the wisdom found on this page, you'd think it would be a quarter million page-views per day, not over five years.

I don't get it either.

I'm averse to calling down regular folks on whatever wrong-headed opinions they may express on the world wide web. I'm even reluctant to call out working journalists on the bullshit they too often spew, simply because at the end of the day they are folks who work for their pay.

But I'm not averse to calling shitbags "shitbags."

Paul Singer is a shitbag.

Paul Singer is a billionaire hedgie who gets richer by fucking over the poorest of the poor all around the world. He's also a big deal in American politics, because he's a big donor to political candidates.

Singer recently won his case against Argentina. That's mostly because a new right-wing government came to power in that country.

Here at Falling Downs we've been banging away against the Singer case for years.

We lost.

The people of Argentina lost way more.

Paul Singer won big.

The architect of Singer's win was a judge appointed by Richard Nixon.

No wonder Singer funds the GOP.

Paul Singer v. the people of Argentina

In 2008, seven years after the Government of Argentina defaulted on $95 billion in sovereign debt, hedge funds managed by Paul Singer bought up some of those defaulted bonds for pennies on the dollar. Ever since, Singer has been using the American courts in an attempt to force Argentina to pay out those bonds at face value.

This case highlights some of the more egregious abuses that finance capital imposes on its host societies. While Singer's distressed-debt investment strategy has made him a wealthy man, has it contributed anything positive to society?

No. Hedge funds like Singer's represent an opportunistic and non-productive pool of capital that seeks to turn legal technicalities and political influence into windfall gains. Hedge-funds are the Rumpelstiltskins of the modern era.

The legal system is their spinning wheel. When lawyers for Singer, a long-time Republican Party insider and huge financial backer, appear in front of judges appointed by Republican presidents, does anyone imagine that the other side will get an impartial hearing?

Singer v Argentina; does the revolution start here?

Attorneys acting for the state of Argentina have filed papers to overturn a ruling that would oblige the country to reward American speculators who were hoping to make a killing trading in defaulted Argentine bonds.

The gist of the Argentinian argument is that a sovereign state is not obliged to abide by rulings handed down in another state.

Makes sense to me.

The spectacle unfolding before us is a crucial battle between the common good and private interests. What's different here is that we have a sovereign state arguing for the common good, and another sovereign state acting on behalf of the private interests.

Do American courts have the right to impose their remedies beyond the borders of America?

The Singer camp apparently believes so. It's Paul Singer's bond funds that have spear-headed this drive to impose American jurisprudence on the planet.

And why not? If they can pull this off, American lawyers will indeed be the masters of the universe!

Judge confirms that US is still center of universe

Judge Thomas Griesa delivered more than a decision in his New York courtroom this week; he delivered a searing father-knows-best scolding to go along with it.

Griesa's robes were in a twist over the fact that Argentina's government has been fighting an American bond vulture fund through the courts for ten years over its 2002 debt default and restructuring. While well over 90% of Argentina's creditors went along with the restructuring, a hedge fund controlled by American Paul Singer was busy buying up the Argentine bonds at pennies on the dollar.

Singer accumulates positions in distressed sovereign debt and then uses the US court system to hold out for full payment while other creditors are settling for less. The strategy is a Singer specialty and has made him and his investors a substantial fortune.

This fortune must in the long run come out of the pockets of the citizens of whichever country Singer's vulture fund has targeted.

Decisions that impact the well-being of 40 million Argentines need to be made in Buenos Aires, not in New York City.

Vulture fund tactics spiral into international incident

Paul Singer made it onto Forbes billionaire list on the backs of some of the poorest people in the world.

Singer was one of the pioneers of buying distressed sovereign debt, then holding out for full payment using the American court system to bully impoverished third world nations.

There is a drama unfolding today in the African country of Ghana, where the government has been persuaded to enforce an American court order in favor of Singer's hedge fund.

Back in 2002, as Argentina's economy was collapsing, Singer's hedge funds bought hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Argentine bonds for pennies on the dollar. He has spent the last ten years taking the Argentine government through the US court system to get full payment on those bonds.

His argument is cloaked in the usual brew of self-righteous faux indignation about a promise being a promise, etc, and oh my God, if people can just walk away from their debts, civilization as we know it will collapse.

That's an argument that is favorably received by Republican appointees on the bench when made by major donors to the Republican party. Then a pliable foreign country seeking to curry favor with the US can be persuaded to enforce America's judicial decisions.

That's what Ghana has done by seizing an Argentine naval vessel as surety for Singer's bonds.

The Argentinians are having none of it. This could blow up into a major international incident at any moment.