Chile Forum

john wrote:MikieO,
undocumented immigrants who are already in the US.

"undocumented immigrants" is to immigration law as "unauthorised withdrawal" is to bank robbery.

The inability to recognise crime is a major factor in its promotion.

MikieO wrote:So long as Chile can avoid foreign debt both in its rebuilding effort and going forward as copper prices go down in the future, the crippling overseas payments
won't be an issue. But wait, Chile already has the IVA.... who knew?

Not "avoiding" anymore...

“I am not concerned about the market if we go in the next few months,” Larrain, 52, said today in an interview at Bloomberg’s headquarters in New York. “At the moment we go, if we go, the markets will be able to make their judgment and their judgment will be very positive.”

While Larrain wouldn’t give details on the timing or makeup of any debt offering, he said in April the government plans to sell $1.5 billion worth of 10-year bonds abroad this year in dollars and pesos. Chile plans to sell $1 billion of the securities in dollars and $500 million in pesos, the country’s first global peso bond sale, Larrain told reporters in New York at the time.

The cost of protecting Chilean debt against non-payment for five years with credit-default swaps...

That sounds familiar-debt backed by credit default swaps

Moody’s Investors Service raised its rating on Chile’s debt to Aa3, the highest in the region, on June 16, citing the country’s fiscal savings and “financial resilience” in the wake of a February earthquake.

But, heck, with credit like that, who wouldn't? But wait-didn't this happen somewhere else?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-1 ... -says.html

patagoniax wrote:

john wrote:MikieO,
undocumented immigrants who are already in the US.

"undocumented immigrants" is to immigration law as "unauthorised withdrawal" is to bank robbery.

The inability to recognise crime is a major factor in its promotion.

A little comic relief

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Facing growing anti-immigrant rhetoric, the United Farm Workers union is challenging Americans to take their labor-intensive, low-paying farm jobs.

As communities nationwide grapple with tenacious unemployment, migrant workers are often accused of stealing jobs from Americans. The union believes this accusation is without basis, and intends to demonstrate this with a newly-launched campaign called "Take Our Jobs."

At least half a million applicants are needed to replace the immigrant workforce, so the union has posted an online application for Americans who want to work on a farm.

Through its Web site, at http://www.takeourjobs.org, the union promises to connect applicants with farm jobs in their area.

Since June 24, at least 4,000 people have responded to the application, said Rodriguez. Some are serious responses and others are hate mail. "Only a few dozen have really followed through with the process," he said.

Most applicants quickly lose interest once the reality sinks in that these are back-breaking jobs in triple-digit temperatures that pay minimum wage, usually without benefits, according to the union. Some small farms are not required to pay minimum wage and in 15 states farms aren't required to offer workers' compensation

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/07/news/ec ... /index.htm

BREWSTER, Wash. — The Obama administration has replaced immigration raids at factories and farms with a quieter enforcement strategy: sending federal agents to scour companies’ records for illegal immigrant workers.

Over the past year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has conducted audits of employee files at more than 2,900 companies. The agency has levied a record $3 million in civil fines so far this year on businesses that hired unauthorized immigrants, according to official figures. Thousands of those workers have been fired, immigrant groups estimate.

Employers say the audits reach more companies than the work-site roundups of the administration of President George W. Bush. The audits force businesses to fire every suspected illegal immigrant on the payroll— not just those who happened to be on duty at the time of a raid — and make it much harder to hire other unauthorized workers as replacements. Auditing is “a far more effective enforcement tool,” said Mike Gempler, executive director of the Washington Growers League, which includes many worried fruit growers.

Immigration inspectors who pored over the records of one of those growers, Gebbers Farms, found evidence that more than 500 of its workers, mostly immigrants from Mexico, were in the country illegally. In December, Gebbers Farms, based in this Washington orchard town, fired the workers.

“Instead of hundreds of agents going after one company, now one agent can go after hundreds of companies,” said Mark K. Reed, president of Border Management Strategies, a consulting firm in Tucson that advises companies across the country on immigration law. “And there is no drama, no trauma, no families being torn apart, no handcuffs.”

patagoniax wrote:

john wrote:MikieO,
undocumented immigrants who are already in the US.

"undocumented immigrants" is to immigration law as "unauthorised withdrawal" is to bank robbery.

The inability to recognise crime is a major factor in its promotion.

Personally, I think the employers need to answer for their hiring of undocumented employees-the hiring is a major factor

patagoniax wrote:

john wrote:MikieO,
undocumented immigrants who are already in the US.

"undocumented immigrants" is to immigration law as "unauthorised withdrawal" is to bank robbery.

The inability to recognise crime is a major factor in its promotion.

Personally, I think the employers need to answer for their hiring of undocumented employees-the hiring is a major factor [/quote]

Well, the US government has the perfect solution [sarcasm] and almost never uses it. And the fine for hiring an illegal alien in the US is just $375. And that is for "knowingly" employing an illegal person so most employers get a free pass. That fine is of course is chump change and reminds us that neither employers nor the federal government are in any way serious.

It is curious to note the fines in some other countries for illegal alien related activities.

In Guatemala (probably the same in Guate Peor) you can get 3 to 6 years in prison for transporting illegals. "Ingreso ilegal" is 5 to 8 years in prison. And you don't see civil rights people jumping up and down about that.

In Chile, any resident who has knowledge of a person illegally residing in Chile is obligated by law to report that fact to law enforcement within 5 days. Not sure what the fines are if they don't. Last year in the Chilean Senate there was a bill to increase penalties to up to 5 years in prison for anyone facilitiating the illegal entry or residence of an illegal migrant in Chile.

Laura55llc wrote:That sounds familiar-debt backed by credit default swaps

That does not sound familiar at all because as far as I know there's no such thing. Maybe you're confusing a CDS with a CDO or something. The article you're quoting is not saying what you conclude out of it, and these financial instruments don't work like you seem to think they do. The debt in question is issued as a sovereign bond by Chile and backed by its good reputation, net creditor position, and implicit ability to pay thanks to its natural resources, among other factors. CDSes are bought and sold by private third-parties, not by sovereigns. A sovereign bond is not "backed by" a CDS, no more than a car purchase is backed by car insurance. Chile definitely does not need bond buyers to rely on the availability of CDSes to feel safe in knowing the bonds will be repaid (by the bond issuer or the CDS issuer) 10 years from now. There's pretty interesting literature out there about why CDSes might be a bad thing, but again, they're not a product of the bond seller. If you think about it, "CDS-backed sovereign bond" is an oxymoron - a bond is a loan while a CDS is a protection in case the loan is not paid back. What sovereign would imply while selling a bond that they might default on it, except Argentina that is? (sarcasm)

We'll see what the yield is if/when that bond issuance occurs, but it's likely Chile will make more money with the cash they get to keep at work in their sovereign fund (since it's usually making good money and is well diversified) vs. what this bond will cost them. It's also smart to test the waters for a bond issued in your own currency to refinance part of the existing dollar-denominated debt. If they're successful in refinancing dollar debt with peso debt at similar rates then they've eliminated currency risk on said debt. That's cashing in on the market's assessment of Chile's stability and absolutely the prudent thing to do. Over time the market for sovereign debt in CLP could deepen, and to the extent Chile needs to issue bonds in the future, its exchange rate exposure would decrease. Better by far to be indebted in your own currency.

More broadly, you seem to be missing that Chile has kept carrying sovereign debt these past years all along (indeed, the Concertación funded the sovereign fund when they could have paid back all the debt, for reasons explained above), and you're implying that there's a sudden reckless change by the new administration. Wrong, and wrong. You remember the country had a $30B capital loss on February 27, right? Obviously the Chilean state is facing extraordinary financing needs. So far what I'm seeing doesn't seem reckless. Even after this $1.5B bond Chile is going to remain among the few net creditor countries on earth, you know. And the copper in the ground that will keep funding it didn't vaporize either. What's the *net* financial position is the key metric to watch. And that leaves out the whole exchange rate management and macro considerations talked about in the Bloomberg article. If you tie the themes in the second part of the article, it's apparent Chile is concerned to become a carry trade country since they'll have to raise rates earlier/more than the US can/is willing to. On one end they don't want to have dutch disease with copper being the sole viable export (expensive CLP), on the other end they don't want to fuel inflation (cheap CLP).

If the best financial and macro-eco answer was to just empty out the sovereign fund to rebuild the country, I believe they'd have done that already. Much simpler and less work involved after all. But what if we have a major earthquake in the north shutting down copper exports for three months? We'll need dry powder then. Better tap the bond market at (I'm guessing, I'm not a bondbuyer) the best conditions in decades.

I think the author has some good points. This dangerous trend on part of the US has also drifted to Europe. Patriot Act, Emergency Acquisition Control,No more search warrants,police no longer have to knock and ID themselves,speedy trials are a joke,hearsay is available to the government,search of your lab top computer, illegal microwave surveillance (telephone),these are just a few serious trangression.The US is not alone.Germany has taken the lead in Europe,only the German Supreme Court has kept the Federal police under control.In France, your civil liberties are a complete joke.9/11 has facilitated all of these right winged movements with no end in sight.Now in Sweden,there is a push to abolish cash so that the government can keep an eye on your income.Is Chile any better? You be the judge.

As g~j savor their morning java
and peruse the usual (corrupt) financial~economic~circus pages...
This gem comes on our screens and should be shared

BTW... all the bold text is in the original article.

Irrational Exuberance to Unusually Uncertain 23 July 2010

The decade of the 1990’s is America’s modern day equivalent of the Roaring 20’s. Back then, we were making great strides in productivity. We had near full employment, the government had a surplus of cash and the stock market was making many people rich. The future looked so bright in December of 1996 that Fed Chief Alan Greenspan warned investors not to get carried away with the good times. Greenspan asked this rhetorical question, “But how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions as they have in Japan over the past decade?” According to Yale Economics Professor Robert J. Shiller, Greenspan “. . . never actively used the words ‘irrational exuberance’ again in any public venue.”

Oh, what a difference a decade or so makes. Just this past week, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke testified in front of the Senate banking panel. In opening remarks, Bernanke said, “. . . the economic outlook remains unusually uncertain. We will continue to carefully assess ongoing financial and economic developments, and we remain prepared to take further policy actions as needed to foster a return to full utilization of our nation’s productive potential in a context of price stability.”

The Fed Chairman told Congress he is not sure where the economy is going? This doesn’t sound like “green shoots” or a “recovery” to me. It sounds like a warning things may take a turn for the worse. The only consolation is the Fed will “take further policy actions as needed.” That, to me, sounds like more money printing and bailouts if the economy rolls over, or maybe I should say when the economy rolls over.

I guess I should not be surprised with Bernanke’s “unusually uncertain” comment. After all, just last month, he said, “I don’t fully understand movements in the gold price.” How can someone in charge of the world’s biggest gold reserve (more than 8,000 tons) be clueless about the rising price of gold?

The Chinese may be able to clear up the Fed Chief’s uncertainty about the economy and gold. According to a Financial Times story (posted the same day as Bernanke’s Senate appearance), America is in deep financial trouble. The head of China’s largest credit rating agency, Guan Jianzhong, chairman of Dagong Global Credit Rating, said, “The US is insolvent and faces bankruptcy as a pure debtor nation but the rating agencies still give it high rankings. . . Actually, the huge military expenditure of the US is not created by themselves but comes from borrowed money, which is not sustainable.”

I think we are beyond the “borrowed money” phase and will go straight to “quantitative easing” or money printing when there is another meltdown. What else would the Fed do? Lower interest rates? They’re already at 0%. Raise taxes? Sorry, that is not in their power. The Fed printed and spent $1.75 trillion, stopping the last near collapse of the financial system, and they will do it again. Don’t take my word for it. Just listen to Ben Bernanke’s sworn testimony. Again, he said, “. . . we remain prepared to take further policy actions as needed . . .”

We have gone from “irrational exuberance” to “unusually uncertain” in just about 13 years. This is a total repudiation of Federal Reserve policies. Ironically, in the new financial reform legislation just signed into law, the Fed received vast new regulatory powers. God help us.

Greg-Judy, it´s very easy to criticise others when times are tough, but to do so, should imply that you have a better solution to the problem, otherwise there´s not much point in criticising is there?

Of course these same Matrix-sanctioned gurus feel anyone else us is not qualified to analyze, criticize or ridicule them.

So I guess we all should shut up and take it like a man.

dfjordan wrote:Greg-Judy, it´s very easy to criticise others when times are tough, but to do so, should imply that you have a better solution to the problem, otherwise there´s not much point in criticising is there?

No worries mate...
Sure - g~j have a solution...
1st - fire Bernanke and get rid of all the other Neo-Keynesian idiots running the show
2nd - get the (expletive deleted) outta Iraq~Afghanistan and the other hundreds of imperialistic~military bases world-wide... and worry more about looking after the citizens in the Indebted States - who need a $trillion$ or so (fiat or otherwise) much more than the military~industrial complex does.
Hmmm...
That'll do for do for a start... more solutions later

greg~judy wrote:

dfjordan wrote:Greg-Judy, it´s very easy to criticise others when times are tough, but to do so, should imply that you have a better solution to the problem, otherwise there´s not much point in criticising is there?

No worries mate...
Sure - g~j have a solution...
1st - fire Bernanke and get rid of all the other Neo-Keynesian idiots running the show
2nd - get the (expletive deleted) outta Iraq~Afghanistan and the other hundreds of imperialistic~military bases world-wide... and worry more about looking after the citizens in the Indebted States - who need a $trillion$ or so (fiat or otherwise) much more than the military~industrial complex does.
Hmmm...
That'll do for do for a start... more solutions later

OK, now I understand your pattern of thinking. It´s not worth commenting further

OK, now I understand your pattern of thinking. It´s not worth commenting further

We will interpret that comment as sincere, as opposed to facetious.
But still, it may be a bit presumptuous, don't you think?
As even g~ doesn't even fully understand his thinking patterns sometimes...
Always in constant flux... Ebb and Flow, perhaps?
[btw... nor does ~j fully understand... nor will she ever...]

But we digress... don't we?
Off topic again - as tends to occur frequently.
Let's wind the reel back in to see what we catch today.
To honor Dagny's popular topic - and its continuing (d)evolution...
Let's get back to the coming demise of our favorite Empire.
And in the words of the famous Mogambo Guru...
"... continue heaping scorn and disrespect on those are so deserving"

But, please dfj... no need to cease commenting?
Although the commentary does tend to be skewed to the negative here...
Might any allchilean care to research~present some~any positive direction -
that might be manifesting in the Empire these days?
Thus far, it has been noticeably lacking?
As GWB famously quipped - "Bring it on!"

This one crossed our screens over morning java... an interesting perspective.

China Calls Our Bluff: The US is Insolvent and Faces Bankruptcy as a Pure Debtor Nation

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20252
g~j lived in the Middle Kingdom for 6 years...
We have a small inkling of how things work there.
We all know China "owns" America...
They realize that any military challenge would obviously be futile~useless.
But... their economic policies are structured for long-term supremacy.
Sun Tzu was one real smart fella... "The Art of War"
More westerners should read his work - a Classic - for all countries, for all time.
His wisdom, even to this day, extends beyond military strategy
and is entirely applicable in the modern~global~economic battlefield.
And so, the inscrutable orientals bide their time -
and continue to position themselves for the L O N G term...
As has been said before... the 20th century was America's... the 21st will be China's.
Stay tuned - the storm clouds continue to gather