July, 31 2014, 02:30pm EDT

Economists Call on Congress to Mitigate Fallout from Ruling on Argentine Debt
Decision "could cause unnecessary economic damage to the international financial system"
WASHINGTON
Over 100 economists, including Nobel laureate Robert Solow, Branko Milanovic and Dani Rodrik called on Congress today to take action to mitigate the harmful fallout from the recent ruling by Judge Griesa of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that requires Argentina to pay holdout creditors at the same time as the majority of creditors. The letter warns that "The District Court's decision - and especially its injunction that is currently blocking Argentina from making payments to 93 percent of its foreign bondholders -- could cause unnecessary economic damage to the international financial system, as well as to U.S. economic interests, Argentina, and fifteen years of U.S. bi-partisan debt relief policy."
"It's a widely shared opinion among economists that the court's attempt to force Argentina into a default that nobody - not the debtor nor more than 90 percent of creditors - wants, is wrong and damaging," said Mark Weisbrot, economist and Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who helped circulate the letter.
The letter warns that Griesa's decision could "torpedo an existing agreement with those bondholders who chose to negotiate." It also cautions that, since sovereign governments do not have the option of declaring bankruptcy, "the court's ruling would severely hamper the ability of creditors and debtors to conclude an orderly restructuring should a sovereign debt crisis occur. This could have a significant negative impact on the functioning of international financial markets, as the International Monetary Fund has repeatedly warned."
The court's decision "creates a moral hazard," the economists write, since investors will be allowed "to obtain full repayment, no matter how risky the initial investment."
The full letter appears below.
July 31, 2014
Dear Member of Congress,
We note with concern the recent developments in the court case of Argentina vs. NML Capital, etc. The District Court's decision - and especially its injunction that is currently blocking Argentina from making payments to 93 percent of its foreign bondholders -- could cause unnecessary economic damage to the international financial system, as well as to U.S. economic interests, Argentina, and fifteen years of U.S. bi-partisan debt relief policy. We urge you to act now and seek legislative solutions to mitigate the harmful impact of the court's ruling.
For various reasons, governments sometimes find themselves in situations where they cannot continue to service their sovereign debt. This was Argentina's situation at the end of 2001. After years of negotiations, Argentina reached a restructuring agreement with 93 percent of the defaulted bondholders, and has made all agreed-upon payments to them.
The court's decision that Argentina cannot continue to pay the holders of the restructured bonds unless it first pays the plaintiffs mean that any "holdout" creditor can torpedo an existing agreement with those bondholders who chose to negotiate. While individuals and corporations are granted the protection of bankruptcy law, no such mechanism exists for sovereign governments. As such, the court's ruling would severely hamper the ability of creditors and debtors to conclude an orderly restructuring should a sovereign debt crisis occur. This could have a significant negative impact on the functioning of international financial markets, as the International Monetary Fund has repeatedly warned.
Those who invested in Argentine bonds were compensated with high interest rates, to mitigate the risk of default. There are inherent risks when investing in sovereign bonds, but the court's ruling creates a moral hazard, by allowing investors to obtain full repayment, no matter how risky the initial investment.
The plaintiffs in the case purchased Argentine bonds on the secondary market after default, often for less than 20 cents on the dollar. While these actors could have accepted the restructuring and still made a very large profit, they instead have fought a decade-long legal battle, seeking exorbitant profits in excess of 1,000 percent and creating financial uncertainty along the way.
The recent developments will also directly impact the United States and its status as a financial center of the world economy. While much of the developing world's debt is issued under the jurisdiction of New York law and utilizing New York-based financial institutions, the court's ruling will make it more likely for sovereign governments to seek alternate locations to issue debt. Britain and Belgium, for example, have already passed legislation aimed at preventing this type of behavior from "holdout" creditors.
In addition, the court has put restrictions on New York banks, preventing them from distributing regularly scheduled interest payments to holders of the restructured bonds. Already, banks have faced lawsuits from investors, creating greater uncertainty for U.S.-based financial institutions.
Argentina has expressed a willingness to negotiate, and has recently reached agreements with the Paris Club as well as claims by international investors.
We hope that you will look for legislative solutions to prevent this court decision, or similar rulings, from causing unnecessary harm.
Sincerely,
Robert Solow, Nobel laureate in Economics, 1987, MIT Professor of Economics, emeritus Dani Rodrik, Albert O. Hirschman Professor in the school of Social Sciences at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey Branko Milanovic, Luxembourg Income Study Center, the Graduate Center CUNY, former Lead Economist in the World Bank's research department |
Andrew Allimadi, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs |
Gar Alperovitz, University of Maryland |
Eileen Applebaum, Center for Economic and Policy Research |
Mariano Arana, Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento |
Leonardo Asta, Universita degli Studi di Padova |
Venkatesh Athreya, Bharathidasan University |
Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research |
William Barclay, Chicago Political Economy Group |
Jairo Alonso Bautista, Universidad Santo Tomas |
Gunseli Berik, University of Utah |
Alexandra Bernasek, Colorado State University |
Cyrus Bina, University of Minnesota (Morris Campus) |
Josh Bivens, Economic Policy Institute |
Peter Bohmer, The Evergreen State College |
Korkut Boratav, Turkish Social Science Association |
Elissa Braunstein, Colorado State University |
Jorge BUZAGLO, University of Goteburg |
Jim Campen, Americans for Fairness in Lending |
Carlos A. Carrasco, University of the Basque Country |
Sergio Cesaratto, University of Siena |
Kyung-Sup Chang, Seoul National University |
Kimberly Christensen, SUNY/Purchase College |
Michael Cohen, New School for Social Research |
Brendan Cushing - Daniels, Gettysburg College |
Omar Dahi, Hampshire College |
Carlo D'Ippoliti, University of Rome |
Peter Dorman, Evergreen State College |
Amitava Dutt, University of Notre Dame |
Dirk Ehnts, University of Oldenburg |
Gerald Epstein, University of Massachusetts, Amherst |
Susan Ettner, University of California, Los Angeles |
Jeffrey Faux, Economic Policy Institute |
Massoud Fazeli, Hofstra University |
Andrew Fischer, International Institute of Social Studies |
Jeffrey Frankel, Harvard Kennedy School |
Roberto Frenkel, CEDES Argentina |
Kevin Gallagher, Boston University |
Chris Georges, Hamilton College |
Reza Ghorashi, Richard Stockton College |
Jayati Ghosh, JNU New Delhi and Ideas |
David Gold, New School University |
Neva Goodwin, Tufts University |
Maria Florencia Granato, Corporacion Andina de Fomento |
Martin Hart-Landsberg, Lewis and Clark |
Conrad Herold, Hofstra University |
P. Sai-wing Ho, University of Denver |
Andreas Hoth |
Gustavo Indart, University of Toronto |
Joseph Joyce, Wellesley College |
J K Kapler, University of Massachusetts Boston |
Martin Khor, South Centre |
Gabriele Koehler |
Andrew Kohen, James Madison University |
Nikoi Kote-Nikoi |
Pramila Krishnan, University of Cambridge |
David Legge, La Trobe University |
Henry Levin, Columbia University |
Mah hui Lim, South Centre |
Rodrigo Lopez-Pablos |
Robert Lynch, Washington College |
Arthur MacEwan, University of Massachusetts Boston |
Jeff Madrick, The Century Foundation |
Cheryl Maranto, Marquette University |
Ann Markusen, University of Minnesota |
Julie Mattahei, Wellesley College |
Kathleen McAfee, San Fransisco State University |
Elaine McCrate, University of Vermont |
Hannah McKinney, Kalamazoo College |
Thomas Michl, Colgate University |
William Milberg, New School for Social Research |
Larry Mishel, Economic Policy Institute |
Mritiunjoy Mohanty, Indian Institute of Management |
Nicolas Moncaut |
Tracy Mott, University of Denver |
Michael Murray, Bates College |
Luiz M Niemeyer, Pontifical Catholic University of Sao Paulo |
Machiko Nissanke, SOAS University of London |
Manfred Nitsch, Free University of Berlin |
Jose Antonio Ocampo, Columbia University |
Carlos Oya, University of London |
Marco Palacios, El Colegio de Mexico |
Antonella Palumbo, Roma Tre University |
Dimitri B. Papadimitriou, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College |
Mark Paul, University of Massachusetts Amherst |
Lorenzo Pellegrini, International Institute of Social Studies |
Lucia Pittaluga Fonseca, Universidad de la Republica (Uruguay) |
Renee Prendergast, Queen's University- Belfast |
Mark Price, Keystone Research Center |
Alicia Puyana, Facultad Latinoamercana de Ciencias Sociales |
Charles Revier, Colorado State University |
Joseph Ricciardi, Babson College |
Malcolm Robinson, Thomas More College |
Leopoldo Rodriguez, Portland State University |
John Roemer, Yale University |
David Rosnick, Center for Economic and Policy Research |
Antonio Savoia, University of Manchester |
John Schmitt, Center for Economic and Policy Research |
Stepphanie Seguino, University of Vermont |
Anwar Shaikh, New School for Social Research |
Kannan Srinivasan |
James Stanfield |
Eduardo Strachman |
William K. Tabb, Queens College |
Ezequiel Tacsir, United Nations University |
Philipp Temme, Free University of Berlin |
Frank Thompson, University of Michigan |
Chris Tilly, University of California, Los Angeles |
Mario Tonveronachi, University of Siena |
Lawal Tosin |
Chiwuike Uba, African Heritage Institution |
Bunu Goso Umara |
Leanne Ussher, Queens College, CUNY |
Rolph van der Hoeven, International Institute of Social Studies |
Irene van Staveren, International Institute of Social Studies |
Matias Vernengo, Bucknell University |
David Weiman, Barnard College |
Mark Weisbrot, Center for Economic and Policy Research |
Thomas Weisskopf, University of Michigan |
John Willoughby, American University |
Yavuz Yasar, University of Denver |
A. Erinc Yeldan, Yasar University |
Erhan Yildirim, Cukurova University |
Ben Zipperer, University of Massachusetts, Amherst |
Keep reading...Show less
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380LATEST NEWS
Survey Shows Progressive Voters Want 'Fighters,' Not 'Status Quo' Democrats, to Battle Trump
Our Revolution connected the sentiments expressed in the survey to a bid by Democratic National Committee Vice Chair David Hogg to support primaries against safe-seat incumbents.
Apr 23, 2025
Active progressive and Democratic-leaning voters are interested in seeing primary challengers to Democrats who represent the "status quo" and are "failing to meet the moment," according to a survey from the group Our Revolution, which polled more than 4,100 voters meeting that description between April 18-20.
According to survey results published Wednesday, 92% want primary challenges to status quo Democrats who aren't generating enough grassroots energy—and 96% support "transforming the party from within," which Our Revolution defines as electing Democratic challengers who reject corporate political action committee (PAC) money and are "ready to take the fight directly to Trump and his enablers."
Our Revolution, a progressive political organizing group launched as a continuation of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) 2016 presidential campaign, said in a statement Wednesday that the results reveal a deep frustration with Democratic Party leadership.
Our Revolution also connected the survey results to an effort by David Hogg, Democratic National Committee vice chair and survivor of the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, to primary "ineffective, asleep-at-the-wheel" Democrats in safely blue seats.
The PAC Hogg co-founded, Leaders We Deserve, has pledged to spend $20 million to support primary challengers in such races.
"Our Revolution polling shows Hogg's sentiment is shared by a large majority of engaged progressive voters," Our Revolution said.
"The voters we organize with are sounding the alarm: they want fighters, not placeholders," added Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution. "If the party establishment continues to sleepwalk through this crisis, they'll be replaced by a new generation of leaders who aren’t afraid to take on the fight of our lives."
In the release, Geevargheese called the survey respondents voters that Our Revolution organizes, though the statement about the survey results doesn't offer more information about the survey sample.
In addition to support for primarying establishment Democrats, 87% of respondents said the Democratic Party has "lost its way."
What's more, 82% want the Democratic Party to stop accepting "Big Money" from billionaires and corporations, 70% said they are not confident Democratic leaders will do what's needed to stop Trump, and 72% support moving away from a "cautious, centrist approach" in confronting Trump and the far right.
In March, Our Revolution conducted a survey of its own members which found that nearly 90% of respondents believe Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) should step aside from his leadership role, and 86% said they would support a primary challenger against Schumer for his Senate seat, should he refuse to step aside.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Under Trump 2.0, Business Is Booming for Corporate Lobbying Firms
"Lobbying firms like Ballard Partners know they can trust the Trump administration to fight on behalf of their corporate clients."
Apr 23, 2025
Disclosures filed this week show that lobbying firms with close ties to U.S. President Donald Trump's White House have seen business surge at the start of 2025, with one group that used to employ Trump's chief of staff and attorney general more than doubling its first-quarter revenue compared to last year.
Ballard Partners, a firm led by a Trump donor, reported $14 million in lobbying revenue in the first three months of this year, up from $6.2 million during the same time in 2024.
Politicoreported earlier this week that Ballard "has disclosed more than 130 new lobbying clients just since Election Day, including JPMorgan Chase, Chevron, Palantir, Netflix, Ripple Labs, and the Business Roundtable."
Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles both previously lobbied for Ballard, as did Trump's deputy director of personnel, Trent Morse.
"Lobbying firms like Ballard Partners know they can trust the Trump administration to fight on behalf of their corporate clients," the anti-corruption group End Citizens United said in response to the new disclosures.
Mother Jonesnoted that Ballard "wasn't the only lobbying firm to see a Trump bump."
"Mercury Public Affairs, where Wiles briefly worked repping a tobacco company, reported earning $5.1 million from lobbying in the first quarter of 2025—nearly half the $11.4 million it earned in all of 2024," the outlet observed. "Miller Strategies, run by super-lobbyist Jeff Miller (the firm's website includes a link to a Wall Street Journalarticle proclaiming Miller 'Trump's K Street rainmaker' for his prominent role in campaign fundraising), reported earning $8.6 million in the first three months of this year. In all of 2024, it only reported $12.6 million."
Despite claiming on the campaign trail that he was "not a big person for lobbyists" and that politicians "have to stop listening" to them, Trump has shown a willingness to do their bidding at the start of his second term in the White House.
Earlier this month, as Common Dreamsreported, Trump signed an executive order aimed at delaying Medicare negotiations for a major category of prescription drugs after pharmaceutical industry lobbyists pushed aggressively for the change.
On Monday, The Leverreported that Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "hid data that mapped out the locations of thousands of dangerous chemical facilities, after chemical industry lobbyists demanded that the Trump administration take down the public records."
"After President Donald Trump's victory in November, chemical companies donated generously to his inauguration fund," the outlet observed. "Oil giant ExxonMobil, which is a member of the American Chemistry Council, the industry's main lobbying arm, donated $1 million. The multinational chemical company DuPont donated $250,000."
Trump has placed Lynn Dekleva, a former lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council and DuPont, at the head of an EPA office with "the authority to approve new chemicals for use," The New York Timesreported in February.
During her time with the American Chemistry Council, Dekleva led the group's lobbying campaign to limit EPA regulations on formaldehyde, which the U.S. National Toxicology Program labels as a known carcinogen.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Need Urgent Global Action': Study Warns Humanity on Path to Trigger 16 Climate Tipping Points
"It is clear that we are currently on a dangerous trajectory," said one University of Exeter professor.
Apr 23, 2025
Scientists on Wednesday released yet another study warning that humankind is at risk of triggering various climate "tipping points" absent urgent action to dramatically reduce planet-heating emissions from fossil fuels.
The new peer-reviewed paper, published Wednesday in the journal Earth System Dynamics, comes from a trio of experts at the United Kingdom's University of Exeter and the University of Hamburg in Germany.
Climate scholars use the term "tipping point" to describe a critical threshold which, when crossed, "leads to significant and long-term changes of the system," the paper notes. Debate over it "has intensified over the past two decades," prompting several studies of specific risks.
"Climate tipping points could have devastating consequences for humanity," said co-author Tim Lenton in a statement. "It is clear that we are currently on a dangerous trajectory—with tipping points likely to be triggered unless we change course rapidly."
"We need urgent global action—including the triggering of 'positive tipping points' in our societies and economies—to reach a safe and sustainable future," added the Exeter professor and Global Systems Institute director.
Lenton's team calculated the probabilities of triggering 16 tipping points. They looked at the risks of serious damage to key glaciers, ice sheets, sea ice, and permafrost; the dieback of forests such as the Amazon; the die-off of low-latitute coral reefs; and the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which is part of a crucial "global conveyor belt" of ocean currents.
To assess the risk of current policies triggering climate tipping points, the researchers focused on a scenario in which median warming of 2.8°C takes place by the end of the century.
On that pathway, the study says, "our most conservative estimate of triggering probabilities averaged over all tipping points is 62%... and nine tipping points have a more than 50% probability of getting triggered."
Under scenarios with lower temperature rise, "the risk of triggering climate tipping points is reduced significantly," the study continues. "However, it also remains less constrained since the behaviour of climate tipping points in the case of a temperature overshoot is still highly uncertain."
The paper concludes that "rapid action is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, since climate tipping points are already close, and it will be decided within the coming decades if they will be crossed or not."
Lead author Jakob Deutloff shared that takeaway a bit more optimistically, saying that "the good news from our study is that the power to prevent climate tipping points is still in our hands."
"By moving towards a more sustainable future with lower emissions, the risk of triggering these tipping points is significantly reduced," he added. "And it appears that breaching tipping points within the Amazon and the permafrost region should not necessarily trigger others."
▶️New paper from Jakob Deutloff, Hermann Held and Tim Lenton highlights the need for action to prevent triggering climate tipping points. More on this at The Global Tipping Points conference @exeter.ac.uk Register now! global-tipping-points.org/conference-2... esd.copernicus.org/articles/16/...
[image or embed]
— Global Systems Institute (@gsiexeter.bsky.social) April 23, 2025 at 4:45 AM
The paper was published during Covering Climate Now's joint week of media coverage drawing attention to the 89% of people worldwide who want their governments to do more to address the global crisis; ahead of a Global Systems Institute conference on tipping points this summer; and just over six months away from the next United Nations climate summit, COP30, in Brazil.
While some governments are trying to prevent the worst-case scenario by taking action to cut emissions, U.S. President Donald Trump has made clear since returning to office in January that he aims to deliver on his pro-fossil fuel campaign pledge to "drill, baby, drill."
On the heels of the
hottest year in human history, Trump is working to gut key agencies, ditched the Paris climate agreement, and has taken executive action to boost planet-wrecking coal, gas, and oil, including declaring a national energy emergency.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular