101 Forum Posts by "chazeverest"
At 4/10/07 09:06 AM, Korriken wrote:At 4/10/07 08:22 AM, skatin-andy wrote:Time to find a new argument.Let me give it a try, although i know I'm gonna fail miserably.
a cosmic explosion randomly happens, in this explosion everything is randomly created. in a random chain of events the earth just so happens to be orbiting the sun at the perfect distance to make the world not too hot and not too cold. somehow, in the dead universe a single cell of life emerges. this single cell splits.... countless times, over the course of eons the single cells begin to mutate in a completely random fashion to form many many balanced ecosystems.
in this random chain of events taking place of eons, the mammal appears, eventually this first mammal's offspring, over the course of billions of years, slowly evolve into everything from rats to elephants to humans. of all the mammals the human is the only one to develop tools beyond rocks and sticks, written language, and dominates the world. this human, though, is born with a random and false notion that a higher power exists.
to me, that is pretty freaking hard to believe.
Do you think that some magical being (God) that can blink everything into existance is any more believable. It's all just a matter of belief anyway. An eveolutionist believes what he believes and a creationist believes what he believes. At least the evolutionist has some impirical evidence, the creationist has none that can stand any kind of test or investigation.
I think that creationists need religion and God to make themselves for less insignificant. Afterall in the grand scheme of things mankind and even our planet are pretty insignificant. If the planet earth and all living things on it were destryoed by an asteroid tomorrow, would it even effect the rest of the Universe, no.
I've never been out of the country, but through studying I can say there are a few countries I certainly would not have an interest in visiting to test this theory.....
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, you've never been to another country and yet you feel qualified to make a comment. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, just like most people who want to say America is best and if you don't like it move. You have to experience the other countries in order to make a valid statement, and I don't just mean from a vacation (although that is at least something) Live there and then tell me about it. I have lived in England, Germany, Spain, Italy and Holland (although only a short time in Holland, in Roermond to be precise) There are some things that are better here and some there.
How about visiting other countries to broaden your horizons.
At 4/10/07 01:32 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:At 4/9/07 09:11 PM, Errormatix wrote:Europe kicks america in the shins.Only people who have never been to Europe and the US both will say that. Only people like you who have no point of rference.
Europe sucks, Americans with vivid imaginations like to pretend otherwise and lash out against the mainstream by advocating European-style society. But then you go to Europe and you realize that the majority of Europeans are selfish, dirty ass holes. Their cities are dirty, they have horrible hygiene, their food is crap, and they have no sense of humor. There is far less opportunity, far less extracurricular activities to engage in, and their society as a whole isn't as vibrant and diverse as it is in the US.
That may be a stereotype, but I've been all over Europe and I came to that conclusion based on my observation and experience. Europe is fun to visit occasionally for tourist reasons, but to live in almost any place in Europe would suck if you are used to America or Canada.
Heres an example; In the US if your car needs a jump-start, the average American guy will say "sure thing" he'll help you out, do a little chit chat, etc etc. Then when your car is running you'll offer him money and he probably won't accept it in return. Americans are nice for the most part, even if they refused to help you they aren't going to be angered and offended by the fact that you did ask them.
But if you did this in Europe and they'll tell you to fuck off and appear as if you just asked them to suck your balls. Either that or they'll demand a hefty fee for their assistance. This is a perfect example of our cultural differences. Usually the more rural Europeans are nicer, but most young urban Europeans are selfish assholes, they are brutally selfish.
Europeans are cold and have no manners for the most part. You think Europe is a social, happy utopia la la land? It's not. You think cities like Paris are beautiful romantic places filled with smiling people? Hell no it's not, it's filled with greedy, selfish, rude assholes who barely ever smile, and who would just as quickly jack your wallet as they would give you directions.
The only place in Europe I would EVER consider living is Dusseldorf, Germany because that's where I stayed as an exchange student. But the only reason they are tolerable is because they are probably the most Americanized Europeans, and therefore have adopted American behavioral patterns.
What complete and utter nonsense. The only place you have lived is Dusseldorf and you would stay there. I have lived throughout Europe and I can tell you Dusseldorf is pretty typical as far as German towns go. So you could consider living anywhere in Germany. You are obviously an extremely ethnocentric person and even with that the experience of one place has led you to say you would move there. Experience some more places by staying for an extended period and you will see that makes us alike than different. I guarantee you you would have the same reaction to most other European cities as you had to Dusseldorf if you actually took the time to stay at some for extended periods.
Schoenen Tag noch.
At 4/9/07 09:06 PM, aaron-god-of-thunder wrote: I'm tired of people who bitch about america, and say _______ is better, they need to Move, or shut up. If you think sum other country is better, MOVE. these a-holes don't realize how good they got it. If Japan is so much better than America, Move to Japan, then you'll be there for 6 years, and start bitching about Japan. Be glad you a-holes are even aloud to talk trash about our gov't, i many countries, you do that, and your found 2 days later dead in a ditch.
Have you ever tried to move internationally. I have done it several times. It's not easy. It's not like moving toanother state, you need a residents permit (green card here) and it's often quite to very difficult to get one. People can complain, why should they move.
It shouldn't be a matter of if you don't like it move. How about if you don't like it fix it. If there is something in another country that is better than the same thing here we should fix it not get insulted and digging our heads in the sand ignoring the problem (whatever it may be)
There are plenty of things that are better in other first world countries than they are here and vica versa. FIX THEM so wew are the best aat everything
At 4/6/07 04:02 PM, ReiperX wrote:At 4/6/07 01:55 PM, chazeverest wrote:Seems about right. If you go back a few posts you will see my post from the United Nations Human Development Report. USA was 22 place. Out of a world of more than 200 countries, not very good really. The only contries ahead of us are third and second world countries.Sorry I didn't read it, got to the 2nd page and was in a hurry because I had to go somewhere wiht my wife.
While the US does have a pretty bad murder rate, we are far from having the worst murder/per person ratio.
yes we are far from the worst a whole 21 places from the worst. No first world countries are worse or even close. Our murder rate is about 300-600% higher than other first world countries.
At 4/6/07 05:20 PM, sparksme321 wrote: and takes away jobs legal people could of had. and then we have to pay for that legal persons welfare because they dont got a job.
Why all the focus on Hispanics though, which you insist on refering to as Mexicans, even though you don't know what country they come from.
What about the Russian, Ukranian etc. illegals who come in by plane and then leave the country when they are meant to. Oh no, but they're white so not really visible unless they speak. Maybe racism ws the right word after all.
At 4/6/07 05:07 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:At 4/6/07 03:31 PM, sparksme321 wrote: How are illegal immigrants from mexico helping the U.S.A?Working for almost nothing, making businesses more profitable?
Der Loewe strikes again.
Ja Herr Loewe hat's genau gesehen.
Did you know your name Lowe (with an Umlaut over the O) is German for Lion?
At 4/6/07 03:22 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote: You fail to give a reason.
They would have been executed as criminals and degenerates. Any evidence? Any reaosn to believe this?
http://www.arcent.army.mil/news_letters/2004/
April/29apr%20old%20ironsides%20report.pdf
Go to page 3 (No it's not a photos of a girl with large breasts and no clothes on)
It's an article from an On Line Marine Corp newspaper with an article about Dachau and the kinds of prisoners that were at that death camp
At 4/6/07 04:36 PM, zzzzd wrote:At 4/6/07 04:17 PM, chazeverest wrote:It was generally Northern European which were his idea of the perfect race. But most whites were alright in his eyes, (except Slavs.) Also English aren't just germanic, English blood is mostly Germanic, Celtic and Norse.
Added to that, but quite seperate really. There is no such things as "The White Race" there are many white races. From Eastern Mediteranian (Greeks, Italians,) Western Mediteranians (Southern French) Iberians (Spanish and Portuguese) Nordic(Scandinavian), Germanic (Germans and English), Goths (Northern French), Slavs (Polish, Russian, etc.
They are all white but all different and not the same race.
The English are mostly Germanic. The English language is a germanic language, there are many cognates (words that are and mean the same thing in both languages) For example, Hand, Arm, Finger, and many that are almost the same (can see that one evolved from the other) Haar (Hair) Nase (Nose) Schulter (shoulder) Hund (Dog from Hound)
That's why we are called Anglo Saxons. Saxon is a state in Germany (where the Saxons came from) and I lived in Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony) for seven years.
Funnily enough Britian, USA, Austalia, Canada.. were the countrys Hitler admired the most Being mostly Germanic/Celtic. He would of liked nothing better than to ally with the Anglo-sphere and together destroy the soviets.
Right, he admired the Englaender, but hated them for standing up to him in 1939 when he invaded Poland.
At 4/6/07 03:22 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote: You fail to give a reason.
They would have been executed as criminals and degenerates. Any evidence? Any reaosn to believe this?
Yes. A great many of them have been in prison, deal in drugs and have murdered.
The first thing Hitler did was expunge his society of the miscreants.
Also, just look at them. They're hardly the strapping aryan youth of Hitler's 1000 year Reich are they. Rarely blonde, rarely very tall, covered in tatoos, rarely blue eyed, they generally fit the picture he used as an excuse to execute people en mass.
Added to that, but quite seperate really. There is no such things as "The White Race" there are many white races. From Eastern Mediteranian (Greeks, Italians,) Western Mediteranians (Southern French) Iberians (Spanish and Portuguese) Nordic(Scandinavian), Germanic (Germans and English), Goths (Northern French), Slavs (Polish, Russian, etc.
They are all white but all different and not the same race.
At 4/6/07 03:00 PM, notahero wrote: What do you think about it? I'm Thai person who saw the changes of Thailand 15 years before the coup and I know what's going to be in the next 15 years, now they banned youtube because that mofo ICT banned youtube and said that youtube had video that mocks the king, they also banned everything that oppose them, few days ago they banned 1 day old website that asked people to make a petition to remove one of those mofo's and now they were tracking people who make those petition. WHERE IS THE HUMAN RIGHTS! WHERE IS DEMOCRACY? F##k S#r#y#t, F##k S#nd#i, F##k junta, F##k Muslim rebels in the south, F##k the GOV.
PS. Dear NG webmaster, you can erase this if ICT asked you to.
Yes yes, revolt revolt revolt. I am sure George W. Bush will support you. He's all about spreading democracy. We could invade and free you, I bet George W would go for that.
PPS. Every NG members have the right to know about this.
PPPS. Don't let this thing became famous.
God is dead. he was only the figment of some poor fuckers imigination and died with him thousands of years ago.
At 4/6/07 03:31 PM, sparksme321 wrote: THAT WAS A WHILE BACK NOW YOU NEED A GREEN CARD!
How are we racist? Some of my best friends are black, white, mexican. I just dont like the ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. How are illegal immigrants from mexico helping the U.S.A?
How did we help the many Indian Nations that were here before us. We didn't we fucking wipred them out.
Maybe Ehtnocentric is a better word than racist.
BTW, they do pay tax, they just get nothing back for it. The tax is payed on the basis of the fake SS# they have. They can't file tax returns and get refunds though, because their SS# is fake. Oh, why just Mexico, they are from all over South and central America. Also one of the largest groups of illegal immigrants aren't Hispanic anyway, they are Russians who come here legally on a Visa and then don't return when their visa expires.
At 4/6/07 03:08 PM, fahrenheit wrote:At 4/6/07 06:35 AM, mrdurgan wrote: there was no invasion or mass-migration though, king charles the simple just gave them the land.Can you provide a source saying they were given land?
Besides, they were still Normans, whether or not France was French controlled or Roman controlled it didnt change much, the Normans were still looking to expand territory and adventure out. They might have attacked Rome and been defeated, ending what we would know to become as England.
I can. You can read the whole thing or go to the last paragraph for the part about the Visigoths being given land. The Barbarian groups that brought about the downfall of Rome were French and German tribes.
The Goths And The Romans
By Sol Palha
A ''just war'' is hospitable to every self-deception on the part of those waging it, none more than the certainty of virtue, under whose shelter every abomination can be committed with a clear conscience
Alexander Cockburn 1941-, Anglo-Irish Journalist
This is very well know story or should be very well known for it reveals many interesting lessons. The Goths were composed of two tribes the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths and they both lived along the lower Danube and the northern coast of the Black Sea where they coexisted relatively peacefully with the Roman Empire until the arrival of the Huns.
The Huns (who were nomadic warriors) attacked and virtually destroyed the Ostrogoths and thus the now panicked Visigoths asked Rome for permission to cross the Danube in 376. However once they crossed into the Roman zone, they were exploited and treated as dirt. For safe refuge Emperor Valens extorted a high and humiliating price; these proud warriors had to surrender their weapon and give up all their male children to the Romans. The Goths hid their weapons but gave up their male off spring to the Romans where they were to serve as slaves. Being constantly mistreated, exploited (they were fighting the Romans wars now, tens of thousands of Goths served the Roman Army, mostly in the cavalry) and lied to constantly angered them; the situation got so bad that they started killing their own dogs for food. This constant mistreatment led them to form alliances with other East European Germanic tribes and they encouraged the Western European tribes to revolt along the Rhine.
Valens the Roman Emperor at the time decided this was unacceptable and that it was time to eliminate the Goths once and for all. He marched his army (378 AD) which was composed of 20,000 men of the Roman cavalry and 40,000 men from the Roman Infantry to destroy the Goths. The battle of adrinople is one of the most famous historic battles ever; before the battle began Valens army outnumbered the 50,000 Goth foot soldiers as their cavalry was away on raids. Valens specifically chose this moment, as it would be far easier to crush the Goths with their cavalry away. At the beginning everything seemed to go the Romans way; the skilled Roman legions and cavalry seemed to have control of the situation and it looked like victory was all but assured. Suddenly the Gothic cavalry numbering 50,000 returned and attacked the Roman army and virtually destroyed their cavalry, which left the Roman foot soldiers defenses to the attacks of the Gothic horsemen. This was one of the biggest military blunders as it was the first time a Roman emperor had been killed in war and what made it worse was that their army and Emperor were destroyed by barbarians. The battle of Adrianople was the worst defeat the Romans had suffered since the German victory in AD 9 at Teutoburger Wald. St. Ambrose called the battle of Adrianople, "the end of all humanity, the end of the world."
The new Eastern emperor, Theodosius I (the Great) negotiated a peace settlement though this would not last long. He knew the Roman army had suffered a huge defeat and that they simply did not have enough solders to tackle the Goths. (Remember one of the reasons Romans were constantly fighting was because they had occupied many lands and therefore had to constantly defend them against attacks; their forces were slowly but surely being stretched).
Finally they were given land, which they could call their own, but they were still treated as second-class citizens and their Soldiers were still used to perform all the dirty deeds for the Romans. They were now an integral part of the Roman army and when Emperor Theodosius died the troops rebelled and chose Alaric as their leader. King Alaric then proceeded to attack and eventually crushed Rome in 410 ending 800 years of power
My god you're a racist bunch of fucks. Were all fucking immigrants. And the ones that have been here the longest are most certainly illegal. It wasn't legal for our forefathers to almost completely wipe out a whole race of people and take their fucking land was it.
Manifest Destiny wasn't fucking legal was it.
We take someone else's country, kill 9/10ths of them and then have a problem with someone else coming in "illegally" for Christ fucking sake. Their not flooding over the borders killing evey American in sight are they. They're not spouting shit like we did "The only good Indian is a dead indian" etc. What fucking shit you talk. If it weren't for illegal immigration of our forefathers none of us would be here, even those who came after all the killing was done, why? because Europeans would never have been invited the way that a lot of the current population's parents or grandparents or great grandparents were. It was European Americans inviting other Europeans into a country they had fucking stolen.
The fucking hypocracy about this subject is fucking astounding.
At 4/6/07 02:17 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: yay Argentina!! :D
Yay Der-Lowe or should I say The Lion.
At 4/6/07 02:22 PM, 2wiceBorn wrote:At 4/5/07 05:29 PM, Twilight-Knight wrote: As long as I never see another 12-year-old holding a gun and actually knowing how to use it, I'm pro-gun all the way. And by knowing how to use it I mean being trained to use it by Al-Quaida.Profile:
Age: 15
Explain to me how you got to see this.
On topic:
There is nothing wrong with owning a gun. If it is written in the Constitution of a country, then the citizens of the country have the right to have one.
Anyway, i'm joining the Army next year (hopefully the Parachute Regiment) so guns will be a large part of my job.
Hey I used to be English. Actually I have dual nationality. So your'e joining the Paras.
I was in the Royal Anglian Regiment. Went to The falklands in 82 when I was 21, killed 5 Argies. One from point blank range. I jumped into a hole and he was there, he was going to shoot me so I shot him. Got brains all over myself.
There is nothing wrong with owning a gun. If it is written in the Constitution of a country, then the citizens of the country have the right to have one.
Hitler's National Sozilstische Detusche Arbeiter Partei would have executed
members of modern American white supremacist parties as being degenerates and
criminals. They would have fallen victim to his cleansing campaign, just as did , Poles, Gypsies, Murderes, Petty Thieves, Homosexuals, etc. Slavic peoples and of course Jews.
I am not saying what he did is right, definitely not.
I am making a comparison between now and then and find it ironic that the people I see giving Nazi salutes and espousing Nazi values here and now, would most certainly have been gassed or shot in Nazi Germany. They don't even manage to fit low criteria the Nazis had.
At 4/6/07 01:39 PM, zeus-almighty wrote: If any dem makes it to prez in 08 I'm moving to some place in Africa that is actually somewhat safe.
At least they have some balls over there.
I've got a good idea, move to South Africa
You stand a good chance of getting ass raped and maybe even shot or chopped up with a machete over there.
At 4/6/07 12:53 PM, semaGdniM wrote: I don't claim to be a master of Rome but I'll always read or watch shows about it when I can.
I ask this question to the OP. When you say what if Rome still existed today, which Rome are you talking about? Is it the Western Empire or the Holy Eastern? I'm just going to assume western for the purpose of the post.
If Rome still existed today, then many of its problems regarding it's fall would have either
a. never happened
b. were realized and fixed.
Now more than likely these things wouldn't happen. Romans were very stuck in their ways. (Cough, understatement, cough). We have to assume they beefed up their military to combat their huge expansion and ended the corruption within their government/monarchy. Not to mention all of the other changes they would have had to make to survive.
What language would we be speaking today? Teh Latin Verbes. Salve ^^
What would wars be like? Well this question is hard to say really. We first have to ask what we would be like technologicaly.
There were some posts saying that we'd be more technological/less technological. What needs to be understood is we are in our state of advancement today due to a handful of smart men. They could have easily been killed/gave up on their ideas and we'd be less advanced than we are now. A good example of this was a man in greece (Really sorry but I don't remember his name. If anyone knows please remind me). He was an inventor who used his inventions to entertain adults and children. One invention he made was a ball that could propel itself via steam. This man was actually in the process of making the first steam powered turbine but didn't know it.
Heronas’ steam engine
Heronas of Alexandria was a Greek mathematician, engineer and inventor of the first century BC. He initially worked as shoemaker but he eventually decided to explore his ideas. He is better known as an engineer for his hydraulic mechanisms, simple machines and automations, but he was also an important mathematician of his time. He served as a director of the famous Technical School of Alexandria (maybe the world’s first polytechnic university).
He presented and operated the world’s first steam engine, consisted of a closed, spherical container, filled with water. When the water was heated and began to boil, the stream was relieved by two nozzles, configured in a polar alignment. The container was fixed in such a way that was allowed to rotate. The steam release caused a rotating motion of the container that could be used as a steam motor for various applications. The principle of this simple configuration is the same used today for jet propulsion.
At 4/6/07 12:30 PM, ReiperX wrote: TOP TEN COUNTRIES FOR HOMICIDE, 2003
COUNTRY
PER 100,000
(1) Colombia 63
(2) South Africa 51
(3) Jamaica 32
(4) Venezuela 32
(5) Russia 19
(6) Mexico 13
(7) Lithuania 10
(8) Estonia 10
(9) Latvia 10
(10) Belarus 9
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#wo rld
Seems about right. If you go back a few posts you will see my post from the United Nations Human Development Report. USA was 22 place. Out of a world of more than 200 countries, not very good really. The only contries ahead of us are third and second world countries.
At 4/6/07 11:41 AM, zzzzd wrote:At 4/6/07 11:20 AM, chazeverest wrote:The Chuch of England (Anglican Church in the USA) broke away from the Roman Catholic Church back in the reign of Henry Tudor (King Henry the 8th.)There are large Roman Catholic communites around the UK, Most notably, Glasgow, (40% Catholic) Liverpool (60% Catholic) and of course Northern Ireland.
All of which have had problems between Catholics and Protestants. But not Catholics and Muslims.
Nowadays Catholics and Anglicans share can share communion with each other. Theres not nearly as much heat between them. In reality Anglicans are actually much more similar to Roman Catholic than other Protestant groups.
It's always really been more political than religous. In Ireland especially (and america,) Protestants were generally the land owning class where as Catholics were working class.
I have a friend who lives in New jersey who is from Liverpool. He is very proud to be English/British. He has an American flag and a British flag on his boat.
His mother and father are Irish.
His dad says to him all the time "You're Irish" he says "No I was born in Liverpool, I am English" One thing his father likes to say is "We'll give Liverpool back to the English when they give us Northern Ireland back"
Yes. It's not environmentally friendly. Uses way to much electricity, what about a piece of rope instead.
At 4/6/07 10:35 AM, JakeHero wrote:At 4/6/07 10:33 AM, chazeverest wrote: Any countries that have defaulted on their loans have either gone to shit or already were, Why would it be different for us.Really? Can you give me the list of every country that's ever default and turned from a prosperous civilization to a thirdworld shithole? No, you can't. Because countries that have the above don't usually default on their debts. It's always a last resort.
You know what, you're right on that one. I can not give you a list of First World countries that have defaulted. I can however give you a list of developing countries that were once almost to first world level.
A list of countries that have defaulted on sovereign debt in the period 1985-2002 is presented in Table 1. It is remarkable that all of the credit events took place in the period 1998-2001. This illustrates the limited history and thereby the difficulties in assessing credit risk for various countries.
COUNTRIES WITH DEFAULTED SOVEREIGN DEBT 1985-2002 Table 1
Year Country Amount (million dollars)
1998 Pakistan 750
- Russia 73,336
- Ukraine 1,422
- Venezuela 270
1999 Ecuador 6,603
2000 Peru 4,870
- Ukraine 1,063
2001 Argentina 82,268
- Moldova 145
Note.: Only includes countries that were rated by Moody's during the period. Amounts are based on the dollar exchange rate at the time of the event.
Source: Moody's.
Argentina's suspension of payments
The complex risk pattern can be illustrated by considering the largest credit event in history in terms of amount, namely Argentina's suspension of payments in 2001.
Throughout the time that Argentina has had a rating (since 1986) the rating agencies always assessed that there was a certain probability that Argentina would default on issued bonds. For example, Moody's has always rated Argentina's bonds at Ba or lower, i.e. "speculative grade".[5] Since 1997 the rating agencies have gradually downgraded Argentina's debt, resulting in a strong widening of the spreads to secure government bonds, cf. Chart 6.[6]
YIELD SPREAD FOR US AND ARGENTINEAN GOVERNMENT BONDS Chart 6
Source: J.P. Morgan.
Even with these ratings, in the period up to Argentina's suspension of payments it was probably difficult for investors to assess the probability of actual default. Many other countries besides Argentina, e.g. neighbouring Brazil, have a low credit rating from Moody's without having defaulted on their sovereign debt. This illustrates how a modest body of data makes it hard to quantify the risk of default.
Argentina failed to service its loans on 3 January 2002. It was already clear in autumn 2001 that Argentina would probably not fulfil its obligations. As a consequence, the price of Argentinean government bonds fell strongly, cf. Chart 6.
One month after the default Argentinean government bonds were being traded at prices which implicitly set the present value of the bonds at approximately 30 per cent of the nominal value. In other words, in spring 2002 owners of Argentinean government bonds could divest the bonds against a loss of approximately 70 per cent.
This price indirectly reflects the market participants' expectations of the outcome of retaining the bonds and awaiting the debt restructuring negotiations between Argentina and its creditors. Such a process is often an extremely complex and protracted legal struggle. The debt was not restructured until June 2005 and it entailed that creditors' claims were written down by approximately 75 per cent, according to the IMF. The strong narrowing of the credit spread in Chart 6 reflects the restructuring.[7] This narrowing is remarkable in view of Argentina's chequered credit history. Among other things it reflects a substantial decrease in Argentina's overall debt, and especially its external debt, as a result of the restructuring, which all other things being equal makes it easier for Argentina to service the debt in the future. In addition, the Argentinean government has taken various legislative steps to make it more difficult (more expensive) to default on sovereign debt in the future.
The case for Argentina is far from closed, however, since some creditors do not accept the restructuring and are seeking to recover a larger share of the debt via the courts.
Conclusion
The interest spread reflects risk and compensation for risk. There is no "free lunch" since any expected additional return compared to a risk-free yield will entail risk. The increase in bond issues by business enterprises and countries with a low credit standing imposes higher demands on investors' ability to analyse and assess the risks on bond investments. Credit spreads are highly volatile and reflect especially that the price of risk varies strongly over time. This makes it more complicated for individual investors to use the credit spreads on the individual bond series to precisely assess the underlying credit risk. There is also uncertainty regarding up- and downgrading by the rating agencies.
If debt is defaulted, recovery or restructuring is often a protracted and complicated business, as in the case of Argentina's default on its sovereign debt in 2001.
---------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
[1] The price reaction to PurusCo's bid was amplified by the fact that previously issued ISS bonds would not take priority over the newly-issued debt.
[2] The article considers credit risk in more detail. Conversion risk relates to callable bonds, e.g. certain Danish mortgage-credit bonds, and describes the risk that the borrower calls the bond on terms that are fixed in advance, e.g. redemption at par. Liquidity risk is the risk that the price of financial assets with a low trading volume (low liquidity) fluctuates more than similar assets with a high trading volume. Conversion risk and liquidity risk will not be considered further in this article.
[3] The use of ratings is described in more detail by Kristian Sparre Andersen and Anders Matzen, The Use of Ratings in the European Capital Markets, Danmarks Nationalbank, Monetary Review, 3rd Quarter 1998.
[4] The section solely considers default on government bonds. Sovereign default on other types of debt, e.g. bank debt, occurs more often than default on government bonds. A number of countries with low credit standing in South America, Africa, Asia and eastern Europe have only gained access to international financial markets in the course of the last few decades.
[5] Moody's ratings are Aaa, Aa, A, Baa, Ba, B, Caa, Ca, C, where Aaa is given to governments with the highest credit standing, and C is immediate default. Generally, the first four ratings are given to governments with a good credit standing and these are often called "investment grade". Ba and below are "speculative grade" (or "junk bonds"), since these ratings signal a degree of probability of default. So far no country that has been rated "investment grade" by Moody's has defaulted on its sovereign debt.
[6] The background to Argentina’s problems is described in Jens Thomsen, Several reasons for Argentina’s crisis (in Danish only), Udenrigs (Abroad), no. 3, 2002.
[7] It should be noted, however, that the strong narrowing of the spread does not reflect high increases in bond prices, but that the defaulted bonds have been replaced by the bonds behind the new loans. The new bonds have been rated B by Moody's.
---------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Publication overview - Contents - Top/Bottom - Previous/Next
At 3/18/07 07:18 PM, Mister-Mind wrote: I heard from my friend that there was a culture war in the UK. Muslims vs Roman Catholics. Does anyone have a links to information about this. Because I'm debating doing a speach on it. And I would like to learn more.
Muslims vs. Roman Catholics.
England or rathe, The United Kingdom of Great Britain is a protestant country not Catholic.
The Chuch of England (Anglican Church in the USA) broke away from the Roman Catholic Church back in the reign of Henry Tudor (King Henry the 8th.)
At 4/6/07 11:09 AM, Demosthenez wrote:At 4/6/07 10:40 AM, chazeverest wrote: Get a life. Or try walking through one of the neighborhoods you talk about avoiding. You shouldn't need to avoid any.Get real. There will always be places that are dangerous and nothing you propose or change on the national level will ever effect that. Utopia aint possible bud.
No one is asking for Utopia . And of course there will always be dangerous places. But do we have to be satisfied with having the highest murder rate in the first world. I am not, am I being unreal in not being satisfied with that, I don't think so.
Democrats and Republicans are all fucking assholes. Dems are a little more self righteous.
Reps are a little more trigger happy. But generally speaking all fucking assholes. Depends on what subject who is more of an asshole the dem or the rep.
At 4/6/07 10:51 AM, chazeverest wrote: I guess these Republicans must be traitors too then. Or is it that all politicians are assholes.
Virginia Republican Frank Wolf, Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts and Alabama Republican Robert Aderholt
Sorry about the double post.
I guess these Republicans must be traitors too then. Or is it that all politicians are assholes.
