Al Jazeera English: Argentine bank head sacking blocked

[SealLion]

check it out:

A federal judge in Argentina has ruled that the head of the central bank should be reinstated after being sacked by Christina Fernandez, the president.....after he refused to release money for national debt repayments.

WEll, it's common knowledge that the banks own pretty much everything you own. Unless you payed it off of/c.

It's also common knowledge that the banks hold in debt a large part of many other counties debt's as well.

It isn't just foreign governments that hand out money, via their own savings funds, to other nations . Those other nations go to other places like the World Bank and other large and international banks.
anyways....

However, this event apparently does involve aspects of Argentina's constitution.

......the interior minister, said the government would appeal, arguing that the constitution clearly allows it to issue the emergency decree.

So why was the head of the Central Bank in Argentina sacked, you ask??

.....(a) decree cited misconduct and dereliction of duties as reasons for the dismissal.

Well, that's just according to the article.
But as you know, news isn't just what the news tells you. I'm sure that there's other things involved too.

Fernandez had ordered the central bank to use about $6.6bn in reserves to help cover $13bn in international debt falling due this year.......Opposition legislators and other critics accused Fernandez of violating the bank's autonomy by ordering it to use reserves to pay the debt, saying it could lead to a sharp increase in government spending

So the bank is autonomous. In many ways that's actually a good thing.

When the government needs to spend money and is asking to have more from it's central bank, that same bank may find it unnecessary to do so citing other legitimate reasons.

It also keeps the government from taking money to where it need not necessarily be, yes??

Apparantly, this is not the only time in which the government had some troubles..

Many people are talking what happened past year when the government tried to increase export taxes on soy beans and farmers took to the roads. Then the situation had to be solved in Congress where basically the government lost......"Many people are saying here that the government is authoritarian and that they have tried to pass Congress in the past."

Remember when I mentioned earlier about international bankers having such strong control and direct influence unto countries to whom they lend money to??

Here's what I mean..

Fernandez's administration says it is trying to clear up the country's debt problems so that it can return to international credit markets that have been closed to it since a 2001 default on debt payments

It must be nice to be rich.

So was the head of the bank doing a good thing or was he doing a bad thing overall??

I see it as both:

Good: He was exercising his organization's (apparent) constitutional independence by refusing to issue funds for national debt- repayment and indirectly refusing his country to cave into international banking organizations.

Bad: The more he refuses co-operation, the more his country is at the continued mercy of international banks.

Here's the link:

Al Jazeera English - Americas - Argentine bank head sacking blocked

[slikrapid]

It's also common knowledge that the banks hold in debt a large part of many other counties debt's as well.

it is also a disturbing fact that its not in the bank's interest that the countries completely pay off the debt as in that case the banks would loose their leverage over the indebted countries

the devastating effects of this perpetuating debt situation can be seen in the history of usa & its federal bank of reserves

However, this event apparently does involve aspects of Argentina's constitution.

this part is quite confusing since there seem to be some gaps/inconsistencies in their laws/constitution

So the bank is autonomous. In many ways that's actually a good thing.

if i understood it correctly, the bank's 'head'/president can be removed only by congressional voting or by the president (of the country) in special circumstances

When the government needs to spend money and is asking to have more from it's central bank, that same bank may find it unnecessary to do so citing other legitimate reasons.

thats a tricky one, as its not clear whether the money is governmental, just deposited in the bank (government reserves) or is it the bank reserves (not necessarily related to the government), whether its the full reserves amount or just a part, we also have no idea who owns this 'central' bank, so i guess there are way too many loose ends to make a decent conclusion about it

[SealLion]

yes. I do agree with respect to who owns those funds in that country's federal bank.

additionally, it also in the best interest of the bank that holds the name on the front of your own credit card.
The more debt you create with yoour credit card, the more money they make off, of you of/c.
Basically, the same things that the banks do to (for??) you is the same that banks do to (for??) countries.