Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (12038)	5/22/1998 5:55:00 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116825

No, I believe the original Jan or Feb '95 'bailout' was paid off partly by Pemex cash flow but mostly by German bank money. That 'bailout' was largely loan guarantees anyway, and not cash money changing hands. I'm not sure of any details now, as I no longer have the file of info on the subject that I had a year ago. Way back in this thread I posted an excerpt from something I wrote elsewhere. Some details should be on the Banco de M‚xico site banxico.org.mx ... El Proceso proceso.com.mx had an overview article last year but they don't hold their back issues on the net. The Economist economist.com has treated the questions thoroughly and fairly, imho, from their usual detached viewpoint. Anyway - what I remember mostly was the misconceptions and the tendency to isolationism on both sides. The mexicano 'man in the street' would have given those big americano banks the finger and told them they were stupid to shovel so much cash into the hands of the wrong people down here in the first place, forgetting that this would affect the credibility and the credit rating of the nation. US citizens may not realize the extent to which a coalition comprised of multi-national companies, the CIA and the IMF, working with the PRI (Party of Rats Institutionalized) are blamed for the woes of the people. And not entirely without foundation, imho, although it is used far too much as an easy way out - blame the other guy. At the same time, the American 'Joe Taxpayer', rightly perceiving that it was his funds in play, would have given M‚xico the finger and said 'well pay up or we foreclose', forgetting that 1. The previous loans had no other collateral than the taxing power of the nation (the current ones do, they are backed by Pemex cash flow, while the peso is now backed by a currency board) so there was nothing to foreclose on, and 2. That would have violently disrupted the flow of trade and commerce between M‚x and the US, from which considerable net benefit derives to the US, some small portion of which, we can only hope, is permitted to trickle down to Joe Taxpayer. Both sides tend to be poorly informed, and forget that this is rapidly becoming one world, a global village economically speaking. This medium we use here is only a symptom of a general increase in travel and trade and communication. To look back to 1930s isolationism is nothing more than an exercise in nostalgia, market forces are pushing the other way and will not be resisted. None of which means I support the propping up of corrupt regimes like that of Suharto and the PRI and Clinton - just that imho the world is getting smaller and more connected all the time, it's just a fact of life. And a Good Thing, imho. .......... cheers .............. marcos