At 04:44 PM 4/12/2002 +0100, you wrote: >And ended in or around 1890, when the Argentine government defaulted on its >bonds and caused the First Baring Crisis. NB that around this period, I >disagree that British were very much in the business of sending gunboats to >enforce private debts; Sir John Simon issued the circular announcing the >"Palmerston Doctrine" in 1848: > >"My predecessor in this post, Lord Palmerston, who cannot be regarded as >having been reticent in the defence of British interests, was of the opinion >that if investors choose to buy foreign bonds with a yield of 10 per cent >rather than British government bonds with a lower yield, they should not >expect as a matter of right that the British government would intercede on >their behalf in the event of a default" > >dd
You are probably correct. In writing about the showdown between the Governor of Santa Fe and the Rosario branch of the London and River Plate Bank in 1875, Bendaña writes: >>The Argentines insisted that the bank could not claim diplomatic immunity and was subject to local authority. The British chargé disagreed and ordered a gunboat to proceed to Rosario. At the same time he and the bank's lawyer-politician, Manuel Quintana, pressured the national government. Buenos Aires officials assumed a conciliatory stance less in deference to the show of force than out of consideration for long term Anglo-Argentine interests and the prospects of being cut off from new loans. The interests of the Argentine oligarchy were too dependent on foreign capital to be able to afford any show of economic nationalism. As Ferns noted, "prosperity had created a nation of boosters, and the porteños looked on the Governor of Santa Fe as Pierpont Morgan might have regarded William Jennings Bryan."<< In other words, there is no reason to do battle with people who have already surrendered. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
