

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

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 |
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) 293-5380Israel is seeking to invalidate the ICC's arrest warrants for fugitive Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Appellate judges at the embattled International Criminal Court on Monday rejected Israel's attempt to block an investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes committed during the Gaza genocide.
The ICC Appeals Chamber dismissed an Israeli challenge to the assertion that the October 7, 2023, attacks and subsequent war on Gaza were part of the same ongoing "situation" under investigation by the Hague-based tribunal since 2021. Israel argued they were separate matters that required new notice; however, the ICC panel found that the initial probe encompasses events on and after October 7.
The ruling—which focuses on but one of several Israeli legal challenges to the ICC—comes amid the tribunal's investigation into an Israeli war and siege that have left at least 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing and 2 million more displaced, starved, or sickened.
The probe led to last year's ICC arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhau and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder and forced starvation. The ICC also issued warrants for the arrest of three Hamas commanders—all of whom have since been killed by Israel.
Israel and the United States, neither of which are party to the Rome Statute governing the ICC, vehemently reject the tribunal's investigation. In the US—which has provided Israel with more than $21 billion in armed aid as well as diplomatic cover throughout the genocide—the Trump administration has sanctioned nine ICC jurists, leaving them and their families "wiped out socially and financially."
The other Hague-based global tribunal, the International Court of Justice, is currently weighing a genocide case against Israel filed in December 2023 by South Africa and backed by more than a dozen nations, as well as regional blocs representing dozens of countries.
University of Copenhagen international law professor Kevin Jon Heller—who is also a special adviser to the ICC prosecutor on war crimes—told Courthouse News Service that “the real importance of the decision is that it strongly implies Israel will lose its far more important challenge to the court’s jurisdiction over Israeli actions in Palestine."
Although Israel is not an ICC member and does not recognize its jurisdiction, Palestine is a state party to the Rome Statute, under which individuals from non-signatory nations can be held liable for crimes committed in the territory of a member state.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry condemned Monday's decision, calling it "yet another example of the ongoing politicization of the ICC and its blatant disregard for the sovereign rights of non-party states, as well as its own obligations under the Rome Statute."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Washington, DC-based advocacy group, welcomed the ICC decision.
“This ruling by the International Criminal Court affirms that no state is above the law and that war crimes must be fully and independently investigated," CAIR said in a statement. "Accountability is essential for justice, for the victims, and survivors, and for deterring future crimes against humanity.”
"Wales and Sanger must be stopped from trying to censor the Wikipedia ‘Gaza genocide’ entry that clearly documents Israel’s horrifying crime against humanity.”
More than 40 advocacy groups on Monday called on Wikipedia editors and the Wikimedia board of trustees to reject efforts by the web-based encyclopedia's co-founders to censor the site's entry on the Gaza genocide.
After months of internal debate, editors of the Wikipedia article titled “Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza” renamed the entry "Gaza genocide" in July 2024, reflecting experts' growing acknowledgement that Israel's annihilation and siege of the Palestinian exclave met the legal definition of the ultimate crime. The entry also notes that the Gaza genocide is not settled legal fact—an International Court of Justice case on the matter is ongoing—and that numerous experts refute the claim that Israel's war is genocidal.
The move, and the subsequent addition of Gaza to Wikipedia's article listing cases of genocide, sparked heated "edit wars" on the community-edited site—which has long been a target of pro-Israeli public relations efforts. In the United States, a pair of House Republicans launched an investigation to reveal the identities of the anonymous Wikipedia editors who posted negative facts about Israel.
"Israeli officials and pro-Israel organizations are attempting to hide the horrifying reality... by putting pressure on institutions like Wikipedia to engage in genocide denial."
Wikipedia co-founders Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger have intervened in the dispute, with Wales—a self-described "strong supporter of Israel"—publicly stating that the Gaza genocide entry lacked neutrality, failed to meet Wikipedia's "high standards," and required "immediate attention" after an editor blocked changes to the article.
"Wales and Sanger are using their roles as Wikipedia founders to bypass the normal editing and review process and introduce their
own ideological biases into an entry that has already undergone exhaustive vetting and review by Wikipedia editors, including thousands of edits and comments," the 42 advocacy groups said in a letter to Wikimedia's board and site editors.
"Their efforts deny the documented reality of Israel’s genocide in Gaza and contradict the broad consensus among genocide scholars, international human rights organizations, UN experts, and both Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations," the groups continue. "In doing so, Wales and Sanger are engaging in attempted censorship and genocide denial."
The letters' signers include the American Friends Service Committee, Artists Against Apartheid, Brave New Films, CodePink, Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), Doctors Against Genocide, MPower Change Action Fund, Peace Action, and United Methodists for Kairos Response.
Since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack, Israel's retaliatory obliteration and siege on Gaza—for which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes—have left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing. Around 2 million other Palestinians have been forcibly displaced, sickened, or starved in what hunger experts say is an entirely human-caused famine.
"The simple reality is that Israeli officials and pro-Israel organizations are attempting to hide the horrifying reality of Israel’s genocide in Gaza by pretending that there is a substantive debate and by putting pressure on institutions like Wikipedia to engage in genocide denial," the groups' letter asserts.
"Wales’ 'both sides' framework for denying the Gaza genocide," the groups warned, "could also be used to legitimize Holocaust denial, denial of the Armenian genocide, or to platform 'flat-earthers' who deny the Earth’s spherical shape."
"Healthcare is a human right. That’s why we need Medicare for All," said one senator. "And the American people agree!"
In Maine, only one of the top two candidates in the Democratic US Senate primary has expressed support for the specific healthcare reform proposal that continues to be treated by the political establishment as radical—but which is supported by not only a sizable majority of Mainers but also most Americans surveyed in several recent polls.
Graham Platner, a veteran and oyster farmer who was a political novice when he launched his campaign in August and has polled well ahead of Gov. Janet Mills in several recent surveys, and a poll that asked Mainers about healthcare on Saturday showed he is in lockstep with many people in the state.
As the advocacy group Maine AllCare reported, the Pan Atlantic 67th Omnibus poll found that 63% of Mainers support Medicare for All, the proposal to transition the US to a system like that of other wealthy countries, with the government expanding the existing Medicare program and guaranteeing health coverage to all.
Those results bolster the findings of More Perfect Union in October, which found 72% of Mainers backing Medicare for All, and of Data for Progress, which found last month that 65% of all Americans—including 78% of Democratic voters—support a "national health insurance program... that would cover all Americans and replace most private health insurance plans.”
Even more recently, a Pew Research survey released last week found that 66% of respondents nationwide said the government should guarantee health coverage.
Platner has spoken out forcefully in support of Medicare for All, saying unequivocally last month that the proposal "is the answer" to numerous healthcare crises including the loss of primary care providers in many parts of the country and skyrocketing healthcare costs.
He made the comments soon after Mills said at a healthcare roundtable that "it is time" for a universal healthcare system, but did not explicitly endorse Medicare for All.
Maine AllCare noted that the latest polling on Medicare for All in the state comes as Maine "is on the verge of a multi-pronged healthcare crisis" due to Republican federal lawmakers' refusal to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies—which is projected to significantly raise monthly premiums for many Maine families as well as millions of people across the country. People in Maine and other states are also bracing for changes to Medicaid, including eligibility requirements.
Those changes "alongside long-standing affordability and access gaps, are projected to cost Maine billions and trigger deep operating losses in already strained hospitals," said Maine AllCare.
The group emphasized that that the Republican budget reconciliation law that President Donald Trump signed in July is projected to have a range of economic impacts on Maine, including a $450 million decline in statewide economic output, the loss of 4,300 state jobs, and the loss of $700 million in revenue at the state's hospitals due to Medicaid cuts.
“Maine needs a sustainable and universal healthcare system now. Poll after poll show people want Medicare for All. Our leaders can let the current health system continue collapsing—harming families, communities, and the economy of our state—or they can meet the moment and fight like hell to enact change that protects both the people and the future of the state," said David Jolly, a Maine AllCare board member. "That is the work Mainers elected them to do and that is what they must do now.”
Despite the broad popularity of the proposal to expand the Medicare program to everyone in the US—a system that would cost less than the current for-profit health insurance system does, according to numerous studies—supporters, including the 17 cosponsors of the Medicare for All bill in the US Senate and the 110 cosponsors in the US House, continue to face attacks from establishment politicians regarding the cost and feasibility of the proposal.
On Monday, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) explained to Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo how the Affordable Care Act that was passed by the Democratic Party is "not the solution" to the country's healthcare crisis, because it keeps in place the for-profit health insurance industry.
"The solution, as everyone knows, in my view, who has studied this, is Medicare for All," said Khanna. "People should have national health insurance. Healthcare is a human right. You should not be subject to these private insurance companies that have 18% admin costs, that are making billions of dollars in profits."
I made the case for Medicare for All on @MorningsMaria with @MariaBartiromo with facts and basic economics. https://t.co/ExZpCNQT7B pic.twitter.com/F226Kutv16
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) December 15, 2025
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) also spoke out in favor of the proposal, pointing to the recent Data for Progress poll that showed 65% of Americans and 78% of Democrats backing Medicare for All.
"Healthcare is a human right. That’s why we need Medicare for All," said Merkley. "We need to simplify our system and make sure folks can get the care they need, when they need it. And the American people agree!"