 Argentina's debt crisis was the product of a decade of intense neoliberal economic policies that produced a series of pretty severe imbalances in the economy that were covered mostly through external borrowing. This external borrowing became unsustainable, and towards the end of the decade, in 2001, really the beginning of the following decade, Argentina defaulted on its debt. This was the largest sovereign default in history, and not only did Argentina default or stop payments on its debt, but Argentina also abandoned the fixed exchange rate monetary policy that it had held during the entire 1990s. Argentina recovered its ability to conduct independent monetary policy, recovered its monetary sovereignty, and stopped making payments on its debt. This enabled Argentina to have seven consecutive years after these events of very high growth levels and being able to solve many of the problems, although by all means not all, that had been generated in the previous decade. So one could say then that defaulting and recovering monetary sovereignty was the right way to go for Argentina given its situation. The countries in the periphery of the European Union that are currently under severe external debt stress, Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, I think can look at the Argentine case and maybe find alternatives in the way Argentina dealt with its debt for their own experiences. Clearly the Euro situation is different because you have a common currency area. And so the costs or the difficulties involved are probably larger than in the Argentine case, which had a fixed exchange rate regime, but it was still the country's own decision. Still I think that there is no obligation to pay for a debt that is unsustainable and there is no obligation to pay for a debt that is unsustainable, especially when that means high levels of unemployment, poverty, hunger, and very widespread problems for the population. So I think popular and the population's well-being should be the priority, not satisfying the financial sector or the Troika or the IMF and the ECB. Vulture funds are a problem, but they are a problem of how financial markets work. So one can try to regulate the ability of these funds to intervene in financial markets. One can also regulate how much they can demand when they intervene, etc. One can try to put limits on Vulture funds, but I think the essential basic problem is how financial markets work and how our economies, through all of these neoliberal transformations, have been structured around the operations of financial markets and not vice versa. Financial markets should be at the service of the economy. So until that happens, one can have sort of remedial restrictions imposed. I'm not sure how effective they will be until financial markets are subdued in a way to serve the people and not vice versa.