S.&P. Says Argentina Has Defaulted

This is badly wrong.

Brazil's plan wasn't to create "a currency with value attached to dollar", nor it was Argentina's plan.

Argentina made a currency board, a regime in which the central bank could only emit 1 peso more if 1 dollar more entered the country (and reached the central bank's vault).

In Brazil, Argentina's plan was called "dolarization" and was dropped by André Lara Resende, Persio Arida and Edmar Bacha when they were thinking about the brazilian plan, Plano Real.

In fact, what Brazil did was only to control government costs, stop printing money and stop the indexation of prices and contracts by creating a virtual currency whose value changed every day in the rate of inflation (so all things could be priced in this virtual currency, whose nominal value was fixed). After that, that virtual currency became real, was printed and called the Real, becoming the new brazilian currency.

The Real had no need of dollar indexation to succeed, and its price in dollars wasn't fixed at all, the brazilian central bank only made a promise to keep its price in parity, with open-market operations, for some time, to boost confidence, then it would let the price fluctuate. This was stated and clear from the beggining of the plan's implementation.

That's absurd. "Sabre-rattling" means attempting to intimidate by displays of military power (or implied military power). See: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sabre-rattling?s=t&pa...

Both links you cited specifically rule out military intervention. Allow me to quote from your first link:

Quotes from your first link:

----

"Argentina will seek legal punishment, including prison sentences, for anyone who drills for oil in the Falklands and the surrounding waters it claims as its territories, the country's newly created Malvinas secretary has told the Guardian. [...] In his first interview with the international media since taking the post on Monday, Daniel Filmus also warned that companies involved in exploration of the disputed areas will be disqualified from potentially more lucrative work in Vaca Muerta (the giant shale oil deposit in Argentina's Patagonia region) and offshore areas.

"We will go to the international courts. It must be known that Argentina will defend its claim," Filmus told the Guardian at his office in the ministry of foreign affairs. "Whoever doesn't obtain authorisation will not only face administrative consequences but will also face prison sentences.""

----

You may or may not like Argentina's policies and position on the matter of the Malvinas, but all this is:

a- Not military posturing. b- Within legal bounds. See mentions of legal action, prison sentences, international courts. I don't see any threats of military aggression, do you?

So we can rule out sabre-rattling from your first link. Let's go on with your second link.

First sentence after the heading of second link:

----

"Argentinian foreign minister rules out military solution but says 'not one single country' supports UK right to govern islands"

----

So a military solution is ruled out then? I rest my case.

> By definition sabre-rattling means aggressive displays of power.

Which Argentina, particularly by way of its Navy, has been engaging throughout the 2010s over the Falkland Islands.

> Argentina in democracy has continued to assert their sovereign rights over the Malvinas Islands via diplomatic means.

Among other things, enforcing a de facto blockade using naval forces to prevent innocent passage of civilian vessels is -- as well as arguably a violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea -- clear saber rattling, not "diplomatic means".

> You are fully entitled to believe the claim is invalid or wrong, but this that not make it sabre-rattling.

You are fully entitled to believe that the claim is valid or right, but that doesn't change the fact that the Kirchener government has been, for years, engaging in, alongside diplomatic efforts, saber rattling in regards to the Falkland Islands.

Obviously you are not an economist or historian (I'm neither). "Why can't our government print their own money?" pretty much gives away that you haven't put in any effort to learn how banking, money or a central bank works.

All the examples you mention don't hold up. Not even in their own time, much less in a modern time where we need private finance.

"Cryptocurrency" is a new kind of knee-jerk reaction to "everything perceived to be wrong with money". There's a reason why conspiracy nuts flock to cryptocurrencies in droves. Turns out that ordinary people get screwed over with bitcoins far more easily than with the "evil" fiat currencies. Also there is no reason why you can't have a sort of reserve-banking, or even monetary expansion in a bitcoin-based economy. They just don't do it yet, because Bitcoins at the present moment have negligible impact on the real economy (which might change).

Minor flaw in your point - it's even harder for governments to budget rationally when some shark buys up all their old debt on the cheap and tries to bankrupt them, because money.