Hello, kettle? This is the pot. We should talk.

From the October 7 Financial Times, there's this opinion piece by Elliott's Jay Newman. The gist of it is that, for more than a decade, Elliott has been uber-reasonable in trying to negotiate with Argentina, but that the country has simply refused to discuss how much more it is willing to pay... er, I mean, refused to pursue a "conciliatory and open process of negotiations" over restructuring terms that would benefit not just Elliott but "the rest of Argentina's creditors."  The title pretty much captures the rest: Now that the Supreme Court has rejected Argentina's first (but not last) petition for certiorari, "It is high time Argentina talked to its creditors."

It's easy and appropriate to bash Argentina, and Newman gets in some zingers. Here he is on Argentina's threat to defy any US court judgment it doesn't like: "This is like threatening a judge that you will break out of jail unless your sentence is commuted." (Yes, exactly! Only, what if you are the leader of a foreign government and... oh, never mind.)

Anyway, maybe it is time for Argentina to put its litigation woes to rest. If that happens, however, it won't be because the Supreme Court denied its recent petition for certiorari. As Anna noted in her last post, that decision isn't a big deal. We may have another 12-18 months before the Supreme Court proceedings are over with. But assuming the injunction survives that process, it might be enough to bring Argentina to the negotiating table. Which will prove that the same world really can't contain both an irresistible force and an immovable object. Or something like that.