Talk:Puerto Rican government-debt crisis

POV check on causes section
I think the Puerto Rico Debt Crisis section dealing with the causes needs a POV check. Some of the sections (such as the Jones Act) seem ok, although the title “Suzerainty to the United States” seems not to be very neutral. The “Disparity in federal social funding” and “Costs of importing fossil fuels” also seem fine. Further on in this section, subsections on the “Economic depression,” and “Population decline” seem to have neutral POVs.

But “Labor costs,” “Mismanagement and disparity” and “Political stubbornness” seem to not be objective in terms of neutral point of view. Terms are used such as “political class,” stating that officials “lack competency,” etc. One sentence reads: “As with other scenarios, the political class opted to issue bonds rather than make adjustments and transform its society and economy.” Sources that have been cited are also controversial and not objective, and are not balanced by citations to sources that read the other way.

One sentence reads: “The cost of doing business in Puerto Rico is further increased by complex labor laws that force employers to pay for several employee benefits from their own pockets.” Of course, most companies pay employee benefits of some type, so this seems to be a politically-motivated sentence. The section does not say which benefits, or why this is different from elsewhere. And the sources cited support only one side of the argument, saying that businesses shouldn’t pay any benefits. No counter-arguments are given or cited.

I think these represent one viewpoint that is not universally shared. It seems to me that the section needs to be worked on. As a lawyer, my interest is in the sovereignty relationship, and this is outside of my expertise. Hopefully someone with a background in this area will re-write these sections. Bmcarson (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

POV check on causes section
I need a POV check on the causes section. I don't know how to rephrase such statements. Regardless of who is in power, it is the people of Puerto Rico that elected them, and, therefore, it is the people of Puerto Rico the ones responsible for all this (by electing incompetent officials, by maintaining the status quo and its implications, and by being apathetic). Any help? &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * First let me commend you for bringing this article from a mere 500 bytes to over 25,000 bytes in size. Also, a suggestion, you might want to consider placing a note about this Talk Page section at WP:PUR and similar pages, since I doubt that many editors are watching this article/talk page.


 * IAE, I do not agressively follow politics (neither as a product of personal conviction nor as a student of political science), so my opinion here is almost entirely based on my undertanding of Wikipedia policies and on my personal perceptions of the article's subject matter as a 3rd party watching from afar.


 * IMO, to address your POV concerns in that section what needs to be done is to source everything -- well, let's say as much as possible. Also, imo, the first paragraph needs to be removed in its entirety and replaced with sourced statements. That paragragh may have been written as an attempt to introduce the "cause" sections that follow, but just as it is important to source specifics, in this current and touchy subject matter it is, imo, even more important to source generalizations so as to minimize the likelihood that someone might want to charge something you said there with WP:OR. (I personally see that paragraph as OR,,, others might disagree). That said, I don't think we should put the blame on the constituency/voters (on the basis that it was them who elected incompetent leaders, etc). What we need to do is to find sources that discuss the causes and put those in. For example, THIS may be one such source. (I am not taking sides; I am sure similar news clips can be found where some high-ranking PNP official is putting the blame on someone from the PPD, and I am using that link simply becuase I happened to have seen it in the last day or two.) I don't think we will find reports that put the blame on the Puerto Rican people becuase, after all, Puerto Rico is a republican representative democracy. Perhaps I am wrong, but that's why we need WP:RS.


 * This was all my opinion. Again I'm perhaps not highly qualified to argue political matters. I hope my comments will help. And for now, I will be making some minor cosmetic edits. Mercy11 (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Believe me, I understand what you mean, but the problem with this kind of issues is that they are never covered formally until after the event. I happen to know all this to be true, but as we know, knowing it is true is not enough. For example, while Acevedo Vilá may argue that this is all Pedro Roselló's fault, the truth is that what Rosselló did contributed very little to today's outstanding debt (I think it's less than 5%)... but I don't have a source to back that up save for: "I know this is the truth". I'd say that we simply tag stuff in the meantime rather than remove it while we continue to develop the article. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * My bad: I should had checked HERE first. I just saw it now. Ignore what I suggested above, as you had already done it! Mercy11 (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly troubling. Stiglitz did weight in on several of the causes, and he would be a premier source if a transcript could be found. With that said, the notion that "the island also lacks natural resources used to produce raw materials" has been contested quite frequently, I have seen several so-called experts use metallogenic maps and other sources to argue that it is not really a lack of materials, but actually mismanagement of resources. Apparently, the fact that several houses were allowed in areas adjacent to large copper deposits throughout the island prevents their use due to contamination concerns. One of them argued that the Luquillo arboretum was a failure, since the data collected from it has not been truly exploited (lumber is a raw material).

Blaming the hurricane season for the utter disappearance of agricultural economy seems a bit contradictory, given its historical track record. Hurricanes do indeed cause a major loss, but only when they make landfall. It is known that Manos a la Obra failed to keep a proper balance when the economy was moved towards industrialization, a condition that lingered well into the 21st century. The lack of willing employees can't be understated, see the coffee industry for example. There are also sources (,, et al.) arguing that conflicting politics, the repurposing of viable terrains and the lack of widespread hydroponic crops (there were only ten circa 2010) keep the issue in stasis, preventing a functional agricultural economy.

Finally, a second reference could be used along El Vocero in "Mismanagement and disparity", given that newspaper's reputation. we want to avoid any edit war because someone feels that the references are biased. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  04:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should change it to "the lack of some natural resources" since Puerto Rico does lack some natural resources such as oil, gas, coal, [little] forestry, lack of certain livestock for fiber, etc. Regarding hurricanes, the issue is that Puerto Rico may have a fantastic agricultural infrastructure but one single hurricane can destroy it entirely—that's what I'm trying to convey. Manos a la Obra failed for several reasons, not because of its primary intent (its failure was mainly due to politics and lack of succession/continuation/transition -- I can find you a book on this just don't remember its title right now). The other factors you mention should definitely be mentioned, perhaps under the "Mismanagement" section? &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, even if the offshore oil and gas deposits were exploited, they would only be used locally and PR produces no coal whatsoever. "Little forestry" would fall in the arboretum argument mentioned above, the experiment did note that the local soil could sustain a lumber industry if the proper species were used. The infrastructure of "traditional" crops is affected, but that is where the widespread use of hydroponic crops is relevant; the main concern with them is actually cost, since indoor structures should be safe from nature. One of the professors involved in the Estación Experimental Agricola has argued that these crops could cover approx. 30% of the local demand, particularly that of smaller vegetables such as tomatoes, lettuce, etc. and several kinds of tubers that are currently being imported, opening the door to eventual exportation. Due to the existence of these counterarguments, the wording should be softened: "The existence of a thriving agricultural economy has been prevented due to a shift in priorities towards industrialization, bureaucratization, mismanagement of terrains, lack of alternative methods and a deficient workforce. Its geographical location within the Caribbean exacerbates these issues, making the scarce existing crops propense to the devastating effects of Atlantic hurricanes." -   Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  05:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅. I will add the other stuff to agriculture in Puerto Rico. It is quite fascinating, evenmoreso if it can be referenced. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * For starters, I remember that Bernier claimed that hydroponic crop funded by a single-company could produce something along the lines of 50,000 pounds of lettuce/pm not long ago. Due to his public office, I am sure that one is the easiest to source. The EEA's claim should also be mentioned in some of its papers. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  06:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Query. This article seems to be incredibly anti-Puerto Rico, when it seems quite clear they suffer from some serious imbalances compared to the rest of the US.  The medicare cap issue is huge: according to this article https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/medicaid-funding-cap-puerto-rico/524973/ the discrepancy is approximately $1.5bn USD.  That is more than 1% of Puerto Rico's GDP, and since healthcare spending means non-healthcare workers have improved health and a better quality of life and ability to work more there is a clear multiplier effect.  It is simply inadequate to quote newspaper articles and draw an encyclopedic conclusion that the state was inefficient and got what it deserved.  Sorry if I have input this comment wrongly, I am new to Wikipedia.  83.244.255.52 (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Bad situations may seem not to adhere to NPOV, but if the sources are there . . . 50.111.57.184 (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Geography and globalization
Can you guys help me reference and rephrase this section? Someone removed it claiming it was WP:OR since it is unsourced although we all know it to be true. Here's the excerpt:

Any help?

&mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Bankruptcy?
See note at Talk:Puerto Rico. Shenme (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Greece and Puerto Rico debt crisis?
May I add Greece's debt crisis page form the See Also section? Puerto Rico isn't the only territory suffering from debt, as Greece is suffering an ongoing debt simultaneously. CrowdingShark19 (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:BEBOLD. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the Greece crisis is relevant to the Puerto Rican crisis because both are contemporary and involve questions of government borrowing costs through a shared bond market for quasi-states within a currency union. Salahmaker (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. While both Greece and Puerto Rico are different from each other (Greece being a country and Puerto Rico being a US territory), they both share equal problems, so much as debts as well. CrowdingShark19 (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Why has the word "suzerainty" disappeared from the article?
The corresponding edit claims that the term is "politically charged", that doesn't seem like a good reason to remove it. There seem to be credible scholarly references that use the term clearly. Maneesh (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Public debt of Puerto Rico says debt is $164.7 billion USD
What am I missing there? Why is that article quoting $164.7 billion USD?

The distribution of Puerto Rico's outstanding debt.

The public debt of Puerto Rico is the money borrowed by the government of Puerto Rico through the issue of securities by the Government Development Bank and other government agencies. The actual[clarify] debt is about $164.7 billion USD or about 150% of Puerto Rico's gross domestic product (GDP).[1][2][3][4][5][6] By October 2013 the debt had ballooned to $191 billion not including pensions.[7] Peter K Burian (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Major new developments
PR is seeking de-facto bankruptcy protection under Title III of the US Code, likely representing the, by far, largest government default in US History. I'd like to see this article nominated for ITN on the main page but there are some significant issues with orange tags that would have to be dealt with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed maintenance tags
Note that I've removed maintenance tags for original research and neutrality. These tags must be accompanied by a talk page section so that editors can understand what content is contentious. If these issues from May, 2016 are still present, feel free to add back the tags with a new section on this talk page. Mamyles (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

eswiki link to newspaper?
For some reason, the interwiki link to the Spanish Wikipedia takes one to an article about the periodical El Nuevo Día, which has surely covered this topic but is not about this topic. Not knowing what the corresponding eswiki article's title is (or even if there really is one) I can't just correct it. --Haruo (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"More Autonomy" section change
I believe the title of the section "more autonomy" should be altered, as two opposite solutions were proposed concerning Puerto Rico's autonomy. The section states that one solution would be to increase autonomy, and another would be to treat Puerto Rico as more like a state, increasing its rights and, presumably, putting it under more federal control. If the second solution proposed is actually another way of increasing autonomy, then the body of the section should be changed to reflect that. Jionunez (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Per-capita debt in January 2017
In the "2017 debt restructuring ... " section, there is a figure of $12,000 per capita debt as of January 2017. This figure comes from a Debtwire article (via Forbes). It's a curious figure, because a $70 billion debt for a population of 3.4 million gives a per capita debt of $21,000. Perhaps Debtwire simply reversed the digits (in error). But the situation seems more curious than that, because the Debtwire article puts the "tax supported" debt at $53 billion and nowhere mentions a $70 billion figure. And starting with a debt of $53 billion, one doesn't get to a per capita debt of $12,000 unless one erroneously assumes that the population of Puerto Rico is 4.4 million (or, perhaps, by reversing the digits, 4.3 million). Can anyone here shed some light on this confusion? NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Image
I've removed this image. I am unconvinced of its reliability. The source website states that it is a "guesstimate" and the compiler is not a journalist, economist, or other authority, but this guy, whose website gives this disclaimer: "WE make no respresentation about the accuracy of the data presented in these websites. Nor does Christopher Chantrill represent himself to possess any formal qualifications to select, evaluate or present the information. Users are urged to check all data against the published data sources and to report any errors or inconsistencies."

--Neutralitytalk 23:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)