Like the US, Argentina's decision to pay its debts will enable the country to borrow, which is useful if you want to invest in stuff which will improve your economy.
This isn't about regular creditors, but about vulture funds, sovereign debt, ruining countries, and the never-ending cycle of incurring even more debt to pay for existing debt.
Many were naturally for paying what was due to soldiers, and against paying off the speculators who were "preying" on the situation. By paying it all off, Alexander Hamilton demonstrated the (a) the US would make good on its debts and (b) US debts can be can be liquidated bought and sold freely without exception.
Both of these points make it easier for a country to obtain new finances on demand at lower cost. Point (a) means the lender can be assured the country will not disown the loan. Point (b) because debt which can be freely sold gives the lender much more flexibility.
[1] http://www.historycentral.com/NN/economic/Hamiltontorescue.h...
However, am I right in thinking that, along with incurring new debt, Hamilton also recommended additional policies, such as taxation and protection of the industry? These are points of criticism of Argentina's new government: relaxation of import restrictions, and decreasing taxation of businesses and of exports from the wealthy agricultural sector.
But yes, there are debits that are impossible to pay back. Argentina is too big to get one of those in 90 days, but you may be in that hole - it depends on the details.
Also I'll disagree. Corruption is the single most important issue on LATAM today. It's the root of nearly all of our problems.
> Brazil also surrendered to vulture funds at the 90's, and paid it back with things running very smoothly
What was the impact of those policies on the population, especially on the poor? Honest question, this isn't a trick question -- in fact, I'll be honest and say my assumption is that neoliberal policies in Latin America hurt the poor and create the ground for the rise of so-called populist governments. With Brasil this theory of mine is made less clear by the fact that, if I'm not mistaken, Lula's PT continued many of the policies of Cardoso... I remember being very confused about that!
I don't have much idea if the net result of renegotiating the external debit was positive or negative. It was mostly a non-event, it is hard to find any impact anywhere. I imagine the magnitude varies with the actual debit size, and at the end of the day, our wasn't that big - despite politicians focusing their discourse on it for a generation.
Anyway, to the extent that it has any meaning, "neoliberalism" also includes focusing on extractivist industries. We didn't practice that part.
Also, there was some effort into fighting corruption and institutionalizing policy. I'd classify it on the poverty reducing side of the balance, so that it murks a bit the effects of monetary stabilization. But then, poverty continued to reduce even late at Lula's government, so I must conclude that the stabilization was more important than this fighting (that wasn't as big as what is happening now).
About the raise of PT, it happened in a period of worldwide economical crisis, and our economy took a hit. The party got very lucky that the world economy recovered fast, and got into a big period of growth, that only ended in 2008.
Alleged contractors corruption cases are a serious deal which should be investigated, no-one is denying that, but I don't think corruption alone is all that matters in a country. I'm more worried about disastrous policies. A perfectly honest politician can lead a country to ruin, and many of us don't think Macri is clean in any case.