It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Remember the $750 Billion S.A. threatened to cut off to the US?

page: 1
21

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
An interesting number right? $750 Billion threatened if we passed a law that allowed US citizens to sue the Saudis for 911....

www.dailymail.co.uk... 9-11-related-lawsuits.html


Officials in Saudi Arabia have reportedly told theObama administration they will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars of American assets if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible for any role in the September 11 attacks.

The warning was delivered by Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir last month during a visit to Washington, the New York Times reported.

The minister said his country would sell up to $750 billion in US treasury securities and other assets before the bill puts them in jeopardy. 



As we all know that law went into effect via the House passing it after Obama vetoed it....

Well take a look at the unusual amount the new Saudi in charge is seizing....

fortune.com...


The Saudi administration’s crackdown on alleged corruption is about to include a massive asset seizure, according to a new report.

The Wall Street Journal quoted unnamed sources as saying the government was planning to seize up to $800 billion in cash and assets, on the basis that they were amassed through corruption.



Odd that these numbers are so close.

Wondering how this all ties in together....




posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

If there is no need for oil, there would be no need for SA.

They are still firmly in control.


.
edit on 10-11-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Vasa Croe

If there is a need for no oil, there would be no need for SA.

They are still firmly in control.


But think about what selling $750 Billion in US Treasury would do....obviously you can't let that happen...or maybe it already did and this is just getting it back before anyone knows, or maybe this is just taking it from them in the first place.

Either way, the numbers are interesting.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

There must have been a tear in the Matrix recently with all that has been happening . You may have put your big fat finger right on it .



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

There is a symbiotic relationship with the US and SA. The petro Dollar makes for strange bed fellows-and allows for odd actions.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Sell 750 billion, buy 750 billion... do you think it is really going to affect us normal working non-millionaire people?

Seriously?

The numbers thrown around these days are staggering. Remember the Donald Trump "grab them by the p@#$y" video? the guy doing that interview was fired and given 10 million severance. 10 million.

How much is it said Bill O'Rielly paid out for sex claims? 35 million?

My daughter just asked me to "borrow" 300 bucks. I gave it to her but damn I had other plans for that money



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Vasa Croe

If there is a need for no oil, there would be no need for SA.

They are still firmly in control.


But think about what selling $750 Billion in US Treasury would do....obviously you can't let that happen...or maybe it already did and this is just getting it back before anyone knows, or maybe this is just taking it from them in the first place.

Either way, the numbers are interesting.


Can you please explain to me exactly what it would do?

With the ignorant amount of money being spent by all nations and the amount of money wasted here in the states, would it really matter?



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   
There is no bigger threat than Saudi Arabia.

All Terrorism can trace it's roots and funding back there from 9/11 to San Bernadino, to Al Queda, Taliban and ISIS and Boko Harem to name only a few.

We have the technology and the means to increase our reliance on renewable energies and electric forms of transportation enough that we could cut all ties with SAudi Arabia if we wanted to without one new oil well. Seriously.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croeif barry had balls he would have said go ahead we would just take all your assets and accounts controlled by us and havethem officially outed as the controlers of isis,isil, alqeda and all the other proxy wars they financing. then form coalition with russia , china and europe to embargo and blockade them in there desert kingdom kinda hard to eat and drink crude.




posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: amazing

For what it's worth, the Western alliance with Saudi Arabia is much deeper than just oil. They're also a major purchaser of Western defense-related products and services (in 2016, they were the 3rd largest military spender in the world).

They're also major investors in Western companies & Western economies in general, as well as major holders of US foreign debt. The Treasury Dept's website says that as of August of 2017, Saudi Arabia was the 12th largest holder of US debt. It shows that they hold around $137.9 billion worth of it, and that's actually a decrease from 2016's $142.5 billion (HERE).



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I was being pretty serious in my post above asking just exactly what would it mean to our economy.

I'm not an economist, I was just assuming that someone could enlighten me on what the ramifications could be about losing $750 billion.



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01

It depends on what the assets are since they threatened to sell off assets and divest (which is basically "un-investing" in projects). I'll give a few lame and completely fictional examples to try to make the point.

If they sold off stocks and bonds from companies, that wouldn't really hurt our economy except maybe to temporarily drop the prices of those specific companies. However, selling off stocks and bonds in those companies would also imply that they weren't going to invest any more our companies in that industry, which could hurt new startups and other companies that are looking to raise cash through selling more stocks and bonds.

If they sold off govt bonds & other forms of govt debt, that would temporarily hurt our govt's fundraising efforts. State govts, local govts, and our federal govt all sell debt to raise cash. Most of the buyers are large institutional investors like investment banks, hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds, insurance companies, and some major colleges. Well, Saudi Arabia owns about $138 billion worth of US debt, so if they sold it all at once, it would temporarily flood the market with cheap US debt. Flooding the market would both decrease the prices and make it harder for our fed govt to sell its new debt (as in, why buy new debt when you can buy existing debt at a fraction of the price?). But just like in the previous example, the real threat would be the implication that they're not buying anymore US debt, which would make it harder for the US to raise money.

If they divested/"un-invested" in current businesses and ventures, that could shut those specific ventures down. So if they are part owners in a small business, that business would suddenly lose one of its financial backers, which may cause the business to fail. If they were one of the financiers in a specific business venture (like major real estate ventures), those ventures would likely collapse if they couldn't find other investors to pick up the slack. This aspect is even more worrying now that the Saudi govt has done this massive crackdown on its powerbrokers, since the #1, #2, and #5 richest people in Saudi Arabia are among the detained people (the richest one is a major institutional investor).

A real example is the city where my Dad lives. A lot of Kuwaiti and Saudi citizens lived there and the local college has/had a scholarship program with the Saudi govt. The Saudis & Kuwaitis paid good money to the college for the program, and even more importantly for the local economy, their govt gave pretty nice grants to their citizens for going to the school. The students would then rent some of the higher cost apartments & homes and the younger males became known around the city for buying brand new sports cars with the money. Needless to say, these helped the local economy a lot. But no lie, right after Trump was elected, at least half of the students left the country within 2 weeks. I don't know if the scholarship programs are still ongoing, but I know that the college started undergoing a budget crunch afterwards.

These are just some examples off the top of my head, so there can always be more. But the important thing is figuring out specifically what assets they'd sell off. And it also will depend on if this $750 billion figure includes existing contracts, meaning they could threaten to cancel billions of dollars worth of defense contracts and other deals.

ETA: If it also includes closing accounts in American banks, that would have the same effect as any other customers closing their accounts. In theory, banks borrow money at a small interest rate from customers' accounts and then they lend or invest that money at higher interest rates. That's how they make their money, by borrowing $20,000 at 1% interest from customers' "savings accounts" and then lending that $20,000 in a car loan for 15% and pocketing the difference.

But in reality, banks can lend 8 to 10 times more money than they have in their accounts, meaning they'd borrow $20,000 from the customers' accounts and could then turn around and loan out up to $200,000 in car loans, credit cards, etc. Some banks will even use that $20,000 that's in a customer's account as collateral for an even larger loan for themselves lol (basically using customer accounts as collateral for larger loans).

This scheme works well when customers keep their accounts open and are content with accepting the bank's interest payments. But once customers pull their money out, banks have to find a way to replace those funds in order to back their other deals. If they can't find other funds and too many customers want to pull their money out of the bank, the bank risks failure since it literally doesn't have those funds (aka "a run on the bank"). These "runs" won't work with banks that affiliated with the Federal Reserve system though, since the Federal Reserve can literally print as much money as its member banks need.

Either way, if the Saudis pulled a good $50 billion or so from Wall Street accounts, it would hurt those specific companies but probably wouldn't have an effect on the rest of us.
edit on 14-11-2017 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
21

log in

join