posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:53 PM
Did we attack Libya to benefit Goldman Sachs?
I pose this question after reading this article at the Daily Bail -
So Libya had about $50 billion laying around to try their hand in investing. After Qaddafi paid restitution to the Lockerbie bombing victims and made
promises to destroy some weapons stockpiles, the US State Department gave US financial firms the ok to do business with the former rogue nation.
In one short year GS managed to take $1.3 billion of the Libyan Investment Authority and turn it into a measly $25 million.
given for the poor performance was the credit crisis of '08 but that hardly explains that amount of vanishing money.
GS scrambled to try to put together other offers fearing that news of the deal would scare other investors away .
Reading further at the Wall Street Journal I came across this offer that was made to the Libyan Investment Authority:
In May 2009, Goldman proposed that Libya get $5 billion in preferred Goldman shares in return for pumping $3.7 billion into the company, according
to fund and Goldman documents. Goldman offered to pay the Libyan Investment Authority between 4% and 9.25% on the shares annually for more than 40
years, which would amount to billions of dollars more.
Source - online.wsj.com...
What does this have to do with invading Libya?
As of last June, the Libyan Investment Authority had assets of about $53 billion, according to a document reviewed by the Journal. This year, U.S.
officials froze about $37 billion in Libyan assets, including some funds still managed by Goldman.
Are we attacking Libya so that Goldman Sachs can renege on their deal while the US gets to keep all that Libyan money on hand to help the ol' balance
sheets? I have to wonder given the extreme amount of influence certain financial firms have with the White House and the seeming lack of reasonable
answers to why we are there at all.
If "spreading Democracy" was really a big worry of the US we would have stepped in to help the Egyptian people to get out from under the heel of
Mubarak. Egypt has been a long-time ally of Washington and keeping friendly relations with the country that owns the Suez canal would certainly be
among our true strategic interests.
Of all the countries we are out to "Democratize" it strikes me odd that it would be Libya, one of the few nations with any real cash assets or
connections with Goldman Sachs.