The United States of Goldman Sachs' Libyan connection

The Libyan government gave Goldman Sachs Group $1.8 billion in 2008 expecting a nice return from the investment no doubt.  Unfortunately, the investments went sour losing 98% of their value.  Who knows what that means, I assume 98% of almost $2 billion disappeared. Moneylenders, speculators and other social wasters like the Goldman Sachs crowd made a mad dash for Libya when it launched its sovereign-wealth fund in 2007.  The term SWF clearly describes what this account is, the wealth of a sovereign state, state money. The $2 billion belonged to the people of Libya and Gaddafi was becoming acceptable again in the business world, a reliable crook who, after skimming his share of the people's wealth was quite willing to share some with the big guys for a fee.

So 98% of $2 billion disappears and and Goldman was about to make good on its promise to pay the fund $50 million to help the fund re-coup some of its losses according to reports.   Apparently, the $50 million was to be passed on to another party, Palladyne International Asset Management.  These firms aren't really managers of assets as we would be if we managed and allocated collectively the surplus value that we produce; they're all groups that in one way or another facilitate robbery of this wealth by the various sections of the global capitalist class and their lesser cronies.  But it turns out that the guy running this asset management group was Gaddafi's son, no surprise as state enterprises in regime's like this are family run businesses.

Goldman never handed over the $50 million as the Libyan people intervened putting everything on hold. But whether the $50 mil was paid or not, "doesn't exempt it from the US anti-corruption law" says the Wall Street Journal and regulators are a bit concerned that there might, juts might, be some dirty goings on here.  Goldman was going to pay the Libyan government the $50 mil on top of "transaction expenses" and for "release and discharge of liability".  What a racket.

The law, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, "bans the US from offering or paying bribes to foreign government officials or employees of state owned companies."

But the whole damn system is corrupt, we all know that.  And the reason hundreds, or thousands of people haven't been thrown in jail for causing this economic catastrophe is because it's not against the law to rob society and enrich yourself at the expense of others which is how a capitalist economy functions.  It wasn't against the law to own slaves in a slaveowner's democracy like Greece or in the US south where slavery was primarily for commodity production.  In feudal society it wasn't against the law to take a couple days product of the peasant's Labor from them without paying for it or to sleep with the groom's bride on their "first night" as a couple. Who introduced that legislation?

I think it was the Wall Street Journal that commented on how no individuals paid for their role in the crisis because "risk taking is not against the law".  The tragic consequences of taking risks with people's lives in the factories, fields and oceans of the world and the health of both communities and the natural environment, like building nuclear power plants on earthquake faults in an area called "the ring of fire" and next to the ocean, are just that, tragic consequences, "natural disasters" the capitalist media calls them.  It's not illegal to rob people or murder them as long as its within the parameters they set for what is legal and what is not.

"We are confident that nothing we did or proposed was or could have been a breech of any rule or regulation" says Goldman after regulators have indicated they will "examine" the situation.  Goldman wasn't the only player either, Societe Generale also had its snout in the trough but this bank also "complies with all applicable rules and regulations" related to SWO's.

It's great when you get to write the laws as you make sure that the laws themselves, and the language in  particular, work in your interests.  I learned the importance of language the first time I was in contract negotiations with my our employer. "may" means "we might"------a lot different to "shall".

If ever we slip for a minute and think we might actually be dealing with honest people here as opposed to lying thieving robbing bastards, we might consider a very prominent misuse of the English language here in the US. We have a very inoffensive name for people that bribe officials, actually it's more than inoffensive, it's got a real positive ring to it-------we call them lobbyists.