Comments on: The Sham of Sovereign Wealth Fund Negotiations http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/02/sham-of-sovereign-wealth-fund.html Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:04:35 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Lune http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/02/sham-of-sovereign-wealth-fund.html#comment-4494 Lune Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:11:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/02/the-sham-of-sovereign-wealth-fund-negotiations/#comment-4494 The outrage that was fomented in the public about the ports deal was because people intrinsically understood that port security was important to national security, and that ports were a national asset that serve our national interests. (they were then led to incorrectly believe that an Arab/Muslim company couldn't be trusted with that security, but that's another matter).<br/><br/>On the flip side, banks have argued strenously that globalization is good and that even though they may be based in America, they're actually global corporations that shouldn't be bound by quaint notions of following American regulations or putting American interests first. Is it any wonder then that the public figures that whether Merrill Lynch and Citi are owned by Americans or Arabs or Asians there won't be any change in their behavior? If they could screw Americans (or Arabs, or Asians, or polka dot aliens) over for profit, they would do so in a heartbeat already. They weren't restrained in their rapacious greed by the fact that they were injuring their own shareholders or the nation of their nominal domicile.<br/><br/>The big banks have long ceased to put American interests first, while enjoying and exploiting the stability and authority that comes from the American "brand". It's their right to behave that way of course. But then they shouldn't be surprised if Americans could care less that they're stripped for parts and sold to the highest bidder in the global market. Patriotism works both ways: you want American outrage about troubled banks forced to serve new masters? First convince us that they were actually serving their original American masters... The outrage that was fomented in the public about the ports deal was because people intrinsically understood that port security was important to national security, and that ports were a national asset that serve our national interests. (they were then led to incorrectly believe that an Arab/Muslim company couldn’t be trusted with that security, but that’s another matter).

On the flip side, banks have argued strenously that globalization is good and that even though they may be based in America, they’re actually global corporations that shouldn’t be bound by quaint notions of following American regulations or putting American interests first. Is it any wonder then that the public figures that whether Merrill Lynch and Citi are owned by Americans or Arabs or Asians there won’t be any change in their behavior? If they could screw Americans (or Arabs, or Asians, or polka dot aliens) over for profit, they would do so in a heartbeat already. They weren’t restrained in their rapacious greed by the fact that they were injuring their own shareholders or the nation of their nominal domicile.

The big banks have long ceased to put American interests first, while enjoying and exploiting the stability and authority that comes from the American “brand”. It’s their right to behave that way of course. But then they shouldn’t be surprised if Americans could care less that they’re stripped for parts and sold to the highest bidder in the global market. Patriotism works both ways: you want American outrage about troubled banks forced to serve new masters? First convince us that they were actually serving their original American masters…

]]> By: Francois http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/02/sham-of-sovereign-wealth-fund.html#comment-4491 Francois Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:53:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/02/the-sham-of-sovereign-wealth-fund-negotiations/#comment-4491 Moaning? How about the US investing in these banks instead of having opaque SWFs from foreign governments with ill-defined political intent owning them?<br/><br/>Hell! We got this unreal outcry about Abu-Dhabi Port Authority buyout, but no one should even talk about foreign governments buying troubled US banks?<br/><br/>What gives? Moaning? How about the US investing in these banks instead of having opaque SWFs from foreign governments with ill-defined political intent owning them?

Hell! We got this unreal outcry about Abu-Dhabi Port Authority buyout, but no one should even talk about foreign governments buying troubled US banks?

What gives?

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/02/sham-of-sovereign-wealth-fund.html#comment-4488 Anonymous Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:13:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/02/the-sham-of-sovereign-wealth-fund-negotiations/#comment-4488 don't know what everyone is moaning about....the swf's should be allowed to buy as much of these banks as they like...it would save the us taxpayer from the inevitable bailout. i guess that begs the question, if the us government bails out the banking sector, aren't they effectively subsidizing the swf's? don’t know what everyone is moaning about….the swf’s should be allowed to buy as much of these banks as they like…it would save the us taxpayer from the inevitable bailout. i guess that begs the question, if the us government bails out the banking sector, aren’t they effectively subsidizing the swf’s?

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/02/sham-of-sovereign-wealth-fund.html#comment-4487 Anonymous Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:01:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/02/the-sham-of-sovereign-wealth-fund-negotiations/#comment-4487 Yves,<br/><br/>There are 2 Singapore funds in the list. You write about Temasek, the Journal writes about Government of Singapore Investment Corporation.<br/><br/>Congratulations on your blog! Yves,

There are 2 Singapore funds in the list. You write about Temasek, the Journal writes about Government of Singapore Investment Corporation.

Congratulations on your blog!

]]>