8 ms·

You can see from their reported figures that their U.S. treasury holdings are far too low for a sensible national portfolio. It's a pretty glaring hole, and you

by s_q_b 10y ago

You can see from their reported figures that their U.S. treasury holdings are far too low for a sensible national portfolio. It's a pretty glaring hole, and you know that the money is going somewhere off the balance sheets. The question has always been how much U.S. debt exactly the Saudi's hold. This is an interesting historical anecdote, but it doesn't provide any information about the size of the debt, other than "much larger" than official figures, which isn't terribly informative. At this point, Saudi Arabia needs the United States more than the United States needs Saudi Arabia. The OPEC cartel is broken, Saudi Arabia is running a massive deficit, both China and Europe have economies mired in the aftershocks of 2008 which cannot absorb the additional supply, and the United States is energy independent. If the Saudis are even willing to suggest selling off their dollar-denominated debts, they must be either unfathomably arrogant or extremely desperate. My read is the latter. They really must want to keep those documents secret. There is no way that a country gobbling up it's meager monetary reserves could afford the hit to the value of those assets as they unwound them, even if they sold them off very slowly and predictably. Something potentially very bad for world security is in those documents. Something that would force us into confrontation with the Saudis. Something that could cause a run on the dollar. There must be some extremely senior officials involved in that report. Whoever they are, they're senior enough that they can't be made to disappear quietly into the night. If those pages do contain information specifically identifying financiers of 9/11, the United States might be war-weary, but you can bet that a massive majority of Americans would demand their heads on pikes. As much as I support the public's right to know, that's a very nightmarish scenario.

dforrestwilson1 10y ago
Perhaps we should be demanding heads on pikes. This has very real implications for Hillary Clinton's election chances as well. The Clintons have been supporters of the Saudis for some time now and have accepted Saudi government money through the Clinton Foundation. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%2410%2C000%2C001+to+%2425%2C000%2C000 https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%241... http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-... There is no reason the U.S. should be allies with the House of Saud. We have almost no aligned interests and very different views on human rights and Wahhabism. My hope is that the report is published.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  Swinging the election toward a hawkish demagogue with no knowledge of foreign policy does not seem like a desirable outcome for the United States either. It's worth noting that for now the Saudis still retain a bit of leverage. They could potentially start a kamikaze run on the dollar. They are our largest regional ally, and in very close proximity to Israel. We have very little knowledge of their nuclear program. Finally, they're a vital partner in the ongoing war with Russia and its proxies (Iran et al.) Also, I cannot begin to fathom what would happen if a "Christian" nation invaded the keeper of Mecca and Medina... I never thought I'd say this, but perhaps some secrets are better left untold.
  - someguydave 10y ago
    >hey could potentially start a kamikaze run on the dollar. I'm not so sure. Assuming they had several hundred billion dollars worth of Treasuries, and further assuming that they dumped them all on the market, the demand for USG debt is sufficiently large that I suspect it would be purchased in an orderly fashion without even causing much uptick in interest rates.
    - richmarr 10y ago
      > ... I suspect it would be purchased in an orderly fashion "Orderly fashion" and trading (algorithmic or otherwise) are oil and water, surely.
    - s_q_b 10y ago
      Assuming a rational market, sure. But market panics aren't governed by the normal rules of supply and demand. They're a behavioral phenomenon caused by the non-rational human agents in the system panicking.
  - travmatt 10y ago
    "It's worth noting that for now the Saudis still retain a bit of leverage. They could potentially start a kamikaze run on the dollar. " Do you have an idea of whether their increased production has affected the fracking production in the US? Would they, in the long-term, have success in making the US more dependent again? "They are our largest regional ally, and in very close proximity to Israel... Finally, they're a vital partner in the ongoing war with Russia and its proxies (Iran et al.)" As I understand it, the Saudi Royal family derives part of its legitimacy through the backing of the religious leaders of their country, and the Sunni world at large - but many of the Saudi family itself are actually more progressive than the conservative country. Is there any chance that they want to or could push back against the Wahhabist ideology that seems to spout from the gulf peninsula? " We have very little knowledge of their nuclear program" How is that possible? It'd seem as though their supplies of nuclear weapons are precisely the types that we want to be aware of at all times? "Also, I cannot begin to fathom what would happen if a "Christian" nation invaded the keeper of Mecca and Medina... I never thought I'd say this, but perhaps some secrets are better left untold." When the cube was seized in 1979 and the Muslim world thought the US was to blame, we got the glimpses of what reactions could be. We'd truly see the Middle East in flames.
Sophistifunk 10y ago
I think it's much more likely that the result will be an un-deniable public insistence on the right to sue the royal family. And if the Sauds can be sued for 9/11, the US can be sued for all the drone strikes and the like.
- jokoon 10y ago
  Mmmmh there is a difference between a family of individuals and a country that executed drone strikes. Suing a government is harder.
  - s_q_b 10y ago
    Well, unless that family is the royal family of a nation. Sovereign immunity, the right of nations not to be sued, is actually based upon the Monarch's right not be sued. In reality, the judgements of United States' courts could actually be enforced against the Saudis, by seizing their assets abroad. Any judgement by a Saudi court against the United States government is likely to be entirely unenforceable.
- Pinckney 10y ago
  Win-win.
Spooky23 10y ago
It also adds an additional dimension as to the drama associated with the bullshit "debt ceiling" debates that come up from time to time, usually pushed by the House republicans. How much of that nonsense is actually the House looking to influence foreign policy decisions? Based on the article, it sounds like this "add-on" facility is the go-to path for central banks to move money around.
jonstokes 10y ago
A few years ago I read a good book on the collapse of the USSR (can't remember the title, too lazy to go back and find it right now). One of the major factors that the author identified was glasnost ("transparency"), which I'm old enough to remember being talked about on the news at the time. Basically, his thesis was that it was the transparency, after a generation of buildup of really nasty official secrets, that ultimately brought down the communist regime. Once it was clear that everything people thought was probably happening was actually happening, and worse, the whole thing just disintegrated from the bottom up. The regime lost all legitimacy, and the death blow was basically self-inflicted since it was the regime itself that started to open up. I often wonder about that in the US context. What if a lot of crazy stuff that many people suspect has gone on actually turns out to be true, or what if it's even worse than some of the tinfoil hatters think, and we suddenly start finding out about it all. I figured it would be some type of Wikileaks or Snowden-type reveal that would do us in, if it happened. But we may actually do ourselves in with an American glasnost that, just like the Russian one of the 80's, is done by well-meaning people in our own government.
- Eric_WVGG 10y ago
  I was a kid at the time and mostly heard “glasnost” in the context of “open-ness”, mostly regarding opening the culture and the borders and a McDonald’s in Red Square. Interesting to learn that the double-meaning translates so, uh, clearly.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  The difference between the USSR in the 1990s and the U.S. today is that the U.S. has cultural and governmental norms that accept and manage change. I know that's not necessarily going to be universally accepted here on HN, where it's somewhat popular to assert that all politicians are the same, all the strings are pulled by a small group of global elites, etc. We have contentious national elections frequently, and tolerate a high level of conflict and dissent in public discourse. This is not to say that everything is objective and equitable--it's not. But each viewpoint has a lot more leeway to pursue its own goals than in the USSR in the 1990s. In terms of secret crazy stuff that turned out to be true, that does happen. The Snowden leaks are a recent example.
eternalban 10y ago
> You can see from their reported figures that their U.S. treasury holdings are far too low for a sensible national portfolio. It's a pretty glaring hole, and you know that the money is going somewhere off the balance sheets. Figures were published by US. ;) Alternatively, you can also consider that US is playing hardball and letting SA know that there is a 'cap' on the threatened liquiditation event.

by s_q_b 10y ago

dforrestwilson1 10y ago

Perhaps we should be demanding heads on pikes. This has very real implications for Hillary Clinton's election chances as well. The Clintons have been supporters of the Saudis for some time now and have accepted Saudi government money through the Clinton Foundation. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%2410%2C000%2C001+to+%2425%2C000%2C000 https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%241... http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-... There is no reason the U.S. should be allies with the House of Saud. We have almost no aligned interests and very different views on human rights and Wahhabism. My hope is that the report is published.

s_q_b 10y ago
Swinging the election toward a hawkish demagogue with no knowledge of foreign policy does not seem like a desirable outcome for the United States either. It's worth noting that for now the Saudis still retain a bit of leverage. They could potentially start a kamikaze run on the dollar. They are our largest regional ally, and in very close proximity to Israel. We have very little knowledge of their nuclear program. Finally, they're a vital partner in the ongoing war with Russia and its proxies (Iran et al.) Also, I cannot begin to fathom what would happen if a "Christian" nation invaded the keeper of Mecca and Medina... I never thought I'd say this, but perhaps some secrets are better left untold.
- someguydave 10y ago
  >hey could potentially start a kamikaze run on the dollar. I'm not so sure. Assuming they had several hundred billion dollars worth of Treasuries, and further assuming that they dumped them all on the market, the demand for USG debt is sufficiently large that I suspect it would be purchased in an orderly fashion without even causing much uptick in interest rates.
  - richmarr 10y ago
    > ... I suspect it would be purchased in an orderly fashion "Orderly fashion" and trading (algorithmic or otherwise) are oil and water, surely.
  - s_q_b 10y ago
    Assuming a rational market, sure. But market panics aren't governed by the normal rules of supply and demand. They're a behavioral phenomenon caused by the non-rational human agents in the system panicking.
- travmatt 10y ago
  "It's worth noting that for now the Saudis still retain a bit of leverage. They could potentially start a kamikaze run on the dollar. " Do you have an idea of whether their increased production has affected the fracking production in the US? Would they, in the long-term, have success in making the US more dependent again? "They are our largest regional ally, and in very close proximity to Israel... Finally, they're a vital partner in the ongoing war with Russia and its proxies (Iran et al.)" As I understand it, the Saudi Royal family derives part of its legitimacy through the backing of the religious leaders of their country, and the Sunni world at large - but many of the Saudi family itself are actually more progressive than the conservative country. Is there any chance that they want to or could push back against the Wahhabist ideology that seems to spout from the gulf peninsula? " We have very little knowledge of their nuclear program" How is that possible? It'd seem as though their supplies of nuclear weapons are precisely the types that we want to be aware of at all times? "Also, I cannot begin to fathom what would happen if a "Christian" nation invaded the keeper of Mecca and Medina... I never thought I'd say this, but perhaps some secrets are better left untold." When the cube was seized in 1979 and the Muslim world thought the US was to blame, we got the glimpses of what reactions could be. We'd truly see the Middle East in flames.

Sophistifunk 10y ago

I think it's much more likely that the result will be an un-deniable public insistence on the right to sue the royal family. And if the Sauds can be sued for 9/11, the US can be sued for all the drone strikes and the like.

jokoon 10y ago
Mmmmh there is a difference between a family of individuals and a country that executed drone strikes. Suing a government is harder.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  Well, unless that family is the royal family of a nation. Sovereign immunity, the right of nations not to be sued, is actually based upon the Monarch's right not be sued. In reality, the judgements of United States' courts could actually be enforced against the Saudis, by seizing their assets abroad. Any judgement by a Saudi court against the United States government is likely to be entirely unenforceable.
Pinckney 10y ago
Win-win.

Spooky23 10y ago

It also adds an additional dimension as to the drama associated with the bullshit "debt ceiling" debates that come up from time to time, usually pushed by the House republicans. How much of that nonsense is actually the House looking to influence foreign policy decisions? Based on the article, it sounds like this "add-on" facility is the go-to path for central banks to move money around.

jonstokes 10y ago

A few years ago I read a good book on the collapse of the USSR (can't remember the title, too lazy to go back and find it right now). One of the major factors that the author identified was glasnost ("transparency"), which I'm old enough to remember being talked about on the news at the time. Basically, his thesis was that it was the transparency, after a generation of buildup of really nasty official secrets, that ultimately brought down the communist regime. Once it was clear that everything people thought was probably happening was actually happening, and worse, the whole thing just disintegrated from the bottom up. The regime lost all legitimacy, and the death blow was basically self-inflicted since it was the regime itself that started to open up. I often wonder about that in the US context. What if a lot of crazy stuff that many people suspect has gone on actually turns out to be true, or what if it's even worse than some of the tinfoil hatters think, and we suddenly start finding out about it all. I figured it would be some type of Wikileaks or Snowden-type reveal that would do us in, if it happened. But we may actually do ourselves in with an American glasnost that, just like the Russian one of the 80's, is done by well-meaning people in our own government.

Eric_WVGG 10y ago
I was a kid at the time and mostly heard “glasnost” in the context of “open-ness”, mostly regarding opening the culture and the borders and a McDonald’s in Red Square. Interesting to learn that the double-meaning translates so, uh, clearly.
snowwrestler 10y ago
The difference between the USSR in the 1990s and the U.S. today is that the U.S. has cultural and governmental norms that accept and manage change. I know that's not necessarily going to be universally accepted here on HN, where it's somewhat popular to assert that all politicians are the same, all the strings are pulled by a small group of global elites, etc. We have contentious national elections frequently, and tolerate a high level of conflict and dissent in public discourse. This is not to say that everything is objective and equitable--it's not. But each viewpoint has a lot more leeway to pursue its own goals than in the USSR in the 1990s. In terms of secret crazy stuff that turned out to be true, that does happen. The Snowden leaks are a recent example.

eternalban 10y ago

> You can see from their reported figures that their U.S. treasury holdings are far too low for a sensible national portfolio. It's a pretty glaring hole, and you know that the money is going somewhere off the balance sheets. Figures were published by US. ;) Alternatively, you can also consider that US is playing hardball and letting SA know that there is a 'cap' on the threatened liquiditation event.