Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bailing out Brazil – Or Robert Rubin?
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, August 1, 2002 | Pat Buchanan

Posted on 08/14/2002 1:09:12 AM PDT by JohnHuang2

What has happened to Paul O'Neill? Our tough-love treasury secretary seems to have undergone a road-to-Damascus conversion to the Clintonite policy of bailing out bankrupt Third World regimes.

Last month, O'Neill scoffed at the idea of bailing out Latin America. The money, he said, would probably wind up in Swiss banks. But last week, Uruguay got $1.5 billion to stop a run on its banks. Then came a $30 billion dollar IMF bailout of Brazil. Now, the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank are offering Brazil another $7 billion.

This $37 billion comes on top of $15 billion the IMF sent Brazil last year and a $41 billion Brazilian bailout in 1998.

Why is Uncle Sam bailing out these deadbeats – yet again – when Americans have gotten zero help from the government while a two-year bear market has gutted their 401(k)s and stock portfolios?

Read Friday's New York Times and you will find the answer.

Sam isn't bailing out Brazilian peasants, he's bailing out big banks. Last week, Brazil was in a panic, on the verge of default, and reporter Edmund Andrews explains why this was so "frightening."

"Brazil's ... external debt of $264 billion is more than double that of Argentina's, and American banks like Citigroup, FleetBoston and J. P. Morgan Chase have much greater exposure to Brazilian loans than to Argentine ones."

How great is the exposure?

"American banks have about $25.6 billion in outstanding loans to Brazilian borrowers. Citigroup, the biggest lender to Brazil, has $9.7 billion in Brazilian loans." That's right. Forty percent of the U.S. bank exposure in Brazil is the fault of America's biggest and dumbest bank. And who is the resident financial wizard at Citigroup?

"Robert H. Rubin, who was treasury secretary under President Clinton and engineered international rescue packages for Mexico, Russia and many Asian countries, is now a Citigroup director."

Andrews pointedly adds, "A representative for Citigroup could not say whether bank executives had lobbied in favor of a rescue package for Brazil." But the day the Brazilian bailout was announced, Citigroup's stock shot up 6 percent.

The career of Robert Rubin is instructive. As lead pony at Goldman Sachs, he led that investment bank into plunging billions into Mexican bonds. As head of the White House Economic Security Council, he failed to see the Mexican default barreling up the tracks. But as treasury secretary, he was able to shovel billions of U.S. dollars down Mexico way, thus saving the Goldman Sachs investments.

Last fall, we learned Rubin phoned Treasury to suggest to a friend that he might call Moody's to urge them not to downgrade the credit rating of Enron. Citigroup had loaned Enron $750 million. Yet, the committee investigating Enron, chaired by Joe Lieberman, has yet to call Rubin to explain what exactly he was up to and what other calls he made on Enron's behalf. Having friends in high places can save a lot of grief.

In fairness, Rubin is probably not responsible for sinking that $9.7 billion into Brazil. For this is not the first time Citigroup has had to have Uncle Sam post bail for its binges in Latin America. Citigroup has a recidivism rate to rival Darryl Strawberry's.

Yet, some of us saw O'Neill's pirouette coming. Two months ago, I wrote, "A prediction: President Bush and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill will emulate Bill Clinton and Bob Rubin and get into the bailout business, big-time as Dick Cheney would say, because no wants to be the one left standing there when the music stops."

Why the abandonment of principle by the president and O'Neill? Because neither wants to be in the wheelhouse when the ship hits the reef.

With Brazil's external debt at $264 billion, this $37 billion only kicks the can up the road. Brazil is bust, and putting bankrupts deeper in debt only pushes off the day of reckoning and write-offs. O'Neill is throwing tens of billions of good U.S. tax dollars down a rathole to chase the lost loans of Citigroup and J. P. Morgan.

Moreover, the Brazilians have had enough of IMF austerity. In the latest poll for the October presidential election, leftists "Lula" da Silva and Ciro Gomes had 60 percent of the vote between them, while our man, the IMF's man, the incumbent party's man, was pulling 11 percent.

The only question left is who is going to eat the losses from the idiot Latin loans of America's Big Banks. Because there are guys like Robert Rubin around, with friends in high places, it always comes down to the taxpayer.

That's the way the world works in 2002, even though it stinks.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: freetrade; geopolitics; govwatch; latinamericalist; nwo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last
Wednesday, August 1, 2002

Quote of the Day by tractorman

1 posted on 08/14/2002 1:09:12 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
If those banks weren't money center banks then I'd doubt we'd be helping much. Stink'n bankers!
2 posted on 08/14/2002 1:18:25 AM PDT by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
This is absurd: MY tax dollars going to bail out foreign countries because our banks are too stupid and too greedy to be more careful with how and where they invest.

This is utterly ridiculous.
3 posted on 08/14/2002 1:21:15 AM PDT by ECM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ECM
Money loan talks, but it seldom walks back on its own.
4 posted on 08/14/2002 1:49:07 AM PDT by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Why the abandonment of principle by the president and O'Neill?

Bush has no control of the World Bank or the IMF.

Is Buchanan pulling a 'Klayman'?

5 posted on 08/14/2002 2:11:00 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Bush might not have complete control over the IMF and the World Bank but he does have control over money contributed to both by the American taxpayer. Trying to avoid the issue by making an attack on a third party smells like Democrat strategy. Is this part of the new triangulation strategy the Republicans have copied from Dick Morris?
6 posted on 08/14/2002 2:51:50 AM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2; Carry_Okie; *"NWO"; *"Free" Trade; *Geopolitics; *gov_watch; Black Jade; M1991; ...
Guys, "Main" street bails out Wall Street --- AGAIN!! It would seem that secretaries of the treasury are some slimey people. Peace and love, George.
7 posted on 08/14/2002 4:57:29 AM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Then why does he keep giving my money to them? In record figures that only a Clinton would love.
8 posted on 08/14/2002 7:20:27 AM PDT by Scholastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Great article! Pat has been dead right about foreign aid, the IMF, African and Asian Development banks, and the World Bank for years. We are to put American First, not be the bill collector for the Rockefeller banks.
9 posted on 08/14/2002 7:24:30 AM PDT by Scholastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
All residuals from the most ethical administration in the history of the USA.

P.S. Thank you kind sir for the honor of your coveted "Quote of the Day".
10 posted on 08/14/2002 7:33:38 AM PDT by tractorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: JohnHuang2
Yup. Big Business LOVES Socialism. They DEMAND risk-free investments, and they get them. They're scum.
12 posted on 08/14/2002 7:39:53 AM PDT by Guillermo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zhabotinsky
O'Neill:
Sorry Sean, gotta run...click.
13 posted on 08/14/2002 7:41:00 AM PDT by dtel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tractorman
Sorry, the Clinton Admin isn't or can't force Bush to bail out Big Business with MY money. He's doing it on his own.
14 posted on 08/14/2002 7:41:02 AM PDT by Guillermo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
"Yet, some of us saw O'Neill's pirouette coming. Two months ago, I wrote, "A prediction: President Bush and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill will emulate Bill Clinton and Bob Rubin and get into the bailout business, big-time as Dick Cheney would say, because no wants to be the one left standing there when the music stops." "

Pat is right again. The Democrat moneymen have their hand in the taxpayer's left pocket and the Republican moneymen have their hand in the taxpayer's right pocket. You can't believe anything coming out of Washington unless Pat says it. Watch or tape Buchanan-Press on MSNBC for unvarnished no-spin news.

15 posted on 08/14/2002 7:55:22 AM PDT by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Latin_America_List
Index Bump
16 posted on 08/14/2002 8:50:39 AM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ECM
banks are too stupid and too greedy to be more careful

And, unfortunately, if we keep bailing them out, they have ZERO incentive to change their behavior.

17 posted on 08/14/2002 11:46:53 AM PDT by Deuce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Bush has no control of the World Bank or the IMF.

This is a joke, right? IMF and WB have no taxpayers of their own to tax.

18 posted on 08/14/2002 11:48:18 AM PDT by Deuce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
All I had to do is look at the title, and I knew it was written by Pat Buchanan.
19 posted on 08/14/2002 11:48:43 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zhabotinsky
The free market will take care of the rest.

There is no free market in a world where:

1. The House of Representatives has voted to RAISE FDIC protection of deposits from 100K to 130K;

2. Bailouts continue;

3. Banks are allowed to operate in total secrecy---hiding their operations from stockholders, regulators, the public, and, even their external auditors

4. Are legally allowed to NOT mark their assets to market as the rest of the world does;

5. Can borrow unlimited reserves from the Fed as long as the Fed, who can create such reserves without limit out of thin air, chooses to accomodate them.

6. Is allowed to follow the inherrently flawed (If not overtly fraudulent) activity of fractional reserve banking (FRB)in an environment where every supposed benefit of FRB can be achieved by other means while avoiding the proven instability.

Unfortunately, until sufficient numbers of people wake up to these distortions of the free market, no meaningful reforms will be instituted.

20 posted on 08/14/2002 12:08:24 PM PDT by Deuce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson