Rove and Wolfowitz's role

Nomiprins at aol.com Nomiprins at aol.com
Mon Feb 24 08:08:25 PST 2003


In a message dated 2/23/2003 5:27:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, dhenwood at panix.com writes:


> I mean a policy or set of policies that attract broad support and
> well-funded lobbying from the likes of the Business Roundtable and
> the bulge-bracket firms on Wall Street. An example is the
> deregulation agenda of the 1970s or the monetary crackdown instituted
> by Paul Volcker. I don't see that as the origins of the war on Iraq.
> Perhaps I'm wrong.
>

True, Wall Street has not directly pushing for war. But, there are two voices coming from Wall Street regarding Iraq.

First, there's the 'excuse-the-weak-market' media voice. That's the voice most of us hear because it comes from all sorts of Street economists and stock market analysts saying: 'uncertainty about the war is causing stocks to trade - uncertainly.'

But, there's another quieter, more ominous voice, the one you have to strain to hear because it's not covered by the media.

It's the voice of Morgan Stanley CEO Phil Purcell moaning about how global mergers are down 47% this year (associated fees are down more), and something's got to give.

It's the voice of Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson when he told a group of investors - 'there is no alternative to Globalization - we expect investment banking business to pick up as companies continue to consolidate globally.' The energy industry, which is failing in the US, has its hopes set on that consolidation and the further control it brings - which is why it wants war. That same energy industry payed billions of dollars of fees to Wall Street. Those fees have dropped, Wall Street wants them back.

When we chant 'no blood for oil', we mean no sacrifice of human lives in exchange for oil corporation expansions. And, every single corporate maneuver pays Wall Street something.

The ailing US telecom equipment industry, lead by Lucent wants war so they can rebuild Iraqi communications infrastructure. After the 1991 war, it bagged a $4.5 billion contract with the Saudi Government. It too pays billions of dollars of fees to Wall Street. Those fees have also dropped.

That's why Wall Street is not opposed to war. Besides, I didn't notice any Wall Street CEOs at the 2/15 march or speaking out against the war from the podium, but then I didn't get any closer than 3rd avenue. :)

Nomi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030224/65e4cccf/attachment.htm>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list