L’article est vraiment très intéressant. Je déteste le titre (et son illustration, du coup), qui oriente carrément l’article vers l’aspect totalement anecdotique (deux épouses de Wall Street), alors que l’aspect scandaleux de l’article est ailleurs.
Au passage, les derniers paragraphes suggèrent des pistes de réflexion intéressantes :
And then there are the bailout deals that make no sense at all. Republicans go mad over spending on health care and school for Mexican illegals. So why aren’t they flipping out over the $9.6 billion in loans the Fed made to the Central Bank of Mexico? How do we explain the $2.2 billion in loans that went to the Korea Development Bank, the biggest state bank of South Korea, whose sole purpose is to promote development in South Korea? And at a time when America is borrowing from the Middle East at interest rates of three percent, why did the Fed extend $35 billion in loans to the Arab Banking Corporation of Bahrain at interest rates as low as one quarter of one point?
Even more disturbing, the major stakeholder in the Bahrain bank is none other than the Central Bank of Libya, which owns 59 percent of the operation. In fact, the Bahrain bank just received a special exemption from the U.S. Treasury to prevent its assets from being frozen in accord with economic sanctions. That’s right: Muammar Qaddafi received more than 70 loans from the Federal Reserve, along with the Real Housewives of Wall Street.
Perhaps the most irritating facet of all of these transactions is the fact that hundreds of millions of Fed dollars were given out to hedge funds and other investors with addresses in the Cayman Islands.
Ah. Donc en plus des prêts (déjà scandaleux) à des structures officielles ayant pignon sur rue, une partie de l’argent est passée directement dans des structures beaucoup plus occultes basées dans des paradis fiscaux ?
