While it might be hoped that questions such as, “Why aren’t we seeing more Americans in the files?”, are asked more often, it would appear that the leading article on the “Panama Papers” in ‘The Guardian’ is more interested in “revealing the offshore secrets of China’s red nobility.” When it comes to worthwhile news this is actually about as worthwhile as the size of Kim Kardashian’s ass to anyone but Kim and her nearest and dearest. Therefore, while not wanting to cover old ground here, it might be useful to discover a couple of reasons why there aren’t more Americans on the list and then to come to a couple of conclusions as to what these “leaks” are really all about.
Firstly, according to Ana Owens, a tax and budget advocate at U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), there are thousands of firms like Mossack Fonseca and “there are hundreds or thousands just like it in the U.S.” That is why there is absolutely no need for anyone in America to use a company in Panama when they can achieve the same goals in the United States using an American company and, wait for it, …… it is legal to do so. Or, to quote Shima Baradaran Baughman, a law professor at the University of Utah:
Therefore, in light of the conclusions made in earlier posts regarding the selective reporting on these files, the absence of American companies and citizens is not because it will take some time for the “International Consortium of Investigative Journalists” (ICIJ) to scour a leak of about “11.5 million” documents, but rather because Americans who want to hide their money have access to an onshore tax havens that are at least as secretive as those anywhere else in the world.
However, while it could be emphasised that there isn’t any inclination anyway on the part of the ICIJ to undertake such a task as part of its selective reporting, it might be pointed out that if they were to do so, the fact that Mossack Fonseca has been operating out of Nevada and Wyoming for at least fifteen years and that it has registered “almost 1,100 businesses” would soon be revealed.
Of course, this is not the type of information that interests the ICIJ whose assignment it appears is to facilitate that type of sensationalist journalism which is more concerned with Kim Kardashian’s ass, “the Cellist who holds the key to tracing Putin’s fortune”, and “Li Xiaolin, the daughter of former premier Li Peng, a Communist party hardliner who became known as the “Butcher of Beijing” for his role in ordering the 1989 military crackdown on Tiananmen protesters”, than it is with tackling what really is the unacceptable face of capitalism.
However, there is always method in the madness and, even if it is not always clear what that is when it comes to bums and tits, with Russia and China it is to destabilize those countries, which with Chinese editors being told that “they were forbidden from covering the Panama Papers leak” might not be as far-fetched as it might at first seem.
Indeed, Ernst Wolf goes further when he contends that ultimately Washington is “pursuing a policy of destabilization all over the world”, before adding, that the United States “…is preparing for a big, super-big financial crisis, and they want all that money in their own vaults and not the vaults of other countries.”
Now, while the gullible among us might put that down to the ranting and raving of some mad marxist it is worth perusing yesterday’s story in the very capitalist ‘Wall Street Journal’ where we can read all about offshore companies and foreign banks being used as “legitimate vehicles for wealth protection and tax planning, but also hideaways for tax dodgers, frauds and worse”.
They certainly are, but, wait, and, once again, there is no mention of US companies, US banks, or US-based tax havens in the article, and while the temptation is to return to Craig Murray’s “the selective reporting is going to stink”, well, it already does, but then it has to as the smell of the scam just makes you want to vomit.