JC Collins' Readers Comments On "Days Of July - BRICS Still Seek SDR Solution"
aamichael666 Dane .. ” I spend about 4 hours a day on the road and this “non-productive” time kills me.” .. I feel your pain. My biggest bugbear too.
There are very few Altmedia sites or blogs on the Web that cover all the little events happening (such as the German attacks against the City) and how they are connected. I agree with Mr Collins synopsis of banking in general, but I cannot fail to notice the upsets going on behind the scenes in NATO (which is the real place to look for legitimate power struggles over the ‘World Order’).
If the UK and US lose the EU to a Eurasian Super Bloc then the English speaking people just shot their economies in the heart, and there will be no ‘Atlantic’ in NATO.
This is one of the reasons Washington is trying so hard to bait Russia into a war with Ukraine; as a precedent to militarily intervene in the former Eastern Bloc countries and to break the financial connections between Germany and Russia (Gazprom etc…)
If you want another good book to read, I would recommend;
The Globalization of NATO _ by _ Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya (2012)
This book gets into the Trade Agreement dynamics being pushed between NATO and the Levant, North Africa, Caucasus, and former Yugoslavian countries … which is a big part of the story.
It also covers the covert influence of the CIA, MI6 and other assorted Anglo-American interests within the EU that have caused outrage in Europe for very legitimate reasons.
Daneackerman: Wow. Thank you for referring this book (Treasure Islands). It is incredible. So far as I was listening to it they make it almost sound dreamy to be doing this. Kind of like that’s the way its supposed to be done.
What is interesting though is the meat packers. The brothers who lived modestly, ate cheaply but where the richest family in England. So what drove them to want to monopolize it all if they didn’t want to spend that money?
Now I have a deeper understanding of the importance of JC’s stance on each and everyone of us getting ourselves straight first. I can see how easy it would be to fall into the allure of it all especially if ones morals where not in place and secure first.
daniel grig (@gelingrig)
AGREEMENT WITH CHINA, UNDER ENGLISH COURTS By harmony 7 18/07/2014
Thus arises from bilateral agreements where required that the obligations shall be governed by the law and the courts of England.
Axel Kicillof given to banks and Chinese companies that will finance investments in the Argentina international legal protection similar to that the Government questioned the vulture funds.
In the annexes of the treaties to be signed today, the Minister of economy agreed special jurisdiction to Chinese firms and accepted the intervention of foreign courts to resolve any conflicts.
Thus arises from bilateral agreements where required that the obligations shall be governed by the law and the courts of England.
There is also that any arbitration will be made in the International Chamber of Commerce, based in Paris.
Kicillof agreed to renounce any future objection arising from international tribunals appointed by the Argentina and China in “irrevocably and unconditionally”.
The transfer of judicial sovereignty is explicit in loans for the retrofit of the Belgrano Cargas. The Decree 1071 is already known and the extension of jurisdiction is located in the leafy annex of 400 perforated sheets.
But the concessions would be similar in the loans for the hydroelectric troncal de Santa Cruz and other financial agreements that will be signed today with Xi Jinping methodology would have the same format as the one included in the one-sided agreement with Chevron.
The Government hides the text because its dissemination would lead to a high political cost. The delivery of judicial sovereignty of Kicillof contradicts the ‘story’ of own Cristina Kirchner against clauses that were awarded in the external debt in favour of the courts of Manhattan, where the conflict with the vulture funds are at issue.
Cristina made this a flag and questioned the previous Governments which accepted external courts such as the Thomas Griesa.
But now uses a system equal to that applied by Carlos Menem and Fernando de la Rúa.
The own Néstor Kirchner accepted the courts of New York in the 2005 debt swap and included the controversial clause RUFO questioned by the President.
Matches have identical protagonists: advocates of the reported megacanje are those of the study Clery & Gotlieb who now advises Cristina. Thus, again, the political ‘story’ from the Casa Rosada has little to do with their actions and economic reality.
CRISTINA MAKES A NOD TO LONDON AND IT GIVES THE CHINESE A CONTRACT WITH ENGLISH JURISDICTION
The Government today approved the agreement by U$ S4700 million with the Asian power to construct dams of Santa Cruz.
Cristina played today a letter in favor of the financial centre of London, within the framework of the judicial war that keeps with the vulture in the United States funds.
Decree 1091 / 2014 published in the Official Gazette, the Government established English jurisdiction the contract with the Chinese today approved to build the dams of Santa Cruz for U$ S4700 million.
According to the annex to the regulation, the obligations shall be governed by the law and the London courts to any conflicts that may arise between the Argentina and China.
In addition, the Decree has arbitrations will take place at the International Chamber of Commerce, based in Paris. In this way, the Minister of Economía Axel Kicillof awarded him the contract with Asians conditions that questions him the vulture funds.
The truth is that if this tender are concretised five years ago, hardly is he had chosen England as host, because most of the contracts is chosen the plaza in New York. However, hard dispute keeps the Government with the holdouts in the American courts forced the President to leap of jurisprudence.
The choice was no accident. In a speech given in the Casa Rosada, the President fired on federal judge Thomas Griesa on the ruling which obliges to pay U$ S1500 million to the vultures. At the time, warned that the ruling would achieve that Wall Street ceases to be seen as a reliable plaza, which would grow to which is located across the Atlantic: London.
But that was not the only occasion in which Cristina referred to the topic. A few weeks later he led a ceremony at the Museum of the Malvinas, in the former Esma, during which noted that more than 100 British MPs had issued a statement supporting the position of the Argentina.
In the letter, they expressed concern by the destabilizing effect that would be the decision of the judge on the future restructuring of sovereign debt.
Also Kicillof had given a nod to London in one of his lectures, when he highlighted an article by Martín Wolf which was top of the Financial Times, where had the dangerous impact that would have on new processes of refinancing. Wolf is a major columnist of the largest business newspaper in England, at the level of the Wall Street Journal.
The small print
Approved today credit agreement will be signed between the Ministry of economy and the banks Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Bank of China Limited, and China Development Bank Corporation. The latter has a dual role, acting as an insurance agent and representative of the financial parts.
The funny thing is that the agreement with loan officers will be once works to build dams Jorge Cepernic and Néstor Kirchner had already been awarded in August of 2013. I.e., the construction companies had already been defined but funding came almost a year later.
The tender was not without controversy, because won it a consortium of firms standards S.A., China Gezhouba Group Company Limited, and Hidrocuyo S.A., which offered 22.925.870.000 pesos, equivalent to 4.714.347.111 dollars at the exchange rate prevailing at the time.
The process was full of irregularities, starting because standards made two offers: a higher and other “extra” to a lower value.
Among its competitors, it appeared the suspect to be the figurehead of the Kirchners, Lárazo Báez Santa Cruz businessman. In fact, there are versions that the corruption scandal involving Baez actually was orchestrated so that it left not chosen in the offer and encourage to standards, another company with good ties with Kirchner.
In that sense, LPO had published that the dams of Santa Cruz appeared at the bottom of the list projects that would contribute more to the country’s energy development.
It is right in the Patagonian rivers where they will develop these projects do not have flow throughout the year and, to make matters worse, as one of the southernmost provinces of the country, the cost for distribution along the Argentina is greater than if another location, had given priority because it is more than a thousand kilometers from the main urban centres.
On the other hand, the small print of the text has several striking points, in addition to the foreign jurisdiction.
One of them is establishing an interest based on the more Libor rate spread of 3.8%, with five years and grace about fifteen.
Libor had been criticized by Kicillof just a few months ago, when he went to expose to the Senate Bill 2014 budget. That day he questioned economists posed that the country should get to take credit in the market because the Libor rate was too low, because it could double from one day to another and complicate the country’s debt payments.
In another section of his speech, the owner of the Hacienda Palacio charged against the evil Libor rate because according to its position “is formed all the morning in a table of bankers”, as if that variable could be established only from the whim of businessmen.
“They are not allegations made by us, conspiracy or dark, to insult; to walk by pointing out other economies or because we believe that we are handicapped. We know today that a few bankers gather in the morning and resolve what is the Libor rate that the external debt of all countries is tied.
Result of that meeting, how can leave the ruin of the people! “, is angered by forces Kicillof, in that then Vice-Minister of economic.”
It is the same rate that promised the Chinese pay for loans that will finance the dams of Santa Cruz.
deejj87 -- “The current central banking structure gives the illusion of separation and sovereignty. Most people who have not researched the nature of the international banking cartel believe that the Federal Reserve,
for instance, is a separate national entity from the Central Bank of Russia, or the Central Bank of China. They believe that these institutions act of their own accord rather than in concert with each other.
The reality is, there is no Federal Reserve. There is no Central Bank of Russia. There are no separate entities. There are no Western banks and there are no BRICS.
All of these banking edifices are merely front organizations for global financiers, as Council on Foreign Relations insider (and friend to the Rockefellers) Carroll Quigley made clear in his book, Tragedy And Hope:
“It must not be felt that the heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up, and who were perfectly capable of throwing them down.
The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks. ”
Nenosplace August 5, 2014 at 8:15 pm After the Dollar
NEW YORK – It is symbolic that the recent BRICS summit in Fortaleza, Brazil, took place exactly seven decades after the Bretton Woods Conference that created the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
The upshot of the BRICS meeting was the announcement of the New Development Bank, which will mobilize resources for infrastructure and sustainable development projects, and a Contingent Reserve Arrangement to provide liquidity through currency swaps.
The Bretton Woods Conference marked one of history’s greatest examples of international economic cooperation. And, while no one can say yet whether the BRICS’ initiatives will succeed, they represent a major challenge to the Bretton Woods institutions, which should respond. Rethinking the role of the US dollar in the international monetary system is a case in point.
One key feature of the Bretton Woods system was that countries would tie their exchange rates to the US dollar. While the system was effectively eliminated in 1971, the US dollar’s central role in the international monetary system has remained intact – a reality that many countries are increasingly unwilling to accept.
Dissatisfaction with the dollar’s role as the dominant global reserve currency is not new. In the 1960s, French Finance Minister Valéry Giscard d’Estaing famously condemned the “exorbitant privilege” that the dollar’s status bestowed upon the United States.
The issue is not merely one of fairness. According to the Belgian economist Robert Triffin, an international monetary system based on a national currency is inherently unstable, owing to the resulting tensions among the inevitably divergent interests of the issuing country and the international system as a whole.
Triffin issued his warning more than 50 years ago, but it has recently gained traction, as China’s rise has made the world increasingly disinclined to tolerate the instability caused by a dollar-denominated system.
The solution, however, lies not in replacing the dollar with the renminbi, but in strengthening the role of the world’s only truly global currency: the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights.
Following the creation of SDRs in 1969, IMF members committed to make them “the principle reserve asset in the international monetary system,” as stated in the Articles of Agreement. But the peculiar way in which SDRs were adopted limited their usefulness.
For starters, the separation of the IMF’s SDR account from its general account made it impossible to use SDRs to finance IMF lending. Furthermore, though countries accrue interest on their holdings of SDRs, they have to pay interest on the allocations they receive.
In other words, SDRs are both an asset and a liability, functioning like a guaranteed credit line for the holder – a sort of unconditional overdraft facility.
Nonetheless, SDRs have proved to be useful. After initial allocations in 1970-1972, more were issued to increase global liquidity during major international crises: in 1979-1981, in 1997, and, in particular, in 2009, when the largest issue – the equivalent of $250 billion – was made.
While developed countries, including the US and the United Kingdom, have drawn on their allocations, the major users have been developing and, in particular, low-income countries. In fact, this is the only way in which developing countries (China aside) share in the creation of international money.
Several estimates indicate that, given the additional demand for reserves, the world could absorb annual allocations of $200-300 billion or even more.
This has prompted many – including People’s Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan; the United Nations-backed Stiglitz Commission; the Palais-Royal Initiative, led by former IMF Managing Director Michel Camdessus; and the Triffin International Foundation – to call for changes to the international monetary system.
In 1979, the IMF economist Jacques Polak, who had been part of the Dutch delegation at the Bretton Woods conference, outlined a plan for doing just that. His recommendations include, first and foremost, making all of the IMF’s operations in SDRs, which would require ending the separation of the IMF’s SDR and general accounts.
The simplest way to fulfill this vision would be to allocate SDRs as a full reserve asset, which countries could either use or deposit in their IMF accounts. The IMF would use those deposits to finance its lending operations, rather than having to rely on quota allocations or “arrangements to borrow” from members.
Other provisions could be added. To address developing countries’ high currency demands, while enhancing their role in the creation of international money, a formula could be created to give them a larger share in SDR allocations than they now receive.
The private use of SDRs could also be encouraged, though that would likely be met with strong opposition from countries currently issuing international reserve currencies, especially the US. Keeping SDRs as pure “central-bank money” would eliminate such opposition, enabling them to complement and stabilize the current system, rather than upend it.