torch123 : My question is.......does anyone believe that Maliki as a PM for the next 4 years is truly a benefit for Iraq...???....or for us, as investors in the country of Iraq...?
Frank26: It matters not how I or my TEAMS answer this qt AGAIN because it is not what some want to hear. We have things to share but it would be wasted as some are not ready to move Forward ...... With us.
Trust me .......... It is beyond stupidity to have M as PM.
But it would be so dangerous if he was not.
For reasons unknown to us EVER !!!
That alone .......... Is something to be very thankful for.
May we cast our eyes far away from the GOI and WATCH the CBI.
DELTA and I realize we are battling a win less topic so we shut down until M's CC.......... Or Sunday's.
With respect ........ For those that believe M will not be the PM ........... Congratulations ....
Aggiedad77: Well regardless of what I might have thought of M in the recent past.....as being just that...."the past PM"....it looks like I can tell you and Delta something that I generally only reserve for my beautiful bride......
Yes Frank and Delta....you were right!
I do stand corrected and will be watchful for things to continue to develop.....just as an example....twice tonight I have seen you make an "or" statement.....to me that speaks loudly of good things to be in the works....maybe percolating as we speak here....who knows....I trust that the Teams know.
As for those who appear not ready, I believe that many are just tired of the journey....just as Moses' following grew tired of their wandering, some grew cranky, some just needed to vent, others wanted to take the lead, while still others just decided to strike out on their own....their true faith shaken by what they could not see, by what they could not lay their hands physically upon....Moses never gave up his faith, for his faith was in the Father and I know your faith to be there as well.
Blessings to you Randy
backdoc » July 31st, 2014, 12:15 am THIS ARTICLE SEEMS TO CLEARLY IMPLY THAT CHANGE AFTER THE FEAST IS COMING AND COMING TO STAY !!! IT DOESN'T IMPLY THE SAME O SAME O. DOES FLEXIBILITY MEAN INCLUSIVENESS ????? MMMMMM
Abu tirelessly: Change holds inevitably after the feast
Agency eighth dayJuly 30, 2014No BAGHDAD - ((eighth day))
Predicted a coalition of citizen political blocs that show great flexibility in the dialogues after the Eid al-Fitr, pointing out that "change inevitably holds."
A spokesman for the coalition of citizen eloquent Abu tirelessly today, "We hope that the Eid al-Fitr festival is better for the Iraqis, and that will be the beginning of a phase of real change for the better called by the supreme religious authority."
He added that "the political blocs will show great flexibility after the feast because the current stage dangerous and critical periods of constitutional closer."
He pointed out that Abu tirelessly to "change inevitably holds.
And conducts dialogues between the political blocs and intensive meetings in order to expedite the resolution of the names of the three presidencies.
Referred to the House of Representatives had raised its chosen by the President of the Republic to the fifth of next month, at a time in which he called the President of the House of Representatives President commissioned the largest parliamentary bloc to submit its candidate for prime minister.
Moneytalks1: The real bottom line is when we can cash in or exchange our dinars. It definitely won't be in the month of July since tomorrow is the last day. Let us hope it is August.
One thing for sure-things are happening at a very quick pace. Soon, the CBI website will show what we have been looking for!!!
maoakes12 » July 31st, 2014, Brics Bank: This is great. It is time someone is challenging the Fed.,which is nothing but a Satanic organization keeping people poor across the world.
Henry Ford stated in his hey day that if the people knew what the monetary system was in the US there would be a revolution today; not tomorrow. Sock it to em Bricks.
walkingstick » July 31st, 2014, The Brics bank is a glimpse of the future
David PillingBy David Pilling
If the postwar order is being upended, the right response is ‘hear, hear’
Thirteen years ago, Brics was a marketing ploy dreamt up by Jim O’Neill, then chief economist at Goldman Sachs. Now it is a bank. Next thing you know, it will have its own line of designer handbags.
This month in Fortaleza, the five Brics nations – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – agreed to establish a development bank. They also set up a $100bn swap line, known formally as a contingent reserve arrangement, a deal that gives each country’s central bank access to emergency supplies of foreign currency. To borrow a phrase from Anton Siluanov, Russia’s finance minister, the five countries are attempting to conjure a mini-World Bank and a mini-International Monetary Fund.
The Brics’ plan is good for the world, although you would not know it from the sniffy reaction in the west. There have been two default positions. One is to scoff at the very idea of five such disparate nations organising anything coherent or staying the course. The other is to worry that the world order reflected in the two US-led institutions set up at the Bretton Woods conference of 1944 is about to crumble.
It is indeed a minor miracle that five countries whose initials happen to form a catchy acronym have so quickly gone from Brics to a bricks-and-mortar bank. This is a reprimand to western-led institutions that have failed to adapt. If the postwar order really is being upended, the right response is “hear, hear.”
The new Brics bank, which will fund infrastructure projects, will have initial capital of $50bn and maximum allowable capital of $100bn. Each country will pay in $10bn, giving them a theoretically equal say. The bank will be based in Shanghai, a sop to Beijing, which clearly intends to wield influence. Yet the presidency will be rotated, starting with India. China will not have a turn until 2021.
By contrast, the five countries will contribute to the CRA swap line according to size, with China pitching in $41bn to South Africa’s $5bn. The contingent reserve is a safety net for times of financial stress, for example if one country’s currency comes under speculative attack. It is modelled on the Chiang Mai Initiative, a $240bn Asian currency swap arrangement concluded after the 1997 Asian crisis when the region’s proposal to launch its own IMF equivalent was squashed by Washington.
The Brics bank, too, was born of frustration. The IMF in particular is disliked in much of the developing world. In the 1990s, its rigid adherence to market reforms led many to see it as an instrument to keep poor countries down, not to lift them out of poverty. In Asia, it is regarded as hypocritical. In 1997, it insisted on ruinous austerity in countries such as Indonesia. Following the 2008 financial crisis it has happily embraced monetary and fiscal laxity in the west.
If the IMF has changed its spots it has not changed its structure. Its quota system, which determines what each country pays in and how many votes they are given, fails to reflect the reality of a changing world. The Brics nations, which account for more than a fifth of global output, have just 10.3 per cent of quota. European countries, by contrast, are allocated 27.5 per cent for just 18 per cent of output. To add insult to injury, the IMF presidency is reserved for a European, while that of the World Bank routinely goes to an American. Reforms were agreed in 2010 that would have doubled the IMF’s capital to $720bn and transferred 6 percentage points of quota to poorer countries. That this did not go far enough is a moot point. The reforms were never ratified by the US Congress.
From the Brics’ perspective, the global financial system is stacked against them. Raghuram Rajan, governor of the Reserve Bank of India, has accused rich countries of pursuing selfish policies with no thought of their impact on emerging economies. The fact that the US Federal Reserve, without warning, announced plans to “taper” its bond purchases showed it was willing to turn the monetary spigots on and off even at the expense of turmoil in poor countries.
One reason to welcome the new bank is that it will bring competition. China’s lending in Africa has drawn valid criticism that it is not tied to good governance or environmental standards. Yet the presence of alternative Chinese funding in Africa has been a net positive. The same should be true of the new Brics bank, given the huge number of roads, power plants and sewerage systems that need funding. “Any new institution that is adding to long-term capital has to be good for the world,” says Urjit Patel, deputy governor of India’s central bank, who was in Fortaleza.
The new bank is no panacea. As critics point out, it is relatively small. Ben Steil and Dinah Walker of the US-based Council on Foreign Relations note that, between them, China, India and Brazil have borrowed $66bn from the World Bank alone, more than the entire subscribed capital of the Brics bank. Similarly, while the idea of conditionality can be overdone, it would not be a good thing if the new bank lent willy-nilly to dictators intent on ransacking their countries’ natural resources. Nor is the Brics bank necessarily as democratic as it makes out. Its articles ensure the founders will never see their voting rights drop below 55 per cent, no matter how many countries join.