King : Apparently, the people of Iraq were expecting this big time---people lined up outside the banks, the celebrations planned, the streets blocked off and even the street vendors converting their tables where the normally sell trinkets to exchange places---
All in preparation for the new rate etc.
But, also apparent, it has not happened and so the people are STILL in the streets even though it's the middle of the night and still lined up in front of banks and they are very angry.
OilRat December 11, 2014 at 6:47pm Copied From Twitter
@JCR3758: Good Afternoon all. The quiet is waiting on Intel from Iraq & Parliament on completion prior to official release. Wait 4 confirmations.
More Guesses to NEW Picture Clues/Intel:
G T December 11, 2014 at 5:31pm
Our Day at The Bank is Getting Close
We're about ready to CROSS THAT BRIDGE (with The SLEEPING GIANTS STILL CLOSE BY UNDERNEATH THEIR NOSE)!!
The Budget Issues should be Done ON OR BEFORE '72 Hours
Have your Strategies Ready
Almost time for Applause
G T December 11, 2014 at 7:21pm Late Afternoon Clues.......
HCL ANNOUNCEMENT LIVE IN IRAQ (I thought this announcement was all Done)
Parallel Budget Announcements in Iraq & Here in the US are Expected NOW
Mac December 11, 2014 at 7:51pm I have a holy, righteous, and bold anger. If it is indeed true that Iraq's people are waiting to exchange, while suffering to have life's necessities, this is the epitome of EVIL! How dare any WHALES, BANK EXECS, CEO'S, SENATORS, or friends and family of the above EXCHANGE before IRAQS OWN PEOPLE! Oh did we need to put a gym in our SECOND home before the people of Iraq could EAT a hearty meal? What about some electricity? This is ridiculous and stinks in GOD's nostrils! We wonder why the world shakes its head at US! I hope recaps and anyone else picks this up!
IMF TO MOVE ON TO PLAN B AFTER U.S. SNUBS REFORMS AGAIN.....
Posted by Rick on December 11, 2014 at 9:28pm
IMF to move on new plan after US snubs reforms again
December 12, 2014, 5:48 am
Washington (AFP) - The International Monetary Fund will begin weighing options in January for a new set of crucial governance and funding reforms after the US Congress again refused to ratify the existing plan.
Spokesman William Murray said Thursday that the IMF board would meet next month to weigh "alternative options" to the 2010 reform plan held up by Congress's reticence to endorse it.
"We are following developments on Capitol Hill very closely. Our position regarding the need to rapidly advance the Fund's quota and governance reforms remains unchanged," Murray told reporters.
"Prompt entry into force of the 2010 quota and governance reforms is of utmost importance to preserve the quota-based nature of the IMF, and strengthen its legitimacy, effectiveness and relevance," he said.
The IMF was left hanging Wednesday after US legislators failed to endorse the reforms in the final budget legislation of the year.
After waiting more than two years, the IMF had held out hopes that the reforms, backed by the White House, would be accepted in the huge budget bill that was under discussion this week.
But the bill that emerged from tough negotiations between Democrats and Republicans late Tuesday night excluded the reforms.
The reforms to the Fund's membership quota system -- essentially its shareholding -- would both strengthen the global crisis lender's funding and also give emerging economies like China and Russia greater say in it.
Washington officially supported the reforms in 2010 when they were formulated. As the IMF's largest single shareholder by far, the US ratification is essential to get the necessary endorsement of 85 percent of the membership by voting power.
Fund officials said earlier that they had been encouraged to wait to the end of this year, after the November Congressional elections, for a possible ratification.
In October, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde jokingly promised to perform a belly dance in front of Congress if it gave its official approval.
"I will do belly-dancing, if that's what it takes to get the US to ratify," she said.
But continued Republican opposition, both to giving the IMF more funding and also to allowing even a slight watering-down of US influence in the body, again left the reform endorsement out of the final legislation of the year.
Citing the Fund's official work program for 2015 released Thursday, Murray said the board will look at options for a "Plan B" in January.
NO SUPRISE TO ME I THINK THIS WAS ALWAYS THE PLAN....
LINK - https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/world/a/25754161/imf-to-move-on-new-plan-after-us-snubs-reforms-again/
US budget leaves IMF reforms in doubt Posted by Wade on December 11, 2014 at 2:59pm
Read this article,I think we wont see the RV until this is straighten out IMHO;
Rick December 11, 2014 If there is no reform this will be perfect for the BRICS they win by default and I think this was the plan all along. Nobody in the Congress wanted to be one who signed over control and be blamed for it.
HERE IS PLAN B OUTLINED!!!
Support in the United States for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is at a new low. The reasons are many and varied, and the IMF is unpopular in many countries, not just among the women and men on the streets, most of whom have never heard of the IMF unless their countries are in crisis, but also among the policy elites. But it is Washington’s failure to back the IMF that threatens the legitimacy of the world’s most important financial institution.
The most recent indicator of US lack of support for the IMF is the failure of the Obama administration and the Congress to incorporate the IMF quota and governance reform agreement of November 2010 into legislation adopted in early April supporting Ukraine. Because the United States has 16.7 percent of the votes in the IMF and the IMF reform package was crafted so that it would only go into effect if the United States formally approved the package, which requires an act of Congress, the US inaction effectively blocks implementation of the IMF reform package.
As C. Fred Bergsten and I note in a letter in the Financial Times on April 10, this has created a potential existential crisis for the IMF as well as a policy crisis for the United States, because the Obama administration was the principal architect of the 2010 agreement. The delay of nearly four years in approving the 2010 IMF reform package has damaged the IMF’s legitimacy and substantially reduced US influence in that institution and in other areas.
The best hope (Plan A) is that the US administration and Congress repair the damage and work together to enact the IMF legislation, which will come before lawmakers again as part of the administration’s fiscal year 2015 budget request.
Absent prompt action to enact the IMF legislation, the administration and the world need a Plan B. In my proposed Plan B, the United States would risk, but not relinquish, its ability to block or veto major IMF institutional reforms. My Plan B has four parts. It would:
First, set aside the 2010 IMF reform package’s three components requiring the approval of IMF members:
(1) a doubling of IMF quotas, which are commitments by members to lend to the IMF and are the principal determinant of voting power in the IMF;
(2) a proportionate reduction in commitments to the New Arrangements to Borrow, which are an additional channel through which 38 members of the IMF can provide financing to the IMF; and
(3) an amendment of the IMF Articles of Agreement to provide an all-elected IMF executive board, instead of the current situation in which the five countries with the largest quotas appoint their own executive directors.1
Second, resubmit to the IMF membership the amendment of the IMF Articles on an all-elected IMF executive board as a stand-alone proposal,2 which would require an 85 percent majority vote for its approval.
Third, amend the IMF quota reform component of the 2010 package and combine it with the 15th general review of quotas.
As part of the agreement on the 2010 IMF reform package, the 15th general review of quotas is scheduled to be completed by January 2015 along with a revision to the IMF quota formula. The revision of the quota formula and the completion of the 15th general review of quotas, which originally were to be agreed by January 2014, are at an impasse because of the failure of the United States to approve the 2010 IMF reform package. The expectation in 2010 was that the 15th review would lead to a further reallocation of quota and voting shares in the Fund away from the advanced European countries in particular.
Fourth, to break the impasse on IMF quotas, adopt a three-part approach:
With respect to the first part of the new quota package, the quota formula, if the revised formula were only based on the blend GDP data through 2011, IMF quotas were again doubled, and increases in quotas were distributed according to the new quota formula, the US quota share would increase from 17.4 percent under the 2010 proposal to 19.5 percent. The United States might want to negotiate away some of this implied increase.
Importantly, the combined quota share of the European Union would shrink from 30.3 percent to 27.2 percent. This would imply a substantially larger decline in the combined EU quota share than the puny reduction of 1.6 percentage points, from 31.9 percent, in the 2010 reform package. This aspect should be attractive to the emerging market and developing countries, in particular if the United States were to cede to those countries a portion of the implied increase in its quota.
With respect to the second part of the new quota package, the further doubling of IMF quotas, the increase in usable IMF financial resources would be about $550 billion, raising the total to about $1.4 trillion. The increase in usable resources would be less than the headline figure of about $735 billion because the quotas of about 25 percent of members are not normally available to finance IMF lending.
This element is relevant because the principal way that voting shares in the IMF are reallocated is via an increase in total quotas that is distributed differently than current quotas. Aside from the governance aspect, an increase in IMF quota resources of this size would merely make permanent the $461 billion in additional financing that is now available from the temporary bilateral borrowing that IMF managing director Christine Lagarde lined up during 2012 over US objections. The increase in IMF financial resources should be sufficient to carry the IMF through to the middle of the next decade, which is the earliest date the 16th general review of IMF quotas is likely to take effect.
The third part of the new quota package is the most radical element, but its inclusion in the approach is dependent on the first two to make the approach palatable to the United States. My proposed IMF governors’ resolution on the increase in quotas would establish a trigger for its implementation defined by approval (consents) to quota increases from members with less than 85 percent of total votes—technically less than 83.3 percent. This requirement would deprive the United States of the capacity to block the implementation of the package via its non-approval of an increase in the US quota. Thus the United States would be forced to put up or shut up.
The Secretary of the Treasury, who serves as US governor in the IMF, could vote for such a resolution by the IMF governors without the approval of the US Congress, and has done so in the past when the US veto was not at stake, for example in approving ad hoc quota increases for several IMF members in 2006. US law only requires that the Congress approve any consent to an increase in the US quota in the IMF.
Consequently, absent action by the US Congress, on approval of the increases in their quotas by other IMF members with sufficient votes, the US quota and voting share would be reduced to about one quarter of its current size.3 US capacity alone to block other institutional changes in the IMF would lapse.
The lapse likely would be temporary because normally countries that have not yet consented to increases in their quotas are granted a grace period to do so after the initial proposal has taken effect. I presume that this would continue to be the practice because the United States would not be the only country that has not yet consented to the increase in its quota.
No doubt, Secretary Jacob Lew would be roundly criticized by many in Congress and US punditry if he were to embrace Plan B. Plan A is clearly superior because the US veto is not at risk. But the United States would be seen in the rest of the world to be exercising its right in a manner consistent with its responsibilities.
Under Plan B, the United States would set an example for other members of responsibility in exercising its rights. This would help to restore the legitimacy and authority of the IMF. The Europeans who have been recalcitrant in agreeing to a reduction in their combined quota share also would be put on the spot in the 15th quota review. At the same time, the major emerging market and developing countries, which would benefit from the resulting reallocation of quota and voting shares, would come under increasing pressure to act more responsibly in their policies, for example, with respect to exchange rates, reserve accumulation and investments, and transparency and accountability in these and other areas.
1. See Edwin M. Truman,IMF Reform is waiting on the United States, Policy Brief in International Economics 14-9,Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 2014.
2. The proposal was part of the 2010 IMF reform package, but its approval was linked to the increase in IMF quotas and redistribution of IMF voting power.
3. Under the 2010 proposal the US quota would approximately double, and under the approach of Plan B it would double again so that, absent US consent to any increase in its quota, its original quota share would be approximately one quarter of its current 17.4 percent. Because the United States and probably a number of other members would not yet have consented to the increases in their quotas, the reduction in the US quota share would not be quite 75 percent.
Wade > Rick Glad to see someone else that understands the whole picture and inner workings of the system. Touche' my friend Touche!!
Rick > Wade Yea I dont deal with hopium I like the real deal facts.... The U.S. is beating the war drum because they dont want to change over to new paradigm of money they want to keep doing what they are doing with derivatives and the federal reserve. This is the problem the U.S. agreed back in 2010 now they rejecting the change holding up the entire world and isolating itself making our lives harder when things could be changed in a blink of an eye.
We are heading into the year of the Jubilee and China and other countries want to wipe out the debt and start a new way for mankind with no poverty and no wars.......
Wade :As you will read in the latter part of the article it's time for "Plan B"
[arizona49] 12/11/2014 Millionday the imf...international monetary fund...ending the work in iraq and the huge work with the world bank to fund projects and the speed on the budget of course are all things that explain what is going on right now.
The world bank is working with mous to get in investors and banks are opening that are international banks and we know that the gov has asked that the cbi does not give out any new bills unless it comes with the program of removing the three zeros.
They are in a huge hurry to get the budget done due to demands of military so they are working on it now.
We know that lack of news is always a road to loads of big news or at least that is what we have seen in the past.