Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

tenmillion

Members
  • Posts

    144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

tenmillion's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

80

Reputation

  1. Looks like you guys are still discussing the zeros! Right Reinman....we don't want anything even close to the Turkish plan (redenomination/lop/removing the zeros)!
  2. The IMF has encouraged Iraq to move from Transitional Article XIV to Article VIII for several years. In order for Iraq to move to Article VIII, they must abide by the rules or "obligations" that the IMF requires for all Article VIII countries. At this point, Iraq cannot move to Art VIII because they have several restrictions on foreign currency exchange. So basically, the IMF wants to provide all IMF member countries with the assurance that when they trade with each other, invest in a country, they are all on the same playing field. That way foreign and domestic investors feel confident that they can move their money in and out of foreign accounts without concern. Iraq has several restrictions that were outlined in the last Article IV report. (Iraq has an Article IV review yearly ~ the next one will be published approximately July - October 2014.) Now....the restrictions from last July's IMF Art IV meeting: LINK Iraq continues to avail itself of the transitional arrangements under Article XIV. Eight exchange restrictions (plus one exchange restriction maintained for national or international security) and one multiple currency practice (MCP) are subject to IMF jurisdiction and approval. The exchange restrictions are ~ (i) the limitation that corporates can purchase foreign exchange in the auction for import transactions only; (ii) limitation on the availability of foreign exchange cash for individuals (i.e., one request per month); (iii) maximum limits on the availability of foreign exchange cash in the auction for banks; (iv) maximum limits on the availability of foreign exchange cash in the auction for money transfer companies and money exchange bureaus; (v) the requirement to pay all obligations and debts to the government before proceeds of investments of investors, and salaries and other compensation of non-Iraqi employees may be transferred out of Iraq; (vi) the requirement to submit a tax certificate and a letter of non-objection stating that the companies do not owe any taxes to the government before non-Iraqi companies may transfer proceeds of current international transactions out of the country; (vii) the requirement that before non-Iraqis may transfer proceeds in excess of ID 15 million out of Iraq, the banks are required to give due consideration of legal obligations of these persons with respect to official entities, which must be settled before allowing any transfer; and (viii) an Iraqi balance owed to Jordan under an inoperative bilateral payments agreement. In addition, one exchange restriction maintained for security reasons should be notified to the IMF under the framework of Decision 144-52/51). The *MCP arises from the absence of a mechanism to ensure that the official exchange rate and the market exchange rate do not deviate by more than 2 percent. (Iraq owes Jordan $1.3 billion) *MCP = Multiple Currency Practices All of these monetary restrictions {capital flows (investments) in and out of the country} impede the growth and development of the country. In order for Article VIII to be effective, Iraq will need to address their weaknesses within their financial/banking system (2 State-owned banks - audit and recapitalize) and develop their economy. Also.... I think one of Iraq's main concerns is money-laundering/terrorism, security issues, and that is what is keeping them from moving into Article VIII. (my opinion and it's been mentioned in other IMF docs) Right now Iraq's priority is SECURITY! I hope this helped....I'm sure there are things I missed, but this is a complex topic! IMF Article VIII ~ LINK
  3. Thank you dontlop. Maggie ~ yes, 13303 is still in effect.... a little housekeeping...exactly
  4. 13364 is an amendment to 13303, and since UNSC Resolution 1483 and 1546 (both related to Iraq under Chapter 7 which was lifted last June), would be obsolete. Just a guess since Iraq has exited Chap 7 and 13364 would not be relevant. Iraq would still be immune under 13303 as the article states.
  5. According to CBI documents, Iraq has been paying for currency printing since 2005. In 2005 they paid $9.8 million dollars. Below is currency printing costs for 2012. < E. Cost of Currency Printing = $12.9 million dollars > Ten~
  6. There is a list of non-paris agreement countries that Iraq also owes (most are Gulf countries). Iraq will not negotiate unless these countries reduce the amount owed by 80% (the same amt as the Paris Club reduction) . They are slowly making agreements. I try to keep track of them when I see something in the news about debt reduction, and there has been some mention about debt relief with a couple of countries in the past couple of weeks... Jordan & Egypt. Maybe that's what your informant is referring to. Ten~ Iraq has resolved outstanding debt issues with following thirteen countries: Algeria, Brazil, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. (some of these have been paid already; this was my original list)
  7. The Paris Club debt has not been paid off. Starting in 2011, they have been making a couple of payments a year. The final payment will be in 2028. THE PARIS CLUB AND THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AGREE ON DEBT RELIEF The representatives of the member countries of the Paris Club met from November 17 to November 21 and agreed on November 21, 2004 with the representatives of the Republic of Iraq on a comprehensive debt treatment of the public external debt owed to them providing a total amount of debt reduction of 80 % in three phases. The Iraqi delegation described the challenging economic and financial situation faced by its country and presented the main measures for recovery included in the program of the Iraqi Government and supported by the Emergency Post Conflict Assistance approved by the Board of the International Monetary Fund on September 29, 2004. Paris Club members took note of the strong commitment of the Government of Iraq to implement the policies required under this program and reaffirmed their support. The representatives of the Creditor Countries, aware of the exceptional situation of the Republic of Iraq and of its limited repayment capacity over the coming years, agreed on a debt treatment to ensure its long term debt sustainability. To this end, they recommended that their Governments deliver the following exceptional treatment: - an immediate cancellation of part of the late interest representing 30% of the debt stock as at January 1, 2005. The remaining debt stock is deferred up to the date of the approval of an IMF standard programme. This cancellation results in the write-off of 11.6 billion US dollars on a total debt owed to the Paris Club of 38.9 billion US dollars; - as soon as a standard IMF programme is approved, a reduction of 30% of the debt stock will be delivered. The remaining debt stock will be rescheduled over a period of 23 years including a grace period of 6 years. This step will reduce the debt stock by another 11.6 billions US dollars increasing the rate of cancellation to 60%; - Paris Club Creditors agreed to grant an additional tranche of debt reduction representing 20% of the initial stock upon completion of the last IMF Board review of three-years of implementation of standard IMF programmes. This debt treatment would reduce the total debt stock from 38.9 billion to 7.8 billion US dollars. On a voluntary basis, each creditor country may also undertake debt swaps. The Republic of Iraq has committed to seek comparable treatment from its other external creditors. Technical notes ~ 1. Iraq's economic program is supported by an Emergency Post Conflict Assistance. 2. Iraq's public debt was estimated to be US$ 120.2 billions in nominal value as at end 2004. The debt owed to Paris Club creditors as of December 31, 2004 was estimated to be US$ 38.9 billions in nominal value.
  8. The TPP would strip our constitutional rights, while offering no gains for the majority of Americans. It's a win for corporations. The proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement among 12 governments, touted as one of the largest "free trade" agreements in US history, is running into difficulties as the public learns more about it. Last week 151 Democrats and 23 Republicans (pdf) in the House of Representatives signed letters to the US chief negotiators expressing opposition to a "fast track" procedure for voting on the proposed agreement. This procedure would limit the congressional role and debate over an agreement already negotiated and signed by the executive branch, which the Congress would have to vote up or down without amendments. Most Americans couldn't tell you what "fast track" means, but if they knew what it entails they would certainly be against it. As one of the country's leading trade law experts and probably the foremost authority on Fast Track, Lori Wallach of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, put it: This means that fast track, which first began under Nixon in 1974, was not only a usurpation of the US Congress' constitutional authority "to regulate commerce with foreign nations". It also gave the executive branch – which is generally much less accountable to public pressure than the Congress – a means of negating and pre-empting important legislation by our elected representatives. Laws to protect the environment, food safety, consumers (from monopoly pricing), and other public interest concerns can now be traded away in "trade" negotiations. And US law must be made to conform to the treaty. How ironic that this massive transfer of power to special-interests such as giant pharmaceutical or financial corporations has been sold to the press as a means of holding "special interest" groups – who might oppose tariff reductions that harm them but are good for everyone else – in check. But the TPP and its promoters are full to the brim with ironies. It is quite amazing that a treaty like the TPP can still be promoted as a "free trade" agreement when its most economically important provisions are the exact opposite of "free trade" – the expansion of protectionism. Exhibit A was released by WikiLeaks last week: the latest draft of the "intellectual property" chapter of the agreement, one of 24 (out of 29) chapters that do not have to do with trade. This chapter has provisions that will make it easier for pharmaceutical companies to get patents, including in developing countries; have these patents for more years; and extend the ability of these companies to limit access to the scientific data that is necessary for other researchers to develop new medicines. And the United States is even pushing for provisions that would allow surgical procedures to be patented – provisions that may be currently against US law. All of these measures will help raise the price of medicines and health care, which will strain public health systems and price some people out of the market for important medicines. It is interesting to see how much worse the TPP is than the WTO's Trips (Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights). This, too, was a massive rip-off of consumers and patients throughout the world, but after years of struggle by health advocates and public interest groups, some of its worst features were attenuated, and further consolidation of pharmaceutical companies' interests were blocked. In case you were wondering why we had to get this information from WikiLeaks, it's because the draft negotiating texts are kept secret from the public. Even members of the US Congress and their staff have extremely limited access. Thus the much-maligned WikiLeaks has once again proven how valuable and justified are their efforts to bring transparency to important policy-making that is done in the darkness – whether it is "collateral murder", or other forms of life-threatening unaccountability. One part of the TPP that shows why negotiators want to minimize public awareness of the agreement consists of provisions giving corporations the right – as is the case under the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) – to directly sue governments for regulations that infringe upon their profits or potential profits. This, too, is much worse than the WTO, where a corporation has to convince its government to file a case against another government. These private enforcement actions – which if won collect from the defendant government – are judged by special tribunals outside of either country's judicial system, without the kinds of due process or openness that exists, for example, in the US legal system. A currently infamous example is the action by Lone Pine Resources, a Delaware-incorporated company, against the government of Quebec for its moratorium on fracking. Perhaps less known than its other failings, the TPP doesn't even offer any economic gains for the majority of Americans who are being asked to sacrifice their constitutional rights. The gains from increased trade turn out to be so small that they are equivalent to a rounding error in the measurement of our GDP. The study most touted by proponents of the agreement, published by the Peterson Institute of International Economics, shows a cumulative increase of 0.13% of GDP by 2025. This would be trivial in any case; but the worse news is that, taking into account some of the unequalizing effects of the agreement – these treaties tend to redistribute income upwards – a Centre for Economic and Policy Research study showed that most Americans will actually lose because of the TPP. US corporate interests are, rather obviously in this case, driving the agenda of the TPP. The agreement is in many ways a "plan B" after the last 12 years of WTO negotiations have stagnated – in large part due to considerable, well-organized public resistance in dozens of countries – and failed to achieve many of the goals of its corporate architects. But other branches of the US government have geostrategic goals as well. The world's would-be rulers also hope to separate the "bad kids" from the "good kids" among developing countries. It is no coincidence that in Latin America, the negotiating partners are Mexico, Chile, and Peru, and none of the leftist governments that now prevail in most of the region. And of course, a main goal of the agreement is to try and "isolate" China. The Obama administration will no doubt appeal to some members of Congress on the basis of this neocolonial world view. But for Americans who are learning about the agreement, it is clear that the real "us against them" is not America against the more independent nations of the developing world, but TPP countries' citizens against a corporate swindle being negotiated behind their backs. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/19/trans-pacific-partnership-corporate-usurp-congress
  9. The value of the SDR (avg. of Euro,Yen,Pound,Dollar) = 1.53628 SDR. So I'm just guessing that the 309 billion was measured in dollars, and the 476.8 billion was measured in SDR. If you multiply 309 billion X 1.53628 = $474.71 dollars. Close but not exact. (Not sure where you got the 309 billion from???) Not sure if this answers your question... but Merry Christmas!
  10. Yes, the IMF uses member countries' quota subscriptions to lend to member countries who are in need of financing. If these resources (the quotas) fall short, the IMF will borrow more from countries in a financial position to lend.
  11. Changing the quota system has been discussed for the past few years. Here is an article that explains what was being debated as of spring 2013. www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2013/03/18/US-leadership-of-the-IMF-under-threat.aspx ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The SBA repayment is separate from the IMF quota. Here is the repayment schedule for the 2010 SBA ~
  12. IMF Quotas ~ A member's quota delineates basic aspects of its financial and organizational relationship with the IMF, including: Subscriptions (quota share). A member's quota subscription determines the maximum amount of financial resources the member is obliged to provide to the IMF. A member must pay its subscription in full upon joining the Fund: up to 25 percent must be paid in SDRs or widely accepted currencies (such as the U.S. dollar, the euro, the yen, or the pound sterling), while the rest is paid in the member's own currency. Voting power (voting share). The quota largely determines a member's voting power in IMF decisions. Each IMF member’s votes are comprised of basic votes plus one additional vote for each SDR 100,000 of quota. The 2008 reform fixed the number of basic votes at 5.502 percent of total votes. The current number of basic votes represents close to a tripling of the number prior to the effectiveness of the 2008 reform. Access to financing. The amount of financing a member can obtain from the IMF (its access limit) is based on its quota. For example, under Stand-By and Extended Arrangements, a member can borrow up to 200 percent of its quota annually and 600 percent cumulatively. However, access may be higher in exceptional circumstances. ⋱ ⋮ ⋰ ⋯ ✰ ⋯ ⋰ ⋮ ⋱ ….| _▄▄_ ….|.(◑ჴ◑) ….|..▶★◀ …↺(_____)↺ ….|(______) ★ ⋰⋱ ★ ⋰⋱ ★ ⋰⋱
  13. Iraq's IMF Quota = 1188.40 SDR (millions) The quota for their general resources account has stayed the same since 2004 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Iraq had an outstanding balance of 37 million SDR due December 11, 2013 for the 2010 Stand By Agreement In 2014 and 2015 they have large principal and interest payments that are due for the SBA : 2014 ~ 506 million SDR 2015 ~ 426 million SDR 2016 ~ 37 million SDR (SDR = 1.534697 as of Dec 20, 2013)
  14. VII. Exchange Rate Arrangements: The exchange rate of the U.S. dollar floats independently and is determined freely in the foreign exchange market. VIII. Payments Restrictions. The United States accepted Article VIII of the IMF's Articles of Agreement and maintains an exchange system free of restrictions and multiple currency practices with the exception of limited restrictions on certain payments and transfers imposed for security reasons. The United States currently administers approximately 30 economic sanctions programs, which restrict certain payments and transfers for transactions against particular foreign governments, entities, and individuals. The United States administers, inter alia, sanctions programs relating to Burma, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Sudan, and continues to block certain previously frozen assets of the former Yugoslavia. Several other sanctions programs, including those relating to Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia, Somalia, Syria, Western Balkans, and Zimbabwe are “list-based” programs, affecting only members of certain government regimes and other individuals and groups whose activities have been determined to threaten the foreign policy or economy of the United States. The United States also implements similar list-based sanctions programs against: narcotics traffickers; terrorism-related governments, entities, and individuals; and proliferators of weapons of mass destruction. ~IMF 2012
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.