Koch Bros. vs the BIS

Cultural, Economics

Koch Bros. vs the BIS

August 18, 2014 JC Collins 20 Comments

“The balance of power has been changing. There are confrontations, economic powers emerging and consolidating and cooperating … The world is becoming both global and interdependent and needs probably different layers in that safety net.”  – Christine Lagarde

With so much happening over the summer on the geopolitical front, including increasing social unrest around the world, it’s important to look in again on the International Monetary Fund’s 2010 Quota and Governance Reforms.  Obviously the United States is still delaying the required congressional approval to enact the legislation in support of the reforms. 
The G20 countries have collectively given the American congress until the end of this year to pass the legislation, which is supported by the countries listed below as well as the American Executive Branch and the Treasury.  Earlier this year the reforms were attached to the aid package for Ukraine.  The IMF reforms and IRS proposed rule change were packaged together and became part of the aid bill, only to be dropped later so the aid bill for Ukraine could be passed. 

The IRS rule change would have limited freedom of speech in regards to the political activities of non-profit organizations.  The Koch brothers, who presumably would not have benefited from this rule change, bargained that the Ukraine aid package would be passed, along with the IMF reforms, as long as the IRS rule change was removed from the bill.  For whatever reason, the Democrats refused to separate the IMF reforms and IRS rule change, but the aid package was ultimately passed.
This tells us a few very important things. 
First, the Koch brothers are aggressively supporting Republican candidates in this years congressional elections which are to take place on November 4th.  The IRS rule change would have severely hampered their attempts at maintaining and growing political influence.  Is it possible that international banking interests, represented in the form of the Bank for International Settlements, is attempting to strip political influence away from American business interests?
Second, neither the Koch brothers, nor the republicans, are against the IMF reforms.  They are only against the IRS rule change which has been attached with the IMF reforms on every bill that is written.  It is perhaps a requirement of the international banking interests that IMF reform and a weakening of internal political power of each country are part and parcel of the same game plan.
Thirdly, given that the Executive Branch and the U.S. Treasury, being the representation of the Democrats, and presumably along with the Republicans by way of congressional representation, are all willing to enact the legislation supporting the IMF 2010 Reforms, it is highly likely that the reforms will be passed shortly after the November 4th elections, as demanded by the G20 countries.
Fourthly, the Koch brothers, who are likely the tip of the spear for a larger American industrial like-minded collective, are unwilling to give up the ability to influence national and local elections.  This American industrial representation likely accepts the inevitability of the IMF Reforms and the restructuring of the global economic structure, including the dollars removal as the worlds primary reserve currency, but are unwilling to accept relinquishing their influence over American political power.
And somehow the Keystone XL pipeline is also bundled up in this mess.  The Koch brothers are the largest foreign lease holders in the Canadian oil sands industry.  Not to mention that they own and control the holding tanks and shipment processing facilities located at Hardisty, Alberta, which is the beginning of the Keystone pipeline.  Obviously the Koch brothers will benefit greatly from the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is likely why the Democrats are holding up its approval – IRS rule change for pipeline approval. It’s politics American style.
With the fast approaching restructuring of the global economy it is imperative for American business interests to close and secure as many resource deals around the world as possible.  If one looks closely enough behind the curtain of media propaganda, it is easy to see the resource security and allocation taking place in all the flash points around the world, from natural gas in Europe to oil in Iraq.  Where resources are not sold and paid for in dollars the American interests will have less bargaining leverage. 
And for an American economy not blessed with the worlds primary reserve currency, business contracts and overall profitability will require as much leverage as possible.
Could the internal civil unrest taking place within America be the product of external banking interests?  Could this unrest be used as leverage to get American industrial and business interests to agree with the larger mandate of economic reform and politically aligned mandates?
There is no doubt that the tools of propaganda and coercion are used on political groups and business conglomerates around the world in all countries.  We need to seriously consider that the United States was used by the international banking interests and have had no more control over their own dollar and its machinations than the homeowner has over the interest rate on his mortgage. 
And now that the banking interests no longer require the dollar for its broader goals, the American business and industrial interest will be brought to heel under the mandates of the Bank for International Settlements.
The Koch brothers could very well represent the last stand of American business and industrial sovereignty.  Whatever sovereignty was left to begin with.  Though I imagine they would sign that remaining sovereignty away for the right contract.
Below is the latest update on the 2010 Quota Reforms directly from the website of the International Monetary Fund.  – JC 

Acceptances of the Proposed Amendment of the Articles of Agreement on Reform of the Executive Board and Consents to 2010 Quota Increase

Last Updated: August 12, 2014
In order for the proposed amendment on reform of the Executive Board to enter into force, acceptance by three-fifths of the Fund’s 188 members (or 113 members) having 85 percent of the Fund’s total voting power is required. As of August 12, 2014, 146 members having 77.07 percent of total voting power had accepted the amendment. Those members are listed below¹.
For the quota increases under the 14th General Review of Quotas to become effective, the entry into force of the proposed amendment to reform the Executive Board is required, as well as the consent to the quota increase by members having not less than 70 percent of total quotas (as of November 5, 2010). As of July 8, 2014, 162 members having 79.54 percent of total quota had consented. Those members are listed below.

Countries that have accepted the amendment on reform of the Executive Board

Country Number of Countries = 146	Voting Power % (as of the date of the last update above) Total = 77.07
Afghanistan	0.09
Algeria	0.53
Angola	0.14
Antigua and Barbuda	0.03
Argentina	0.87
Australia	1.31
Austria	0.87
Azerbaijan	0.09
Bahamas, The	0.08
Bahrain	0.08
Bangladesh	0.24
Belarus	0.18
Belgium	1.86
Belize	0.04
Benin	0.05
Bhutan	0.03
Botswana	0.06
Brazil	1.72
Brunei Darussalam	0.11
Bulgaria	0.28
Burkina Faso	0.05
Burundi	0.06
Cambodia	0.06
Cameroon	0.10
Canada	2.56
Central African Republic	0.05
Chad	0.06
Chile	0.37
China	3.81
Colombia	0.34
Comoros	0.03
Côte d’Ivoire	0.16
Croatia	0.17
Cyprus	0.09
Czech Republic	0.43
Denmark	0.78
Djibouti	0.04
Dominica	0.03
Dominican Republic	0.12
Egypt	0.40
El Salvador	0.10
Equatorial Guinea	0.05
Estonia	0.07
Fiji	0.06
Finland	0.53
France	4.29
Gabon	0.09
Gambia, The	0.04
Georgia	0.09
Germany	5.81
Ghana	0.18
Greece	0.47
Guinea	0.07
Guinea-Bissau	0.03
Guyana	0.07
Haiti	0.06
Honduras	0.08
Hungary	0.44
Iceland	0.08
India	2.34
Indonesia	0.85
Iran	0.62
Ireland	0.53
Israel	0.45
Italy	3.16
Jamaica	0.14
Japan	6.23
Jordan	0.10
Kenya	0.14
Kiribati	0.03
Korea	1.37
Kosovo	0.05
Kuwait	0.58
Lao PDR	0.05
Latvia	0.09
Lesotho	0.04
Lithuania	0.10
Luxembourg	0.20
Macedonia, FYR	0.06
Malawi	0.06
Malaysia	0.73
Maldives	0.03
Mali	0.07
Malta	0.07
Mauritius	0.07
Mexico	1.47
Moldova	0.08
Montenegro	0.04
Morocco	0.26
Mozambique	0.07
Myanmar	0.13
Namibia	0.08
Nepal	0.06
Netherlands	2.08
New Zealand	0.38
Nicaragua	0.08
Niger	0.06
Norway	0.78
Oman	0.12
Pakistan	0.44
Panama	0.11
Papua New Guinea	0.08
Paraguay	0.07
Peru	0.28
Philippines	0.43
Poland	0.70
Portugal	0.44
Qatar	0.15
Romania	0.44
Russia	2.39
Samoa	0.03
San Marino	0.04
São Tomé and Príncipe	0.03
Saudi Arabia	2.80
Senegal	0.09
Serbia	0.21
Seychelles	0.03
Sierra Leone	0.07
Singapore	0.59
Slovak Republic	0.20
Slovenia	0.14
South Africa	0.77
South Sudan	0.08
Spain	1.63
Sri Lanka	0.19
St. Vincent and the Grenadines	0.03
Sudan	0.10
Suriname	0.07
Swaziland	0.05
Sweden	0.98
Switzerland	1.40
Tajikistan	0.06
Thailand	0.60
Timor-Leste	0.03
Togo	0.06
Tonga	0.03
Trinidad and Tobago	0.16
Tunisia	0.14
Turkey	0.61
Turkmenistan	0.06
Ukraine	0.57
United Kingdom	4.29
Uruguay	0.15
Uzbekistan	0.14
Vanuatu	0.04
Vietnam	0.21
Total	77.07

Countries that have consented to their quota increase under the 14th General Review of Quotas

Country Number of Countries = 162	Quota Share % (as of the date of the last update above) Total= 79.54
Afghanistan	0.07
Albania	0.02
Algeria	0.58
Angola	0.13
Antigua and Barbuda	0.01
Argentina	0.97
Armenia	0.04
Australia	1.49
Austria	0.86
Azerbaijan	0.07
Bahamas, The	0.06
Bangladesh	0.25
Barbados	0.03
Belarus	0.18
Belgium	2.12
Belize	0.01
Benin	0.03
Bhutan	0.003
Botswana	0.03
Brazil	1.40
Brunei Darussalam	0.10
Bulgaria	0.29
Burkina Faso	0.03
Burundi	0.04
Cambodia	0.04
Cameroon	0.09
Canada	2.93
Central African Republic	0.03
Chad	0.03
Chile	0.39
China	3.72
Colombia	0.36
Comoros	.004
Congo, Dem. Rep.	0.25
Congo, Rep.	0.04
Côte d’Ivoire	0.15
Croatia	0.17
Cyprus	0.06
Czech Republic	0.38
Denmark	0.76
Djibouti	0.01
Dominica	0.004
Dominican Republic	0.10
Egypt	0.43
El Salvador	0.08
Equatorial Guinea	0.01
Estonia	0.03
Ethiopia	0.06
Finland	0.58
Fiji	0.03
France	4.94
Gabon	0.07
Gambia, The	0.01
Georgia	0.07
Germany	5.98
Ghana	0.17
Greece	0.38
Guinea	0.05
Guinea-Bissau	0.01
Guyana	0.04
Haiti	0.04
Honduras	0.06
Hungary	0.48
Iceland	0.05
India	1.91
Indonesia	0.96
Iran	0.69
Iraq	0.55
Ireland	0.39
Israel	0.43
Italy	3.24
Jamaica	0.13
Japan	6.12
Jordan	0.08
Kenya	0.12
Kiribati	0.003
Korea	1.35
Kosovo	0.03
Kuwait	0.64
Lao PDR	0.02
Latvia	0.06
Lesotho	0.02
Liberia	0.06
Libya	0.52
Lithuania	0.07
Luxembourg	0.13
Macedonia, FYR	0.03
Malawi	0.03
Malaysia	0.68
Maldives	0.004
Mali	0.04
Malta	0.05
Marshall Islands	0.002
Mauritius	0.05
Mexico	1.45
Moldova	0.06
Montenegro	0.01
Morocco	0.27
Mozambique	0.05
Myanmar	0.12
Namibia	0.06
Nepal	0.03
Netherlands, The	2.37
New Zealand	0.41
Nicaragua	0.06
Niger	0.03
Nigeria	0.81
Norway	0.77
Oman	0.09
Pakistan	0.48
Palau	0.001
Panama	0.10
Papua New Guinea	0.06
Paraguay	0.05
Peru	0.29
Philippines	0.40
Poland	0.63
Portugal	0.40
Qatar	0.12
Romania	0.47
Russian Federation	2.73
Samoa	0.01
San Marino	0.01
São Tomé and Príncipe	0.003
Saudi Arabia	3.21
Senegal	0.07
Serbia	0.22
Seychelles	0.004
Sierra Leone	0.05
Singapore	0.40
Slovak Republic	0.16
Slovenia	0.11
Solomon Islands	0.005
South Africa	0.86
South Sudan
Spain	1.40
Sri Lanka	0.19
St. Lucia	0.01
St. Vincent and the Grenadines	0.004
Suriname	0.04
Swaziland	0.02
Sweden	1.10
Switzerland	1.59
Tajikistan	0.04
Tanzania	0.09
Thailand	0.50
Timor-Leste	0.004
Togo	0.03
Tonga	0.003
Trinidad and Tobago	0.15
Tunisia	0.13
Turkey	0.55
Turkmenistan	0.03
Uganda	0.08
United Kingdom	4.94
Uruguay	0.14
Uzbekistan	0.13
Vanuatu	0.01
Vietnam	0.15
Yemen	0.11
Zambia	0.22
Zimbabwe	0.16
Total	79.54

http://philosophyofmetrics.com/2014/08/18/koch-bros-vs-the-bis/#more-995