http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20090907/citigroup-2006-americamodern-day-plutonomy.htm

A government and a country by the ultra rich and ONLY for the ultra rich. The model already exist in third world countries. That’s what theses bastards from CITIGROUP should mention. LIke I said these bastards are dreaming of China.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20090907/citigroup-2006-americamodern-day-plutonomy.htm

Riding the gravy train, CITIGROUP boasting that the crisis is good for them.

Reforming global governance: How to make the IMF more independent
Daniel Gros Ulrich Klüh Beatrice Weder di Mauro
1 April 2009

“Differeniate voting procedures for lending and analytic functions

The decision rule of the Fund should thus distinguish between financial measures (granting balance of payments assistance) and the analytical function of the IMF, especially macro surveillance and potentially as the main organisation to look after sources of risk in the global financial system.

This needs to change in order to give the IMF the independence it needs to become a credible impartial judge of balance of payments disequilibria and sources of risk to global financial markets. The IMF staff needs to be independent in these functions which should no longer be micro-managed by the Executive Board.
The required independence of the IMF staff can be achieved simply by stipulating that the Board of the IMF only oversees the work of the IMF on its analytical functions and, even more importantly that its decision making mode (and composition) is different in its oversight of these areas. This could be achieved with two simply decisions:
The Executive Board should be enlarged by a number (possibly 3) of independent directors (as in the private sector) and the voting principle should be one man one vote. The independents board members would constitute only a small minority But their presence and professional expertise would give them a disproportionate weight and they would have a disciplining effect since they are to represent the general interest and would be free to go public with their views.
Management would also be free to take positions on all issues not involving the use of fund resources unless it is explicitly overruled by the expanded board. This would give management de facto considerable independent since under the one man one vote principle the larger member countries could no longer block issues just because they are inconvenient from a domestic political point of view.”