NASDAQ [Nat'l Assoc of Sec Dealers Automt'd Quot]
NASDAQ, also referred to as the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations, represents the American Stock Exchange. Famous as the biggest U.S. market for trading equity securities, it is known to comprise of around 3800 corporations and companies. Compared to the other global stock exchange markets, this one has the highest hourly trade volume.
NASDAQ is also famous as the first world electronic market for stocks. At the beginning, it started as a computer system that presented a bulletin board which was not really able to connect the trading parties. NASDAQ was able to reduce the difference between asked price and the bid stock price of stocks, known as spread, but was not popular because brokerages still used the spread to generate money. Nonetheless, it became a substitute for the trading systems known as “The Curb Exchange” and OTC (over the counter).
As years passed, NASDAQ established itself as a true stock market, featuring automated trading systems and been able to report on trade and volume. It also started general public advertisement campaigns of its own in the U.S. and became the first stock market to do so. The stock exchange highlighted the trading companies that use NASDAQ and always closed, declaring that for the next hundred years it will be the leading stock market. The NASDAQ composite is the main index, announced at the start.
Before 1987, the telephone was used in order for a trading to occur, but when the market crashed in October 1987, the trading parties often did not pick up the phone. To answer this problem, the SOES was established (Small Order Execution System), providing a method for entering trades electronically. SOES is required by NASDAQ in order to engage in trade. The 1992 saw the London Stock exchange and NASDAQ joined together, forming the first security market link between continents. At the start of the 21 century, the NASDAQ- Amex Market Group has become the biggest electronic market for stocks in the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASDAQ
NASDAQ, also referred to as the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations, represents the American Stock Exchange. Famous as the biggest U.S. market for trading equity securities, it is known to comprise of around 3800 corporations and companies. Compared to the other global stock exchange markets, this one has the highest hourly trade volume.
NASDAQ is also famous as the first world electronic market for stocks. At the beginning, it started as a computer system that presented a bulletin board which was not really able to connect the trading parties. NASDAQ was able to reduce the difference between asked price and the bid stock price of stocks, known as spread, but was not popular because brokerages still used the spread to generate money. Nonetheless, it became a substitute for the trading systems known as “The Curb Exchange” and OTC (over the counter).
As years passed, NASDAQ established itself as a true stock market, featuring automated trading systems and been able to report on trade and volume. It also started general public advertisement campaigns of its own in the U.S. and became the first stock market to do so. The stock exchange highlighted the trading companies that use NASDAQ and always closed, declaring that for the next hundred years it will be the leading stock market. The NASDAQ composite is the main index, announced at the start.
Before 1987, the telephone was used in order for a trading to occur, but when the market crashed in October 1987, the trading parties often did not pick up the phone. To answer this problem, the SOES was established (Small Order Execution System), providing a method for entering trades electronically. SOES is required by NASDAQ in order to engage in trade. The 1992 saw the London Stock exchange and NASDAQ joined together, forming the first security market link between continents. At the start of the 21 century, the NASDAQ- Amex Market Group has become the biggest electronic market for stocks in the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASDAQ
NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization]
BEGINNINGS: The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949 and was ratified by the United States that August. [photo left]
The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary in order to counter the military power of the USSR, and therefore talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately.
These talks resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states, as well as the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland. Popular support for the Treaty was not unanimous; some Icelanders commenced a pro-neutrality, anti-membership riot in March 1949.
“The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
"Such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force" does not necessarily mean that other member states will respond with military action against the aggressor(s). Rather they are obliged to respond, but maintain the freedom to choose how they will respond. This differs from Article IV of the Treaty of Brussels (which founded the Western European Union) which clearly states that the response will be military in nature. However, it is often assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily. Further, the North Atlantic Treaty limits the organization's scope to regions above the Tropic of Cancer, which explains why the Falklands War did not result in NATO involvement.
The creation of NATO brought about some standardization of allied military terminology, procedures, and technology, which in many cases meant European countries adopting U.S. practices. The roughly 1300 Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) codifies the standardization that NATO has achieved. Hence, the 7.62×51 NATO rifle cartridge was introduced in the 1950s as a standard firearm cartridge among many NATO countries. Fabrique Nationale de Herstal's FAL became the most popular 7.62 NATO rifle in Europe and served into the early 1990s. Also, aircraft marshalling signals were standardized, so that any NATO aircraft could land at any NATO base. Other standards such as the NATO phonetic alphabet have made their way beyond NATO into civilian use.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/index.htm
The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary in order to counter the military power of the USSR, and therefore talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately.
These talks resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states, as well as the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland. Popular support for the Treaty was not unanimous; some Icelanders commenced a pro-neutrality, anti-membership riot in March 1949.
“The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
"Such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force" does not necessarily mean that other member states will respond with military action against the aggressor(s). Rather they are obliged to respond, but maintain the freedom to choose how they will respond. This differs from Article IV of the Treaty of Brussels (which founded the Western European Union) which clearly states that the response will be military in nature. However, it is often assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily. Further, the North Atlantic Treaty limits the organization's scope to regions above the Tropic of Cancer, which explains why the Falklands War did not result in NATO involvement.
The creation of NATO brought about some standardization of allied military terminology, procedures, and technology, which in many cases meant European countries adopting U.S. practices. The roughly 1300 Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) codifies the standardization that NATO has achieved. Hence, the 7.62×51 NATO rifle cartridge was introduced in the 1950s as a standard firearm cartridge among many NATO countries. Fabrique Nationale de Herstal's FAL became the most popular 7.62 NATO rifle in Europe and served into the early 1990s. Also, aircraft marshalling signals were standardized, so that any NATO aircraft could land at any NATO base. Other standards such as the NATO phonetic alphabet have made their way beyond NATO into civilian use.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/index.htm
Net Worth
1. For a company, total assets minus total liabilities. Net worth is an important determinant of the value of a company, considering it is composed primarily of all the money that has been invested since its inception, as well as the retained earnings for the duration of its operation. Net worth can be used to determine creditworthiness because it gives a snapshot of the company's investment history. also called owner's equity, shareholders' equity, or net assets.
2. For an individual, the value of a person's assets, including cash, minus all liabilities. The amount by which the individual's assets exceed their liabilities is considered the net worth of that person.
Net worth stands for the amount by which the assets exceed the liabilities. Serving as a way to determine the financial health, this concept can be used in view of individuals and companies. The formula for its calculation is simple and straightforward:
Net worth = Assets – Liabilities
Using this equation as a starting point, now it is time to determine your net worth. The calculation of your assets and liabilities is required in order to accomplish this process.
- Determining assets – Those of the assets that can be turned fast into cash or cash equivalents are called Liquid assets. Bank accounts, stocks, bonds, certificates of deposit, mutual funds, and other investments fall into the category. Your real estate holdings are a good example of illiquid assets. Vehicles, jewelry, and other holdings form a part of your private possessions that should be excluded. Though they may cost a lot, these items are probably not worth form a resale prospective.
- Determining liabilities – Your debts stand on the other side of the ledger. Falling into this category are car loans, credit cards, business loans, and home mortgages. This side of the equation presents particular interest given that many people find themselves in this kind of debt trouble.
A major role can be played by some mitigating factors. A college education, when compared with a high-school education, will typically double the net worth of the household. Self-employment, in contrast to working for an employer, may triple net worth.
As a result of such mitigating factors, in terms of its usefulness as a measurement instrument, the net-worth calculations are not considered universal. The calculation of net worth is for your retirement savings like the GPS. It both tells you where you are now and gives you an idea what you should use to reach your destination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_worth
1. For a company, total assets minus total liabilities. Net worth is an important determinant of the value of a company, considering it is composed primarily of all the money that has been invested since its inception, as well as the retained earnings for the duration of its operation. Net worth can be used to determine creditworthiness because it gives a snapshot of the company's investment history. also called owner's equity, shareholders' equity, or net assets.
2. For an individual, the value of a person's assets, including cash, minus all liabilities. The amount by which the individual's assets exceed their liabilities is considered the net worth of that person.
Net worth stands for the amount by which the assets exceed the liabilities. Serving as a way to determine the financial health, this concept can be used in view of individuals and companies. The formula for its calculation is simple and straightforward:
Net worth = Assets – Liabilities
Using this equation as a starting point, now it is time to determine your net worth. The calculation of your assets and liabilities is required in order to accomplish this process.
- Determining assets – Those of the assets that can be turned fast into cash or cash equivalents are called Liquid assets. Bank accounts, stocks, bonds, certificates of deposit, mutual funds, and other investments fall into the category. Your real estate holdings are a good example of illiquid assets. Vehicles, jewelry, and other holdings form a part of your private possessions that should be excluded. Though they may cost a lot, these items are probably not worth form a resale prospective.
- Determining liabilities – Your debts stand on the other side of the ledger. Falling into this category are car loans, credit cards, business loans, and home mortgages. This side of the equation presents particular interest given that many people find themselves in this kind of debt trouble.
A major role can be played by some mitigating factors. A college education, when compared with a high-school education, will typically double the net worth of the household. Self-employment, in contrast to working for an employer, may triple net worth.
As a result of such mitigating factors, in terms of its usefulness as a measurement instrument, the net-worth calculations are not considered universal. The calculation of net worth is for your retirement savings like the GPS. It both tells you where you are now and gives you an idea what you should use to reach your destination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_worth
Nuri Kamal al-Maliki
Updated: March 4, 2011
Nuri Kamal al-Maliki became prime minister of Iraq in 2006. He gained a second term in 2010, after nine months of political struggle following the inconclusive results of the country's parliamentary elections in March 2010. A dour, marginally popular figure, his tenacity paid off in the assembling of a government of unity that was approved by Parliament in late December, only days before a constitutionally mandated deadline.
He has said he will not seek re-election as leader of the Iraqi government after his current term ends in 2014, and also that he will cut his pay in half.
Mr. Maliki's party, State of Law, finished a close second in the elections, finishing just behind a party led by Ayad Allawi. While both men are Shiites, Mr. Maliki's base is in the Shiite south, while Mr. Allawi drew support from the Sunni minority.
After months of stalemate, an agreement was reached in November that would allow Mr. Maliki to remain prime minister, while Mr. Allawi's party gained a significant share of cabinet positions. Even after the deal was struck, working out the details dragged on, and it was not until mid-December that Mr. Allawi gave his grudging and conditional approval.
In the months after the election, Mr. Maliki, a Shiite, fought hard to hold onto office, but initially was unable to win the support he needed from other parties representing the Shiite majority. The turning point came on Oct. 1, when he gained the surprise endorsement of a Shiite bloc led by Moktada al-Sadr.
The talks that followed were shaped by the American desire to include Sunnis in the government and by the Kurds, who held the seats the Shiite alliance needed for a majority. They threw their support behind Mr. Maliki in exchange for holding onto the presidency.
Mr. Maliki was a little-known and relatively unimportant figure in 2006 when he became the country's first permanent prime minister as a compromise after months of bickering within a Shiite coalition. He initially seemed weak and adrift amid the horrific sectarian fighting of that time, but eventually seized such firm control of power that even his former allies were long reluctant to give him a second term, fearing that State of Law will become the pillar of an essentially one-party state.
As protesters throughout the Arab world are challenging their authoritarian leaders in 2011, Iraqis, government officials and regional experts see increasing signs that Mr. Maliki is expanding his power, undermining the fragile democracy struggling to take hold.
BACKGROUND
The dirt streets and the crumbling brick houses of Janajuh, Mr. Maliki's home village, are a reminder of how far he has come. Mr. Maliki was born in 1950, the son of a government employee and the grandson of a former education minister during the monarchy. By the time he was an adolescent he was bicycling along the gravel roads to Hindiya, the nearest town of any size, to go to school.
He joined the Dawa Party in college. At the time, the Islamist party, founded by an uncle of the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr, was already largely underground. Saddam Hussein saw its religious philosophy and predominantly Shiite membership as a threat. In 1979, shortly after he seized power, Mr. Hussein ordered the arrests of all Dawa Party members nationwide. In Mr. Maliki's home district alone, at least 70 men were detained; most were never seen again.
Mr. Maliki was one of fewer than five who escaped. He took refuge in Syria, moved to Iran and then returned to Syria.
While Shiite Islamist parties like Dawa are often accused of being close to Iran, Mr. Maliki saw the Iranians as neighbors but not always friends, his associates said. Dawa's exiles were treated as "unwelcome guests" in Iran, said Sami Alaskary, a member of Parliament and a close friend of the prime minister.
Mr. Maliki did not return to Iraq until the American-led invasion of 2003.
Selection as Prime Minister
When Mr. Maliki was chosen as prime minister in April 2006, he was not a familiar figure to the general public, and he appeared stiff and nervous in his first press conference. He had served as a deputy leader in the Dawa Party and was picked only after months of wrangling in which Kurdish and Sunni officials combined to block the renomination of the interim prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Dawa leader.
Mr. Jaafari had earned a reputation as being indecisive, and had angered Kurdish and Sunni leaders by seeming to favor Shiite interests too much. Mr. Maliki's reputation was as someone more direct and forceful, and he stressed during his initial appearance a determination not to favor his sect above others.
But the key votes in the caucus of Shiite parties that chose him to be Mr. Jaafari's successor were cast by Mr. Sadr, who thereby thwarted the ambitions of his longtime rival, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the political party now known as the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.
Mr. Maliki was the first person to serve as prime minister on a non-interim basis since the American invasion in 2003. He took office in 2006 only after months of stalemate had failed to produce a candidate acceptable to Shiite factions and the Kurds.
As 2006 dragged bloodily on, American commanders expressed frustration with Mr. Maliki, saying that he appeared to be protecting the Mahdi Army and other militias. Mr. Maliki, for his part, lashed out at American attempts to force him to commit himself to a timetable for progress on an American-dictated set of benchmarks.
In January 2007, Mr. Maliki and Mr. Bush appeared to reach an understanding that allowed for the American president to proceed with an increase in combat troops, and American commanders reported less interference from the government. Over the course of the spring, Mr. Maliki weathered a boycott of his government by Mr. Sadr's party, who protested his cooperation with the U.S., and open maneuvering by Mr. Hakim to form a new government in an alliance with Kurds and moderate Sunnis. Eventually, Mr. Maliki and Mr. Hakim appeared to reach an understanding, although one that has frayed regularly.
Asserting His Power
If any single moment can be said to have been the turning point for Mr. Maliki, it was one that appeared at first to be a disaster: his decision in March 2008 to order the Iraqi army into Basra, the southern Shiite city that was a stronghold of Mr. Sadr, who had been Mr. Maliki's biggest supporter before becoming an ardent foe. The assault, launched with no warning to the American military, faltered in embarrassing fashion, with many officers deserting in the face of fire from the Mahdi Army, a militia loyal to Mr. Sadr. Iran stepped in and brokered a cease-fire that appeared to be on Mr. Sadr's terms. But in the weeks that followed the army took firm control of Basra.
Mr. Maliki followed up with an offensive to take control of Sadr City in Baghdad. Facing a determined Iraqi Army backed by American troops and air power, Mr. Sadr struck a deal that allowed the government forces to take control of what had been his state-within-a-state, handing Mr. Maliki the biggest victory of his term.
After that, Mr. Maliki consolidated his power by reshuffling military commanders and creating two handpicked military forces that report primarily to him as the commander in chief rather than to the Interior or Defense Ministries. He also created tribal councils across the country that are directly linked to his office, which critics feared were stalking-horses to extend the reach of the Dawa Party.
At the same time, Mr. Maliki struggled to meet milestones for progress on political reconciliation set out by the U.S. government. American officials, while still backing him in disputes with other parties, criticized his government as corrupt and inefficient. Mr. Maliki responded by asserting his independence, first by supporting a timeline for the withdrawal of American troops that was close to that advocated by Barack Obama as a presidential candidate, and then by forcing Mr. Bush to make significant concessions in return for a Status of Forces agreement that would allow U.S. forces to remain in the country after the end of 2008.
As the June 30, 2009, deadline for the withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq's cities approached, Mr. Maliki called the move a "great victory," a repulsion of foreign occupiers he compared to the rebellion against British troops in 1920.
The anger at Mr. Maliki from the political class has been strong enough that he narrowly missed being voted out of office in December 2008 and in late 2007. He survived both efforts with American support, primarily because his opponents could not agree on a replacement.
The 2010 Campaign
Mr. Maliki, an outwardly dour man with a jowly face darkened by a perpetual shadow of a beard, made a simple case for re-election. "Today's Iraq, dear brothers, is not the Iraq of 2005 or 2006" was how he put it at one rally in Baghdad, referring to the horrific sectarian bloodshed that very nearly devoured the country. It was both a boast of what his government has accomplished (with American help he rarely acknowledges) and a warning of what could return (when the Americans leave).
Mr. Maliki is neither a charismatic leader nor a polished campaigner, but in a country recently convulsed by chaos and carnage, his message and achievements have resonance, even among his critics.
He refashioned the Dawa party into a coalition he called State of Law, with a campaign that promised security and order, and played down his party's Shiite religious roots. But his strategy of building a grand political coalition representing all of Iraq's sects and ethnicities was co-opted by most of his challengers — with better success, arguably, in the case of a coalition led by a former prime minister, Ayad Allawi, a Shiite who assembled the strongest cadre of Sunni parties behind him.
As the incumbent, Mr. Maliki's campaign was also hampered by the shortcomings of his government: the lack of development and jobs, grinding poverty, corruption and feeble services.
And the Kremlin-like opacity of his decision-making — his own evident paranoia, sharpened by years in exile during Saddam Hussein's rule — have made some of his decisions appear capricious and contradictory.
A Shiite-led vilification of the Baath Party, which resulted in the surprise disqualification of scores of candidates in February, prompted Mr. Maliki to intensify his own statements to rally the Shiite votes he needed, even as it alienated the Sunnis he had once hoped to win over by appealing to a national Iraqi identity.
When an appeals court initially reversed the disqualifications, Mr. Maliki denounced the ruling as illegal. Then two days later he reversed himself after meeting with the country's top judge, in what was criticized as inappropriate interference.
Election and Aftermath
The nationwide parliamentary elections on March 7 went relatively smoothly, if smoothly can include a wave of violence meant to disrupt the vote, with 100 attacks in Baghdad alone. At least 38 people died, but the turnout was higher than expected. Sunnis who largely boycotted previous elections voted in force, and an intense competition for Shiite votes drove up participation in Baghdad and the south.
The results laid the ground work for a potentially sharp and divisive shift in power, with the coalition led by Mr. Allawi taking a slim lead, with 91 seats to Mr. Maliki's 89. Old alliances appeared to fracture against a surge of dissident movements. Traditional Kurdish and Shiite Arab alliances were confronted with movements that contested their claims to leadership, in particular the followers of the radical cleric Moktada al-Sadr, who fought the Americans twice in 2004. Sunni Arab voters were newly emboldened in an election in which they forcefully took part under the banner of a secular alliance.
In many ways, the vote solidified ethnic and sectarian divisions unleashed by the American-led invasion in 2003. Despite a conscious effort by most parties to appeal to nationalist sentiments, people still voted along the lines of identity. Those demarcations of Sunni Arab, Shiite Arab or Kurd have bedeviled attempts to solve the country's most pressing issues, including borders disputed between Arabs and Kurds and the power of the federal government in a country still haunted by decades of dictatorship.
The results set off political turmoil and opened a period of maneuvering that lasted seven months.
Mr. Maliki has taken a more conciliatory stance since he formed a post-election alliance with another Shiite bloc, making it the largest coalition in Parliament. This made Mr. Allawi's wafer-thin lead in seats over Mr. Maliki more symbolic than practical. But wrangling within the Shiite alliance went on for months, with no clear movement until Mr. Maliki's endorsement by Mr. Sadr's party at the start of October.
The November agreement by Mr. Allawi's party to join a unity government was a significant a victory for Mr. Maliki, who has proven a forceful and wily politician, unwavering in his determination to remain in office. How Mr. Maliki can now manage the unwieldy alliance is a big question. Rivalries among the various factions, including a bitter historical opposition between Mr. Maliki and Mr. Sadr, remain barely below the surface.
In the end, negotiations over the allotment of government positions dragged on for weeks, with Parliament giving unanimous approval to the government, and to Mr. Maliki's second term, on Dec. 21. Even then, some major cabinet positions had yet to be filled.
Maliki's Expanded Power
Critics say that Mr. Maliki has expanded his reach over his country. A ruling in January 2011 by Iraq's highest court — sought by Mr. Maliki — gave him control of once-independent agencies responsible for running the country’s central bank, conducting elections and investigating corruption. A month after that ruling, two leading human rights groups reported that forces that report directly to Mr. Maliki in violation of the country’s constitution were running secret jails where detainees had been tortured.
And in July 2010, Iraq’s high court ruled that members of Parliament no longer had the power to propose legislation. Instead, all new laws would have to be proposed by Mr. Maliki’s cabinet or the president and then passed to the Parliament for a vote. Political experts said they knew of no other parliamentary democracy that had such restrictions.
With influence from the United States waning as the military prepares to withdraw at the end of the year, Mr. Maliki’s critics say that one legacy of the eight-year American occupation is a democratically elected leader from the country’s Shiite majority who has far more power than its Constitution intended. Critics said that the court ruling in January was a particularly damaging blow to the country’s voting process and feeble economy.
Fear has also extended to the central bank, where officials said they worried Mr. Maliki would now have the power to order the institution to print money to cover Iraq’s growing budget deficits. Such a move would weaken the value of Iraq’s anemic currency and lead to rapid inflation.
While not directly challenging Mr. Maliki's rule, thousands took to the streets in February and March, sometimes violently, to protest the the government’s failure to provide electricity and jobs. Rights groups criticized the government for what they called a violent crackdown on those demonstrations.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/nuri_kamal_al-maliki/index.html?8qa
Nuri Kamal al-Maliki became prime minister of Iraq in 2006. He gained a second term in 2010, after nine months of political struggle following the inconclusive results of the country's parliamentary elections in March 2010. A dour, marginally popular figure, his tenacity paid off in the assembling of a government of unity that was approved by Parliament in late December, only days before a constitutionally mandated deadline.
He has said he will not seek re-election as leader of the Iraqi government after his current term ends in 2014, and also that he will cut his pay in half.
Mr. Maliki's party, State of Law, finished a close second in the elections, finishing just behind a party led by Ayad Allawi. While both men are Shiites, Mr. Maliki's base is in the Shiite south, while Mr. Allawi drew support from the Sunni minority.
After months of stalemate, an agreement was reached in November that would allow Mr. Maliki to remain prime minister, while Mr. Allawi's party gained a significant share of cabinet positions. Even after the deal was struck, working out the details dragged on, and it was not until mid-December that Mr. Allawi gave his grudging and conditional approval.
In the months after the election, Mr. Maliki, a Shiite, fought hard to hold onto office, but initially was unable to win the support he needed from other parties representing the Shiite majority. The turning point came on Oct. 1, when he gained the surprise endorsement of a Shiite bloc led by Moktada al-Sadr.
The talks that followed were shaped by the American desire to include Sunnis in the government and by the Kurds, who held the seats the Shiite alliance needed for a majority. They threw their support behind Mr. Maliki in exchange for holding onto the presidency.
Mr. Maliki was a little-known and relatively unimportant figure in 2006 when he became the country's first permanent prime minister as a compromise after months of bickering within a Shiite coalition. He initially seemed weak and adrift amid the horrific sectarian fighting of that time, but eventually seized such firm control of power that even his former allies were long reluctant to give him a second term, fearing that State of Law will become the pillar of an essentially one-party state.
As protesters throughout the Arab world are challenging their authoritarian leaders in 2011, Iraqis, government officials and regional experts see increasing signs that Mr. Maliki is expanding his power, undermining the fragile democracy struggling to take hold.
BACKGROUND
The dirt streets and the crumbling brick houses of Janajuh, Mr. Maliki's home village, are a reminder of how far he has come. Mr. Maliki was born in 1950, the son of a government employee and the grandson of a former education minister during the monarchy. By the time he was an adolescent he was bicycling along the gravel roads to Hindiya, the nearest town of any size, to go to school.
He joined the Dawa Party in college. At the time, the Islamist party, founded by an uncle of the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr, was already largely underground. Saddam Hussein saw its religious philosophy and predominantly Shiite membership as a threat. In 1979, shortly after he seized power, Mr. Hussein ordered the arrests of all Dawa Party members nationwide. In Mr. Maliki's home district alone, at least 70 men were detained; most were never seen again.
Mr. Maliki was one of fewer than five who escaped. He took refuge in Syria, moved to Iran and then returned to Syria.
While Shiite Islamist parties like Dawa are often accused of being close to Iran, Mr. Maliki saw the Iranians as neighbors but not always friends, his associates said. Dawa's exiles were treated as "unwelcome guests" in Iran, said Sami Alaskary, a member of Parliament and a close friend of the prime minister.
Mr. Maliki did not return to Iraq until the American-led invasion of 2003.
Selection as Prime Minister
When Mr. Maliki was chosen as prime minister in April 2006, he was not a familiar figure to the general public, and he appeared stiff and nervous in his first press conference. He had served as a deputy leader in the Dawa Party and was picked only after months of wrangling in which Kurdish and Sunni officials combined to block the renomination of the interim prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Dawa leader.
Mr. Jaafari had earned a reputation as being indecisive, and had angered Kurdish and Sunni leaders by seeming to favor Shiite interests too much. Mr. Maliki's reputation was as someone more direct and forceful, and he stressed during his initial appearance a determination not to favor his sect above others.
But the key votes in the caucus of Shiite parties that chose him to be Mr. Jaafari's successor were cast by Mr. Sadr, who thereby thwarted the ambitions of his longtime rival, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the political party now known as the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.
Mr. Maliki was the first person to serve as prime minister on a non-interim basis since the American invasion in 2003. He took office in 2006 only after months of stalemate had failed to produce a candidate acceptable to Shiite factions and the Kurds.
As 2006 dragged bloodily on, American commanders expressed frustration with Mr. Maliki, saying that he appeared to be protecting the Mahdi Army and other militias. Mr. Maliki, for his part, lashed out at American attempts to force him to commit himself to a timetable for progress on an American-dictated set of benchmarks.
In January 2007, Mr. Maliki and Mr. Bush appeared to reach an understanding that allowed for the American president to proceed with an increase in combat troops, and American commanders reported less interference from the government. Over the course of the spring, Mr. Maliki weathered a boycott of his government by Mr. Sadr's party, who protested his cooperation with the U.S., and open maneuvering by Mr. Hakim to form a new government in an alliance with Kurds and moderate Sunnis. Eventually, Mr. Maliki and Mr. Hakim appeared to reach an understanding, although one that has frayed regularly.
Asserting His Power
If any single moment can be said to have been the turning point for Mr. Maliki, it was one that appeared at first to be a disaster: his decision in March 2008 to order the Iraqi army into Basra, the southern Shiite city that was a stronghold of Mr. Sadr, who had been Mr. Maliki's biggest supporter before becoming an ardent foe. The assault, launched with no warning to the American military, faltered in embarrassing fashion, with many officers deserting in the face of fire from the Mahdi Army, a militia loyal to Mr. Sadr. Iran stepped in and brokered a cease-fire that appeared to be on Mr. Sadr's terms. But in the weeks that followed the army took firm control of Basra.
Mr. Maliki followed up with an offensive to take control of Sadr City in Baghdad. Facing a determined Iraqi Army backed by American troops and air power, Mr. Sadr struck a deal that allowed the government forces to take control of what had been his state-within-a-state, handing Mr. Maliki the biggest victory of his term.
After that, Mr. Maliki consolidated his power by reshuffling military commanders and creating two handpicked military forces that report primarily to him as the commander in chief rather than to the Interior or Defense Ministries. He also created tribal councils across the country that are directly linked to his office, which critics feared were stalking-horses to extend the reach of the Dawa Party.
At the same time, Mr. Maliki struggled to meet milestones for progress on political reconciliation set out by the U.S. government. American officials, while still backing him in disputes with other parties, criticized his government as corrupt and inefficient. Mr. Maliki responded by asserting his independence, first by supporting a timeline for the withdrawal of American troops that was close to that advocated by Barack Obama as a presidential candidate, and then by forcing Mr. Bush to make significant concessions in return for a Status of Forces agreement that would allow U.S. forces to remain in the country after the end of 2008.
As the June 30, 2009, deadline for the withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq's cities approached, Mr. Maliki called the move a "great victory," a repulsion of foreign occupiers he compared to the rebellion against British troops in 1920.
The anger at Mr. Maliki from the political class has been strong enough that he narrowly missed being voted out of office in December 2008 and in late 2007. He survived both efforts with American support, primarily because his opponents could not agree on a replacement.
The 2010 Campaign
Mr. Maliki, an outwardly dour man with a jowly face darkened by a perpetual shadow of a beard, made a simple case for re-election. "Today's Iraq, dear brothers, is not the Iraq of 2005 or 2006" was how he put it at one rally in Baghdad, referring to the horrific sectarian bloodshed that very nearly devoured the country. It was both a boast of what his government has accomplished (with American help he rarely acknowledges) and a warning of what could return (when the Americans leave).
Mr. Maliki is neither a charismatic leader nor a polished campaigner, but in a country recently convulsed by chaos and carnage, his message and achievements have resonance, even among his critics.
He refashioned the Dawa party into a coalition he called State of Law, with a campaign that promised security and order, and played down his party's Shiite religious roots. But his strategy of building a grand political coalition representing all of Iraq's sects and ethnicities was co-opted by most of his challengers — with better success, arguably, in the case of a coalition led by a former prime minister, Ayad Allawi, a Shiite who assembled the strongest cadre of Sunni parties behind him.
As the incumbent, Mr. Maliki's campaign was also hampered by the shortcomings of his government: the lack of development and jobs, grinding poverty, corruption and feeble services.
And the Kremlin-like opacity of his decision-making — his own evident paranoia, sharpened by years in exile during Saddam Hussein's rule — have made some of his decisions appear capricious and contradictory.
A Shiite-led vilification of the Baath Party, which resulted in the surprise disqualification of scores of candidates in February, prompted Mr. Maliki to intensify his own statements to rally the Shiite votes he needed, even as it alienated the Sunnis he had once hoped to win over by appealing to a national Iraqi identity.
When an appeals court initially reversed the disqualifications, Mr. Maliki denounced the ruling as illegal. Then two days later he reversed himself after meeting with the country's top judge, in what was criticized as inappropriate interference.
Election and Aftermath
The nationwide parliamentary elections on March 7 went relatively smoothly, if smoothly can include a wave of violence meant to disrupt the vote, with 100 attacks in Baghdad alone. At least 38 people died, but the turnout was higher than expected. Sunnis who largely boycotted previous elections voted in force, and an intense competition for Shiite votes drove up participation in Baghdad and the south.
The results laid the ground work for a potentially sharp and divisive shift in power, with the coalition led by Mr. Allawi taking a slim lead, with 91 seats to Mr. Maliki's 89. Old alliances appeared to fracture against a surge of dissident movements. Traditional Kurdish and Shiite Arab alliances were confronted with movements that contested their claims to leadership, in particular the followers of the radical cleric Moktada al-Sadr, who fought the Americans twice in 2004. Sunni Arab voters were newly emboldened in an election in which they forcefully took part under the banner of a secular alliance.
In many ways, the vote solidified ethnic and sectarian divisions unleashed by the American-led invasion in 2003. Despite a conscious effort by most parties to appeal to nationalist sentiments, people still voted along the lines of identity. Those demarcations of Sunni Arab, Shiite Arab or Kurd have bedeviled attempts to solve the country's most pressing issues, including borders disputed between Arabs and Kurds and the power of the federal government in a country still haunted by decades of dictatorship.
The results set off political turmoil and opened a period of maneuvering that lasted seven months.
Mr. Maliki has taken a more conciliatory stance since he formed a post-election alliance with another Shiite bloc, making it the largest coalition in Parliament. This made Mr. Allawi's wafer-thin lead in seats over Mr. Maliki more symbolic than practical. But wrangling within the Shiite alliance went on for months, with no clear movement until Mr. Maliki's endorsement by Mr. Sadr's party at the start of October.
The November agreement by Mr. Allawi's party to join a unity government was a significant a victory for Mr. Maliki, who has proven a forceful and wily politician, unwavering in his determination to remain in office. How Mr. Maliki can now manage the unwieldy alliance is a big question. Rivalries among the various factions, including a bitter historical opposition between Mr. Maliki and Mr. Sadr, remain barely below the surface.
In the end, negotiations over the allotment of government positions dragged on for weeks, with Parliament giving unanimous approval to the government, and to Mr. Maliki's second term, on Dec. 21. Even then, some major cabinet positions had yet to be filled.
Maliki's Expanded Power
Critics say that Mr. Maliki has expanded his reach over his country. A ruling in January 2011 by Iraq's highest court — sought by Mr. Maliki — gave him control of once-independent agencies responsible for running the country’s central bank, conducting elections and investigating corruption. A month after that ruling, two leading human rights groups reported that forces that report directly to Mr. Maliki in violation of the country’s constitution were running secret jails where detainees had been tortured.
And in July 2010, Iraq’s high court ruled that members of Parliament no longer had the power to propose legislation. Instead, all new laws would have to be proposed by Mr. Maliki’s cabinet or the president and then passed to the Parliament for a vote. Political experts said they knew of no other parliamentary democracy that had such restrictions.
With influence from the United States waning as the military prepares to withdraw at the end of the year, Mr. Maliki’s critics say that one legacy of the eight-year American occupation is a democratically elected leader from the country’s Shiite majority who has far more power than its Constitution intended. Critics said that the court ruling in January was a particularly damaging blow to the country’s voting process and feeble economy.
Fear has also extended to the central bank, where officials said they worried Mr. Maliki would now have the power to order the institution to print money to cover Iraq’s growing budget deficits. Such a move would weaken the value of Iraq’s anemic currency and lead to rapid inflation.
While not directly challenging Mr. Maliki's rule, thousands took to the streets in February and March, sometimes violently, to protest the the government’s failure to provide electricity and jobs. Rights groups criticized the government for what they called a violent crackdown on those demonstrations.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/nuri_kamal_al-maliki/index.html?8qa
NYSE [New York Stock Exchange]
The largest Stock Exchange in the world is the New York Stock Exchange, located at Wall Street in Manhattan, NY. The combined capital of all domestic US companies in October 2008 was US 10.1 trillion. The fully electronic NYSE Euro next operates the NYSE after the 2007 merger with NYSE. Situated on Wall Street, the trading floor of NYSE combines four halls that host the trading activity. The trade of public registered companies with shares of shock is facilitated. The working hours of the stock exchange are between 9:30 and 16:00 ET. The holidays are announced in advance by the NYSE.
Traders are able to generate stoke transactions on the trading floor, representing the investors. A specialist broker, acting as an auctioneer, brings together the traders around an appropriate post to execute an auction. From January 2007, the NYSE stocks are available for trade through a Hybrid Market, with the exception of a very few stocks having high prices. As the market is electronic at present, customers are able to execute orders immediately, or redirect them to the trading floor.
Created by combining NYSE Group, Inc., and EURONEXT N.V, NYSE Euro next operates the world’s biggest and most liquid exchange group, offering the greatest diversity of products and services on the financial market. Bringing together six equities` exchanges and operating in seven countries, NYSE Euronext is the global leader for cash equities trading, bonds, interest rates and equity derivates and market data distribution.
The NYSE composite index was established in 1960s and given a base worth of 50 points. This is an equivalent to the yearly close in 1965. Thus, the worth of all stocks, traded at the NYSE, was valued, not just the 30 stocks which represented the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
http://www.nyse.com/