document_title: Last surviving United States war veterans

question_text: who was the oldest living civil war veteran

text: Pre U.S. independence[edit]

text:
Veteran
Lifespan
Notes

French and Indian War (1754–1763)

Jonathan Benjamin
1738–1841
Also fought in American Revolutionary War. Settled in Granville, Ohio in 1802.[1]

text: Post U.S. independence[edit]

text: The book The Last Men of the Revolution was compiled by Rev. E. B. Hillard and published by N. A. & R. A. Moore in the year 1864, the book claimed to include photos and biographies of six of the last surviving Revolutionary War veterans. None of the men interviewed in the book would become the last surviving Revolutionary War veteran but the photos published in the book are some of the few surviving photos of American Revolutionary War veterans.[2]

text:
Veteran
Lifespan
Notes

American Revolutionary War (1775–1783)

Ralph Farnham [Farnum]
1756-1860
Massachusetts. Biography:"Biographical Sketch of Ralph Farnham" by C.W. Clarence 1860

Barnabas Cochran
1758–1864
Pennsylvania Militia. Longest living verified veteran.[3]

Adam Link
1761-1864
Pennsylvania Militia. Photograph/biography listed in 1864 publication The Last Men of the Revolution

Rev. Daniel Waldo
1762-1864
Connecticut Militia. Served as Chaplain of the US House of Representatives. Photograph/biography listed in 1864 publication The Last Men of the Revolution

James Barham
1764-1865
Virginia State Militia. Was to have had a Photograph/biography listed in 1864 publication The Last Men of the Revolution; but was not located by author Hillard. Photograph/biography listed on Find a Grave website.[4]

Alexander Millener
1770?-1865
Enlisted under stepfathers surname as "Alexander Maroney". Claimed to have been born in 1760 and to have served in Washington's life Guard {not verified} although he did serve in New York line. Photograph/biography listed in 1864 publication The Last Men of the Revolution

William Hutchings
1764-1866
Massachusetts Militia. Photograph/biography listed in 1864 publication The Last Men of the Revolution

Lemuel Cook
1769-1866
2nd Continental Light Dragoons. Photograph/biography listed in 1864 publication The Last Men of the Revolution

Samuel Downing
1761-1867
Served in New Hampshire Line. Photograph/biography listed in 1864 publication The Last Men of the Revolution

John Gray
1764–1868
Virginia Militia. 6 months Service period was too short to qualify for pension.[5]Granted a pension in 1867.

William Taylor
1757-1868
New Jersey Militia. See story at Find a Grave memorial[6]

Daniel Frederick Bakeman
1759–1869
Last veteran drawing a pension awarded by Congress; granted a pension in 1867 even though he could not prove his service.[7]

Shays' Rebellion (1786–1787)

David Whitney
1767–1867
Massachusetts State Militia.[8]

Whiskey Rebellion (1791–1794)

Michael Edwards
1767?–1876
Pennsylvania State Militia.

War of 1812 (1812–1815)

Hiram Cronk
1800–1905
U.S. Army.[9]

Black Hawk War (1832)

Henry L. Riggs
1812–1911
Illinois State Militia.[10]

Toledo War (1835–1836)

Riley Crooks Crawford
1817–1910
Michigan State Militia.[11][12]

Texas Revolution (1835–1836)

William P. Zuber
1820–1913
Texas Volunteers.[13][14]

Bear Flag Revolt (1846)

John Grider
1826–1924
Californian Rebel.[15][16]

Mexican–American War (1846–1848)

Owen Thomas Edgar
1831–1929
U.S. Navy.[17]

Bleeding Kansas (1854–1861)

Luke F. Parsons
1833–1926
Last survivor of the Battle of Osawatomie.[18][19]

George Roe
1834–1927
Last of John Brown's forces at the Battle of Black Jack[20]

John Brown
1844-1940
Last of Quantrill's Raiders at the Lawrence Massacre. Also served in the John S. Marmaduke Cavalry Division

American Civil War (1861–1865)

James Albert Hard
1843–1953
Last verified combat veteran. Fought for the Union.[21]

Albert Henry Woolson
1850–1956
Last Union veteran.[22]

Pleasant Riggs Crump
1847–1951
Last verified Confederate veteran. See Last surviving Confederate veterans.

Thomas Edwin Ross
1850–1952
Insufficient evidence. See Last surviving Confederate veterans.

Richard William Cumpston
1841?–1952
No evidence. See Last surviving Confederate veterans.

William Murphy Loudermilk[23]
1847?–1952
Insufficient evidence. See Last surviving Confederate veterans.

William Joshua Uncle Josh Bush[24]
1846?–1952
Insufficient evidence. See Last surviving Confederate veterans.

William Daniel Uncle Eli Townsend[24]
1846–1953
Insufficient evidence. See Last surviving Confederate veterans.

William Albert Kinney
1846?–1953
Insufficient evidence. See Last surviving Confederate veterans.

William Allen Uncle Bill Lundy[24]
1859–1957
Debunked.[25] See Last surviving Confederate veterans.

American Indian Wars (1622–1924}

Noah Johnson
1698–1798
New England colonists. Last survivor of Lovewell's War[26][27]

Samuel Murphy
1758–1851
Virginia colonists. Last participant of Lord Dunmore's War[28]

John Winchell Cullen
1838–1939
U.S. Army. Last survivor of the Yakima War.[29][30]

Dewey Beard
1857–1955
Native American from Lakota tribe. Last survivor of Battle of the Little Big Horn.[31] He also fought at Wounded Knee.[32]

John Daw
1870–1965
U.S. Army. Last surviving Indian Scout.[33][34]

Frederick Fraske
1872–1973
U.S. Army.[35]

Boxer Rebellion (1897–1901)

Nathan E. Cook
1885–1992
U.S. Navy.[36]

Spanish–American War (1898)

Jones Morgan
1882–1993
U.S. Army.

Philippine–American War (1899–1902)

Nathan E. Cook
1885–1992
U.S. Navy.[36]

Border War (1910–1919)

Samuel Goldberg
1900–2006
U.S. Army.[37]

World War I (1914–1918)

Frank Woodruff Buckles
1901–2011
U.S. Army.[38]

Pancho Villa Expedition (1916–1917)

Mark Matthews
1894?–2005
U.S. Army.[39]

Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War

American and other Allied forces were involved in the Polar Bear Expedition which began during World War I and continued into the Russian Civil War

Harold Gunnes
1899–2003
Served in a naval brigade attached to the 339th Infantry Regiment as part of American Expeditionary Force North Russia.[40]

Warren V. Hileman
1901–2005
Served in the 27th Infantry Regiment as part of the American Expeditionary Force Siberia.[41]

Spanish Civil War (1936–1939)

Delmer Berg
1915–2016[42]
Volunteered in 1938. Served in anti-aircraft in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Lived in Columbia, California.[43]


question_text: who has the most centuries in t20 cricket

root

text: Key[edit]

text:
Key

Symbol
Meaning

Player
The batsman who scored the century

Runs
Number of runs scored

The batsman was named man of the match

*
Batsman remained not out

Balls
Number of balls faced

4s
Number of fours scored

6s
Number of sixes scored

S/R
Strike rate (runs scored per 100 balls)

Inn
Innings in which the score was made

Team
The cricket team the batsman was representing

Opposition
The team the batsman was playing against

Venue
The ODI cricket ground where the match was played

Date
The date when the match was played

D/L
The result was decided by the Duckworth–Lewis method

S/O
The result was decided by a Super Over

tag: table

text: Centuries[edit]

text:
List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket

No.
Player
Runs
Balls
4s
6s
S/R
Inn
Team
Opposition
Venue
Date
Result
Ref

1
Gayle, ChrisChris Gayle  (1/2)
7003117000000000000♠ 117
57
7
10
205.26
1
 West Indies
 South Africa
Wanderers Stadium, Johannesburg, South Africa
000000002007-09-11-000011 September 2007
Lost
[15]

2
McCullum, BrendonBrendon McCullum  (1/2)
7003116100000000000♠ 116*
56
12
8
207.14
1
 New Zealand
 Australia
Lancaster Park, Christchurch, New Zealand
000000002010-02-28-000028 February 2010
Won (S/O)
[16]

3
Raina, SureshSuresh Raina
7003101000000000000♠ 101
60
9
5
168.33
1
 India
 South Africa
Beausejour Stadium, Gros Islet, Saint Lucia
000000002010-05-02-00002 May 2010
Won
[17]

4
Jayawardene, MahelaMahela Jayawardene
7003100000000000000♠ 100
64
10
4
156.25
1
 Sri Lanka
 Zimbabwe
Providence Stadium, Providence, Guyana
000000002010-05-03-00003 May 2010
Won (D/L)
[18]

5
Dilshan, TillakaratneTillakaratne Dilshan
7003104000000000000♠ 104*
57
12
5
182.45
1
 Sri Lanka
 Australia
Pallekele International Cricket Stadium, Kandy, Sri Lanka
000000002011-08-06-00006 August 2011
Won
[19]

6
Levi, RichardRichard Levi
7003117200000000000♠ 117*
51
5
13
229.41
2
 South Africa
 New Zealand
Seddon Park, Hamilton, New Zealand
000000002012-02-19-000019 February 2012
Won
[20]

7
Berrington, RichieRichie Berrington
7003100100000000000♠ 100
58
10
5
172.41
1
 Scotland
 Bangladesh
Sportpark Westvliet, Voorburg, the Netherlands
000000002012-07-24-000024 July 2012
Won
[21]

8
McCullum, BrendonBrendon McCullum  (2/2)
7003123000000000000♠ 123
58
11
7
212.06
1
 New Zealand
 Bangladesh
Pallekele International Cricket Stadium, Kandy, Sri Lanka
000000002012-09-21-000021 September 2012
Won
[22]

9
Guptill, MartinMartin Guptill
7003101200000000000♠ 101*
69
9
6
146.37
2
 New Zealand
 South Africa
Buffalo Park, East London, South Africa
000000002012-12-23-000023 December 2012
Won (D/L)
[23]

10
Finch, AaronAaron Finch
7003156000000000000♠ 156
63
11
14
247.61
1
 Australia
 England
Rose Bowl, Southampton, England
000000002013-08-29-000029 August 2013
Won
[24]

11
Hales, AlexAlex Hales
7003116000000000000♠ 116*
64
11
6
181.25
2
 England
 Sri Lanka
Zohur Ahmed Chowdhury Stadium, Chittagong, Bangladesh
000000002014-03-27-000027 March 2014
Won
[25]

12
Shehzad, AhmedAhmed Shehzad
7003111000000000000♠ 111*
62
10
5
179.03
1
 Pakistan
 Bangladesh
Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium, Dhaka, Bangladesh
000000002014-03-30-000030 March 2014
Won
[26]

13
du Plessis, FafFaf du Plessis
7003119000000000000♠ 119
56
11
5
212.50
1
 South Africa
 West Indies
Wanderers Stadium, Johannesburg, South Africa
000000002015-01-11-000011 January 2015
Lost
[27]

14
van Wyk, MornéMorné van Wyk
7003114000000000000♠ 114*
70
9
7
162.85
1
 South Africa
 West Indies
Kingsmead Cricket Ground, Durban, South Africa
000000002015-01-14-000014 January 2015
Won
[28]

15
Sharma, RohitRohit Sharma
7003106000000000000♠ 106
66
12
5
160.60
1
 India
 South Africa
HPCA Stadium, Dharamshala, India
000000002015-10-02-00002 October 2015
Lost
[29]

16
Shahzad, MohammadMohammad Shahzad
7003118000000000000♠ 118*
67
10
8
176.11
1
 Afghanistan
 Zimbabwe
Sharjah Cricket Stadium, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
000000002016-01-10-000010 January 2016
Won
[30]

17
Watson, ShaneShane Watson
7003124000000000000♠ 124*
71
10
6
174.64
1
 Australia
 India
Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney, Australia
000000002016-01-31-000031 January 2016
Lost
[31]

18
Hayat, BabarBabar Hayat[d]
7003122000000000000♠ 122
60
9
7
203.33
2
 Hong Kong
 Oman
Fatullah Osmani Stadium, Fatullah, Bangladesh
000000002016-02-19-000019 February 2016
Lost
[32]

19
Iqbal, TamimTamim Iqbal
7003103000000000000♠ 103*
63
10
5
163.49
1
 Bangladesh
 Oman
HCPA Stadium, Dharamshala, India
000000002016-03-13-000013 March 2016
Won (D/L)
[33]

20
Gayle, ChrisChris Gayle  (2/2)
7003100300000000000♠ 100*
48
5
11
208.33
2
 West Indies
 England
Wankhede Stadium, Mumbai, India
000000002016-03-16-000016 March 2016
Won
[34]

21
Lewis, EvinEvin Lewis  (1/2)
7003100200000000000♠ 100
49
5
9
204.08
1
 West Indies
 India
Central Broward Regional Park, Lauderhill, United States
000000002016-08-27-000027 August 2016
Won
[35]

22
Rahul, K. L.K. L. Rahul
7003110000000000000♠ 110*
51
12
5
215.68
2
 India
 West Indies
Central Broward Regional Park, Lauderhill, United States
000000002016-08-27-000027 August 2016
Lost
[35]

23
Maxwell, GlennGlenn Maxwell
7003145000000000000♠ 145*
65
14
9
223.07
1
 Australia
 Sri Lanka
Pallekele International Cricket Stadium, Kandy, Sri Lanka
000000002016-09-06-00006 September 2016
Won
[36]

24
Munro, ColinColin Munro
7003101100000000000♠ 101
54
7
7
187.03
1
 New Zealand
 Bangladesh
Bay Oval, Tauranga, New Zealand
000000002017-01-06-00006 January 2017
Won
[37]

25
Anwar, ShaimanShaiman Anwar[d]
7003117100000000000♠ 117*
68
10
6
172.05
1
 United Arab Emirates
 Papua New Guinea
Sheikh Zayed Cricket Stadium, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
000000002017-04-14-000014 April 2017
Won
[38]

26
Lewis, EvinEvin Lewis  (2/2)
7003125500000000000♠ 125*
62
6
12
201.61
2
 West Indies
 India
Sabina Park, Kingston, Jamaica
000000002017-07-09-00009 July 2017
Won
[39]

text: |- | align=center | 26 ! scope="row" | Lewis, EvinEvin Lewis  (2/2) | align=center | 7003125500000000000♠ 125* | align=center | 62 | align=center | 6 | align=center | 12 | align=center | 201.61 | align=center | 2 |  West Indies |  India | Sabina Park, Kingston, Jamaica | 000000002017-07-09-00009 July 2017 | Won | [41] |}

tag: p

text: Notes[edit]

text:
Jump up ^ The teams are New Zealand, Australia, England, South Africa, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and India.
Jump up ^ The teams are Scotland, Ireland, Netherlands, Afghanistan, Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea, United Arab Emirates and Oman.
Jump up ^ The teams are Kenya, Canada, Bermuda and Nepal.
^ Jump up to: a b No man of the match was awarded.

tag: ol


document_title: Parable of the Prodigal Son

question_text: who does the father represent in the prodigal son

text: Parable of the Prodigal Son

text: Narrative[edit]

text: The parable begins with a young man, the younger of two sons, who asks his father to give him his share of the estate. The implication is the son could not wait for his father's death for his inheritance, he wanted it immediately. The father agrees and divides his estate between both sons.

text: Upon receiving his portion of the inheritance, the younger son travels to a distant country and wastes all his money in extravagant living. Immediately thereafter, a famine strikes the land; he becomes desperately poor and is forced to take work as a swineherd. (This, too, would have been abhorrent to Jesus' Jewish audience, who considered swine unclean animals.) When he reaches the point of envying the food of the pigs he is watching, he finally comes to his senses:

text: But when he came to himself he said, "How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough to spare, and I'm dying with hunger! I will get up and go to my father, and will tell him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight. I am no more worthy to be called your son. Make me as one of your hired servants.'" He arose, and came to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and ran towards him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

text: This implies the father was hopefully watching for the son's return.

text: The son does not even have time to finish his rehearsed speech, since the father calls for his servants to dress him in a fine robe, a ring, and sandals, and slaughter the "fattened calf" for a celebratory meal.

text: The older son, who was at work in the fields, hears the sound of celebration, and is told about the return of his younger brother. He is not impressed, and becomes angry. He also has a speech for his father:

text: But he answered his father, "Behold, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed a commandment of yours, but you never gave me a goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. But when this, your son, came, who has devoured your living with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him."

text: The parable concludes with the father explaining that because the younger son had returned, in a sense, from the dead, celebration was necessary:

text: "But it was appropriate to celebrate and be glad, for this, your brother, was dead, and is alive again. He was lost, and is found."

text: Context and interpretation[edit]

text: This is the last of three parables about loss and redemption, following the parable of the Lost Sheep and the parable of the Lost Coin, that Jesus tells after the Pharisees and religious leaders accuse him of welcoming and eating with "sinners."[5] The father's joy described in the parable reflects divine love,[5] the "boundless mercy of God",[6] and "God's refusal to limit the measure of his grace."[5]

text: The request of the younger son for his share of the inheritance is "brash, even insolent"[7] and "tantamount to wishing that the father was dead."[7] His actions do not lead to success, and he eventually becomes an indentured servant, with the degrading job of looking after pigs, and even envying them for the carob pods they eat.[7]

text: The mention of the son's longing to eat with the swine in Luke 15:16 could refer to how the Pharisees viewed the sinners (and Christ, for eating with them) in Luke 15:2. The Pharisees, caught up in their ideas of ritual cleanliness, might have thought of these people as filthy pigs.[8]

text: On the son's return, the father treats him with a generosity far more than he has a right to expect.[7] Some have suggested that this mirrors what Christians should do after sinning: feel contrition and return to their Heavenly Father, who will graciously welcome them back.[8]

text: The older son, in contrast, seems to think in terms of "law, merit, and reward",[7] rather than "love and graciousness."[7] He may represent the Pharisees who were criticizing Jesus.[7]

text: The father, who represents the Heavenly Father, implies to the older son that his love for both sons is not dependent upon their perfection, but their willingness to return to Him with a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

text: Commemoration and use[edit]

text: Orthodox[edit]

text: The Eastern Orthodox Church traditionally reads this story on the Sunday of the Prodigal Son,[9] which in their liturgical year is the Sunday before Meatfare Sunday and about two weeks before the beginning of Great Lent. One common kontakion hymn of the occasion reads,

text:
I have recklessly forgotten Your glory, O Father;
And among sinners I have scattered the riches which You gave to me.
And now I cry to You as the Prodigal:
I have sinned before You, O merciful Father;
Receive me as a penitent and make me as one of Your hired servants.

text: Catholic[edit]

text: In his 1984 apostolic exhortation titled Reconciliatio et paenitentia (Latin for Reconciliation and Penance), Pope John Paul II used this parable to explain the process of conversion and reconciliation. Emphasizing that God the Father is "rich in mercy" and always ready to forgive, he stated that reconciliation is a gift on his part. He stated that for the Church her "mission of reconciliation is the initiative, full of compassionate love and mercy, of that God who is love."[10][11] He also explored the issues raised by this parable in his second encyclical Dives in misericordia (Latin for Rich in Mercy) issued in 1980.[12]

text: In the arts[edit]

text: Art[edit]

text: Of the thirty or so parables in the canonical Gospels, this was one of the four that were shown in medieval art almost to the exclusion of the others, but not mixed in with the narrative scenes of the Life of Christ (the others were the Wise and Foolish Virgins, Dives and Lazarus, and the Good Samaritan.[13] The Labourers in the Vineyard also appears in Early Medieval works).

text: From the Renaissance the numbers shown widened slightly, and the various scenes – the high living, herding the pigs, and the return – of the Prodigal Son became the clear favourite. Albrecht Dürer made a famous engraving of the Prodigal Son amongst the pigs (1496), a popular subject in the Northern Renaissance. Rembrandt depicted several scenes from the parable, especially the final episode, which he etched, drew, or painted on several occasions during his career.[14] At least one of his works, The Prodigal Son in the Tavern, a portrait of himself as the Son, revelling with his wife, is like many artists' depictions, a way of dignifying a genre tavern scene - if the title was indeed the original intention of the artist. His late Return of the Prodigal Son (1662–1669, Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg) is one of his most popular works.

text: Stage[edit]

text: In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the theme was a sufficiently popular subject that the Prodigal Son Play can be seen as a subgenre of the English morality play. Examples include The Rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune, The Disobedient Child, and Acolastus.[15]

text: Notable adaptations for performance include an 1869 oratorio by Arthur Sullivan, an 1884 cantata by Claude Debussy, a 1929 ballet choreographed by George Balanchine to music written by Sergei Prokofiev, a 1957 ballet by Hugo Alfvén,[16] and an opera, The Prodigal Son by Benjamin Britten (1968).

text: Many of these adaptations added to the Biblical material to lengthen the story; for example, the 1955 film The Prodigal took considerable liberties, such as adding a temptress priestess of Astarte to the tale.[17]

text: Popular music[edit]

text: The parable is referenced in the last verse of the traditional Irish folk tune "The Wild Rover" ("I'll go home to me parents, confess what I've done / and I'll ask them to pardon their prodigal son").

text: Oblique adaptations include that by the Reverend Robert Wilkins, who told the story of this parable in the song "Prodigal Son", which is probably best known as a cover version by the Rolling Stones on their 1968 album Beggar's Banquet. "Prodigal Man" was written by Ted Nugent and is the second track of the third album "Migration" by The Amboy Dukes and was released in 1969. The British heavy metal band Iron Maiden recorded a song titled "Prodigal Son", based on the parable of the same name, which appeared on their second release, Killers, in 1981. U2 recorded a song titled "The First Time" on their 1993 album Zooropa. While based on the parable, it presents the idea of an alternate ending to the story. It could be argued that Kelly Willard's 1982 song, Make Me A Servant is based on what the son said to his father when he returned home. The Prodigal Son is the first posthumous release by piano player and gospel singer Keith Green (1983).

text: Detroit musician, Kid Rock, also recorded a song titled "Prodigal Son", which appeared on his second album The Polyfuze Method, in 1993. Kid Rock later re-recorded the track for his 2000 album The History of Rock. The Christian Rock trio BarlowGirl recorded the song "She Walked Away", influenced by the parable,[18] as part of their 2004 self-titled album. "Indie" rock band Two Gallants covered the parable in the song "The Prodigal Son" on their 2006 album What the Toll Tells. Musician Dustin Kensrue wrote a song about the Prodigal Son entitled "Please Come Home" on the album of the same name released in 2007.[19] Rock band Sevendust has a track titled "Prodigal Son" on their 2008 album, Chapter VII: Hope and Sorrow. The band Bad Religion has a song of the same title on their album New Maps of Hell. The band Extreme recorded a song titled "Who Cares?", which appeared on the album III Sides to Every Story, which is influenced by this parable. Brantley Gilbert released a song called "Modern Day Prodigal Son". British Reggae band Steel Pulse recorded a song titled "Prodigal Son" on their debut album Handsworth Revolution, recreating the Biblical story as a Rastafarian parable. The Post-Hardcore band "Gideon" released a song called "Prodigal Son", which appeared on their second album Milestone. Christian rock outfit The Chinese Express opened and closed their 2006 release with a two part telling of the parable with songs titled "Said the son to the Father" and "Said the Father to the Son". Post-hardcore band "Jamie's Elsewhere" also released a song titled "Prodigal Son". The Irish rap group House of Pain references the parable in one of the verses of their song, "Jump Around". English indie rock band alt-J references the parable in the first verse of their song "Left Hand Free". On their 2015 album Something Different, the Christian band Sidewalk Prophets included an uplifting song titled "Prodigal" with lyrics that are directed towards the Prodigal Son from the parable, or any person who is or has felt like they are in a similar situation.

text: In 2006 Country artist Dierks Bentley wrote a song for his album "Long Trip Alone" entitled "The Prodigal Son's Prayer" The song is based on the son's prospective of coming home after he's ruined himself in the world.

text: Literature[edit]

text: Another literary tribute to this parable is Dutch theologian Henri Nouwen's 1992 book, The Return of the Prodigal Son: A Story of Homecoming, in which he describes his own spiritual journey infused with understanding based on an encounter with Rembrandt's painting of the return of the Prodigal and deals with three personages: the younger, prodigal son; the self-righteous, resentful older son; and the compassionate father – all of whom the author identifies with personally.[20] An earlier work with similarities to the parable is "Le retour de l'enfant prodigue" ("The Return of the Prodigal Son"), a short story by André Gide.[21]

text: Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem[22] giving an interpretation of the younger brother's perspective.[23]

text: The Parable of the Prodigal Son is also a recurring theme in the works of Rainer Maria Rilke, who interpreted the parable in a different way to the conventional reading. His version of the parable was not so concerned with redemption and the forgiveness of family; the love of the family, and human love in general, was seen as less worthy than unreciprocated love, which is the purest form of love. In loving the family less, the Son can love God more, even if this love is not returned.[24][25]

text: The theme of the Prodigal Son plays a major role in Anne Tyler's novel A Spool of Blue Thread.[26]

text: The Prodigal Son was also referred to in the play As You Like It, a pastoral comedy by William Shakespeare. The Prodigal Son is also mentioned in Shakespeare's romance, The Winter's Tale (Act 4, Scene 4 line 89).

text: Similar parable in Mahayana Buddhism[edit]

text: A similar parable of a lost son can also be found in the Mahayana Buddhist Lotus Sutra.[27][28] The two parables are so similar in their outline and many details that several scholars have assumed that one version has influenced the other or that both texts share a common origin.[29] However, an influence of the biblical story on the Lotus sutra is regarded as unlikely given the early dating of the stratum of the sutra containing the Buddhist parable.[29] In spite of their similarities, both parables continue differently after the two meet for the first time at the son's return. In the biblical story, there is an immediate reunion of the two. In contrast, in the Lotus sutra, the poor son does not recognize the rich man as his father. When the father sends out some attendants to welcome the son, the son panics, fearing some kind of retribution. The father then lets the son leave without telling him of their kinship. However, he gradually draws the son closer to him by employing him in successively higher positions, only to tell him of their kinship in the end.[27] In the Buddhist parable, the father symbolises the Buddha, and the son symbolises any human being. Their kinship symbolises that any being has Buddha nature. The concealment of the kinship of the father to his son is regarded as a skillful means (Sanskrit:upāya).[30]


document_title: International Monetary Fund

question_text: who is the managing director of international monetary fund

question_tokens: who is the managing director of international monetary fund

text: International Monetary Fund

text: Functions[edit]

text: According to the IMF itself, it works to foster global growth and economic stability by providing policy, advice and financing the members, by working with developing nations to help them achieve macroeconomic stability and reduce poverty.[12] The rationale for this is that private international capital markets function imperfectly and many countries have limited access to financial markets. Such market imperfections, together with balance-of-payments financing, provide the justification for official financing, without which many countries could only correct large external payment imbalances through measures with adverse economic consequences.[13] The IMF provides alternate sources of financing.

text: Upon the founding of the IMF, its three primary functions were: to oversee the fixed exchange rate arrangements between countries,[14] thus helping national governments manage their exchange rates and allowing these governments to prioritise economic growth,[15] and to provide short-term capital to aid the balance of payments.[14] This assistance was meant to prevent the spread of international economic crises. The IMF was also intended to help mend the pieces of the international economy after the Great Depression and World War II.[15] As well, to provide capital investments for economic growth and projects such as infrastructure.

text: The IMF's role was fundamentally altered by the floating exchange rates post-1971. It shifted to examining the economic policies of countries with IMF loan agreements to determine if a shortage of capital was due to economic fluctuations or economic policy. The IMF also researched what types of government policy would ensure economic recovery.[16] A particular concern of the IMF was to prevent financial crisis, such as those in Mexico 1982, Brazil in 1987, East Asia in 1997–98 and Russia in 1998, from spreading and threatening the entire global financial and currency system. The challenge was to promote and implement policy that reduced the frequency of crises among the emerging market countries, especially the middle-income countries which are vulnerable to massive capital outflows.[17] Rather than maintaining a position of oversight of only exchange rates, their function became one of surveillance of the overall macroeconomic performance of member countries. Their role became a lot more active because the IMF now manages economic policy rather than just exchange rates.

text: In addition, the IMF negotiates conditions on lending and loans under their policy of conditionality,[14] which was established in the 1950s.[15] Low-income countries can borrow on concessional terms, which means there is a period of time with no interest rates, through the Extended Credit Facility (ECF), the Standby Credit Facility (SCF) and the Rapid Credit Facility (RCF). Nonconcessional loans, which include interest rates, are provided mainly through Stand-By Arrangements (SBA), the Flexible Credit Line (FCL), the Precautionary and Liquidity Line (PLL), and the Extended Fund Facility. The IMF provides emergency assistance via the Rapid Financing Instrument (RFI) to members facing urgent balance-of-payments needs.[18]

text: Surveillance of the global economy[edit]

text: The IMF is mandated to oversee the international monetary and financial system and monitor the economic and financial policies of its member countries.[19] This activity is known as surveillance and facilitates international co-operation.[20] Since the demise of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates in the early 1970s, surveillance has evolved largely by way of changes in procedures rather than through the adoption of new obligations.[19] The responsibilities changed from those of guardian to those of overseer of members’ policies.

text: The Fund typically analyses the appropriateness of each member country’s economic and financial policies for achieving orderly economic growth, and assesses the consequences of these policies for other countries and for the global economy.[19]

text: In 1995 the International Monetary Fund began work on data dissemination standards with the view of guiding IMF member countries to disseminate their economic and financial data to the public. The International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) endorsed the guidelines for the dissemination standards and they were split into two tiers: The General Data Dissemination System (GDDS) and the Special Data Dissemination Standard (SDDS).

text: The executive board approved the SDDS and GDDS in 1996 and 1997 respectively, and subsequent amendments were published in a revised Guide to the General Data Dissemination System. The system is aimed primarily at statisticians and aims to improve many aspects of statistical systems in a country. It is also part of the World Bank Millennium Development Goals and Poverty Reduction Strategic Papers.

text: The primary objective of the GDDS is to encourage member countries to build a framework to improve data quality and statistical capacity building to evaluate statistical needs, set priorities in improving the timeliness, transparency, reliability and accessibility of financial and economic data. Some countries initially used the GDDS, but later upgraded to SDDS.

text: Some entities that are not themselves IMF members also contribute statistical data to the systems:

text:
Palestinian Authority – GDDS
Hong Kong – SDDS
Macau – GDDS[21]
EU institutions:

the European Central Bank for the Eurozone – SDDS
Eurostat for the whole EU – SDDS, thus providing data from Cyprus (not using any DDSystem on its own) and Malta (using only GDDS on its own)

tag: ul

text: Conditionality of loans[edit]

text: IMF conditionality is a set of policies or conditions that the IMF requires in exchange for financial resources.[14] The IMF does require collateral from countries for loans but also requires the government seeking assistance to correct its macroeconomic imbalances in the form of policy reform.[22] If the conditions are not met, the funds are withheld.[14][23] The concept of conditionality was introduced in a 1952 Executive Board decision and later incorporated into the Articles of Agreement.

text: Conditionality is associated with economic theory as well as an enforcement mechanism for repayment. Stemming primarily from the work of Jacques Polak, the theoretical underpinning of conditionality was the "monetary approach to the balance of payments".[15]

text: Structural adjustment[edit]

text: Some of the conditions for structural adjustment can include:

text:
Cutting expenditures, also known as austerity.
Focusing economic output on direct export and resource extraction,
Devaluation of currencies,
Trade liberalisation, or lifting import and export restrictions,
Increasing the stability of investment (by supplementing foreign direct investment with the opening of domestic stock markets),
Balancing budgets and not overspending,
Removing price controls and state subsidies,
Privatization, or divestiture of all or part of state-owned enterprises,
Enhancing the rights of foreign investors vis-a-vis national laws,
Improving governance and fighting corruption.

text: These conditions are known as the Washington Consensus.

text: Benefits[edit]

text: These loan conditions ensure that the borrowing country will be able to repay the IMF and that the country will not attempt to solve their balance-of-payment problems in a way that would negatively impact the international economy.[24][25] The incentive problem of moral hazard—when economic agents maximise their own utility to the detriment of others because they do not bear the full consequences of their actions—is mitigated through conditions rather than providing collateral; countries in need of IMF loans do not generally possess internationally valuable collateral anyway.[25]

text: Conditionality also reassures the IMF that the funds lent to them will be used for the purposes defined by the Articles of Agreement and provides safeguards that country will be able to rectify its macroeconomic and structural imbalances.[25] In the judgment of the IMF, the adoption by the member of certain corrective measures or policies will allow it to repay the IMF, thereby ensuring that the resources will be available to support other members.[23]

text: As of 2004[update], borrowing countries have had a very good track record for repaying credit extended under the IMF's regular lending facilities with full interest over the duration of the loan. This indicates that IMF lending does not impose a burden on creditor countries, as lending countries receive market-rate interest on most of their quota subscription, plus any of their own-currency subscriptions that are loaned out by the IMF, plus all of the reserve assets that they provide the IMF.[13]

text: History[edit]

text: The IMF was originally laid out as a part of the Bretton Woods system exchange agreement in 1944.[26] During the Great Depression, countries sharply raised barriers to trade in an attempt to improve their failing economies. This led to the devaluation of national currencies and a decline in world trade.[27]

text: This breakdown in international monetary co-operation created a need for oversight. The representatives of 45 governments met at the Bretton Woods Conference in the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in the United States, to discuss a framework for postwar international economic co-operation and how to rebuild Europe.

text: There were two views on the role the IMF should assume as a global economic institution. American delegate Harry Dexter White foresaw an IMF that functioned more like a bank, making sure that borrowing states could repay their debts on time.[28] Most of White's plan was incorporated into the final acts adopted at Bretton Woods. British economist John Maynard Keynes imagined that the IMF would be a cooperative fund upon which member states could draw to maintain economic activity and employment through periodic crises. This view suggested an IMF that helped governments and to act as the United States government had during the New Deal in response to World War II.

text: The IMF formally came into existence on 27 December 1945, when the first 29 countries ratified its Articles of Agreement.[29] By the end of 1946 the IMF had grown to 39 members.[30] On 1 March 1947, the IMF began its financial operations,[31] and on 8 May France became the first country to borrow from it.[30]

text: The IMF was one of the key organisations of the international economic system; its design allowed the system to balance the rebuilding of international capitalism with the maximisation of national economic sovereignty and human welfare, also known as embedded liberalism.[15] The IMF's influence in the global economy steadily increased as it accumulated more members. The increase reflected in particular the attainment of political independence by many African countries and more recently the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union because most countries in the Soviet sphere of influence did not join the IMF.[27]

text: The Bretton Woods system prevailed until 1971, when the United States government suspended the convertibility of the US$ (and dollar reserves held by other governments) into gold. This is known as the Nixon Shock.[27] The changes to the IMF articles of agreement reflecting these changes were ratified by the 1976 Jamaica Accords.

text: Since 2000[edit]

text: In May 2010, the IMF participated, in 3:11 proportion, in the first Greek bailout that totalled €110 billion, to address the great accumulation of public debt, caused by continuing large public sector deficits. As part of the bailout, the Greek government agreed to adopt austerity measures that would reduce the deficit from 11% in 2009 to "well below 3%" in 2014.[32] The bailout did not include debt restructuring measures such as a haircut, to the chagrin of the Swiss, Brazilian, Indian, Russian, and Argentinian Directors of the IMF, with the Greek authorities themselves (at the time, PM George Papandreou and Finance Minister Giorgos Papakonstantinou) ruling out a haircut.[33]

text: A second bailout package of more than €100 billion was agreed over the course of a few months from October 2011, during which time Papandreou was forced from office. The so-called Troika, of which the IMF is part, are joint managers of this programme, which was approved by the Executive Directors of the IMF on 15 March 2012 for SDR23.8 billion,[34] and which saw private bondholders take a haircut of upwards of 50%. In the interval between May 2010 and February 2012 the private banks of Holland, France and Germany reduced exposure to Greek debt from €122 billion to €66 billion.[33][35]

text: As of January 2012, the largest borrowers from the IMF in order were Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Romania, and Ukraine.[36]

text: On 25 March 2013, a €10 billion international bailout of Cyprus was agreed by the Troika, at the cost to the Cypriots of its agreement: to close the country's second-largest bank; to impose a one-time bank deposit levy on Bank of Cyprus uninsured deposits.[37][38] No insured deposit of €100k or less were to be affected under the terms of a novel bail-in scheme.[39][40]

text: The topic of sovereign debt restructuring was taken up by the IMF in April 2013 for the first time since 2005, in a report entitled "Sovereign Debt Restructuring: Recent Developments and Implications for the Fund’s Legal and Policy Framework".[41] The paper, which was discussed by the board on 20 May,[42] summarised the recent experiences in Greece, St Kitts and Nevis, Belize, and Jamaica. An explanatory interview with Deputy Director Hugh Bredenkamp was published a few days later,[43] as was a deconstruction by Matina Stevis of the Wall Street Journal.[44]

text: In the October 2013 Fiscal Monitor publication, the IMF suggested that a capital levy capable of reducing Euro-area government debt ratios to "end-2007 levels" would require a very high tax rate of about 10%.[45]

text: The Fiscal Affairs department of the IMF, headed at the time by Acting Director Sanjeev Gupta, produced a January 2014 report entitled "Fiscal Policy and Income Inequality" that stated that "Some taxes levied on wealth, especially on immovable property, are also an option for economies seeking more progressive taxation ... Property taxes are equitable and efficient, but underutilized in many economies ... There is considerable scope to exploit this tax more fully, both as a revenue source and as a redistributive instrument."[46]

text: At the end of March 2014, the IMF secured an $18 billion bailout fund for the provisional government of Ukraine in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution.[47][48]

text: Member countries[edit]

text: Not all member countries of the IMF are sovereign states, and therefore not all "member countries" of the IMF are members of the United Nations.[50] Amidst "member countries" of the IMF that are not member states of the UN are non-sovereign areas with special jurisdictions that are officially under the sovereignty of full UN member states, such as Aruba, Curaçao, Hong Kong, and Macau, as well as Kosovo.[51][52] The corporate members appoint ex-officio voting members, who are listed below. All members of the IMF are also International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) members and vice versa.[citation needed]

text: Former members are Cuba (which left in 1964),[53] and the Republic of China (Taiwan), which was ejected from the UN in 1980 after losing the support of then United States President Jimmy Carter and was replaced by the People's Republic of China.[54] However, "Taiwan Province of China" is still listed in the official IMF indices.[55]

text: Apart from Cuba, the other UN states that do not belong to the IMF are Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco and North Korea.

text: The former Czechoslovakia was expelled in 1954 for "failing to provide required data" and was readmitted in 1990, after the Velvet Revolution. Poland withdrew in 1950—allegedly pressured by the Soviet Union—but returned in 1986.[56]

text: Qualifications[edit]

text: Any country may apply to be a part of the IMF. Post-IMF formation, in the early postwar period, rules for IMF membership were left relatively loose. Members needed to make periodic membership payments towards their quota, to refrain from currency restrictions unless granted IMF permission, to abide by the Code of Conduct in the IMF Articles of Agreement, and to provide national economic information. However, stricter rules were imposed on governments that applied to the IMF for funding.[15]

text: The countries that joined the IMF between 1945 and 1971 agreed to keep their exchange rates secured at rates that could be adjusted only to correct a "fundamental disequilibrium" in the balance of payments, and only with the IMF's agreement.[57]

text: Some members have a very difficult relationship with the IMF and even when they are still members they do not allow themselves to be monitored.

text: Benefits[edit]

text: Member countries of the IMF have access to information on the economic policies of all member countries, the opportunity to influence other members’ economic policies, technical assistance in banking, fiscal affairs, and exchange matters, financial support in times of payment difficulties, and increased opportunities for trade and investment.[58]

text: Leadership[edit]

text: Board of Governors[edit]

text: The Board of Governors consists of one governor and one alternate governor for each member country. Each member country appoints its two governors. The Board normally meets once a year and is responsible for electing or appointing executive directors to the Executive Board. While the Board of Governors is officially responsible for approving quota increases, Special Drawing Right allocations, the admittance of new members, compulsory withdrawal of members, and amendments to the Articles of Agreement and By-Laws, in practice it has delegated most of its powers to the IMF's Executive Board.[59]

text: The Board of Governors is advised by the International Monetary and Financial Committee and the Development Committee. The International Monetary and Financial Committee has 24 members and monitors developments in global liquidity and the transfer of resources to developing countries.[60] The Development Committee has 25 members and advises on critical development issues and on financial resources required to promote economic development in developing countries. They also advise on trade and environmental issues.[60]

text: Executive Board[edit]

text: 24 Executive Directors make up Executive Board. The Executive Directors represent all 189 member countries in a geographically based roster.[61] Countries with large economies have their own Executive Director, but most countries are grouped in constituencies representing four or more countries.[59]

text: Following the 2008 Amendment on Voice and Participation which came into effect in March 2011,[62] eight countries each appoint an Executive Director: the United States, Japan, China, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.[61] The remaining 16 Directors represent constituencies consisting of 4 to 22 countries. The Executive Director representing the largest constituency of 22 countries accounts for 1.55% of the vote.[citation needed] This Board usually meets several times each week.[63] The Board membership and constituency is scheduled for periodic review every eight years.[64]

text: List of Executive Directors of the IMF, as of January 2017

text:
Country
Region
Number of Member(s) Represented
Director
Country with Most Votes

United States
United States
1
Sunil Sabharwal
United States

Japan
Japan
1
Masaaki Kaizuka
Japan

China
China
1
Jin Zhongxia
China

Belgium
Benelux and Eastern Europe
15
Anthony De Lannoy
Netherlands

Germany
Germany
1
Steffen Meyer
Germany

Mexico
Spain & Central America
8
Carlos Hurtado
Spain

Malaysia
Southeast Asia
13
Marzunisham Omar
Indonesia

Italy
Mediterranean Europe
6
Carlo Cottarelli
Italy

France
France
1
Herve de Villeroche
France

United Kingdom
United Kingdom
1
Stephen Field
United Kingdom

Korea
Far East
16
Heenam Choi
Korea

Canada
North Atlantic & Caribbean
12
Nancy Gail Horsman
Canada

Sweden
Northern Europe
8
Thomas Ostros
Sweden

Czech Republic
Central Europe
8
Ibrahim Canakci
Turkey

Brazil
Northern South America
11
Alexandre A. Tombini
Brazil

India
Indian subcontinent
4
Subir Gokarn
India

Malawi
Africa 1
23
Maxwell M. Mkwezalamba
South Africa

Egypt
North Africa & Middle East
13
Hazem Beblawi Elbeblawi
United Arab Emirates

Poland
Switzerland, Poland & Near East
8
Miroslaw Jan Panek
Switzerland

Russia
Russia
1
Aleksei V. Mozhin
Russia

Iran
Iran & Middle East
7
Jafar Mojarrad
Iran

Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
1
Hesham Fahad Alogeel
Saudi Arabia

Senegal
Africa 2
23
Daouda Sembene
Democratic Republic of the Congo

Argentina
Southern South America
6
Jorge Angel Estrella
Argentina

text: Managing Director[edit]

text: The IMF is led by a managing director, who is head of the staff and serves as Chairman of the Executive Board. The managing director is assisted by a First Deputy managing director and three other Deputy Managing Directors.[59] Historically the IMF's managing director has been European and the president of the World Bank has been from the United States. However, this standard is increasingly being questioned and competition for these two posts may soon open up to include other qualified candidates from any part of the world.[65][66]

text: In 2011 the world's largest developing countries, the BRIC nations, issued a statement declaring that the tradition of appointing a European as managing director undermined the legitimacy of the IMF and called for the appointment to be merit-based.[65][67]

text: List of Managing Directors[edit]

text:
Nr
Dates
Name
Nationality
Background

1
6 May 1946 – 5 May 1951
Camille Gutt
Belgium
Politician, Minister of Finance

2
3 August 1951 – 3 October 1956
Ivar Rooth
Sweden
Law, Central Banker

3
21 November 1956 – 5 May 1963
Per Jacobsson
Sweden
Law, Economics, League of Nations, BIS

4
1 September 1963 – 31 August 1973
Pierre-Paul Schweitzer
France
Law, Central Banker, Civil Servant

5
1 September 1973 – 18 June 1978
Johan Witteveen
Netherlands
Economics, academic, author, politician, Minister of Finance, Deputy Prime Minister, CPB

6
18 June 1978 – 15 January 1987
Jacques de Larosière
France
Civil Servant

7
16 January 1987 – 14 February 2000
Michel Camdessus
France
Economics, Central Banker

8
1 May 2000 – 4 March 2004
Horst Köhler
Germany
Economics, EBRD

9
7 June 2004 – 31 October 2007
Rodrigo Rato
Spain
Law, MBA, politician, Minister of the Economy

10
1 November 2007 – 18 May 2011
Dominique Strauss-Kahn
France
Economics, Law, politician, Minister of the Economy and Finance

11
5 July 2011 – present
Christine Lagarde
France
Law, politician, Minister of Finance

text: Previous managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested in connection with charges of sexually assaulting a New York hotel room attendant and resigned on 18 May. The charges were later dropped.[68] On 28 June 2011 Christine Lagarde was confirmed as managing director of the IMF for a five-year term starting on 5 July 2011.[69][70] In 2012, Lagarde was paid a tax-exempt salary of US$467,940, and this is automatically increased every year according to inflation. In addition, the director receives an allowance of US$83,760 and additional expenses for entertainment.[71]

text: Voting power[edit]

text: Voting power in the IMF is based on a quota system. Each member has a number of basic votes (each member's number of basic votes equals 5.502% of the total votes),[72] plus one additional vote for each Special Drawing Right (SDR) of 100,000 of a member country's quota.[73] The Special Drawing Right is the unit of account of the IMF and represents a claim to currency. It is based on a basket of key international currencies. The basic votes generate a slight bias in favour of small countries, but the additional votes determined by SDR outweigh this bias.[73] Changes in the voting shares require approval by a supermajority of 85% of voting power.[6]

text:
The table below shows quota and voting shares for IMF members[74]

Rank
IMF Member country
Quota: millions of SDRs
Quota: percentage of the total
Governor
Alternative
Number of votes
Percentage out of total votes

1
 United States
82,994.2
17.68
Steven Mnuchin
Janet Yellen
831,396
16.73

2
 Japan
30,820.5
6.56
Taro Aso
Haruhiko Kuroda
309,659
6.23

3
 China
30,482.9
6.49
Zhou Xiaochuan
Gang Yi
306,283
6.16

4
 Germany
26,634.4
5.67
Jens Weidmann
Wolfgang Schäuble
267,798
5.39

5
 France
20,155.1
4.29
Bruno Le Maire
François Villeroy de Galhau
203,005
4.09

6
 United Kingdom
20,155.1
4.29
Philip Hammond
Mark Carney
203,005
4.09

7
 Italy
15,070.0
3.21
Pier Carlo Padoan
Ignazio Visco
152,154
3.06

8
 India
13,114.4
2.79
Arun Jaitley
Urjit Patel
132,598
2.67

9
 Russia
12,903.7
2.75
Anton Siluanov
Elvira S. Nabiullina
130,491
2.63

10
 Brazil
11,042.0
2.35
Henrique Meirelles
Ilan Goldfajn
111,874
2.25

11
 Canada
11,023.9
2.35
Bill Morneau
Stephen Poloz
111,693
2.25

12
 Saudi Arabia
9,992.6
2.13
Ibrahim A. Al-Assaf
Fahad Almubarak
101,380
2.04

13
 Spain
9,535.5
2.03
Luis de Guindos
Luis M. Linde
96,809
1.95

14
 Mexico
8,912.7
1.90
Luis Videgaray
Agustín Carstens
90,581
1.82

15
 Netherlands
8,736.5
1.86
Klaas Knot
Hans Vijlbrief
88,819
1.79

16
 South Korea
8,582.7
1.83
Dong-yeon Kim
Juyeol Lee
87,281
1.76

17
 Australia
6,572.4
1.40
Scott Morrison
John Fraser
67,178
1.35

18
 Belgium
6,410.7
1.37
Jan Smets
Marc Monbaliu
65,561
1.32

19
  Switzerland
5,771.1
1.23
Thomas Jordan
Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf
59,165
1.19

20
 Indonesia
4,648.4
0.99
Agus D.W. Martowardojo
Mahendra Siregar
47,938
0.96

text: In December 2015, the United States Congress adopted a legislation authorising the 2010 Quota and Governance Reforms. As a result,

text:
all 188 members' quotas will increase from a total of about SDR 238.5 billion to about SDR 477 billion, while the quota shares and voting power of the IMF's poorest member countries will be protected.
more than 6 percent of quota shares will shift to dynamic emerging market and developing countries and also from over-represented to under-represented members.
four emerging market countries (Brazil, China, India, and Russia) will be among the ten largest members of the IMF. Other top 10 members are the United States, Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Italy.[75]

text: Effects of the quota system[edit]

text: The IMF's quota system was created to raise funds for loans.[15] Each IMF member country is assigned a quota, or contribution, that reflects the country's relative size in the global economy. Each member's quota also determines its relative voting power. Thus, financial contributions from member governments are linked to voting power in the organisation.[73]

text: This system follows the logic of a shareholder-controlled organisation: wealthy countries have more say in the making and revision of rules.[15] Since decision making at the IMF reflects each member's relative economic position in the world, wealthier countries that provide more money to the IMF have more influence than poorer members that contribute less; nonetheless, the IMF focuses on redistribution.[73]

text: Inflexibility of voting power[edit]

text: Quotas are normally reviewed every five years and can be increased when deemed necessary by the Board of Governors. IMF voting shares are relatively inflexible: countries that grow economically have tended to become under-represented as their voting power lags behind.[6] Currently, reforming the representation of developing countries within the IMF has been suggested.[73] These countries' economies represent a large portion of the global economic system but this is not reflected in the IMF's decision making process through the nature of the quota system. Joseph Stiglitz argues, "There is a need to provide more effective voice and representation for developing countries, which now represent a much larger portion of world economic activity since 1944, when the IMF was created."[76] In 2008, a number of quota reforms were passed including shifting 6% of quota shares to dynamic emerging markets and developing countries.[77]

text: Overcoming borrower/creditor divide[edit]

text: The IMF's membership is divided along income lines: certain countries provide the financial resources while others use these resources. Both developed country "creditors" and developing country "borrowers" are members of the IMF. The developed countries provide the financial resources but rarely enter into IMF loan agreements; they are the creditors. Conversely, the developing countries use the lending services but contribute little to the pool of money available to lend because their quotas are smaller; they are the borrowers. Thus, tension is created around governance issues because these two groups, creditors and borrowers, have fundamentally different interests.[73]

text: The criticism is that the system of voting power distribution through a quota system institutionalises borrower subordination and creditor dominance. The resulting division of the IMF's membership into borrowers and non-borrowers has increased the controversy around conditionality because the borrowers are interested in increasing loan access while creditors want to maintain reassurance that the loans will be repaid.[78]

text: Use[edit]

text: A recent[when?] source revealed that the average overall use of IMF credit per decade increased, in real terms, by 21% between the 1970s and 1980s, and increased again by just over 22% from the 1980s to the 1991–2005 period. Another study has suggested that since 1950 the continent of Africa alone has received $300 billion from the IMF, the World Bank, and affiliate institutions.[79]

text: A study by Bumba Mukherjee found that developing democratic countries benefit more from IMF programs than developing autocratic countries because policy-making, and the process of deciding where loaned money is used, is more transparent within a democracy.[79] One study done by Randall Stone found that although earlier studies found little impact of IMF programs on balance of payments, more recent studies using more sophisticated methods and larger samples "usually found IMF programs improved the balance of payments".[26]

text: Exceptional Access Framework – sovereign debt[edit]

text: The Exceptional Access Framework was created in 2003 when John B. Taylor was Under Secretary of the US Treasury for International Affairs. The new Framework became fully operational in February 2003 and it was applied in the subsequent decisions on Argentina and Brazil.[80] Its purpose was to place some sensible rules and limits on the way the IMF makes loans to support governments with debt problem—especially in emerging markets—and thereby move away from the bailout mentality of the 1990s. Such a reform was essential for ending the crisis atmosphere that then existed in emerging markets. The reform was closely related to, and put in place nearly simultaneously with, the actions of several emerging market countries to place collective action clauses in their bond contracts.

text: In 2010, the framework was abandoned so the IMF could make loans to Greece in an unsustainable and political situation.[81][82]

text: The topic of sovereign debt restructuring was taken up by IMF staff in April 2013 for the first time since 2005, in a report entitled "Sovereign Debt Restructuring: Recent Developments and Implications for the Fund's Legal and Policy Framework".[41] The paper, which was discussed by the board on 20 May,[42] summarised the recent experiences in Greece, St Kitts and Nevis, Belize and Jamaica. An explanatory interview with Deputy Director Hugh Bredenkamp was published a few days later,[43] as was a deconstruction by Matina Stevis of the Wall Street Journal.[44]

text: The staff was directed to formulate an updated policy, which was accomplished on 22 May 2014 with a report entitled "The Fund's Lending Framework and Sovereign Debt: Preliminary Considerations", and taken up by the Executive Board on 13 June.[83] The staff proposed that "in circumstances where a (Sovereign) member has lost market access and debt is considered sustainable ... the IMF would be able to provide Exceptional Access on the basis of a debt operation that involves an extension of maturities", which was labelled a "reprofiling operation". These reprofiling operations would "generally be less costly to the debtor and creditors—and thus to the system overall—relative to either an upfront debt reduction operation or a bail-out that is followed by debt reduction ... (and) would be envisaged only when both (a) a member has lost market access and (b) debt is assessed to be sustainable, but not with high probability ... Creditors will only agree if they understand that such an amendment is necessary to avoid a worse outcome: namely, a default and/or an operation involving debt reduction ... Collective action clauses, which now exist in most—but not all—bonds, would be relied upon to address collective action problems."[83]

text: IMF and globalization[edit]

text: Globalization encompasses three institutions: global financial markets and transnational companies, national governments linked to each other in economic and military alliances led by the United States, and rising "global governments" such as World Trade Organization (WTO), IMF, and World Bank.[84] Charles Derber argues in his book People Before Profit, "These interacting institutions create a new global power system where sovereignty is globalized, taking power and constitutional authority away from nations and giving it to global markets and international bodies".[84] Titus Alexander argues that this system institutionalises global inequality between western countries and the Majority World in a form of global apartheid, in which the IMF is a key pillar.[85]

text: The establishment of globalised economic institutions has been both a symptom of and a stimulus for globalisation. The development of the World Bank, the IMF regional development banks such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and multilateral trade institutions such as the WTO signals a move away from the dominance of the state as the exclusive unit of analysis in international affairs. Globalization has thus been transformative in terms of a reconceptualising of state sovereignty.[86]

text: Following United States President Bill Clinton's administration's aggressive financial deregulation campaign in the 1990s, globalisation leaders overturned longstanding restrictions by governments that limited foreign ownership of their banks, deregulated currency exchange, and eliminated restrictions on how quickly money could be withdrawn by foreign investors.[84]

text: Fund report in May 2015, the world's governments indirectly subsidise fossil fuel companies with $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year. Most this is due to polluters not paying the costs imposed on governments by the burning of coal, oil and gas: air pollution, health problems, the floods, droughts and storms driven by climate change.[87]

text: Criticisms[edit]

text: Overseas Development Institute (ODI) research undertaken in 1980 included criticisms of the IMF which support the analysis that it is a pillar of what activist Titus Alexander calls global apartheid.[88]

text:
Developed countries were seen to have a more dominant role and control over less developed countries (LDCs).
Secondly, the Fund worked on the incorrect assumption that all payments disequilibria were caused domestically. The Group of 24 (G-24), on behalf of LDC members, and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) complained that the IMF did not distinguish sufficiently between disequilibria with predominantly external as opposed to internal causes. This criticism was voiced in the aftermath of the 1973 oil crisis. Then LDCs found themselves with payments deficits due to adverse changes in their terms of trade, with the Fund prescribing stabilisation programmes similar to those suggested for deficits caused by government over-spending. Faced with long-term, externally generated disequilibria, the G-24 argued for more time for LDCs to adjust their economies.
Some IMF policies may be anti-developmental; the report said that deflationary effects of IMF programmes quickly led to losses of output and employment in economies where incomes were low and unemployment was high. Moreover, the burden of the deflation is disproportionately borne by the poor.
Lastly is the suggestion that the IMF's policies lack a clear economic rationale. Its policy foundations were theoretical and unclear because of differing opinions and departmental rivalries whilst dealing with countries with widely varying economic circumstances.

text: ODI conclusions were that the IMF's very nature of promoting market-oriented approaches attracted unavoidable criticism. On the other hand, the IMF could serve as a scapegoat while allowing governments to blame international bankers. The ODI conceded that the IMF was insensitive to political aspirations of LDCs, while its policy conditions were inflexible.[89]

text: Argentina, which had been considered by the IMF to be a model country in its compliance to policy proposals by the Bretton Woods institutions, experienced a catastrophic economic crisis in 2001,[90] which some believe to have been caused by IMF-induced budget restrictions—which undercut the government's ability to sustain national infrastructure even in crucial areas such as health, education, and security—and privatisation of strategically vital national resources.[91] Others attribute the crisis to Argentina's misdesigned fiscal federalism, which caused subnational spending to increase rapidly.[92] The crisis added to widespread hatred of this institution in Argentina and other South American countries, with many blaming the IMF for the region's economic problems. The current—as of early 2006—trend toward moderate left-wing governments in the region and a growing concern with the development of a regional economic policy largely independent of big business pressures has been ascribed to this crisis.

text: In 2006, a senior ActionAid policy analyst Akanksha Marphatia stated that IMF policies in Africa undermine any possibility of meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) due to imposed restrictions that prevent spending on important sectors, such as education and health.[93]

text: In an interview (2008-05-19), the former Romanian Prime Minister Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu claimed that "Since 2005, IMF is constantly making mistakes when it appreciates the country's economic performances".[94] Former Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere, who claimed that debt-ridden African states were ceding sovereignty to the IMF and the World Bank, famously asked, "Who elected the IMF to be the ministry of finance for every country in the world?"[95][96]

text: Former chief economist of IMF and former Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Governor Raghuram Rajan who predicted Financial crisis of 2007–08 criticised IMF for remaining a sideline player to the Developed world. He criticised IMF for praising the monetary policies of the US, which he believed were wreaking havoc in emerging markets.[97] He had been critical of the ultra-loose money policies of the Western nations and IMF.[98][99]

text: Conditionality[edit]

text: The IMF has been criticised for being "out of touch" with local economic conditions, cultures, and environments in the countries they are requiring policy reform.[14] The economic advice the IMF gives might not always take into consideration the difference between what spending means on paper and how it is felt by citizens.[100]

text: Jeffrey Sachs argues that the IMF's "usual prescription is 'budgetary belt tightening to countries who are much too poor to own belts'".[100] Sachs[Or who says it?] wrote that the IMF's role as a generalist institution specialising in macroeconomic issues needs reform. Conditionality has also been criticised because a country can pledge collateral of "acceptable assets" to obtain waivers—if one assumes that all countries are able to provide "acceptable collateral".[25]

text: One view is that conditionality undermines domestic political institutions.[101] The recipient governments are sacrificing policy autonomy in exchange for funds, which can lead to public resentment of the local leadership for accepting and enforcing the IMF conditions. Political instability can result from more leadership turnover as political leaders are replaced in electoral backlashes.[14] IMF conditions are often criticised for reducing government services, thus increasing unemployment.[15]

text: Another criticism is that IMF programs are only designed to address poor governance, excessive government spending, excessive government intervention in markets, and too much state ownership.[100] This assumes that this narrow range of issues represents the only possible problems; everything is standardised and differing contexts are ignored.[100] A country may also be compelled to accept conditions it would not normally accept had they not been in a financial crisis in need of assistance.[23]

text: On top of that, regardless of what methodologies and data sets used, it comes to same conclusion of exacerbating income inequality. With Gini coefficient, it became clear that countries with IMF programs face increased income inequality.[102]

text: It is claimed that conditionalities retard social stability and hence inhibit the stated goals of the IMF, while Structural Adjustment Programs lead to an increase in poverty in recipient countries.[103] The IMF sometimes advocates "austerity programmes", cutting public spending and increasing taxes even when the economy is weak, to bring budgets closer to a balance, thus reducing budget deficits. Countries are often advised to lower their corporate tax rate. In Globalization and Its Discontents, Joseph E. Stiglitz, former chief economist and senior vice-president at the World Bank, criticises these policies.[104] He argues that by converting to a more monetarist approach, the purpose of the fund is no longer valid, as it was designed to provide funds for countries to carry out Keynesian reflations, and that the IMF "was not participating in a conspiracy, but it was reflecting the interests and ideology of the Western financial community".[105]

text: International politics play an important role in IMF decision making. The clout of member states is roughly proportional to its contribution to IMF finances. The United States has the greatest number of votes and therefore wields the most influence. Domestic politics often come into play, with politicians in developing countries using conditionality to gain leverage over the opposition to influence policy.[106]

text: Reform[edit]

text: Function and policies[edit]

text: The IMF is only one of many international organisations, and it is a generalist institution that deals only with macroeconomic issues; its core areas of concern in developing countries are very narrow. One proposed reform is a movement towards close partnership with other specialist agencies such as UNICEF, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).[100]

text: Jeffrey Sachs argues in The End of Poverty that the IMF and the World Bank have "the brightest economists and the lead in advising poor countries on how to break out of poverty, but the problem is development economics".[100] Development economics needs the reform, not the IMF. He also notes that IMF loan conditions should be paired with other reforms—e.g., trade reform in developed nations, debt cancellation, and increased financial assistance for investments in basic infrastructure.[100] IMF loan conditions cannot stand alone and produce change; they need to be partnered with other reforms or other conditions as applicable.

text: US influence and voting reform[edit]

text: The scholarly consensus is that IMF decision-making is not simply technocratic, but also guided by political and economic concerns.[107] The United States is the IMF's most powerful member, and its influence reaches even into decision-making concerning individual loan agreements.[108] The North American giant is openly opposed to losing what Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew describes as its "leadership role" at the IMF, "our ability to shape international norms and practices".[109]

text: Reforms to give more powers to emerging economies were agreed by the G20 in 2010. They could not pass, however, until ratification by the US Congress,[110][111][112] since 85% of the Fund's voting power was required,[113] and the Americans hold more than 16% of voting power.[114] After repeated criticism,[115][116] the United States finally ratified the voting reforms at the end of 2015.[117] The OECD countries maintained their overwhelming majority of voting share, and the United States in particular retained its share at over 16%.[118]

text: Support of dictatorships[edit]

text: The role of the Bretton Woods institutions has been controversial since the late Cold War, because of claims that the IMF policy makers supported military dictatorships friendly to American and European corporations, but also other Anti-communist and Communist regimes (such as Mobutu's Zaire and Ceaușescu's Romania, respectively). Critics also claim that the IMF is generally apathetic or hostile to human rights, and labour rights. The controversy has helped spark the anti-globalization movement.

text: An example of IMF's support for a dictatorship was its ongoing support for Mobutu's rule in Zaire, although its own envoy, Erwin Blumenthal, provided a sobering report about the entrenched corruption and embezzlement and the inability of the country to pay back any loans.[119]

text: Arguments in favour of the IMF say that economic stability is a precursor to democracy; however, critics highlight various examples in which democratised countries fell after receiving IMF loans.[120]

text: A 2017 study found no evidence IMF lending programs undermined democracy in borrowing countries.[121] To the contrary, it found "evidence for modest but definitively positive conditional differences in the democracy scores of participating and non-participating countries."[121]

text: Impact on access to food[edit]

text: A number of civil society organisations[122] have criticised the IMF's policies for their impact on access to food, particularly in developing countries. In October 2008, former United States president Bill Clinton delivered a speech to the United Nations on World Food Day, criticising the World Bank and IMF for their policies on food and agriculture:

text: We need the World Bank, the IMF, all the big foundations, and all the governments to admit that, for 30 years, we all blew it, including me when I was president. We were wrong to believe that food was like some other product in international trade, and we all have to go back to a more responsible and sustainable form of agriculture.

text: Impact on public health[edit]

text: A 2009 study concluded that the strict conditions resulted in thousands of deaths in Eastern Europe by tuberculosis as public health care had to be weakened. In the 21 countries to which the IMF had given loans, tuberculosis deaths rose by 16.6%.[124]

text: In 2009, a book by Rick Rowden titled The Deadly Ideas of Neoliberalism: How the IMF has Undermined Public Health and the Fight Against AIDS, claimed that the IMF's monetarist approach towards prioritising price stability (low inflation) and fiscal restraint (low budget deficits) was unnecessarily restrictive and has prevented developing countries from scaling up long-term investment in public health infrastructure. The book claimed the consequences have been chronically underfunded public health systems, leading to demoralising working conditions that have fuelled a "brain drain" of medical personnel, all of which has undermined public health and the fight against HIV/AIDS in developing countries.[125]

text: In 2016, the IMF's research department published a report titled "Neoliberalism: Oversold?" which, while praising some aspects of the "neoliberal agenda," claims that the organisation has been "overselling" fiscal austerity policies and financial deregulation, which they claim has exacerbated both financial crises and economic inequality around the world.[126][127][128]

text: Impact on environment[edit]

text: IMF policies have been repeatedly criticised for making it difficult for indebted countries to say no to environmentally harmful projects that nevertheless generate revenues such as oil, coal, and forest-destroying lumber and agriculture projects. Ecuador for example had to defy IMF advice repeatedly to pursue the protection of its rainforests, though paradoxically this need was cited in IMF argument to support that country. The IMF acknowledged this paradox in the 2010 report that proposed the IMF Green Fund, a mechanism to issue special drawing rights directly to pay for climate harm prevention and potentially other ecological protection as pursued generally by other environmental finance.[129]

text: While the response to these moves was generally positive[130] possibly because ecological protection and energy and infrastructure transformation are more politically neutral than pressures to change social policy. Some experts voiced concern that the IMF was not representative, and that the IMF proposals to generate only US$200 billion a year by 2020 with the SDRs as seed funds, did not go far enough to undo the general incentive to pursue destructive projects inherent in the world commodity trading and banking systems—criticisms often levelled at the World Trade Organization and large global banking institutions.

text: In the context of the European debt crisis, some observers noted that Spain and California, two troubled economies within Europe and the United States, and also Germany, the primary and politically most fragile supporter of a euro currency bailout would benefit from IMF recognition of their leadership in green technology, and directly from Green Fund–generated demand for their exports, which could also improve their credit ratings.

text: Scandals[edit]

text: Both Lagarde and her two predecessors Strauss-Kahn and Rato have been investigated by the authorities and have either faced trial or are scheduled to go on trial for a variety of offences.[131]

text: Lagarde had been accused of giving preferential treatment to businessman-turned-politician Bernard Tapie as he pursued a legal challenge against the French government. At the time, Lagarde was the French economic minister.[132] Within hours of her conviction, in which she escaped any punishment, the fund's 24-member executive board put to rest any speculation that she might have to resign, praising her "outstanding leadership" and the "wide respect" she commands around the world.[133]

text: Alternatives[edit]

text: In March 2011 the Ministers of Economy and Finance of the African Union proposed to establish an African Monetary Fund.[134]

text: At the 6th BRICS summit in July 2014 the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) announced the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) with an initial size of US$100 billion, a framework to provide liquidity through currency swaps in response to actual or potential short-term balance-of-payments pressures.[135]

text: In 2014, the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was established.[109]

text: In the media[edit]

text: Life and Debt, a documentary film, deals with the IMF's policies' influence on Jamaica and its economy from a critical point of view. Debtocracy, a 2011 independent Greek documentary film, also criticises the IMF. Portuguese musician José Mário Branco's 1982 album FMI is inspired by the IMF's intervention in Portugal through monitored stabilisation programs in 1977–78. In the 2015 film, Our Brand Is Crisis, the IMF is mentioned as a point of political contention.


document_title: Chief Justice of Gujarat

question_text: who is the chief judge of gujarat high court

text: Chief Justice of Gujarat

text: The Chief Justice of Gujarat presides over the Gujarat High Court. They are not appointed by the President of India under warrant. The President is required to consult the Governor of Gujarat and the Chief Justice of India before making such appointment. The Governor of Gujarat administers the oath of office at time of appointment.

text: The Chief Justice of the High Court of Gujarat is Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

text: List of Chief justice of Gujarat[1][edit]

text:
Sr No
Name
Date of Appointment
Date of Cessation

1
Sunderlal Trikamlal Desai
1 May 1960
25 January 1961

2
Kantilal Thakoredas Desai
26 January 1961
22 May 1963

Acting
Jaishanker Manilal Shelat
23 May 1963
30 May 1963

3
Jaishanker Manilal Shelat
31 May 1963
24 February 1966

4
Nomanbhai Mahmedbhai Miabhoy
21 February 1966
15 September 1967

5
P. N. Bhagwati
16 September 1967
17 July 1973

6
Bipinchandra Diwan
28 August 1977
19 August 1981

7
Manharlal Thakkar
20 August 1981
15 March 1983

8
Padmanabham Poti
28 September 1983
1 February 1985

9
P R Gokulakrishnan
21 March 1985
12 August 1990

10
Gajendra Ray
2 December 1990
7 October 1991

11
S Nainar Sundaram
15 June 1992
13 December 1993

12
Bhupenranath Kirpal
14 December 1993
11 September 1995

13
Gurudas Kamat
1 July 1996
4 January 1997

14
Kumaran Sreedharan
20 October 1997
3 June 1998

15
Konakuppakatti Balakrishnan
16 July 1998
7 September 1999

16
D M Dharmadhikari
25 January 2000
4 March 2002

17
Bhawani Singh
25 August 2003
27 March 2006

18
Y R Meena
3 February 2007

19
K S Radhakrishna
4 September 2008
15 November 2009

20
Y R Meena
3 February 2007

21
K S Radhakrishna
4 September 2008
15 November 2009

22
S J Mukhopandhaya
9 December 2009
13 September 2011

23
Bhaskar Bhattacharya
21 July 2012
28 September 2014

24
R. Subhash Reddy
12 February 2016
Incumbent


document_title: Template:Last updated

question_text: when was the last time wikipedia was updated

text: Template:Last updated

text: Last updated: 2017-11-05

text: Usage[edit]

text: Principally intended for use on user pages, but can also be of some use on Wikipedia-namespace (policy, project, etc.) and portal pages. Not intended for use on articles.

text: To suppress the "Last update:" text, use |dateonly=yes:

text: {{Last updated|dateonly=yes}} thai tube

text: renders as:

text: To link the date so that it autoformats (e.g. into International or US instead of Unix-style dates) for users with date preferences set, use |format=yes. Note that if the template is substituted, bots may remove this linking, per WP:MOSUNLINKDATES.:

text: {{Last updated|format=yes}}

text: DESCRIPTION Baiyoke Sky Buffet (Non-Thai Nationals) Type: Foods & Beverage

text: Location: 222 Soi Ratchaprarop 3, Ratchaprarop Road, Ratchathewi, Bangkok 10400, Thailand

text: renders as:

text: Last updated: 2017-11-05

text:
The above documentation is transcluded from Template:Last updated/doc. (edit | history)
Editors can experiment in this template's sandbox (create | mirror) and testcases (create) pages.
Please add categories to the /doc subpage. Subpages of this template.

text: User namespace templatesWikipedia namespace templatesPortal namespace templates


document_title: List of National Basketball Association seasons played leaders

question_text: which nba player has played the most seasons

text: Seasons played leaders[edit]

text: Following is a list of players who have played the most seasons in the NBA.

text:
^
Active NBA player

*
Inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame

†
Not yet eligible for Hall of Fame consideration [22]

§
1st time nominee for Hall of Fame in 2018 [23]

text:
Rank
Player
Position
Team(s)
Seasons

1
Parish, RobertRobert Parish*
C

Golden State Warriors (1976–1980)
Boston Celtics (1980–1994)
Charlotte Hornets (1994–1996)
Chicago Bulls (1996–1997)

21

Willis, KevinKevin Willis [a]
PF / C

Atlanta Hawks (1984–1995, 2004–2005)
Miami Heat (1994–1996)
Golden State Warriors (1996)
Houston Rockets (1996–1998, 2001–2002)
Toronto Raptors (1998–2001)
Denver Nuggets (2001)
San Antonio Spurs (2002–2004)
Dallas Mavericks (2007)

Garnett, KevinKevin Garnett†
PF / C

Minnesota Timberwolves (1995–2007, 2015–2016)
Boston Celtics (2007–2013)
Brooklyn Nets (2013–2015)

4
Abdul-Jabbar, KareemKareem Abdul-Jabbar*
C

Milwaukee Bucks (1969–1975)
Los Angeles Lakers (1975–1989)

20

Bryant, KobeKobe Bryant†
SG
Los Angeles Lakers (1996–2016)

Carter, VinceVince Carter^
SG/SF

Toronto Raptors (1998–2004)
New Jersey Nets (2004–2009)
Orlando Magic (2009–2010)
Phoenix Suns (2010–2011)
Dallas Mavericks (2011–2014)
Memphis Grizzlies (2014–2017)
Sacramento Kings (2017–present)

Nowitzki, DirkDirk Nowitzki^
PF
Dallas Mavericks (1998–present)

8
Malone, MosesMoses Malone*
C

Buffalo Braves (1976)
Houston Rockets (1976–1982)
Philadelphia 76ers (1982–1986, 1993–1994)
Washington Bullets (1986–1988)
Atlanta Hawks (1988–1991)
Milwaukee Bucks (1991–1993)
San Antonio Spurs (1994–1995)

19

Edwards, JamesJames Edwards
C

Los Angeles Lakers (1977, 1992–1994)
Indiana Pacers 1977–1981
Cleveland Cavaliers (1981–1983)
Phoenix Suns (1983–1988)
Detroit Pistons (1988–1991)
Los Angeles Clippers (1991–1992)
Portland Trail Blazers (1994–1995)
Chicago Bulls (1995–1996)

Stockton, JohnJohn Stockton*
PG
Utah Jazz (1984–2003)

Malone, KarlKarl Malone*
PF

Utah Jazz (1985–2003)
Los Angeles Lakers (2003–2004)

Oakley, CharlesCharles Oakley
PF / C

Chicago Bulls (1985–1988, 2001–2002)
New York Knicks (1988–1998)
Toronto Raptors (1998–2001)
Washington Wizards (2002–2003)
Houston Rockets (2004)

O'Neal, ShaquilleShaquille O'Neal*
C

Orlando Magic (1992–1996)
Los Angeles Lakers (1996–2004)
Miami Heat (2004–2008)
Phoenix Suns (2008–2009)
Cleveland Cavaliers (2009–2010)
Boston Celtics (2010–2011)

Howard, JuwanJuwan Howard
PF / C

Washington Bullets / Wizards (1994–2001)
Dallas Mavericks (2001–2002, 2007–2008)
Denver Nuggets (2002–2003, 2008)
Orlando Magic (2003–2004)
Houston Rockets (2004–2007)
Charlotte Bobcats (2008–2009)
Portland Trail Blazers (2009–2010)
Miami Heat (2010–2013)

Kidd, JasonJason Kidd*
PG

Dallas Mavericks (1994–1996, 2008–2012)
Phoenix Suns (1996–2001)
New Jersey Nets (2001–2008)
New York Knicks (2012–2013)

Duncan, TimTim Duncan†
PF / C
San Antonio Spurs (1997–2016)

Pierce, PaulPaul Pierce†
SG/SF

Boston Celtics (1998–2013)
Brooklyn Nets (2013–2014)
Washington Wizards (2014–2015)
Los Angeles Clippers (2015–2017)

Terry, JasonJason Terry^
G

Atlanta Hawks (1999–2004)
Dallas Mavericks (2004–2012)
Boston Celtics (2012–2013)
Brooklyn Nets (2013–2014)
Houston Rockets (2014–2016)
Milwaukee Bucks (2016–present)


document_title: Virginia–Virginia Tech football rivalry

question_text: when is the last time uva beat virginia tech in football

text: Virginia–Virginia Tech football rivalry

text: Commonwealth Cup Trophy[edit]

text: In 1996, a trophy was created for the rivalry, known as the Commonwealth Cup. The winning team holds the trophy until the next game, which has been held annually since 1970. Currently, Virginia Tech holds the cup, having won the 2017 game. The trophy is constructed of marble and cherry wood, and is four feet high. It also contains the scores of all of the games in the series.[2] The cup is engraved with the names of the two schools and is mounted atop a trapezoidal base that makes up most of the trophy's length. The front of the base features a stylized map of Virginia with Blacksburg and Charlottesville represented by stars on the map.[3]'

text: History[edit]

text: The Virginia-Virginia Tech rivalry has existed since the late 1800s, but did not reach pre-eminence until the 1980s. Traditionally, Virginia's primary rival had been the Tar Heels of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which remains the South's Oldest Rivalry. Virginia Tech's rival was the Virginia Military Institute, with whom they shared a military tradition and similar acronyms (VMI and VPI).

text: The UVA/VPI rivalry began in earnest 1899, a year that saw Virginia take on northern powerhouses Penn State and Michigan. Virginia's final game of the season was against a squad in the middle of a disastrous first full season, the Virginia Polytechnic Institute. That game, a 28–0 decision for Virginia, was a footnote in their year. But for at least one Virginia Tech player, the blowout was much more.

text: Hunter Carpenter[edit]

text: Hunter Carpenter enrolled at Virginia Tech in 1898. He became a man possessed by one thing after the 1899 rout: beating UVA in football. However, after five years of college, Hunter Carpenter graduated from Virginia Tech without achieving his goal.

text: Infuriated, he played in 1904 at the University of North Carolina. "I just want to beat the University of Virginia," Carpenter was quoted as saying by the Associated Press, in reference to his move to Chapel Hill. However, as a standout on the Tar Heels' football squad, he again failed to win against Virginia for two years in a row.[4]

text: Carpenter returned to Virginia Tech in 1905 for a last shot at beating Virginia in his eighth year of college football. Going into the 1905 game, UVA was 8–0 against VPI by a cumulative score of 170–5. The Cavalier Daily ran a story outlining Carpenter's motives and move from Virginia Tech to UNC and back to Tech over the preceding eight years. Virginia accused Carpenter of being a professional player, as he had played college football already for nearly a decade.[4]

text: Carpenter signed an affidavit that he had not received payment to play against UVA and, against a backdrop of recrimination, Carpenter led VPI to an 11-0 lead. Carpenter was ejected midway through the game for throwing the ball at the face of a Virginia defender, but stayed on the sidelines to watch as neither team was able to score against each other. Carpenter left immediately after the game and moved to Middleton, New York, never to return to the Commonwealth. Carpenter retired 1–7 against UVA, but the Cavaliers still refused to play Virginia Tech again until 1923.[4]

text: Game results[edit]

text: Virginia victoriesVirginia Tech victoriesTie games

text: No.DateLocationWinnerScore1 October 5, 1895  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia 38–02 October 31, 1896  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia 44–03 November 11, 1899  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia 28–04 November 14, 1900  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia 17–55 October 26, 1901  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia 16–06 November 15, 1902  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia 6–07 October 24, 1903  Richmond, VA  Virginia 21–08 November 5, 1904  Richmond, VA  Virginia 5–09 November 4, 1905  Charlottesville, VA  VPI 11–010 November 17, 1923  Charlottesville, VA  VPI 6–311 November 15, 1924  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia 6–012 November 14, 1925  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia 10–013 October 23, 1926  Blacksburg, VA  VPI 6–014 October 22, 1927  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia 7–015 November 10, 1928  Blacksburg, VA  VPI 20–016 November 9, 1929  Charlottesville, VA  VPI 32–1217 November 8, 1930  Blacksburg, VA  VPI 31–1318 November 14, 1931  Charlottesville, VA Tie0–019 November 12, 1932  Blacksburg, VA  VPI 13–020 November 18, 1933  Charlottesville, VA Tie6–621 November 17, 1934  Blacksburg, VA  VPI 19–622 November 16, 1935  Charlottesville, VA Tie0–023 November 14, 1936  Blacksburg, VA  VPI 7–624 November 13, 1937  Charlottesville, VA  VPI 14–725 October 15, 1938  Blacksburg, VA  Virginia 14–626 November 18, 1939  Charlottesville, VA  VPI 13–027 November 2, 1940  Norfolk, VA  VPI 6–028 November 1, 1941  Norfolk, VA  Virginia 34–029 October 31, 1942  Norfolk, VA  VPI 20–1430 October 27, 1945  Roanoke, VA  Virginia 31–1331 October 5, 1946  Roanoke, VA Tie21–2132 October 4, 1947  Roanoke, VA  Virginia41–733 October 2, 1948  Roanoke, VA  Virginia  28–034 October 8, 1949  Roanoke, VA  Virginia 26–035 October 7, 1950  Roanoke, VA  Virginia 45–636 October 6, 1951  Roanoke, VA  Virginia 33–037 October 4, 1952  Roanoke, VA  #16 Virginia 42–038 September 26, 1953  Charlottesville, VA  VPI 20–639 October 23, 1954  Roanoke, VA  VPI 6–040 October 22, 1955  Roanoke, VA  VPI 17–1341 October 27, 1956  Roanoke, VA  VPI 14–742 October 19, 1957  Richmond, VA  Virginia38–743 October 11, 1958  Roanoke, VA  VPI 22–1344 October 17, 1959  Richmond, VA  VPI 40–1445 October 22, 1960  Roanoke, VA  VPI 40–646 October 21, 1961  Roanoke, VA  VPI 20–047 October 6, 1962  Roanoke, VA  VPI 20–1548 October 5, 1963  Roanoke, VA  VPI 10–049 October 3, 1964  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia 20–1750 October 23, 1965  Blacksburg, VA  VPI 22–14No.DateLocationWinnerScore51 October 22, 1966  Charlottesville, VA  VPI 24–752 September 12, 1970  Blacksburg, VA  Virginia 7–053 November 6, 1971  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia Tech 6–054 September 16, 1972  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia 24–2055 October 20, 1973  Blacksburg, VA  Virginia Tech 27–1556 October 19, 1974  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia 28–2757 October 18, 1975  Blacksburg, VA  Virginia Tech 24–1758 October 16, 1976  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia Tech 14–1059 October 15, 1977  Blacksburg, VA Tie14–1460 October 21, 1978  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia 17–761 November 10, 1979  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia 20–1862 October 18, 1980  Blacksburg, VA  Virginia Tech 30–063 November 28, 1981  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia Tech 20–364 November 25, 1982  Blacksburg, VA  Virginia Tech 21–1465 November 19, 1983  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia Tech 48–066 September 29, 1984  Blacksburg, VA  Virginia 26–2367 October 19, 1985  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia Tech 28–1068 October 25, 1986  Blacksburg, VA  Virginia Tech 42–1069 September 19, 1987  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia 14–1370 October 29, 1988  Blacksburg, VA  Virginia 16–1071 November 11, 1989  Charlottesville, VA  #18 Virginia 32–2572 November 24, 1990  Blacksburg, VA  Virginia Tech 38–1373 November 23, 1991  Charlottesville, VA  #20 Virginia 38–074 November 21, 1992  Blacksburg, VA  #23 Virginia 41–3875 November 20, 1993  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia Tech 20–1776 November 19, 1994  Blacksburg, VA  #16 Virginia 42–2377 November 18, 1995  Charlottesville, VA  #20 Virginia Tech 36–2978 November 29, 1996  Blacksburg, VA  #17 Virginia Tech 26–979 November 29, 1997  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia 34–2080 November 28, 1998  Blacksburg, VA  #16 Virginia 36–3281 October 2, 1999  Charlottesville, VA  #8 Virginia Tech 31–782 November 25, 2000  Blacksburg, VA  #6 Virginia Tech 42–2183 November 17, 2001  Charlottesville, VA  #18 Virginia Tech 31–1784 November 30, 2002  Blacksburg, VA  #22 Virginia Tech 21–985 November 29, 2003  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia 35–2186 November 27, 2004  Blacksburg, VA  #11 Virginia Tech 24–1087 November 19, 2005  Charlottesville, VA  #7 Virginia Tech 52–1488 November 25, 2006  Blacksburg, VA  #17 Virginia Tech 17–089 November 24, 2007  Charlottesville, VA  #8 Virginia Tech 33–2190 November 29, 2008  Blacksburg, VA  Virginia Tech 17–1491 November 28, 2009  Charlottesville, VA  #14 Virginia Tech 42–1392 November 27, 2010  Blacksburg, VA #14 Virginia Tech 37–793 November 26, 2011  Charlottesville, VA #4 Virginia Tech 38–094 November 24, 2012  Blacksburg, VA  Virginia Tech 17–1495 November 30, 2013  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia Tech 16–696 November 28, 2014  Blacksburg, VA  Virginia Tech 24–2097 November 28, 2015  Charlottesville, VA  Virginia Tech 23–2098 November 26, 2016  Blacksburg, VA  Virginia Tech 52–1099 November 24, 2017  Charlottesville, VA  #24 Virginia Tech 10–0Series: Virginia Tech leads 57–37–5