Forward Exchange Contract Definition

Theta gang ain't shit.

Now's a good time for to get a lesson in the greeks you fucking retards. This document outlines the relative risks and rewards of certain trading strategies and how to manage risks along with some basic math and econ. This should be basic for most of you.
Why do stocks go up?
Because capital growth has a diminishing returns to scale. In the long run capital is used to create more capital generating growth until it balances with capital depreciation which is linear. You can increase the equilibrium capital accumulation by increasing savings rates essentially trading off short run consumption for long run consumption. The implications of this are that less capital intensive economies grow at faster rates than developed because developed economies are very close to hitting the equilibrium point and have to rely on technological advancements for long run growth. Not every economy is equal though, all have differences in economic institutions, government effectiveness and political norms which will also affect their long run effectiveness. Long story short if the government engages in ineffective policies like protectionism, price manipulation, overly burdensome regulations, underregulation, or inefficient redistribution programs the short run micro/macro picture will be hurt and reflected in the long run picture. The US has had a thriving stock market despite having relatively low growth because it has taken the first mover advantage in many industries. Global Tech, higher education, finance, and pharma are all centered in the US because the US policies have made doing business in the US the optimal choice for these industries. For as long as the US is a capitalist nation you can be sure that the stock market will go up in the long run. This is not necessarily the case for commodities or forex as higher growth has typically led to investments in productive efficiency outweighing increased demand in raw materials and exchange rates do not have a long run trend. Fundamentally, the stock market is a good place to invest savings into in the long run.
Stocks and exponential returns.
Stocks go up so you want to capture the value of price increases. Stocks have a delta of one and a gamma of zero resulting in a linear return to movement of the stock price. Long run capital accumulation, although diminishing, is still exponential and in the long run will return an exponentially increasing return to investment on stock. Linear gains * exponential increase in underlying = exponential gains. But what if things go down? In the short run stocks decrease in value at exponential rates which is absolutely fantastic for investors because exponential declines are diminishing in scale. 10% of 100 is 10, 10% of 90 is 9, 10% of 81 is less and so on and so forth. You may get linear returns from movement but you receive increasing returns to scale gains on the upside and decreasing returns to scale losses on the downside.
Delta and Gamma
Long options have even better fundamentals than stocks because they amplify the exponentiality through gamma. As an option moves into the money its delta increases creating exponential gains in value. As an option moves out of the money delta decreases, lowering losses. Thus options while having more risk per dollar than stocks have far superior risk returns in the short run.
Theta and Vega
The opposite is true of selling a call and you're put into the position of wanting to sell when times are most dire and hold when times are good. In exchange you get benefit from theta decay but if you can reasonably predict the movement of the market that's pretty much nothing compared to the gains from delta you could get investing the same amount of money into long calls. Selling also requires way more money further reducing its risk to return. But what about vega? When markets crash, volatility skyrockets. Long calls gain and the opposite is true once again for selling them.
Mathematically, buying longs has the best return on risk of any option strategy but higher absolute losses when delta doesn't move in your favor. Selling longs or spreads has a way worse return to risk but you'll lose less money when delta moves against you and it's harder for any one position to lose all of its value.
Theta gang isn't more profitable than bullgang, it's less risky per dollar spent. The reason market makers don't play like WSB retards is because they play on margin and the 20-30% losses we typically take and make back buying longs would cause their investors to flee bankrupting them.
Strategy implications
Longs
Selling naked longs
Credit spreads
Debit spreads
Edit: For what to do with your cash position, you could put it into gold, bonds, bond etfs, non spy correlated stocks or whatever. Low risk theta gang strats are fine in bull markets but don't expect to make real money from them. I'm cash since volatility is high, u do u.
submitted by XXX_KimJongUn_XXX to wallstreetbets [link] [comments]

US Venezuela Policy is About Oligarchy, Not Democracy

US Venezuela Policy is About Oligarchy, Not Democracy

The proven oil reserves in Venezuela are recognized as the LARGEST in the world, totaling 297 billion barrels.
While ignoring (and even supporting) the atrocities of authoritarian regimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Uzbekistan, US oligarchs have targeted Venezuela for “regime-change” in the name of “democracy”.
Currently, the US is engaging in economic warfare against Venezuela to foment a coup and remove its democratically elected president Nicolás Maduro.
Without providing solid evidence, our corporate-controlled government and mainstream media portray Maduro as a corrupt, repressive, and illegitimate leader with little to no support.

Ask yourself:

Do I ever see officials from the Venezuelan government appear in corporate news shows to tell THEIR side of the story?
What people DO get to comment on Venezuela and what are their credentials and agenda? Are these people essentially public relations agents for the US-orchestrated coup?
Does corporate news provide me with historical background of US imperialism in Venezuela to put these current events in context?

What Corporate-Controlled Media will NOT Tell You

The CIA was involved in the failed coup against Venezuela's popular leader Hugo Chavez in 2002.
Venezuela is not a strictly socialist country; it has a “mixed” economy - not unlike Norway or other Scandinavian countries.
Venezuela is a DEMOCRACY - unlike US-allies Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait.
In 2012, Jimmy Carter went on record saying:
“As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we've monitored, I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world”
The opposition to Maduro knew they were going to lose the last election and so boycotted it in attempt to delegitimize the results.
The US actually tried to dissuade Maduro’s opponents from running!
Maduro invited international observers into the country in 2018 to monitor the last election but the opposition asked the UN not to send observers!
More than 80% of the Venezuelan population had not even HEARD of Juan Guaidó before Trump and the US state proclaimed him the “rightful” president.
Maduro’s approval ratings within his country are on par with opposition-controlled National Assembly. According to an October poll by opposition-aligned pollster Datanalisis, Venezuela's National Assembly, of which Juan Guaidó is president, has a disapproval rating of 70%.
Venezuela WANTS to sell its oil to the US – the US is their largest market and refines a majority of their oil.
US companies Chevron Corp, Halliburton, Schlumberger, Baker Hughes and Weatherford International all have operations in Venezuela, and are allowed to continue to engage in transactions and activities with PDVSA and its joint ventures through July 27.
“No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armed force but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality of the State or against its political, economic, and cultural elements.” Organization of American States Charter

Why is the US Corporatocracy so Keen to Remove Maduro?

While Venezuela’s economy is not a strictly-state-run economy, its oil industry is nationalized and uses its revenues for the benefit of its citizens (especially the poor).
After years of crippling US sanctions Maduro stepped over a crucial line in October when his government announced that Venezuela was abandoning the US dollar and would be make all future transactions on the Venezuelan exchange market in euro.
Saddam Hussein also went off the dollar in favor of the euro in 2003 – we started dropping bombs on him the next month.
A similar decision by the Gadhafi government in Libya (2011) was quickly followed by a devastating US-orchestrated conflict - culminating in Gadhafi's capture by radical Islamists who sodomized him with a bayonet before killing him. Since then, Libya has gone from Africa's wealthiest country to a truly failed-state complete with a slave trade! To make matters worse, after the collapse of the Libyan government, its military arms were smuggled out of that country and into the hands of ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria - enabling US-orchestrated chaos in those countries.

Who cares what currency a country uses to trade petroleum?

Answer: US oligarchy

The US dollar is central to US world economic domination.
Like all other modern currencies, it is a fiat currency – backed by no real assets to prop up its value.
In lieu of a “gold standard” we know operate on a de-facto “oil-standard”:
"After the collapse of the Bretton Woods gold standard in the early 1970s, the United States struck a deal with Saudi Arabia to standardize oil prices in dollar terms. Through this deal, the petrodollar system was born, along with a paradigm shift away from pegged exchanged rates and gold-backed currencies to non-backed, floating rate regimes.
The petrodollar system elevated the U.S. dollar to the world's reserve currency and, through this status, the United States enjoys persistent trade deficits and is a global economic hegemony." Investopedia
“The central banking Ponzi scheme requires an ever-increasing base of demand and the immediate silencing of those who would threaten its existence. Perhaps that is what the hurry [was] in removing Gaddafi in particular and those who might have been sympathetic to his monetary idea.” Anthony Wile

US Foreign Policy is about Oligarchy Not Democracy

Since World War II, the US has attempted to over-throw the 52 foreign governments. Aside from a handful of exceptions (China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.), the US has been successful in the vast majority of these attempts.
US foreign policy is not about democracy – it is about exploiting the world’s resources in the interests of a small, ultra-wealthy global elite.
This exploitation benefits a small percentage of people at the top of the economic pyramid while the costs are born by those at the bottom.

US CIA Coup Playbook:

How to Plunder Resources from Foreign Countries While Pretending to Support Democracy
  1. Find a country with resources you want.
  2. Send in an “Economic Hitman” to offer bribes the country’s leader in the form of personally lucrative business deals. If he accepts the deal, the leader will amass a personal fortune in exchange for "privatizing” the resources you wish to extract.
If the leader will not accept your bribes, begin the regime-change process.
3) Engage in economic warfare by imposing crippling sanctions on the country and blame the ensuing shortages on the leader’s “socialist” policies.
4) Work with right-wing allies inside country to fund and organize an “astroturf” opposition group behind a corporate-friendly puppet.
5) Hire thugs inside country to incite unrest and violence against the government in coordination with your opposition group. Use corporate media to publicize the orchestrated outbursts as popular outrage and paint a picture of a “failed state” mired in corruption and chaos.
6) When the government arrests your thugs, decry the response as the brutal repression. Use corporate-owned media to demonize the target government as a despotic regime while praising your puppet opposition as champions of democracy.
7) Work with right-wing military leaders to organize the overthrow the government (offer them the same business deals the current leader refused).
8) If a military-led coup cannot be organized, create a mercenary army to carry out acts of terrorism against the government and its supporters. Portray the mercenaries as “freedom fighters” and their acts of terrorism as a “civil war”.
9) If the target government has popular and military support and is too well-defended for your mercenaries to over-throw: label the country a “rouge state” and wait for the right time to invade. Meanwhile, continue to wear the country’s government and populace down using steps 3 – 8.
10) Escalate the terror campaign within the country to provoke a military response from the country against the US. If they won’t take the bait , fabricate an attack or threat that you can sell to the US population as justification for an invasion.
11) Once the government is removed, set up your puppet regime to provide the illusion of sovereignty. The regime will facilitate and legitimize your appropriation of the country’s resources under the guise of "free" trade.
12) As you continue to extract the country’s resources, provide intelligence and military support to the puppet regime to suppress popular dissent within the country.
13) Use the demise of the former government as yet another example of the impracticality of “socialism.”
What Can I Do?
Call your senators and representatives to voice your opposition to US regime-change efforts in Venezuela.
https://www.commoncause.org/find-your-representative/
Please share this message with others.
Sources included at: https://link.medium.com/8DiA5xzx4T

‘Venezuela’: Media’s One-Word Rebuttal to the Threat of Socialism

ALAN MACLEOD FEBRUARY 8, 2019
A recent Gallup poll (8/13/18) found that a majority of millennials view socialism favorably, preferring it to capitalism. Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the United States, while new leftist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (AOC) policies of higher taxes on the wealthy, free healthcare and public college tuition are highly popular—even among Republican voters (FAIR.org,1/23/19).
Alarmed by the growing threat of progressive policies at home, the establishment has found a one-word weapon to deploy against the rising tide: Venezuela. The trick is to attack any political figure or movement even remotely on the left by claiming they wish to turn the country into a “socialist wasteland” (Fox News, 2/2/19) run by a corrupt dictatorship, leaving its people hungry and devastated.
Leading the charge have been Fox News and other conservative outlets. One Fox opinion piece (1/25/19) claimed that Americans should be “absolutely disgusted” by the “fraud” of Bernie Sanders and Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, as they “continue to promote a system that is causing mass starvation and the collapse of a country,” warning that is exactly what their failed socialist policies would bring to the US. (Back in the real world, while Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez identify as socialists, Warren is a self-described capitalist, and Booker is noted for his ties to Wall Street, whose support for his presidential bid he has reportedly been soliciting.) A second Fox Newsarticle (1/27/19) continues in the same vein, warning that, “At the heart of Venezuela’s collapse is a laundry list of socialist policies that have decimated its economy.”
The Wall Street Journal (1/28/19) describes calls for negotiations in Venezuela as “siding with the dictator.”
In an article entitled “Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn and the Starving Children of Venezuela,” the Washington Examiner (6/15/17) warned its readers to “beware the socialist utopia,” describing it as a dystopia where children go hungry thanks to socialism. The Wall Street Journal (1/28/19) recently condemned Sanders for his support of a “dictator,” despite the fact Bernie has strongly criticized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and dismissed Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez, as a “dead Communist dictator” (Reuters, 6/1/16).
More supposedly centrist publications have continued this line of attack. The New York Times’ Bret Stephens (1/25/19) argued: “Venezuela is a socialist catastrophe. In the age of AOC, the lesson must be learned again”—namely, that “socialism never works,” as “20 years of socialism” has led to “the ruin of a nation.” The Miami Herald(2/1/19) cast shame on Sanders and AOC for arguing for socialism in the face of such overwhelming evidence against it, describing the left’s refusal to back self-appointed president Juan Guaidó, someone whom less than 20 percent of Venezuelans had even heard of, let alone voted for, as “morally repugnant.”
This useful weapon to be used against the left can only be sustained by withholding a great number of key facts—chief among them, the US role in Venezuela’s devastation. US sanctions, according to the Venezuelan opposition’s economics czar, are responsible for a halving of the country’s oil output (FAIR.org, 12/17/18). The UN Human Rights Council has formally condemned the US and discussed reparations to be paid, with one UN special rapporteur describing Trump’s sanctions as a possible “crime against humanity” (London Independent, 1/26/19). This has not been reported by any the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN or any other national US “resistance” news outlet, which have been only too quick to support Trump’s regime change plans (FAIR.org, 1/25/19).
Likewise, the local US-backed opposition’s role in the economic crisis is barely mentioned. The opposition, which controls much of the country’s food supply, has officially accepted responsibility for conducting an “economic war” by withholding food and other key goods.
For example, the monolithic Empresas Polar controls the majority of the flour production and distribution crucial for making arepa cornbread, Venezuela’s staple food. Polar’s chair is Leopoldo Lopez, national coordinator of Juan Guaidó’s Popular Will party, while its president is Lorenzo Mendoza, who considered running for president against Maduro in the 2018 elections that caused pandemonium in the media (FAIR.org, 5/23/18).
Conspicuously, it’s the products that Polar has a near-monopoly in that are often in shortest supply. This is hardly a secret, but never mentioned in the copious stories (CNN, 5/14/14, Bloomberg, 3/16/17, Washington Post, 5/22/17, NPR, 4/7/17) focusing on bread lines in the country.
Also rarely commented on was the fact that multiple international election observer missions declared the 2018 elections free and fair, and that Venezuelan government spending as a proportion of GDP (often considered a barometer of socialism) is actually lower than the US’s, and far lower than most of Europe’s, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation.
The London Daily Express (2/3/19) demonstrates that redbaiting works equally well on either side of the Atlantic.
Regardless of these bothersome facts, the media has continued to present Venezuela’s supposedly socialist dictatorship as solely responsible for its crisis as a warning to any progressives who get the wrong idea. So useful is this tool that it is being used to attack progressive movements around the world. The Daily Express (2/3/19) and Daily Mail (2/3/19) condemned UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn for his “defense” of a “dictator,” while the Daily Telegraph(2/3/19) warned that the catastrophe of Venezuela is Labour’s blueprint for Britain. Meanwhile, the Greek leftist party Syriza’s support for Maduro (the official position of three-quarters of UN member states) was condemned as “shameful” (London Independent, 1/29/19).
“Venezuela” is also used as a one-word response to shut down debate and counter any progressive idea or thought. While the panel on ABC’s The View (7/23/18) discussed progressive legislation like Medicare for All and immigration reform, conservative regular Meghan McCain responding by invoking Venezuela: “They’re starving to death” she explained, leaving the other panelists bemused.
President Trump has also used it. In response to criticism from Senator Elizabeth Warren over his “Pocahontas” jibe, he replied that she would “make our country into Venezuela” (Reuters, 10/15/18).
The weapon’s effectiveness can only be sustained through a media in lockstep with the government’s regime-change goals. That the media is fixated on the travails of a relatively small and unimportant country in America’s “backyard,” and that the picture of Venezuela is so shallow, is not a mistake. Rather, the simplistic narrative of a socialist dictatorship starving its own people provides great utility as a weapon for the establishment to beat back the domestic “threat” of socialism, by associating movements and figures such as Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jeremy Corbyn with an evil caricature they have carefully crafted.

Corporate Propaganda Blitz Against Venezuela’s Elected President: MSM Will Not Let Facts Interfere With Coup Agenda

Facts Don’t Interfere With Propaganda Blitz Against Venezuela’s Elected President Joe Emersberger
Guaidó, anointed by Trump and a new Iraq-style Coalition of the Willing, did not even run in Venezuela’s May 2018 presidential election. In fact, shortly before the election, Guaidó was not even mentioned by the opposition-aligned pollster Datanálisis when it published approval ratings of various prominent opposition leaders. Henri Falcón, who actually did run in the election (defying US threats against him) was claimed by the pollster to basically be in a statistical tie for most popular among them. It is remarkable to see the Western media dismiss this election as “fraudulent,” without even attempting to show that it was “stolen“ from Falcón. Perhaps that’s because it so clearly wasn’t stolen.
Graph: Approval Ratings of Main Venezuelan Leaders Nov 2016 - July 2018 Data from the opposition-aligned pollsters in Venezuela (via Torino Capital) indicates that Henri Falcón was the most popular of the major opposition figures at the time of the May 2018 presidential election. Nicolás Maduro won the election due to widespread opposition boycotting and votes drawn by another opposition candidate, Javier Bertucci.
The constitutional argument that Trump and his accomplices have used to “recognize” Guaidó rests on the preposterous claim that Maduro has “abandoned” the presidency by soundly beating Falcón in the election. Caracas-based journalist Lucas Koerner took apart that argument in more detail.
What about the McClatchy-owned Miami Herald's claim that Maduro “continues to reject international aid”? In November 2018, following a public appeal by Maduro, the UN did authorize emergency aid for Venezuela. It was even reported by Reuters (11/26/18), whose headlines have often broadcast the news agency’s contempt for Maduro’s government.
It’s not unusual for Western media to ignore facts they have themselves reported when a major “propaganda blitz” by Washington is underway against a government. For example, it was generally reported accurately in 1998 that UN weapons inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq ahead of air strikes ordered by Bill Clinton, not expelled by Iraq’s government. But by 2002, it became a staple of pro-war propaganda that Iraq had expelled weapons inspectors (Extra! Update, 10/02).
And, incidentally, when a Venezuelan NGO requested aid from the UN-linked Global Fund in 2017, it was turned down. Setting aside how effective foreign aid is at all (the example of Haiti hardly makes a great case for it), it is supposed to be distributed based on relative need, not based on how badly the US government wants somebody overthrown.
But the potential for “aid” to alleviate Venezuela’s crisis is negligible compared to the destructive impact of US economic sanctions. Near the end of the Miami Herald article, author Jim Wyss cited an estimate from the thoroughly demonized Venezuelan government that US sanctions have cost it $30 billion, with no time period specified for that estimate. Again, this calls to mind the run-up to the Iraq invasion, when completely factual statements that Iraq had no WMDs were attributed to the discredited Iraqi government. Quoting Iraqi denials supposedly balanced the lies spread in the media by US officials like John Bolton, who now leads the charge to overthrow Maduro. Wyss could have cited economists independent of the Maduro government on the impact of US sanctions—like US economist Mark Weisbrot, or the emphatically anti-Maduro Venezuelan economist Francisco Rodríguez.
Illegal US sanctions were first imposed in 2015 under a fraudulent “state of emergency” declared by Obama, and subsequently extended by Trump. The revenue lost to Venezuela’s government due to US economic sanctions since August 2017, when the impact became very easy to quantify, is by now well over $6 billion. That’s enormous in an economy that was only able to import about $11 billion of goods in 2018, and needs about $2 billion per year in medicines. Trump’s “recognition” of Guaidó as “interim president” was the pretext for making the already devastating sanctions much worse. Last month, Francisco Rodríguez revised his projection for the change in Venezuela’s real GDP in 2019, from an 11 percent contraction to 26 percent, after the intensified sanctions were announced.
The $20 million in US “aid” that Wyss is outraged Maduro won’t let in is a rounding error compared to the billions already lost from Trump’s sanctions.
Former US Ambassador to Venezuela William Brownfield, who pressed for more sanctions on Venezuela, dispensed with the standard “humanitarian” cover that US officials have offered for them (Intercept, 2/10/19):
And if we can do something that will bring that end quicker, we probably should do it, but we should do it understanding that it’s going to have an impact on millions and millions of people who are already having great difficulty finding enough to eat, getting themselves cured when they get sick, or finding clothes to put on their children before they go off to school. We don’t get to do this and pretend as though it has no impact there. We have to make the hard decision—the desired outcome justifies this fairly severe punishment.
How does this gruesome candor get missed by reporters like Wyss, and go unreported in his article?
Speaking of “severe punishment,” if the names John Bolton and Elliott Abrams don’t immediately call to mind the punishment they should be receiving for crimes against humanity, it illustrates how well the Western propaganda system functions. Bolton, a prime facilitator of the Iraq War, recently suggested that Maduro could be sent to a US-run torture camp in Cuba. Abrams played a key role in keeping US support flowing to mass murderers and torturers in Central America during the 1980s. Also significant that Abrams, brought in by Trump to help oust Maduro, used “humanitarian aid” as cover to supply weapons to the US-backed Contra terrorists in Nicaragua.
In the Miami Herald article, the use of US “aid” for military purposes is presented as another allegation made by the vilified Venezuelan president: “Maduro has repeatedly said the aid is cover for a military invasion and has ordered his armed forces not to let it in, even as food and medicine shortages sweep the country.”
Venezuela Accuses U.S. of Secretly Shipping Arms After Weapons Found on Plane with Possible CIA Ties | Democracy Now!
Calling for international aid and being democratically elected will do as little to protect Maduro’s government from US aggression as being disarmed of WMD did to prevent Iraq from being invaded—unless there is much more pushback from the US public against a lethal propaganda system.

When Is a Democracy not a Democracy? When It’s Venezuela and the US is Pushing Regime Change. Venezuela has as much right to call itself a democracy as does the United States. Until that is understood by enough people, the Trump administration will continue to devastate Venezuela’s economy with illegal sanctions and push it towards civil war.
Suggested Reading:
UN Rapporteur: US Sanctions Cause Death in Venezuela
Guaido is playing it fast and loose with the Bolivarian Constitution to justify a dictatorship
Trump’s Economic Sanctions Have Cost Venezuela About $6bn Since August 2017
How could Venezuela's president 'steal' the 2018 election from an unknown who didn't run?
In other news...
The Largest Protest Ever Was 15 Years Ago. The Iraq War Isn’t Over. What Happened?
submitted by roy_batty3000 to EndlessWar [link] [comments]

Trump Didn’t Kill the Global Trade System. He Split It in Two.

This article is taken from the Wall Street Journal written about nine months ago and sits behind a a paywall, so I decided to copy and paste it here. This article explains Trump's policies toward global trade and what has actually happened so far. I think the article does a decent job of explaining the Trade War. While alot has happenedsince the article was written, I still think its relevant.
However, what is lacking in the article, like many articles on the trade war, is it doesn't really explain the history of US trade policy, the laws that the US administration is using to place tariffs on China and the official justification for the US President in enacting tariffs against China. In my analysis I will cover those points.

SUMMARY

When Trump entered the White House people feared he would dismantle the global system the US and its allies had built over the last 75 years, but he hasn't. He has realign into two systems. One between the US and its allies which looks similar to the one built since the 1980s with a few of quota and tariffs. As the article points out
Today, Korus and Nafta have been replaced by updated agreements(one not yet ratified) that look much like the originals. South Korea accepted quotas on steel. Mexico and Canada agreed to higher wages, North American content requirements and quotas for autos. Furthermore, the article points out Douglas Irwin, an economist and trade historian at Dartmouth College, calls these results the “status quo with Trumpian tweaks: a little more managed trade sprinkled about for favored industries. It’s not good, but it’s not the destruction of the system.” Mr. Trump’s actions so far affect only 12% of U.S. imports, according to Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. In 1984, 21% of imports were covered by similar restraints, many imposed by Mr. Reagan, such as on cars, steel, motorcycles and clothing. Protectionist instincts go so far in the US, there are strong lobby groups for both protectionist and freetrade in the US.
The second reflects a emerging rivalry between the US and China. Undo some of the integration that followed China accession to the WTO. Two questions 1) How far is the US willing to decouple with China 2) Can it persuade allies to join.
The second is going to be difficult because China's economic ties are greater than they were between the Soviets, and China isn't waging an ideological struggle. Trump lacks Reagan commitment to alliance and free trade. The status quo with China is crumbling Dan Sullivan, a Republican senator from Alaska, personifies these broader forces reshaping the U.S. approach to the world. When Mr. Xi visited the U.S. in 2015, Mr. Sullivan urged his colleagues to pay more attention to China’s rise. On the Senate floor, he quoted the political scientist Graham Allison: “War between the U.S. and China is more likely than recognized at the moment.” Last spring, Mr. Sullivan went to China and met officials including Vice President Wang Qishan. They seemed to think tensions with the U.S. will fade after Mr. Trump leaves the scene, Mr. Sullivan recalled. “I just said, ‘You are completely misreading this.’” The mistrust, he told them, is bipartisan, and will outlast Mr. Trump. both Bush II and Obama tried to change dialogue and engagement, but by the end of his term, Obama was questioning the approach. Trump has declared engagement. “We don’t like it when our allies steal our ideas either, but it’s a much less dangerous situation,” said Derek Scissors, a China expert at the American Enterprise Institute whose views align with the administration’s more hawkish officials. “We’re not worried about the war-fighting capability of Japan and Korea because they’re our friends.”
The article also points out unlike George Kennan in 1946 who made a case for containing the Soviet Union, the US hasn't explicitly made a case for containing the Soviets, Trump's administration hasn't, because as the the article explains its divided Michael Pillsbury a Hudson Institute scholar close to the Trump team, see 3 scenarios
Pillsbury thinks the third is most likely to happen, even though the administration hasn't said that it has adopted that policy. The US is stepping efforts to draw in other trading partners. The US, EU and Japan have launched a WTO effort to crack down on domestic subsidies and technology transfers requirement. US and Domestic concerns with prompted some countries to restrict Huawei. The US is also seeking to walloff China from other trade deals. However, there are risk with this strategy

ARTICLE

Trump Didn’t Kill the Global Trade System. He Split It in Two.

INTRODUCTION

My main criticism of this article is it tries like the vast majority of articles to fit US trade actions in the larger context of US geopolitical strategy. Even the author isn't certain "The first goes to the heart of Mr. Trump’s goal. If his aim is to hold back China’s advance, economists predict he will fail.". If you try to treat the trade "war" and US geopolitical strategy toward China as one, you will find yourself quickly frustrated and confused. If you treat them separately with their different set of stakeholders and histories, were they intersect with regards to China, but diverge. During the Cold War, trade policy toward the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc was subordinated to geopolitical concerns. For Trump, the trade issues are more important than geopolitical strategy. His protectionist trade rhetoric has been fairly consistent since 1980s. In his administration, the top cabinet members holding economic portfolios, those of Commerce, Treasury and US Trade Representative are the same people he picked when he first took office. The Director of the Economic Council has changed hands once, its role isn't as important as the National Security Advisor. While State, Defense, CIA, Homeland Security, UN Ambassador, National Security Advisor have changed hands at least once. Only the Director of National Intelligence hasn't changed.
International Trade makes up 1/4 of the US economy, and like national security its primarily the responsibility of the Federal government. States in the US don't implement their own tariffs. If you add the impact of Treasury policy and how it relates to capital flows in and out of the US, the amounts easily exceed the size of the US economy. Furthermore, because of US Dollar role as the reserve currency and US control of over global system the impact of Treasury are global. Trade policy and investment flows runs through two federal departments Commerce and Treasury and for trade also USTR. Defense spending makes up 3.3% of GDP, and if you add in related homeland security its at most 4%. Why would anyone assume that these two realms be integrated let alone trade policy subordinate to whims of a national security bureaucracy in most instances? With North Korea or Iran, trade and investment subordinate themselves to national security, because to Treasury and Commerce bureaucrats and their affiliated interest groups, Iran and the DPRK are well, economic midgets, but China is a different matter.
The analysis will be divided into four sections. The first will be to provide a brief overview of US trade policy since 1914. The second section will discuss why the US is going after China on trade issues, and why the US has resorted using a bilateral approach as opposed to going through the WTO. The third section we will talk about how relations with China is hashed out in the US.
The reason why I submitted this article, because there aren't many post trying to explain US-China Trade War from a trade perspective. Here is a post titled "What is the Reasons for America's Trade War with China, and not one person mentioned Article 301 or China's WTO Commitments. You get numerous post saying that Huawei is at heart of the trade war. Its fine, but if you don't know what was inside the USTR Investigative report that lead to the tariffs. its like skipping dinner and only having dessert When the US President, Donald J Trump, says he wants to negotiate a better trade deal with other countries, and has been going on about for the last 35 years, longer than many of you have been alive, why do people think that the key issues with China aren't primarily about trade at the moment.

OVERVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE ORIENTATION

Before 1940s, the US could be categorized as a free market protectionist economy. For many this may seem like oxymoron, how can an economy be free market and protectionist? In 1913, government spending made up about 7.5% of US GDP, in the UK it was 13%, and for Germany 18% (Public Spending in the 20th Century A Global Perspective: Ludger Schuknecht and Vito Tanzi - 2000). UK had virtual zero tariffs, while for manufactured goods in France it was 20%, 13% Germany, 9% Belgium and 4% Netherlands. For raw materials and agricultural products, it was almost zero. In contrast, for the likes of United States, Russia and Japan it was 44%, 84% and 30% respectively. Even though in 1900 United States was an economic powerhouse along with Germany, manufactured exports only made up 30% of exports, and the US government saw tariffs as exclusively a domestic policy matter and didn't see tariffs as something to be negotiated with other nations. The US didn't have the large constituency to push the government for lower tariffs abroad for their exports like in Britain in the 1830-40s (Reluctant Partners: A History of Multilateral Trade Cooperation, 1850-2000).
The Underwood Tariffs Act of 1913 which legislated the income tax, dropped the tariffs to 1850 levels levels.Until 16th amendment was ratified in 1913 making income tax legal, all US federal revenue came from excise and tariffs. In contrast before 1914, about 50% of UK revenue came from income taxes. The reason for US reluctance to introduced income tax was ideological and the United State's relative weak government compared to those in Europe. After the First World War, the US introduced the Emergency Tariff Act of 1921, than the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922 followed by a Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. Contrary to popular opinion, the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 had a small negative impact on the economy, since imports and exports played a small part of the US economy, and the tariffs were lower than the average that existed from 1850-1914.
Immediately after the Second World War, when the US economy was the only industrialized economy left standing, the economic focus was on rehabilitation and monetary stability. There was no grandiose and ideological design. Bretton Woods system linked the US dollar to gold to create monetary stability, and to avoid competitive devaluation and tariffs that plagued the world economy after Britain took itself off the gold in 1931. The US$ was the natural choice, because in 1944 2/3 of the world's gold was in the US. One reason why the Marshall Plan was created was to alleviate the chronic deficits Europeans countries had with the US between 1945-50. It was to rebuild their economies so they could start exports good to the US. Even before it was full implemented in 1959, it was already facing problems, the trade surpluses that the US was running in the 1940s, turned to deficits as European and Japanese economies recovered. By 1959, Federal Reserves foreign liabilities had already exceeded its gold reserves. There were fears of a run on the US gold supply and arbitrage. A secondary policy of the Bretton woods system was curbs on capital outflows to reduce speculation on currency pegs, and this had a negative impact on foreign investment until it was abandoned in 1971. It wasn't until the 1980s, where foreign investment recovered to levels prior to 1914. Factoring out the big spike in global oil prices as a result of the OPEC cartel, it most likely wasn't until the mid-1990s that exports as a % of GDP had reached 1914 levels.
Until the 1980s, the US record regarding free trade and markets was mediocre. The impetus to remove trade barriers in Europe after the Second World War was driven by the Europeans themselves. The EEC already had a custom union in 1968, Canada and the US have yet to even discuss implementing one. Even with Canada it took the US over 50 years to get a Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA was inspired by the success of the EEC. NAFTA was very much an elite driven project. If the Americans put the NAFTA to a referendum like the British did with the EEC in the seventies, it most likely wouldn't pass. People often look at segregation in the US South as a political issue, but it was economic issue as well. How could the US preach free trade, when it didn't have free trade in its own country. Segregation was a internal non-tariff barrier. In the first election after the end of the Cold War in 1992, Ross Perot' based most of independent run for the Presidency on opposition to NAFTA. He won 19% of the vote. Like Ross Perot before him, Donald Trump is not the exception in how America has handled tariffs since the founding of the Republic, but more the norm.
The embrace of free trade by the business and political elite can be attributed to two events. After the end of Bretton Woods in 1971, a strong vested interest in the US in the form of multinationals and Wall Street emerged advocating for removal of tariffs and more importantly the removal of restrictions on free flow of capital, whether direct foreign investment in portfolio investment. However, the political class embrace of free trade and capital only really took off after the collapse of the Soviet Union propelled by Cold War triumphalism.
As mentioned by the article, the US is reverting back to a pre-WTO relations with China. As Robert Lighthizer said in speech in 2000
I guess my prescription, really, is to move back to more of a negotiating kind of a settlement. Return to WTO and what it really was meant to be. Something where you have somebody make a decision but have it not be binding.
The US is using financial and legal instruments developed during the Cold War like its extradition treaties (with Canada and Europe), and Section 301. Here is a very good recent article about enforcement commitment that China will make.‘Painful’ enforcement ahead for China if trade war deal is reached with US insisting on unilateral terms
NOTE: It is very difficult to talk about US-China trade war without a basic knowledge of global economic history since 1914. What a lot of people do is politicize or subordinate the economic history to the political. Some commentators think US power was just handed to them after the Second World War, when the US was the only industrialized economy left standing. The dominant position of the US was temporary and in reality its like having 10 tonnes of Gold sitting in your house, it doesn't automatically translate to influence. The US from 1945-1989 was slowly and gradually build her influence in the non-Communist world. For example, US influence in Canada in the 1960s wasn't as strong as it is now. Only 50% of Canadian exports went to the US in 1960s vs 80% at the present moment.

BASIS OF THE US TRADE DISCUSSION WITH CHINA

According to preliminary agreement between China and the US based on unnamed sources in the Wall Street Journal article US, China close in on Trade Deal. In this article it divides the deal in two sections. The first aspects have largely to do with deficits and is political.
As part of a deal, China is pledging to help level the playing field, including speeding up the timetable for removing foreign-ownership limitations on car ventures and reducing tariffs on imported vehicles to below the current auto tariff of 15%. Beijing would also step up purchases of U.S. goods—a tactic designed to appeal to President Trump, who campaigned on closing the bilateral trade deficit with China. One of the sweeteners would be an $18 billion natural-gas purchase from Cheniere Energy Inc., people familiar with the transaction said.
The second part will involve the following.
  1. Commitment Regarding Industrial Policy
  2. Provisions to protect IP
  3. Mechanism which complaints by US companies can be addressed
  4. Bilateral meetings adjudicate disputes. If talks don't produce agreement than US can raise tariffs unilaterally
This grouping of conditions is similar to the points filled under the 301 investigation which serve the basis for initiating the tariffs. I have been reading some sources that say this discussion on this second group of broader issues could only be finalized later
The official justifications for placing the tariffs on Chinese goods is found under the March 2018 investigation submitted by the office of the President to Congress titled FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO CHINA’S ACTS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES RELATED TO TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND INNOVATION UNDER SECTION 301 OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974. From this investigation the United States Trade Representative (USTR) place US Tariffs on Chinese goods as per Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Here is a press release by the USTR listing the reasons for placing tariffs, and the key section from the press release. Specifically, the Section 301 investigation revealed:
In the bigger context of trade relations between US and China, China is not honoring its WTO commitments, and the USTR issued its yearly report to Congress in early February about the status of China compliance with its WTO commitments. The points that served as a basis for applying Section 301, also deviate from her commitments as Clinton's Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky paving the way for a trade war. Barshefsky argues that China's back sliding was happening as early as 2006-07, and believes the trade war could have been avoided has those commitments been enforced by previous administrations.
I will provide a brief overview of WTO membership and China's process of getting into the WTO.
WTO members can be divided into two groups, first are countries that joined in 1995-97, and were members of GATT, than there are the second group that joined after 1997. China joined in 2001. There is an argument that when China joined in 2001, she faced more stringent conditions than other developing countries that joined before, because the vast majority of developing countries were members of GATT, and were admitted to the WTO based on that previous membership in GATT. Here is Brookings Institute article published in 2001 titled "Issues in China’s WTO Accession"
This question is all the more puzzling because the scope and depth of demands placed on entrants into the formal international trading system have increased substantially since the formal conclusion of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations in 1994, which expanded the agenda considerably by covering many services, agriculture, intellectual property, and certain aspects of foreign direct investment. Since 1994, the international community has added agreements covering information technology, basic telecommunications services, and financial services. WTO membership now entails liberalization of a much broader range of domestic economic activity, including areas that traditionally have been regarded by most countries as among the most sensitive, than was required of countries entering the WTO’s predecessor organization the GATT.
The terms of China’s protocol of accession to the World Trade Organization reflect the developments just described and more. China’s market access commitments are much more far-reaching than those that governed the accession of countries only a decade ago. And, as a condition for membership, China was required to make protocol commitments that substantially exceed those made by any other member of the World Trade Organization, including those that have joined since 1995. The broader and deeper commitments China has made inevitably will entail substantial short-term economic costs.
What are the WTO commitments Barshefsky goes on about? When countries join the WTO, particularly those countries that weren't members of GATT and joined after 1997, they have to work toward fulfilling certain commitments. There are 4 key documents when countries make an accession to WTO membership, the working party report, the accession protocol paper, the goods schedule and service schedule.
In the working party report as part of the conclusion which specifies the commitment of each member country what they will do in areas that aren't compliant with WTO regulations on the date they joined. The problem there is no good enforcement mechanism for other members to force China to comply with these commitments. And WTO punishments are weak.
Here is the commitment paragraph for China
"The Working Party took note of the explanations and statements of China concerning its foreign trade regime, as reflected in this Report. The Working Party took note of the commitments given by China in relation to certain specific matters which are reproduced in paragraphs 18-19, 22-23, 35-36, 40, 42, 46-47, 49, 60, 62, 64, 68, 70, 73, 75, 78-79, 83-84, 86, 91-93, 96, 100-103, 107, 111, 115-117, 119-120, 122-123, 126-132, 136, 138, 140, 143, 145, 146, 148, 152, 154, 157, 162, 165, 167-168, 170-174, 177-178, 180, 182, 184-185, 187, 190-197, 199-200, 203-207, 210, 212-213, 215, 217, 222-223, 225, 227-228, 231-235, 238, 240-242, 252, 256, 259, 263, 265, 270, 275, 284, 286, 288, 291, 292, 296, 299, 302, 304-305, 307-310, 312-318, 320, 322, 331-334, 336, 339 and 341 of this Report and noted that these commitments are incorporated in paragraph 1.2 of the Draft Protocol. "
This is a tool by the WTO that list all the WTO commitment of each country in the working paper. In the goods and service schedule they have commitments for particular sectors. Here is the a press release by the WTO in September 2001, after successfully concluding talks for accession, and brief summary of key areas in which China hasn't fulfilled her commitments. Most of the commitments made by China were made to address its legacy as a non-market economy and involvement of state owned enterprises. In my opinion, I think the US government and investors grew increasingly frustrated with China, after 2007 not just because of China's back sliding, but relative to other countries who joined after 1997 like Vietnam, another non-market Leninist dictatorship. When comparing China's commitments to the WTO its best to compare her progress with those that joined after 1997, which were mostly ex-Soviet Republics.
NOTE: The Chinese media have for two decades compared any time the US has talked about China's currency manipulation or any other issue as a pretext for imposing tariffs on China to the Plaza Accords. I am very sure people will raise it here. My criticism of this view is fourfold. First, the US targeted not just Japan, but France, Britain and the UK as well. Secondly, the causes of the Japan lost decade were due largely to internal factors. Thirdly, Japan, UK, Britain and France in the 1980s, the Yuan isn't undervalued today. Lastly, in the USTR investigation, its China's practices that are the concern, not so much the trade deficit.

REASONS FOR TRUMPS UNILATERAL APPROACH

I feel that people shouldn't dismiss Trump's unilateral approach toward China for several reasons.
  1. The multilateral approach won't work in many issues such as the trade deficit, commercial espionage and intellectual property, because US and her allies have different interest with regard to these issues. Germany and Japan and trade surpluses with China, while the US runs a deficit. In order to reach a consensus means the West has to compromise among themselves, and the end result if the type of toothless resolutions you commonly find in ASEAN regarding the SCS. Does America want to "compromise" its interest to appease a politician like Justin Trudeau? Not to mention opposition from domestic interest. TPP was opposed by both Clinton and Trump during the election.
  2. You can't launch a geopolitical front against China using a newly formed trade block like the TPP. Some of the existing TPP members are in economic groups with China, like Malaysia and Australia.
  3. China has joined a multitude of international bodies, and at least in trade, these bodies haven't changed its behavior.
  4. Dealing with China, its a no win situation whether you use a tough multilateral / unilateral approach. If the US endorse a tough unilateral approach gives the impression that the US is acting like the British during the Opium War. If you take a concerted Western approach you are accused of acting like the 8 Powers Alliance in 1900.
  5. Trump was elected to deal with China which he and his supporters believe was responsible for the loss of millions manufacturing jobs when China joined the WTO in 2001. It is estimate the US lost 6 Million jobs, about 1/4 of US manufacturing Jobs. This has been subsequently advanced by some economists. The ball got rolling when Bill Clinton decided to grant China Most Favored Nation status in 1999, just a decade after Tiananmen.
  6. China hasn't dealt with issues like IP protection, market access, subsidies to state own companies and state funded industrial spying.
To his credit, Trump has said his aim was not to overthrow authoritarian governments, and that even applies to the likes of Iran. The Arab spring scared Russia and China, because the US for a brief moment placed the spread of democracy over its security interest.

UNDERSTANDING HOW THE US MAKES DECISIONS REGARDING CHINA

At this moment, China or the trade war isn't an area of great concern for the American public, among international issues it ranks lower than international terrorism, North Korea and Iran's nuclear program.
According to the survey, 39 percent of the country views China’s growing power as a “critical threat” to Americans. That ranked it only eighth among 12 potential threats listed and placed China well behind the perceived threats from international terrorism (66 percent), North Korea’s nuclear program (59 percent) and Iran’s nuclear program (52 percent). It’s also considerably lower than when the same question was asked during the 1990s, when more than half of those polled listed China as a critical threat. That broadly tracks with a recent poll from the Pew Research Center that found concern about U.S.-China economic issues had decreased since 2012.
In looking at how US conducts relations foreign policy with China, we should look at it from the three areas of most concern - economic, national security and ideology. Each sphere has their interest groups, and sometimes groups can occupy two spheres at once. Security experts are concerned with some aspects of China's economic actions like IP theft and industrial policy (China 2025), because they are related to security. In these sphere there are your hawks and dove. And each sphere is dominated by certain interest groups. That is why US policy toward China can often appear contradictory. You have Trump want to reduce the trade deficit, but security experts advocating for restrictions on dual use technology who are buttressed by people who want export restrictions on China, as a way of getting market access.
Right now the economic concerns are most dominant, and the hawks seem to dominate. The economic hawks traditionally have been domestic manufacturing companies and economic nationalist. In reality the hawks aren't dominant, but the groups like US Companies with large investment in China and Wall Street are no longer defending China, and some have turned hawkish against China. These US companies are the main conduit in which China's lobby Congress, since China only spends 50% of what Taiwan spends lobbying Congress.
THE ANGLO SAXON WORLD AND CHINA
I don't think many Chinese even those that speak English, have a good understanding Anglo-Saxon society mindset. Anglo Saxons countries, whether US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland are commerce driven society governed by sanctity of contracts. The English great philosophical contributions to Western philosophy have primarily to do with economics and politics like Adam Smith, John Locke, David Hume and Thomas Hobbes. This contrast with the French and Germans. Politics in the UK and to a lesser extent the US, is centered around economics, while in Mainland Europe its religion. When the Americans revolted against the British Empire in 1776, the initial source of the grievances were taxes.
Outside of East Asia, the rest of the World's relationship with China was largely commercial, and for United States, being an Anglosaxon country, even more so. In Southeast Asia, Chinese aren't known for high culture, but for trade and commerce. Outside Vietnam, most of Chinese loans words in Southeast Asian languages involve either food or money. The influence is akin to Yiddish in English.
Some people point to the Mao and Nixon meeting as great strategic breakthrough and symbol of what great power politics should look like. The reality is that the Mao-Nixon meeting was an anomaly in the long history of relations with China and the West. Much of China-Western relations over the last 500 years was conducted by multitudes of nameless Chinese and Western traders. The period from 1949-1979 was the only period were strategic concerns triumphed trade, because China had little to offer except instability and revolution. Even in this period, China's attempt to spread revolution in Southeast Asia was a threat to Western investments and corporate interest in the region. During the nadir of both the Qing Dynasty and Republican period, China was still engaged in its traditional commercial role. Throughout much of history of their relations with China, the goals of Britain and the United States were primarily economic,
IMAGINE JUST 10% OF CHINA BOUGHT MY PRODUCT
From the beginning, the allure of China to Western businesses and traders has been its sheer size I. One of the points that the USTR mentions is lack of market access for US companies operating in China, while Chinese companies face much less restrictions operating in the US.
This is supported by remarks by Henry Paulson and Charlene Barshefsky. As Paulson remarked
Trade with China has hurt some American workers. And they have expressed their grievances at the ballot box.
So while many attribute this shift to the Trump Administration, I do not. What we are now seeing will likely endure for some time within the American policy establishment. China is viewed—by a growing consensus—not just as a strategic challenge to the United States but as a country whose rise has come at America’s expense. In this environment, it would be helpful if the US-China relationship had more advocates. That it does not reflects another failure:
In large part because China has been slow to open its economy since it joined the WTO, the American business community has turned from advocate to skeptic and even opponent of past US policies toward China. American business doesn’t want a tariff war but it does want a more aggressive approach from our government. How can it be that those who know China best, work there, do business there, make money there, and have advocated for productive relations in the past, are among those now arguing for more confrontation? The answer lies in the story of stalled competition policy, and the slow pace of opening, over nearly two decades. This has discouraged and fragmented the American business community. And it has reinforced the negative attitudinal shift among our political and expert classes. In short, even though many American businesses continue to prosper in China, a growing number of firms have given up hope that the playing field will ever be level. Some have accepted the Faustian bargain of maximizing today’s earnings per share while operating under restrictions that jeopardize their future competitiveness. But that doesn’t mean they’re happy about it. Nor does it mean they aren’t acutely aware of the risks — or thinking harder than ever before about how to diversify their risks away from, and beyond, China.
What is interesting about Paulson's speech is he spend only one sentence about displaced US workers, and a whole paragraph about US business operating in China. While Kissinger writes books about China, how much does he contribute to both Democrats and the Republicans during the election cycle? China is increasingly makING it more difficult for US companies operating and those exporting products to China.

CONTINUED

submitted by weilim to IntlScholars [link] [comments]

New rule! Also are cryptocurrencies an investment, will there be a crash? Everything answered here!

This is going to be the only crypto post for now and an announcement:
Rule 6: Bitcoins & cryptocurrenies should be discussed in CryptoCurrency. Posts regarding this topic will be automatically removed.
If there's a stock correlated with cryptocurrencies, like coinbase going IPO, then that's fine, you might have to message the mods after posting to have it approved, no big deal.
Also if you're questioning whether something is an investment or not, just search for it on personalfinance. For general currency trading strategies, see forex .
If you're wondering if bitcoins are an investment or if there will be a crash, read on.

Are cryptocurrencies an investment?

This post is going to deal with bitcoins & cryptocurrencies as an investment... they're more speculative. All currencies are speculative mostly due to how the forex market works, but more because of exchange rates between countries keep currencies balanced (including inflation, country debt, interest rates, political & economic stability, etc), so you can only profit in price fluctuations.
Sure you could buy the currency of a depressed country, like Mexico decades ago, and then hold in the hopes it'll go up (which it did for Mexico), but that's also speculation (no one knew Mexico would pay off so much debt).
Bitcoins are also affected by other countries' currency values, but more so by the future expectation of legitimacy, world wide adoption, limited gains from mining, and eventual limit in supply. But at any given moment the United States could pay off more debt, raise interest rates to reduce inflation (or cause deflation), grow GDP, or even reduce the supply of USD all of which would increase the value of USD (keep in mind bitcoins can't do any of these things).
Far too many people are treating cryptocoins as an investment because currently (June 5th 2017) a lot of crypto investors are worth a lot of money, god bless you people, so this post will also help you determine if we're headed for a crypto crash and maybe you can keep those profits.

Should I invest in cryptocurrencies?

Understand that an investment is something you hope will go up in the future or provide income, both of which for the long term vs speculation which profits on short term inefficiencies.
Speculative securities are typically commodities, options, bonds, and currencies, but also stocks that are volatile enough to give you extreme returns or extreme loses.

Examples of investments:

Examples of speculation:

Reducing the risk of speculation

Typically for speculation you reduce risk by reducing your trade size and timeframe, but since you're trying to invest into something that is speculative, you can try:
Asset allocation, a strategy that reduces risk.. If you're 80% stocks, 15% bonds, 4% gold, and 1% bitcoins, if something were to happen to bitcoins, you still have 99% of your money.
But even very aggressive long term portfolios leave speculation out completely and just go 100% stocks because stocks benefit from growth while speculative securities like gold benefit from global turmoil in the short term. Only mid risk & mid term portfolios can take advantage of gold's speculative returns.
I also mention asset allocation because many crypto investors have been using this strategy on a portfolio of 100% crypto coins, but that doesn't help you reduce the overall risk of crypto coins, you're just reducing the risk of 1 speculative asset with another speculative asset. 100% crypto portfolio would face the same risks such as being made illegal, IRS aggressively hunting down crypto profits, a drop in correlated coin markets, or just a loss of popularity would all cause a sell off. Even the USD or Chinese currencies becoming more valuable would reduce the value of crypto coins.

Should I buy coins right now?

Cryptocoins are a better investment after a period of consolidation when volatility has stabilized:

Bitcoin 2013/2014 speculation, chart

Bitcoin 2015 consolidation, chart

Source Bitstamp exchange, while the volume is #2 to GDAX, Bitstamp is better to look at for historical price/data, more charts here.

RSI & MACD key for above charts and primer

Analyzing overbought signals

So the first chart above have RSI & MACD screaming that bitcoin is overbought and you shouldn't invest in 2013/2014.
The black squares in the 2nd chart show consolidation and reduced volatility, a "better" time to invest. If you were trading short term, it would be a whole different story, and there would be opportunities to buy & short, but since this is written for investing, the small overbought signals are ignored, so if you were to buy Bitcoin at $300 inside the first blacksquare (2nd chart) and then it suddenly drops to 25%, it's okay because the volatility is much lower compared to previous price movements (nothing compared to 80% loss in the 1st chart). Any investor would tell you a 25% drop is terrible, but bitcoins are speculative and that kind of drop is pretty damn good for this level of volatility.

Nothing goes straight up forever

and anything that comes near this vertical incline will eventually lose 80% to near 100%, always happens, it's usually preceded by emotions (price euphoria), attention, and increased volume, all classic signs that something is becoming riskier.
Other speculative securities gaining multiples and then losing 80% to near 100% of value:

Notable comments on reddit:

*This is just to get you guys looking at different subs on this topic, and yeah it's mostly anti-crypto, but don't let that discourage you.

Is Bitcoin going to crash?

Maybe, the signals are getting louder, you tell me: The only chart you wanted to see this entire time.
So based on the above chart, is bitcoin overbought? MACD levels are the same as 2013's crash, but the increased in value is around 4.3x or 2.4x (depending on which you look at), so maybe we'll see another spike before a crash, I don't know, it's up to interpretation right now. There's the emotional price levels of 3000 and 4000 that we might have no problem getting to in an overbought environment before a correction. And how big will the correction be? I think 80%, but it very well could be around 50% down to $1200, the previous level of resistance which would become support.
I put everything above in its own wiki here.
Well I hope that helps everyone. Sorry to anyone that may feel butthurt on classifying cryptocoins as speculation, I hope you understand the facts. Feel free to argue or agree with this. If I made any mistakes and you point them out, I'll correct them and give you credit for it in an update to this post and the wiki.
Also the automod will is just going to blanket remove posts (not comments) with the following keywords {crypto, bitcoin, btc, etherium, altcoin} (see update 4 below) (this will eventually get relaxed if Coinbase ever IPOs) and then it'll send the user this message:
"Sorry your post[link] was removed in stocks because of rule 6: Bitcoins & cryptocurrenies should be discussed in CryptoCurrency. You can find more information in our are-cryptocurrencies-investments wiki. If you're trying to discuss a non-OTC stock related to cryptocoins like Coinbase IPO, or this was just a mistake, message the mods and they'll approve your post, thanks."
Update: Created wiki, added relevant websites and sub reddits. Also turned on automod reply.
Update2: those relavant websites and subreddits I put into the wiki, thanks u/dross99 for recommending ethereum

Relevant websites/wikis

Relevant subreddits

  • CryptoCurrency - main sub to learn about all bit & altcoins
  • ethtrader - trading eth
  • ethereum - for more eth information
  • btc - the place to have bitcoin discussions or r/CryptoCurrency; while Bitcoin does have a lot of information on Bitcoins in general, you'll find many reddit subs completely opposed to Bitcoin for heavy censorship of discussions, especially those critical of bitcoins, so you're better off reading the sub's wikis and discussing bitcoins in btc & r/CryptoCurrency
  • personalfinance
Update3: Shoutout to the mods on CryptoCurrency
Update4: Updated auto mod keywords, it's not a blanket catch all, a little completed to understand if you don't know regex but it looks like this
"crypto ?(trading|investing)","(should(| I)|could(| I)|can(| I)|how to|is it worth) (buy|sell|mine|min)(|ing) (btc|btcs|bitcoin|ether|etherium|eth|litecoin|ripple|altcoin)" 
submitted by provoko to stocks [link] [comments]

US Venezuela Policy is About Oligarchy, Not Democracy

US Venezuela Policy is About Oligarchy, Not Democracy

The proven oil reserves in Venezuela are recognized as the LARGEST in the world, totaling 297 billion barrels.
While ignoring (and even supporting) the atrocities of authoritarian regimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Uzbekistan, US oligarchs have targeted Venezuela for “regime-change” in the name of “democracy”.
Currently, the US is engaging in economic warfare against Venezuela to foment a coup and remove its democratically elected president Nicolás Maduro.
Without providing solid evidence, our corporate-controlled government and mainstream media portray Maduro as a corrupt, repressive, and illegitimate leader with little to no support.

Ask yourself:

Do I ever see officials from the Venezuelan government appear in corporate news shows to tell THEIR side of the story?
What people DO get to comment on Venezuela and what are their credentials and agenda? Are these people essentially public relations agents for the US-orchestrated coup?
Does corporate news provide me with historical background of US imperialism in Venezuela to put these current events in context?

What Corporate-Controlled Media will NOT Tell You

The CIA was involved in the failed coup against Venezuela's popular leader Hugo Chavez in 2002.
Venezuela is not a strictly socialist country; it has a “mixed” economy - not unlike Norway or other Scandinavian countries.
Venezuela is a DEMOCRACY - unlike US-allies Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait.
In 2012, Jimmy Carter went on record saying:
“As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we've monitored, I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world”
The opposition to Maduro knew they were going to lose the last election and so boycotted it in attempt to delegitimize the results.
The US actually tried to dissuade Maduro’s opponents from running!
Maduro invited international observers into the country in 2018 to monitor the last election but the opposition asked the UN not to send observers!
More than 80% of the Venezuelan population had not even HEARD of Juan Guaidó before Trump and the US state proclaimed him the “rightful” president.
Maduro’s approval ratings within his country are on par with opposition-controlled National Assembly. According to an October poll by opposition-aligned pollster Datanalisis, Venezuela's National Assembly, of which Juan Guaidó is president, has a disapproval rating of 70%.
Venezuela WANTS to sell its oil to the US – the US is their largest market and refines a majority of their oil.
US companies Chevron Corp, Halliburton, Schlumberger, Baker Hughes and Weatherford International all have operations in Venezuela, and are allowed to continue to engage in transactions and activities with PDVSA and its joint ventures through July 27.
“No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armed force but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality of the State or against its political, economic, and cultural elements.” Organization of American States Charter

Why is the US Corporatocracy so Keen to Remove Maduro?

While Venezuela’s economy is not a strictly-state-run economy, its oil industry is nationalized and uses its revenues for the benefit of its citizens (especially the poor).
After years of crippling US sanctions Maduro stepped over a crucial line in October when his government announced that Venezuela was abandoning the US dollar and would be make all future transactions on the Venezuelan exchange market in euro.
Saddam Hussein also went off the dollar in favor of the euro in 2003 – we started dropping bombs on him the next month.
A similar decision by the Gadhafi government in Libya (2011) was quickly followed by a devastating US-orchestrated conflict - culminating in Gadhafi's capture by radical Islamists who sodomized him with a bayonet before killing him. Since then, Libya has gone from Africa's wealthiest country to a truly failed-state complete with a slave trade! To make matters worse, after the collapse of the Libyan government, its military arms were smuggled out of that country and into the hands of ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria - enabling US-orchestrated chaos in those countries.

Who cares what currency a country uses to trade petroleum?

Answer: US oligarchy

The US dollar is central to US world economic domination.
Like all other modern currencies, it is a fiat currency – backed by no real assets to prop up its value.
In lieu of a “gold standard” we know operate on a de-facto “oil-standard”:
"After the collapse of the Bretton Woods gold standard in the early 1970s, the United States struck a deal with Saudi Arabia to standardize oil prices in dollar terms. Through this deal, the petrodollar system was born, along with a paradigm shift away from pegged exchanged rates and gold-backed currencies to non-backed, floating rate regimes.
The petrodollar system elevated the U.S. dollar to the world's reserve currency and, through this status, the United States enjoys persistent trade deficits and is a global economic hegemony." Investopedia
“The central banking Ponzi scheme requires an ever-increasing base of demand and the immediate silencing of those who would threaten its existence. Perhaps that is what the hurry [was] in removing Gaddafi in particular and those who might have been sympathetic to his monetary idea.” Anthony Wile

US Foreign Policy is about Oligarchy Not Democracy

Since World War II, the US has attempted to over-throw the 52 foreign governments. Aside from a handful of exceptions (China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.), the US has been successful in the vast majority of these attempts.
US foreign policy is not about democracy – it is about exploiting the world’s resources in the interests of a small, ultra-wealthy global elite.
This exploitation benefits a small percentage of people at the top of the economic pyramid while the costs are born by those at the bottom.

US CIA Coup Playbook:

How to Plunder Resources from Foreign Countries While Pretending to Support Democracy
  1. Find a country with resources you want.
  2. Send in an “Economic Hitman” to offer bribes the country’s leader in the form of personally lucrative business deals. If he accepts the deal, the leader will amass a personal fortune in exchange for "privatizing” the resources you wish to extract.
If the leader will not accept your bribes, begin the regime-change process.
3) Engage in economic warfare by imposing crippling sanctions on the country and blame the ensuing shortages on the leader’s “socialist” policies.
4) Work with right-wing allies inside country to fund and organize an “astroturf” opposition group behind a corporate-friendly puppet.
5) Hire thugs inside country to incite unrest and violence against the government in coordination with your opposition group. Use corporate media to publicize the orchestrated outbursts as popular outrage and paint a picture of a “failed state” mired in corruption and chaos.
6) When the government arrests your thugs, decry the response as the brutal repression. Use corporate-owned media to demonize the target government as a despotic regime while praising your puppet opposition as champions of democracy.
7) Work with right-wing military leaders to organize the overthrow the government (offer them the same business deals the current leader refused).
8) If a military-led coup cannot be organized, create a mercenary army to carry out acts of terrorism against the government and its supporters. Portray the mercenaries as “freedom fighters” and their acts of terrorism as a “civil war”.
9) If the target government has popular and military support and is too well-defended for your mercenaries to over-throw: label the country a “rouge state” and wait for the right time to invade. Meanwhile, continue to wear the country’s government and populace down using steps 3 – 8.
10) Escalate the terror campaign within the country to provoke a military response from the country against the US. If they won’t take the bait , fabricate an attack or threat that you can sell to the US population as justification for an invasion.
11) Once the government is removed, set up your puppet regime to provide the illusion of sovereignty. The regime will facilitate and legitimize your appropriation of the country’s resources under the guise of "free" trade.
12) As you continue to extract the country’s resources, provide intelligence and military support to the puppet regime to suppress popular dissent within the country.
13) Use the demise of the former government as yet another example of the impracticality of “socialism.”
What Can I Do?
Call your senators and representatives to voice your opposition to US regime-change efforts in Venezuela.
https://www.commoncause.org/find-your-representative/
Please share this message with others.
Sources included at: https://link.medium.com/8DiA5xzx4T

‘Venezuela’: Media’s One-Word Rebuttal to the Threat of Socialism

ALAN MACLEOD FEBRUARY 8, 2019
A recent Gallup poll (8/13/18) found that a majority of millennials view socialism favorably, preferring it to capitalism. Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the United States, while new leftist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (AOC) policies of higher taxes on the wealthy, free healthcare and public college tuition are highly popular—even among Republican voters (FAIR.org,1/23/19).
Alarmed by the growing threat of progressive policies at home, the establishment has found a one-word weapon to deploy against the rising tide: Venezuela. The trick is to attack any political figure or movement even remotely on the left by claiming they wish to turn the country into a “socialist wasteland” (Fox News, 2/2/19) run by a corrupt dictatorship, leaving its people hungry and devastated.
Leading the charge have been Fox News and other conservative outlets. One Fox opinion piece (1/25/19) claimed that Americans should be “absolutely disgusted” by the “fraud” of Bernie Sanders and Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, as they “continue to promote a system that is causing mass starvation and the collapse of a country,” warning that is exactly what their failed socialist policies would bring to the US. (Back in the real world, while Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez identify as socialists, Warren is a self-described capitalist, and Booker is noted for his ties to Wall Street, whose support for his presidential bid he has reportedly been soliciting.) A second Fox Newsarticle (1/27/19) continues in the same vein, warning that, “At the heart of Venezuela’s collapse is a laundry list of socialist policies that have decimated its economy.”
The Wall Street Journal (1/28/19) describes calls for negotiations in Venezuela as “siding with the dictator.”
In an article entitled “Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn and the Starving Children of Venezuela,” the Washington Examiner (6/15/17) warned its readers to “beware the socialist utopia,” describing it as a dystopia where children go hungry thanks to socialism. The Wall Street Journal (1/28/19) recently condemned Sanders for his support of a “dictator,” despite the fact Bernie has strongly criticized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and dismissed Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez, as a “dead Communist dictator” (Reuters, 6/1/16).
More supposedly centrist publications have continued this line of attack. The New York Times’ Bret Stephens (1/25/19) argued: “Venezuela is a socialist catastrophe. In the age of AOC, the lesson must be learned again”—namely, that “socialism never works,” as “20 years of socialism” has led to “the ruin of a nation.” The Miami Herald(2/1/19) cast shame on Sanders and AOC for arguing for socialism in the face of such overwhelming evidence against it, describing the left’s refusal to back self-appointed president Juan Guaidó, someone whom less than 20 percent of Venezuelans had even heard of, let alone voted for, as “morally repugnant.”
This useful weapon to be used against the left can only be sustained by withholding a great number of key facts—chief among them, the US role in Venezuela’s devastation. US sanctions, according to the Venezuelan opposition’s economics czar, are responsible for a halving of the country’s oil output (FAIR.org, 12/17/18). The UN Human Rights Council has formally condemned the US and discussed reparations to be paid, with one UN special rapporteur describing Trump’s sanctions as a possible “crime against humanity” (London Independent, 1/26/19). This has not been reported by any the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN or any other national US “resistance” news outlet, which have been only too quick to support Trump’s regime change plans (FAIR.org, 1/25/19).
Likewise, the local US-backed opposition’s role in the economic crisis is barely mentioned. The opposition, which controls much of the country’s food supply, has officially accepted responsibility for conducting an “economic war” by withholding food and other key goods.
For example, the monolithic Empresas Polar controls the majority of the flour production and distribution crucial for making arepa cornbread, Venezuela’s staple food. Polar’s chair is Leopoldo Lopez, national coordinator of Juan Guaidó’s Popular Will party, while its president is Lorenzo Mendoza, who considered running for president against Maduro in the 2018 elections that caused pandemonium in the media (FAIR.org, 5/23/18).
Conspicuously, it’s the products that Polar has a near-monopoly in that are often in shortest supply. This is hardly a secret, but never mentioned in the copious stories (CNN, 5/14/14, Bloomberg, 3/16/17, Washington Post, 5/22/17, NPR, 4/7/17) focusing on bread lines in the country.
Also rarely commented on was the fact that multiple international election observer missions declared the 2018 elections free and fair, and that Venezuelan government spending as a proportion of GDP (often considered a barometer of socialism) is actually lower than the US’s, and far lower than most of Europe’s, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation.
The London Daily Express (2/3/19) demonstrates that redbaiting works equally well on either side of the Atlantic.
Regardless of these bothersome facts, the media has continued to present Venezuela’s supposedly socialist dictatorship as solely responsible for its crisis as a warning to any progressives who get the wrong idea. So useful is this tool that it is being used to attack progressive movements around the world. The Daily Express (2/3/19) and Daily Mail (2/3/19) condemned UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn for his “defense” of a “dictator,” while the Daily Telegraph(2/3/19) warned that the catastrophe of Venezuela is Labour’s blueprint for Britain. Meanwhile, the Greek leftist party Syriza’s support for Maduro (the official position of three-quarters of UN member states) was condemned as “shameful” (London Independent, 1/29/19).
“Venezuela” is also used as a one-word response to shut down debate and counter any progressive idea or thought. While the panel on ABC’s The View (7/23/18) discussed progressive legislation like Medicare for All and immigration reform, conservative regular Meghan McCain responding by invoking Venezuela: “They’re starving to death” she explained, leaving the other panelists bemused.
President Trump has also used it. In response to criticism from Senator Elizabeth Warren over his “Pocahontas” jibe, he replied that she would “make our country into Venezuela” (Reuters, 10/15/18).
The weapon’s effectiveness can only be sustained through a media in lockstep with the government’s regime-change goals. That the media is fixated on the travails of a relatively small and unimportant country in America’s “backyard,” and that the picture of Venezuela is so shallow, is not a mistake. Rather, the simplistic narrative of a socialist dictatorship starving its own people provides great utility as a weapon for the establishment to beat back the domestic “threat” of socialism, by associating movements and figures such as Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jeremy Corbyn with an evil caricature they have carefully crafted.

Corporate Propaganda Blitz Against Venezuela’s Elected President: MSM Will Not Let Facts Interfere With Coup Agenda

Facts Don’t Interfere With Propaganda Blitz Against Venezuela’s Elected President Joe Emersberger
Guaidó, anointed by Trump and a new Iraq-style Coalition of the Willing, did not even run in Venezuela’s May 2018 presidential election. In fact, shortly before the election, Guaidó was not even mentioned by the opposition-aligned pollster Datanálisis when it published approval ratings of various prominent opposition leaders. Henri Falcón, who actually did run in the election (defying US threats against him) was claimed by the pollster to basically be in a statistical tie for most popular among them. It is remarkable to see the Western media dismiss this election as “fraudulent,” without even attempting to show that it was “stolen“ from Falcón. Perhaps that’s because it so clearly wasn’t stolen.
Graph: Approval Ratings of Main Venezuelan Leaders Nov 2016 - July 2018 Data from the opposition-aligned pollsters in Venezuela (via Torino Capital) indicates that Henri Falcón was the most popular of the major opposition figures at the time of the May 2018 presidential election. Nicolás Maduro won the election due to widespread opposition boycotting and votes drawn by another opposition candidate, Javier Bertucci.
The constitutional argument that Trump and his accomplices have used to “recognize” Guaidó rests on the preposterous claim that Maduro has “abandoned” the presidency by soundly beating Falcón in the election. Caracas-based journalist Lucas Koerner took apart that argument in more detail.
What about the McClatchy-owned Miami Herald's claim that Maduro “continues to reject international aid”? In November 2018, following a public appeal by Maduro, the UN did authorize emergency aid for Venezuela. It was even reported by Reuters (11/26/18), whose headlines have often broadcast the news agency’s contempt for Maduro’s government.
It’s not unusual for Western media to ignore facts they have themselves reported when a major “propaganda blitz” by Washington is underway against a government. For example, it was generally reported accurately in 1998 that UN weapons inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq ahead of air strikes ordered by Bill Clinton, not expelled by Iraq’s government. But by 2002, it became a staple of pro-war propaganda that Iraq had expelled weapons inspectors (Extra! Update, 10/02).
And, incidentally, when a Venezuelan NGO requested aid from the UN-linked Global Fund in 2017, it was turned down. Setting aside how effective foreign aid is at all (the example of Haiti hardly makes a great case for it), it is supposed to be distributed based on relative need, not based on how badly the US government wants somebody overthrown.
But the potential for “aid” to alleviate Venezuela’s crisis is negligible compared to the destructive impact of US economic sanctions. Near the end of the Miami Herald article, author Jim Wyss cited an estimate from the thoroughly demonized Venezuelan government that US sanctions have cost it $30 billion, with no time period specified for that estimate. Again, this calls to mind the run-up to the Iraq invasion, when completely factual statements that Iraq had no WMDs were attributed to the discredited Iraqi government. Quoting Iraqi denials supposedly balanced the lies spread in the media by US officials like John Bolton, who now leads the charge to overthrow Maduro. Wyss could have cited economists independent of the Maduro government on the impact of US sanctions—like US economist Mark Weisbrot, or the emphatically anti-Maduro Venezuelan economist Francisco Rodríguez.
Illegal US sanctions were first imposed in 2015 under a fraudulent “state of emergency” declared by Obama, and subsequently extended by Trump. The revenue lost to Venezuela’s government due to US economic sanctions since August 2017, when the impact became very easy to quantify, is by now well over $6 billion. That’s enormous in an economy that was only able to import about $11 billion of goods in 2018, and needs about $2 billion per year in medicines. Trump’s “recognition” of Guaidó as “interim president” was the pretext for making the already devastating sanctions much worse. Last month, Francisco Rodríguez revised his projection for the change in Venezuela’s real GDP in 2019, from an 11 percent contraction to 26 percent, after the intensified sanctions were announced.
The $20 million in US “aid” that Wyss is outraged Maduro won’t let in is a rounding error compared to the billions already lost from Trump’s sanctions.
Former US Ambassador to Venezuela William Brownfield, who pressed for more sanctions on Venezuela, dispensed with the standard “humanitarian” cover that US officials have offered for them (Intercept, 2/10/19):
And if we can do something that will bring that end quicker, we probably should do it, but we should do it understanding that it’s going to have an impact on millions and millions of people who are already having great difficulty finding enough to eat, getting themselves cured when they get sick, or finding clothes to put on their children before they go off to school. We don’t get to do this and pretend as though it has no impact there. We have to make the hard decision—the desired outcome justifies this fairly severe punishment.
How does this gruesome candor get missed by reporters like Wyss, and go unreported in his article?
Speaking of “severe punishment,” if the names John Bolton and Elliott Abrams don’t immediately call to mind the punishment they should be receiving for crimes against humanity, it illustrates how well the Western propaganda system functions. Bolton, a prime facilitator of the Iraq War, recently suggested that Maduro could be sent to a US-run torture camp in Cuba. Abrams played a key role in keeping US support flowing to mass murderers and torturers in Central America during the 1980s. Also significant that Abrams, brought in by Trump to help oust Maduro, used “humanitarian aid” as cover to supply weapons to the US-backed Contra terrorists in Nicaragua.
In the Miami Herald article, the use of US “aid” for military purposes is presented as another allegation made by the vilified Venezuelan president: “Maduro has repeatedly said the aid is cover for a military invasion and has ordered his armed forces not to let it in, even as food and medicine shortages sweep the country.”
Venezuela Accuses U.S. of Secretly Shipping Arms After Weapons Found on Plane with Possible CIA Ties | Democracy Now!
Calling for international aid and being democratically elected will do as little to protect Maduro’s government from US aggression as being disarmed of WMD did to prevent Iraq from being invaded—unless there is much more pushback from the US public against a lethal propaganda system.
Suggested Reading:
When Is a Democracy not a Democracy? When It’s Venezuela and the US is Pushing Regime Change. Venezuela has as much right to call itself a democracy as does the United States. Until that is understood by enough people, the Trump administration will continue to devastate Venezuela’s economy with illegal sanctions and push it towards civil war.
UN Rapporteur: US Sanctions Cause Death in Venezuela
Guaido is playing it fast and loose with the Bolivarian Constitution to justify a dictatorship
Trump’s Economic Sanctions Have Cost Venezuela About $6bn Since August 2017
How could Venezuela's president 'steal' the 2018 election from an unknown who didn't run?
In other news...
The Largest Protest Ever Was 15 Years Ago. The Iraq War Isn’t Over. What Happened?
submitted by roy_batty3000 to Communist [link] [comments]

Bitcoin 1.0 vs 2.0 – or – A Comparison of Legacy Exchanges & Veritaseum's UltraCoin

Veritaseum is looking for liquidity providers to assist in kickstarting the world's first global P2P exchange. If you have a healthy stash of BTC, please contact us to discuss.
I was looking at the offerings of a large US bitcoin exchange just now, after hearing that Coinbase had the highest volume of any US-based broker just weeks after opening an exchange (we’ll discuss that at a different time, since Coinbase is waiving fees meaning those users are hot money, but likely are part of the largest installed bitcoin user base in the world and growing rapidly). What I found was illuminating, at least for me since I don’t follow the offerings of BTC brokers and exchanges that closely. I noticed several of the industry (BTC exchange) leaders offer leverage, plain vanilla swaps and TRS (total return swaps - basically fixed/variable rates in major fiat denominations for cryptocurrency (BTC. LTC, DRK) exposure). I said to myself, “Wow, that’s pretty advanced.” Then I looked at the fees, and saw the swaps were priced up to and past 15%. Then, upon further research, I realized that these swaps were financing mechanisms for margin lending. The first thing that came to mind was the difference, and limitations that come with the business models of first generation bitcoin companies and second generation Bitcoin companies. Take notice in the difference of the capitalization. Lower case "b" denotes the accounts of value that the mainstream media calls digital currency. Upper case "B" denotes the blockchain-based, protocol driven services and capabilities behind the lower case "b". Generation 1.0 v. generation 2.0!
To put this into perspective, Veritaseum's UltraCoin offers user programmable swaps (ie. you can make your own CDS, TRS or plain vanilla, or even a custom swap) with exposures to not just 3 cryptos and 3 or 4 fiat currencies, but all major and most exotic currency pairs (dozens) as well as over 45,000 tickers covering EVERY major asset class (stocks, bonds, forex & commodities as well as cryptos) from exchanges throughout the world. This is all capable at a sliding scale of 10 to 25 basis points, round trip. That's the equivalent of 5 bp to 12.5 bp per trade. In addition, all of this is done without UltraCoin having any possession of your funds, whatsoever. Veritaseum (the company behind UltraCoin) is a software concern, not a financial entity, thus you have no exposure to our balance sheet. We cannot MT. Gox you and you essentially have no counterparty, default or credit risk because your counterparty is the blockchain, and you trade peer to peer vs. through a centralized exchange. Pretty big difference from the legacy systems that we're all used to, no?

The Difference between Bitcoin 1.0 and Bitcoin 2.0 Companies

To begin with, I'd like to make clear that not only is the title misleading, but all references to the same are essentially inaccurate. Bitcoin itself is still in beta stage (0.9x) thus its not accurate to refer to 1st and 2nd generations of bitcoin businesses. If anything, we're all in beta. Now that I've gotten that off of my chest... The first bold generation of bitcoin entrepreneurs (it's amazing that you can refer to companies born 2 and 3 years ago as a previous generation, it just goes to show you how fast this space is moving!) built businesses based upon bitcoin as a legacy commodity. Basically, they bought, sold, transmitted or transferred it as a unit of value. They did this because that's how everything was done for the last several thousand years in the financial services industry. Basically, they had no choice - or so they thought. Then came those who read the Satoshi whitepaper and the bitcoin wiki and saw a very different meaning. My team and I are among those entrepreneurs. We saw that bitcoins were malleable, programmable, tools with which one can use to paint upon the canvas of value. A far cry from the moving of static financial widgets from place to place. Think of moving bitcoins around (bitcoin 1.0 companies) vs programming bitcoins to act on their own according to their contractual owner's wishes (bitcoin 2.0 companies) akin to pushing a model T Ford around town vs. programming your driverless electric Tesla to go by the grocery store to pick up some fresh produce before swinging by the school to pick up your kids on the way home to meet you to take your wife (girlfriend?) out to dinner.

A Real World Comparison of Bitcoin Companies

Tickers Available

Veritaseum's UltraCoin: ~45,000+
Asset Classes Available
Veritaseum's UltraCoin: Stocks, Bonds, Commodities, Forex, Cryptos and many indices
Costs Veritaseum's UltraCoin: up to 25 bp round trip for all products (primarily smart contract swap driven)
Leverage available: Veritaseum's UltraCoin: up to 10,000x, with finite digital P/L parameters (no margin calls, no negative account drawdowns)
How does Veritaseum do it? We program the bitcoin to act according to a mutual agreement between two or more parties, then send it to the blockchain to act accordingly. These agreements are self executing, unbreakable promises known as "Smart Contracts". In this case, they are highly customizable, P2P OTC swaps, but we are working on a multitude of other products, services and solutions as well. We also supply very high level, unconflicted, independent and impartial strategy and research for our customers. Since we don't use our balance sheet and we don't act as a principal, we have no incentive to skewer the research in any particular direction.

Smart Contracts as Transaction Vehicles: The Safest Possible Way To Exchange Value

Veritaseum's UltraCoin BTC-based smart contracts are: 1. highly flexible - you design your own derivatives yourself using your own parameters via our simple graphical user interface 2. self-executing 3. autonomous 4. unbreachable: we call them, the unbreakable promise! They are backed, fortified and stored by/on the Bitcoin blockchain itself 5. uber-transparent: simple click the "trace transaction" button to find the location and historical travel path of your assets anytime, from anywhere you have an internet connection

Trading Through a Balance Sheet-Based Financial Institution vs. Distributed, Decentralized, P2P Software Concern

What I do want to accomplish is the education through the fact that the Bitcoin protocol has given rise to the genesis of a new type of company, with a new business model that can offer a totally new type of product. As you were able to see from above, Veritaseum's UltraCoin offers a very uniquer product with many if not all of the attributes that potential competitors offer, with a slew of attributes that others can't touch. This is done at 1/150th of the price and at much less risk! When dealing with Veritaseum's UltraCoin, you can never get Gox'd because we never have (nor do we want) possession of your coins or fiat - every, at any time. Because we don't user our balance sheet (we are a software company, not a centralized exchange or brokedealer) you:
This is just the beginning of what is capable with bitcoin (and this is pure bitcoin, not altcoins, no tokens, no sidechains, just pure, old fashioned [at least as old as it can be considered] bitcoin) and 2.0 business models. Wait until you see the new stuff we'll be rolling out.
I implore you to download our:
There's also a lot of BTC industry research available for download as well as our blog which has some of the best fundamental and macro research available on the web. Hardcore traders, investors and speculators should check out my latest piece: It's All Out War, Pt 3: Is the Danish Krone Peg to Euro More Fragile Than Glass Beads? The Danish National Bank Infers So!
Any bitcoin-rich individuals or entities looking to provide liquidity to the system, individuals/compamies who wish to partner, accredited investors looking for a piece of the action (you have to be willing to sign and NDA, we are quite open to working with anybody), or those who simply want to shoot the breeze should feel free to contact us.
Bitcoin 2.0 An example of an UltraCoin smart contract summary
Here's some info about me, my team and what we're doing at Veritaseum:
submitted by Reggie-Middleton to BitcoinDerivatives [link] [comments]

Bitcoin 1.0 vs 2.0 – or – A Comparison of the Largest USD/BTC Exchange & UltraCoin: Features & Costs

I was looking at the offerings of Bitfinex just now, after hearing that Coinbase had the highest volume of any US-based broker just weeks after opening an exchange (we’ll discuss that at a different time, since Coinbase is waiving fees meaning those users are hot money, but likely are part of the largest installed user base). What I found was illuminating, at least for me since I don’t follow the offerings of BTC brokers and exchanges that closely. Bitfinix offers leverage, plain vanilla swaps and TRS (total return swaps - basically fixed/variable rates in major fiat denominations for cryptocurrency (BTC. LTC, DRK) exposure). I said to myself, “Wow, that’s pretty advanced.” Then I looked at the fees page, and saw the swaps were priced at 15%. The first thing that came to mind was the difference, and limitations that come with the business models of first generation bitcoin companies and second generation bitcoin companies.
To put this into perspective, Veritaseum's UltraCoin offers user programmable swaps (ie. you can make your own CDS, TRS or plain vanilla, or even a custom swap) with exposures to not just 3 cryptos and 3 or 4 fiat currencies, but all major and most exotic currency pairs (dozens) as well as over 45,000 tickers covering EVERY major asset class (stocks, bonds, forex & commodities as well as cryptos) from exchanges throughout the world****. This is all capable at a sliding scale of 10 to 25 basis points, round trip. That's the equivalent of 5 bp to 12.5 bp per trade - or 1/150th of what Bitfinex charges for a much simpler and more constrained product. In addition, all of this is done without UltraCoin havin any possession of your funds, whatsoever. Veritaseum (the company behind UltraCoin) is a software concern, not a financial entiity, thus you have no exposure to our balance sheet. We cannot MT. Gox you and you essentially have no counterparty, default or credit risk because your counterparty is the blockchain, and you trade peer to peer vs. through a centralized exchange. Pretty big difference, no?
I will continue my discussion on pricing and features right after I delineate the distinction between the two.

The Difference between Bitcoin 1.0 and Bitcoin 2.0 Companies

To begin with, I'd like to make clear that not only is the title misleading, but all references to the same are essentially inaccurate. Bitcoin itself is still in beta stage (0.9x) thus its not accurate to refer to 1st and 2nd generations of bitcoin businesses. If anything, we're all in beta. Now that I've gotten that off of my chest... The first bold generation of bitcoin entrepreneurs (it's amazing that you can refer to companies born 2 and 3 years ago as a previous generation, it just goes to show you how fast this space is moving!) built businesses based upon bitcoin as a legacy commodity. Basically, they bought, sold, transmitted or transferred it as a unit of value. They did this because that's how everything was done for the last several thousand years in the financial services industry. Basically, they had no choice - or so they thought. Then came those who read the Satoshi whitepaper and the bitcoin wiki and saw a very different meaning. My team and I are among those entrepreneurs. We saw that bitcoins were malleable, programmable, tools with which one can use to paint upon the canvas of value. A far cry from the moving of static financial widgets from place to place. Think of moving bitcoins around (bitcoin 1.0 companies) vs programming bitcoins to act on their own according to their contractual owner's wishes (bitcoin 2.0 companies) akin to pushing a model T Ford around town vs. programming your driverless electric Tesla to go by the grocery store to pick up some fresh produce before swinging by the school to pick up your kids on the way home to meet you to take your wife (girlfriend?) out to dinner.

A Real World Comparison of Bitcoin Companies: Bitfinex (v1.0) vs Veritaseum (v2.0)

Tickers Available

Bitfinex: ~6 or 7 (this is an approximation) - BTC, LTC, DRK, USD & (I'm assuming EUR, CNY and maybe GBP). It is quite possible that I'm underestimating their portfolio here.
Veritaseum's UltraCoin: ~45,000+
Asset Classes Available
Bitfinex: Crypto and forex
Veritaseum's UltraCoin: Stocks, Bonds, Commodities, Forex, Cryptos and many indices
Costs Bitfinex: up to 40bp round trip, 1,500bp for swaps
Veritaseum's UltraCoin: up to 25 bp round trip for all products (primarily smart contract swap driven)
Leverage available: Bitfinex: Assumed to be up to 50x, traditional margin lending
Veritaseum's UltraCoin: up to 10,000x, with finite digital P/L parameters (no margin calls, no negative account drawdowns)
How does Veritaseum do it? We program the bitcoin to act according to a mutual agreement between two or more parties, then send it to the blockchain to act accordingly. These agreements are self executing, unbreakable promises known as "Smart Contracts". In this case, they are highly customizable, P2P OTC swaps, but we are working on a multitude of other products, services and solutions as well. We also supply very high level, unconflicted, independent and impartial strategy and research for our customers. Since we don't use our balance sheet and we don't act as a principal, we have no incentive to skewer the research in any particular direction.

Smart Contracts as Transaction Vehicles: The Safest Possible Way To Exchange Value

Veritaseum's UltraCoin BTC-based smart contracts are: 1. highly flexible - you design your own derivatives yourself using your own parameters via our simple graphical user interface 2. self-executing 3. autonomous 4. unbreachable: we call them, the unbreakable promise! They are backed, fortified and stored by/on the Bitcoin blockchain itself 5. uber-transparent: simple click the "trace transaction" button to find the location and historical travel path of your assets anytime, from anywhere you have an internet connection

Trading Through a Balance Sheet-Based Financial Institution vs. Distributed, Decentralized, P2P Software Concern

It's a matter of risk. This is not a dig at Bitfinex. After looking at their volume (significant) and their offerings (quite impressive given the newness of this industry) the last thing I would ever want to do is to disparage them. As a matter of fact, I give them kudos! Good job, fellas! What I do want to accomplish is the education through the fact that the Bitcoin protocol has given rise to the genesis of a new type of company, with a new business model that can offer a totally new type of product. As you were able to see from above, Veritaseum's UltraCoin offers a very uniquer product with many if not all of the attributes that potential competitors offer, with a slew of attributes that others can't touch. This is done at 1/150th of the price and at much less risk! When dealing with Veritaseum's UltraCoin, you can never get Gox'd because we never have (nor do we want) possession of your coins or fiat - every, at any time. Because we don't user our balance sheet (we are a software company, not a centralized exchange or brokedealer) you:
This is just the beginning of what is capable with bitcoin (and this is pure bitcoin, not altcoins, no tokens, no sidechains, just pure, old fashioned [at least as old as it can be considered] bitcoin) and 2.0 business models. Wait until you see the new stuff we'll be rolling out.
We are in beta, so please be aware of that and the shortcomings that it entails (although it is also my opinion that most bitcoin companies are in beta because bitcoin itself is in beta, as implied above). I implore you to download, and trade with, our:
There's also a lot of BTC industry research available for download as well as our blog which has some of the best fundamental and macro research available on the web. Hardcore traders, investors and speculators should check out my latest piece: It's All Out War, Pt 3: Is the Danish Krone Peg to Euro More Fragile Than Glass Beads? The Danish National Bank Infers So!
Any bitcoin-rich individuals or entities looking to provide liquidity to the system, individuals/compamies who wish to partner, accredited investors looking for a piece of the action (you have to be willing to sign and NDA, we are quite open to working with anybody), or those who simply want to shoot the breeze should feel free to contact us.
Bitcoin 2.0 An example of an UltraCoin smart contract summary
Here's some info about me, my team and what we're doing at Veritaseum:
submitted by Reggie-Middleton to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Bitcoin 1.0 vs 2.0 – or – A Comparison of the Largest USD/BTC Exchange & UltraCoin: Features & Costs

I was looking at the offerings of Bitfinex just now, after hearing that Coinbase had the highest volume of any US-based broker just weeks after opening an exchange (we’ll discuss that at a different time, since Coinbase is waiving fees meaning those users are hot money, but likely are part of the largest installed user base). What I found was illuminating, at least for me since I don’t follow the offerings of BTC brokers and exchanges that closely. Bitfinix offers leverage, plain vanilla swaps and TRS (total return swaps - basically fixed/variable rates in major fiat denominations for cryptocurrency (BTC. LTC, DRK) exposure). I said to myself, “Wow, that’s pretty advanced.” Then I looked at the fees page, and saw the swaps were priced at 15%. The first thing that came to mind was the difference, and limitations that come with the business models of first generation bitcoin companies and second generation bitcoin companies.
To put this into perspective, Veritaseum's UltraCoin offers user programmable swaps (ie. you can make your own CDS, TRS or plain vanilla, or even a custom swap) with exposures to not just 3 cryptos and 3 or 4 fiat currencies, but all major and most exotic currency pairs (dozens) as well as over 45,000 tickers covering EVERY major asset class (stocks, bonds, forex & commodities as well as cryptos) from exchanges throughout the world****. This is all capable at a sliding scale of 10 to 25 basis points, round trip. That's the equivalent of 5 bp to 12.5 bp per trade - or 1/150th of what Bitfinex charges for a much simpler and more constrained product. In addition, all of this is done without UltraCoin havin any possession of your funds, whatsoever. Veritaseum (the company behind UltraCoin) is a software concern, not a financial entiity, thus you have no exposure to our balance sheet. We cannot MT. Gox you and you essentially have no counterparty, default or credit risk because your counterparty is the blockchain, and you trade peer to peer vs. through a centralized exchange. Pretty big difference, no?
I will continue my discussion on pricing and features right after I delineate the distinction between the two.

The Difference between Bitcoin 1.0 and Bitcoin 2.0 Companies

To begin with, I'd like to make clear that not only is the title misleading, but all references to the same are essentially inaccurate. Bitcoin itself is still in beta stage (0.9x) thus its not accurate to refer to 1st and 2nd generations of bitcoin businesses. If anything, we're all in beta. Now that I've gotten that off of my chest... The first bold generation of bitcoin entrepreneurs (it's amazing that you can refer to companies born 2 and 3 years ago as a previous generation, it just goes to show you how fast this space is moving!) built businesses based upon bitcoin as a legacy commodity. Basically, they bought, sold, transmitted or transferred it as a unit of value. They did this because that's how everything was done for the last several thousand years in the financial services industry. Basically, they had no choice - or so they thought. Then came those who read the Satoshi whitepaper and the bitcoin wiki and saw a very different meaning. My team and I are among those entrepreneurs. We saw that bitcoins were malleable, programmable, tools with which one can use to paint upon the canvas of value. A far cry from the moving of static financial widgets from place to place. Think of moving bitcoins around (bitcoin 1.0 companies) vs programming bitcoins to act on their own according to their contractual owner's wishes (bitcoin 2.0 companies) akin to pushing a model T Ford around town vs. programming your driverless electric Tesla to go by the grocery store to pick up some fresh produce before swinging by the school to pick up your kids on the way home to meet you to take your wife (girlfriend?) out to dinner.

A Real World Comparison of Bitcoin Companies: Bitfinex (v1.0) vs Veritaseum (v2.0)

Tickers Available

Bitfinex: ~6 or 7 (this is an approximation) - BTC, LTC, DRK, USD & (I'm assuming EUR, CNY and maybe GBP). It is quite possible that I'm underestimating their portfolio here.
Veritaseum's UltraCoin: ~45,000+
Asset Classes Available
Bitfinex: Crypto and forex
Veritaseum's UltraCoin: Stocks, Bonds, Commodities, Forex, Cryptos and many indices
Costs Bitfinex: up to 40bp round trip, 1,500bp for swaps
Veritaseum's UltraCoin: up to 25 bp round trip for all products (primarily smart contract swap driven)
Leverage available: Bitfinex: Assumed to be up to 50x, traditional margin lending
Veritaseum's UltraCoin: up to 10,000x, with finite digital P/L parameters (no margin calls, no negative account drawdowns)
How does Veritaseum do it? We program the bitcoin to act according to a mutual agreement between two or more parties, then send it to the blockchain to act accordingly. These agreements are self executing, unbreakable promises known as "Smart Contracts". In this case, they are highly customizable, P2P OTC swaps, but we are working on a multitude of other products, services and solutions as well. We also supply very high level, unconflicted, independent and impartial strategy and research for our customers. Since we don't use our balance sheet and we don't act as a principal, we have no incentive to skewer the research in any particular direction.

Smart Contracts as Transaction Vehicles: The Safest Possible Way To Exchange Value

Veritaseum's UltraCoin BTC-based smart contracts are: 1. highly flexible - you design your own derivatives yourself using your own parameters via our simple graphical user interface 2. self-executing 3. autonomous 4. unbreachable: we call them, the unbreakable promise! They are backed, fortified and stored by/on the Bitcoin blockchain itself 5. uber-transparent: simple click the "trace transaction" button to find the location and historical travel path of your assets anytime, from anywhere you have an internet connection

Trading Through a Balance Sheet-Based Financial Institution vs. Distributed, Decentralized, P2P Software Concern

It's a matter of risk. This is not a dig at Bitfinex. After looking at their volume (significant) and their offerings (quite impressive given the newness of this industry) the last thing I would ever want to do is to disparage them. As a matter of fact, I give them kudos! Good job, fellas! What I do want to accomplish is the education through the fact that the Bitcoin protocol has given rise to the genesis of a new type of company, with a new business model that can offer a totally new type of product. As you were able to see from above, Veritaseum's UltraCoin offers a very uniquer product with many if not all of the attributes that potential competitors offer, with a slew of attributes that others can't touch. This is done at 1/150th of the price and at much less risk! When dealing with Veritaseum's UltraCoin, you can never get Gox'd because we never have (nor do we want) possession of your coins or fiat - every, at any time. Because we don't user our balance sheet (we are a software company, not a centralized exchange or brokedealer) you:
This is just the beginning of what is capable with bitcoin (and this is pure bitcoin, not altcoins, no tokens, no sidechains, just pure, old fashioned [at least as old as it can be considered] bitcoin) and 2.0 business models. Wait until you see the new stuff we'll be rolling out.
We are in beta, so please be aware of that and the shortcomings that it entails (although it is also my opinion that most bitcoin companies are in beta because bitcoin itself is in beta, as implied above). I implore you to download, and trade with, our:
There's also a lot of BTC industry research available for download as well as our blog which has some of the best fundamental and macro research available on the web. Hardcore traders, investors and speculators should check out my latest piece: It's All Out War, Pt 3: Is the Danish Krone Peg to Euro More Fragile Than Glass Beads? The Danish National Bank Infers So!
Any bitcoin-rich individuals or entities looking to provide liquidity to the system, individuals/compamies who wish to partner, accredited investors looking for a piece of the action (you have to be willing to sign and NDA, we are quite open to working with anybody), or those who simply want to shoot the breeze should feel free to contact us.
Bitcoin 2.0 An example of an UltraCoin smart contract summary
Here's some info about me, my team and what we're doing at Veritaseum:
submitted by Reggie-Middleton to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Transcript of George Webb Video Series Part 101: "Hillary's Leakers, Hackers, and Henchmen" [@Georgwebb / #HRCRatlne]

submitted by browneyeofprovidence to TruthLeaks [link] [comments]

Swift Programming Tutorial for Beginners (Full ... - YouTube CFD Trading auf Deutsch erklärt - Contracts for Difference ... 10CFDs: Can Everyone Trade CFDs? Foreign Exchange Trading On The Blockchain Trading Foreign Exchange Without Forex Broker Fraud Binary Options Multiplier Share Trading Courses - Smart Trading by Justine Pollard What Is a CFD Contract? - Example Trading at IQ Option The Buzz on Forex News - FXstreet - YouTube Basics on Technical Analysis  EverFX Webinar I Survived On $0.01 For 3 Days - Episode 1 - YouTube

Contract times as short as a few days are also available from many providers. Although a contract can be customized, most entities won't see the full benefit of a forward exchange contract unless ... CFD stands for a contract for difference. The trader and the broker agree to exchange the difference in price of an asset. At the beginning of the contract and at the end of it. What is a CFD. Basically using CFD traders buy or sell assets without actually owning them. Essentially the trader predicts the asset price direction and if the forecast is right the trader earns a profit. If the ... CFD Definition – Contract for Difference im Detail für Anfänger erklärt! Zuletzt aktualisiert & geprüft: 07.10.2020 . XTB . Minikontrakte: ja; Krypto handelbar: ja; Konto ab: 0€ Jetzt zum Testsieger XTB! CFD Service - 77% verlieren Geld. Die CFD Definition ist etwas komplex. Es handelt sich bei einem Contract for Difference (Differenzkontrakt) um eine nicht-laufzeitabhängige ... CFDs (Contracts for Difference) gehören zur Gruppe der Derivate. Der Kurs eines CFDs leitet sich also direkt vom jeweiligen Basiswert ab, beispielsweise von einer Aktie oder einem Index. Winning the contract Call Spread. Win maximum Forex Wiki payout if the exit Forex Wiki spot is higher than or equal to the upper barrier.; Win up to maximum Forex Wiki payout if exit Forex Wiki spot is between Forex Wiki lower and upper barrier, in proportion to the difference between exit Forex Wiki spot and lower barrier.; No payout if exit Forex Wiki spot is below Forex Wiki or equal to the ... Forex - Foreign Exchange Market Forex - Foreign Exchange Market The international financial market, whose members carry out free currency exchange and earn on the difference in rates. The Forex market is regulated by the largest national banks with the help of such tools, as: changes in interest rate, interventions, transactions with financial instruments, etc. CFD ist die Abkürzung für Contract for Difference, zu deutsch: Differenzkontrakt. Einfach gesagt sind CFDs Finanzderivate, ... Forex und CFD Trading sind, ebenso wie der Handel mit Kryptowährungen, in den letzten Jahren bei Privatanlegern immer beliebter geworden. Dementsprechend hat dieser Umstand dazu geführt, dass man als Trader im Internet viele Anbieter findet, deren Geschäftsmodell ... CFD. Kurz für englisch "Contract for Difference", Differenzkontrakt. Ein CFD ist eine Zahlungsvereinbarung, deren Wert sich aus der Differenz der Kurse des Basiswerts, etwa einer Aktie oder einer ... A contract for differences (CFD) is a marginable financial derivative that can be used to speculate on very short-term price movements for a variety of underlying instruments. Record a forward contract on the contract date on the balance sheet from the buyer’s perspective. On the liability side of the equation, you would credit Contracts Payable in the amount of the forward rate. Then you would record the difference between the spot rate and the forward rate as a debit or credit to the Contra-Assets Account.

[index] [27105] [25054] [22030] [25949] [6572] [27872] [23480] [24409] [16777] [632]

Swift Programming Tutorial for Beginners (Full ... - YouTube

Therefore, Trading Forex and CFDs is a difficult to understand product and may not be suitable for all investors. Please seek independent advice if necessary. Past performance of CFDs is not a ... Stocks - Contracts For Difference (CFDs) - Duration: 12:00. Interactive Brokers 10,210 views. 12:00 . ex Goldman Sachs Trader Tells Truth about Trading - Part 1 - Duration: 12:39 ... 10 Freetrades bei Aktien-Depoteröffnung https://goo.gl/uzm0NO Aktien-Depot kostenlos einrichten http://goo.gl/2I19ZB 30 Verhängnisvolle Anleger-Fehle... Option Contract Multiplier - Options Mechanics - Options Trading for Beginners - Duration: 4:39. ... Binary Option vs Forex Trading Differences - Duration: 8:37. The Binary Logic 49,901 views. 8 ... 3 days. 1 penny. 0 fricks left to give. MY IRL CHANNEL http://bit.ly/2NfCrVu HYDRA (my merch) http://bit.ly/hydrashop NEPTUNE PROJECT http://bit.ly/nep... Contract for Difference Spark Liang 股票投資 - Duration: 9:32. ... 3 Apps Every Forex Trader Needs To Be Successful - Duration: 14:35. JustinEqualsTime 258,112 views. 14:35 . CFD Trading ... Today, I'm going to discuss about the CFD contract. Many new traders are confused about CFD contract. It's very important for being a successful trader.Stay ... Sneak Peek At This Web-Site: https://bit.ly/2WPnI6w - The Buzz on Forex News - FXstreet OANDA utilizes cookies to make our websites easy to use and customize... Learn how to code with Swift in one single tutorial! We'll go through all the core concepts of Swift including: Variables and Constants, Data Types, Properti... forex trading for beginners, forex trading tutorial, what is forex trading, how does forex work, what is currency trading, best forex trading platform, forex trading app, forex wiki, forex trading ...

https://binary-optiontrade.cenfibarwle.cf