Top and The Best Forex Brokers in Vietnam 2020 Fully Regulated
Top and The Best Forex Brokers in Vietnam 2020 Fully Regulated
Forex Trading Vietnam, Is Illegal Or Not?
Forex Trading in Vietnam - Forex Education
Forex Trading in Vietnam • Forex Strategies • Benzinga
10 Best Online Brokers for Traders in Vietnam (2020)
Growing popularity of online Forex Trading in Vietnam
Forex trading in Vietnam FreshForex
Forex in Vietnam > How to Trade?
Best Vietnam Forex Brokers 2020 - Find Trusted Brokers
Forex Trading in Vietnam - How to Begin Online
Forex automated trading systems with wide range of digital assets in Vietnam
A full-service BCNEX ecosystem for the purchase, exchange and trading of blockchain -based tokens and a wide range of digital assets. It is a customer-centric, highly secure and stable trading platform built on microservices architecture that meets the most stringent customer requirements.
I’m 18 and want to start Forex. What mistake will I have to avoid at all cost?
I’m 18, currently going to follow Economics in university and want to learn and trade Forex as a side income. The knowledge I gain from uni will benefit me in my trading while trading will bring me adequate money for my study (I live in Vietnam so the money I can potentially make in Forex is gonna be huge enough). I intend to start with a deposit of 300$ and build it up slowly while working a part-time job beside studying and pour 50% of that money into Forex (my parents still support me financially until I finish uni so that’s a plus). Is there anything that I should know before actually trading, since Forex is a high risk - high reward way to make money? I don’t want to burn my hard-earned money due to my ignorance.
Tổng quan về sàn giao dịch Forex ( ngoại hối ) Fxcess
Tổng quan về sàn giao dịch chứng khoán quốc tế Fxcess tại Vietnam
Sàn giao dịch Fxcess FXcess là một nhà môi giới Forex và CFDs, cung cấp 2 loại tài khoản giao dịch khác nhau để giao dịch trên 200 công cụ tài chính bao gồm Forex, Chỉ số, Hàng hóa, Cổ phiếu và Tiền điện tử trên nền tảng giao dịch MetaTrader 4 cho PC, Mac, Web, Android và iOS. Nhà môi giới này là một tên thương mại của tập đoàn Notesco Limited, một công ty đã đăng ký giấy phép FCA tại Anh.
Is it possible to trade in Vietnam with pepperstone?
Hi guys. I was wondering if it is possible for vietnamese people to trade with pepperstone as a broker. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the research that I did, it seems that Vietnam has a complicated past with forex and that setting up a brokerage was banned due to inflation? But the State Bank of Vietnam still allowed people to trade with offshore brokers. So I was wondering if Vietnamese people had success in using pepperstone or were they blocked (if that makes sense?)? Idk, I'm kinda new to forex and I just want to find a proper broker that I can use in the future without crossing any legal issues. Thanks
Since I angered some Chads on /r/investing here's why I think China is the next "big short".
Fellow idiots, I posted this comment which seems to have angered the highly sophisticated /investing community. I don't mind being downvoted but at least provide some counter arguments if you're going to be a dick. So in the pursuit of truth and tendies for all, I have prepared some juicy due diligence (DD) for WSB Capital on why China is on the verge of collapse. TL;DR at the bottom. Point 1: Defaults in China have been accelerating aggressively, and through July 2019, 274 real estate developers filed for bankruptcy, up 50% over last year. A bonus? Many Chinese state controlled banks have been filing for bankruptcy as well. Just google "china bank defaults" or something similar. Notice how many articles there are from 2019? When the banking system fails, everything else usually fails too. Point 2:The RMB has depreciated significantly. Last time this happened, in 2015-2016, there was a significant outflow of foreign invested capital. According to the IIF, outflows reached $725bn due to the currency depreciation.. This time is different why again? I have heard some arguments why there will be less outflow this time, but I struggle to buy them. Point 3: Despite wanting to operate like a developed economy, China still has not been able to shrug off the middle income trap. Their GDP per capita is comparable to countries we normally associated with being developing/emerging markets. Tangentially related to point 10. Point 4: China is an export-dependent economy, with about 20% of their exports contributing towards their GDP. Less exporting means less GDP, less consumption (because businesses make less money, they pay people less, who in turn spend less), which has a greater effect on GDP than any declines in exports would have at face value. Guess what? Chinese exports dropped 1% in August, and August imports dropped -1%, marking the 5th month this year of negative m/m export growth.. Point 5: Business confidence has been weak in China - declining at a sustained pace worse than in 2015. When businesses feel worse, they spend less, invest less in fixed assets, hire less until they feel better about the future. Which takes me to my next point. Point 6:Fixed asset investment in China has declined 30 percentage points since 2010. While rates are low, confidence is also low, and they are sitting on a record amount of leverage, which means they simply will not be able to afford additional investment. Point 7: They are an extremely levered economy with a total debt to GDP ratio of over 300%, per the IIF, which also accounts for roughly 15% of global total fucking debt. Here's an interview with someone else talking about it too. Point 8: Their central bank recently introduced a metric fuckton of stimulus into their economy. This will encourage more borrowing....add fuel to the fire. Moreover, the stimulus will mechanically likely weaken the RMB even more, which could lead to even more foreign outflows, which are already happening, see next point. Point 9: Fucking LOTS of outflows this year. As of MAY, according to this joint statement, around 40% of US companies are relocating some portion of their supply chains away from mainland. This was in May. Since May, we have seen even more tariffs imposed, why WOULD companies want to stay when exporting to the US is a lot more expensive now? Point 10: Ignoring ALL of the points above, we are in a global synchronized slowdown, with many emerging market central banks cutting rates - by the most in a decade. Investors want safety, and safe-haven denominated assets are where we have seen a lot of flocking into recently. Things that can be considered safe-havens have good liquidity, a relatively stable economy, and a predictable political environment. Would love to hear opposing thoughts if you think China is a good buy. I am not against China, nor any other country for that matter, but I am against losing money (yes, wrong sub etc.), and I can not rationalize why anyone would be putting in a bid. TL;DR: the bubble is right in front of your face, impending doom ahead, short everything, fuck /investing. Edit, since you 'tards keep asking me how to trade this, there are a few trades that come to mind:
US treasuries still have room to run (before the autists say that's not yolo enough you could trade OTM calls on UST-linked ETFs, US govvie futures for gainz)
Sell SPX companies with big supply chain exposure and heavy cost of capital, buy their competitors without these features.
Open up apparel factories in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, and sell to the US.
Buy soybeans assuming farmers get a bailout from US
I am sure there are plenty of China based ETFs which could be played, DYOR.
Short any US listed company with mainland China domicile. If shit REALLY hits the fan between US/China, there are levers that US Govt. can pull to fuck them.
While reasearching Epstein's known associates, an interesting individual stood out. Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Lady de Rothschild. No intention of this being a Rothschild Conspiracy. If your are uninterested to read the content below, scroll down to Comment to get my summary and take on this information. As always please Fact check this. (HJI) is a bi-partisan, transatlantic movement of business leaders, senior policy makers and academics focused on promoting a more Inclusive Capitalism. The HJI calls for international collaboration from businesses and other organizations to encourage the widest possible adoption of programs that improve capitalism as a driver of wellbeing for society. The HJI grew out of the Task Force project For Inclusive Capitalism, which sought solutions to the effects on society and business as a result of the global financial crisis of 2007 – 2008 and the dislocations caused by capitalism’s practice over the past 30 years. The Taskforce, which was co-chaired by Dominic Barton, Global Managing Director, McKinsey & Company, and Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, CEO, El Rothschild, published its inaugural paper Towards a More Inclusive Capitalism in May 2012. The report sets out three pathways for business action that lie at the heart of the HJI’s mandate:
Education for employment: addressing the gap between employer needs and employee skills
Nurture start-ups and SMEs: mentoring small businesses and improving access to credit for them
Reform management and governance for the long term: replacing today’s focus on short term performance
The HJI exists to highlight and support businesses and other organizations working to promote the broadest possible adoption of best practices in these and other areas related to Inclusive Capitalism. The HJI believes there is an urgent and compelling demand for business to act to address the greatest systemic issues facing capitalism today. The HJI also believes that business is best positioned to lead innovations in areas that need them the most.
Scoop Jackson was convinced that there's no place for partisanship in foreign and defense policy. He used to say, 'In matters of national security, the best politics is no politics.' His sense of bipartisanship was not only natural and complete; it was courageous. He wanted to be President, but I think he must have known that his outspoken ideas on the security of the Nation would deprive him of the chance to be his party's nominee in 1972 and '76. Still, he would not cut his convictions to fit the prevailing style. I'm deeply proud, as he would have been, to have Jackson Democrats serve in my administration. I'm proud that some of them have found a home here.
Jackson was known as a hawkish Democrat. He was often criticized for his support for the Vietnam War and his close ties to the defense industries of his state. His proposal of Fort Lawton as a site for an anti-ballistic missile system was strongly opposed by local residents, and Jackson was forced to modify his position on the location of the site several times, but continued to support ABM development. American Indian rights activists who protested Jackson's plan to give Fort Lawton to Seattle, instead of returning it to local tribes, staged a sit-in. In the eventual compromise, most of Fort Lawton became Discovery Park), with 20 acres (8.1 ha) leased to United Indians of All Tribes, who opened the Daybreak Star Cultural Center there in 1977. Opponents derided him as "the Senator from Boeing" and a "whore for Boeing" because of his consistent support for additional military spending on weapons systems and accusations of wrongful contributions from the company; in 1965, 80% of Boeing's contracts were military. Jackson and Magnuson's campaigning for an expensive government supersonic transport plane project eventually failed. After his death, critics pointed to Jackson's support for Japanese American internment camps during World War II as a reason to protest the placement of his bust at the University of Washington.Jackson was both an enthusiastic defender of the evacuation and a staunch proponent of the campaign to keep the Japanese-Americans from returning to the Pacific Coast after the war.
Jackson Papers controversy
Senator Jackson's documents were donated to the University of Washington shortly after his death in 1983, and have been archived there ever since.When the materials were donated in 1983, university staff removed all information considered classified at the time.Additional materials were added to the collection until 1995. At some point, library staff discovered a classified document in the collection and sent it to the government for declassification. In response, in the summer of 2004, a man who identified himself as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) called the University of Washington asking to inspect Senator Jackson's archived documents housed there. He found a document labelled as classified and showed this to a librarian. In February 2005, 22 years after Jackson's death, a five-person team including staff of the CIA, Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the Information Security Oversight Office came to library to review all of Jackson's papers to remove anything still considered classified, or reclassified since then. The Department of Energy found nothing of concern, but the CIA blanked lines in about 20 papers and pulled 8 documents out of collection. As of 2018, some files in the collection are available only to those regarded by the library as "serious researchers", who must first sign a release not to divulge some of the information contained in the files.
The Henry Jackson Society
The society was founded on 11 March 2005 by academics and students at Cambridge, including Brendan Simms, Alan Mendoza, Gideon Mailer, James Rogers and Matthew Jamison. It organises meetings with speakers in the House of Commons. The society claims that it advocates an interventionist) foreign-policy that promotes human rights and reduces suffering, by both non-military and military methods, when appropriate. In 2006, the society worked to raise the profile of the Ahwazi Arabs of Iran, who it claims are currently being oppressed by the Iranian government. After originating within the University of Cambridge, the organisation is now based in London. In April 2011 the entire staff of another London think-tank, the Centre for Social Cohesion (which has since been dissolved), joined the Henry Jackson Society. The organisation is a registered charity in England and Wales and earns financial backing from private donations and grant-making organisations which support its work. The income of the society increased significantly from 2009 to 2014, from £98,000 to £1.6 million per year. In 2017 Hannah Stuart, one of the society's Research Fellows, released Islamist Terrorism: Analysis of Offences and Attacks in the UK (1998–2015), which profiled every individual convicted under terrorism legislation in the UK between those dates with an Islamist connection.
Structure and projects
The Society has produced a breadth of research reports and papers. These have mostly focused on Islamist extremist activity in the UK, crackdowns on human rights and democracy elsewhere, and various facets of foreign policy and defence.Its current workstreams include:
Asia Studies Centre. This Centre seeks to provide "an in-depth understanding of the structural shifts, regional complexities and historic tensions that exist alongside the tremendous economic and social growth that traditionally characterise the 'rise of Asia'."Publications include a paper on the possible outcomes of the negotiations with North Korea,and the need to safeguard critical national infrastructure in the West from vulnerabilities which may be built in by China.
Global Britain Programme. Focuses on "the need for an open, confident and expansive British geostrategic policy in the twenty-first century – drawing on the United Kingdom’s unique strengths not only as an advocate for liberalism and national democracy, but also as a custodian of both the European and international orders." This centre has published papers on what the European Union 'owes' the United Kingdom, as well as advocated for increased military spending by NATO members.
Russia & Eurasia Studies Centre. Researches domestic and foreign policy issues in Russia and the former Soviet states. In 2018 the Conservative) MP Bob Seely published a paper through this Centre which sought to define 'Contemporary Russian Conflict', and in which he accused the government of Vladimir Putin of pursuing KGB-style tactics.
Centre for the New Middle East. Established following the Arab Spring, the Society describes this Centre as "dedicated to monitoring political, ideological, and military and security developments across the Middle East and providing informed assessments of their wide-ranging implications". The Centre has released reports highly critical of Iran.
Centre on Radicalisation & Terrorism. Focuses on the threat to the United Kingdom and elsewhere by Islamist terrorism. Reports have ranged from analyses of the UK charitable sector to the way in which criminals utilise the darknet.
Student Rights. Created in 2009 "as a reaction to increasing political extremism and marginalisation of vulnerable students on campus". This project has tracked what it describes as "extreme" speakers on British university campuses.
In September 2018, the Society announced the creation of a new Centre for Social and Political Risk. This Centre will "identify, diagnose and propose solutions to threats to governance in liberal Western democracies", focusing on social cohesion and integration; freedom of speech and political correctness; demographic change; and other issues.
The think tank has been described by the media as having right-wing and neoconservative leanings, though it positions itself as non-partisan.In 2014, Nafeez Ahmed, an executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, said that the Henry Jackson Society courts corporate, political power to advance a distinctly illiberal oil and gas agenda in the Middle East. In 2009 the society became the secretariat of two all-party parliamentary groups (APPGs), for Transatlantic and International Security, chaired by Gisela Stuart, and for Homeland Security, chaired by Bernard Jenkin. A transparency requirement upon non-profit organisations acting as secretariat at that time was that they must reveal, on request, any corporate donors who gave £5,000 or more to the organisation over the past year or cease acting as a secretariat organisation. In 2014, following a query, the society refused to disclose this information and resigned its position as secretariat of the APPGs concerned in order to comply with the Rules. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Kathryn Hudson, upheld a complaint against these APPGs on the grounds data had not been provided, but noted the society had already resigned its position and that the consequence of this non-provision therefore "appears to have taken effect" as the Rules intended. The case was therefore closed with no further action taken and the APPGs themselves dissolved with the dissolution of Parliament in March 2015. The APPG Rules were subsequently changed in March 2015 so that only those non-profit organisations providing services to APPGs of more than £12,500 in value needed to declare their corporate donors. In July 2014 the Henry Jackson Society was sued by Lady de Rothschild over funds of a "caring capitalism" summit. Lady de Rothschild claims that she has financed the summit and that HJS and its executive director Alan Mendoza are holding £137,000 of “surplus funds” from the conference that should be returned to the couple’s investment company EL Rothschild. Think tank discussions on the Middle East and Islam have led some media organisations to criticise a perceived anti-Muslim agenda. Marko Attila Hoare, a former senior member, cited related reasons for leaving the think tank and Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy was urged, in 2015, to sever his links with the society. According to the report published in 2015, "a right-wing politics is apparent not only in the ideas that the Henry Jackson Society promotes, but also emerges distinctly on examination of its funders." In 2017, the Henry Jackson Society was accused of running an anti-China propaganda campaign after the Japanese embassy gave them a monthly fee of 10,000 pounds.The campaign was said to be aimed at planting Japan's concerns about China in British newspapers. Co-founder Matthew Jamison wrote in 2017 that he was ashamed of his involvement, having never imagined the Henry Jackson Society "would become a far-right, deeply anti-Muslim racist [...] propaganda outfit to smear other cultures, religions and ethnic groups." "The HJS for many years has relentlessly demonised Muslims and Islam." In January 2019, Nikita Malik of the Henry Jackson Society provided The Daily Telegraph with information they claimed showed a Muslim scout leader was linked to Islamic extremists and Holocaust deniers.In January 2020 The Daily Telegraph issued a retraction and formal apology saying that: "the articles said that Ahammed Hussain had links to extremist Muslim Groups that promoted terrorism and anti-Semitism, and could have suggested that he supported those views and encouraged their dissemination. We now accept that this was wrong and that Mr Hussain has never supported or promoted terrorism, or been anti-Semitic.We acted in good faith on information received but we now accept that the article is defamatory of Mr Hussain and false, and apologise for the distress caused to him in publishing it. We have agreed to pay him damages and costs." The initial signatories of the statement of principles included:
This has been a rabbit hole and only half the story regarding Lady Forester. Then only link between Lady Forester and Jeffrey Epstein is In 1995, financier Lynn Forester discussed "Jeffrey Epstein and currency stabilization" with Clinton. Epstein, according to his own accounts, was heavily involved in the foreign exchange market and traded large amounts of currency in the unregulated forex market. I will post another story Lady Forester and the coalition for Inclusive Capitalism.
Hello, Just wanted to share some of my legitimate concerns around decentralised finance with the broader community. To be quite clear - I am a huge fan of Ethereum and DeFi and believe this could lead to the future of finance. However, I do worry if there is a circle jerk within the community that could lead to a lack of adoption in the coming months. I will try and keep this as short as possible. By all means, do understand I am coming from the pov of sharing constructive criticism and not dissing on the efforts of those building. If you are solving for these problems in particular, please ping me and I'd love to talk further with you
On-ramps The largest problem for much of the developing world is the fact that while DAI can without doubt give dollar exposure, acquiring them is quite a difficult task. In fact if DAI demand goes up substantially in a region, it could have premiums of upto 25% which makes it a bad on-ramp tool without necessary liquidity in place. (check Wazir X p2p USDT rates in India for context). This problem is not endemic to DAI alone but is applicable to stable tokens of all kinds. With regional regulations in nations like Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Phillipines, Malaysia and India not being clear on stable tokens in particular, it becomes an uphill task for developers to build on it. More importantly, it becomes less appealing for the average individual to use. Now typically this wouldnt matter if the point of DeFi was to be a niche project aimed at a small community. However, DeFi has the power to be the first mass market blockchain tool for the world. Consider it to be the "e-mail" or "napster" moment for blockchain based applications. IF we are to scale then on-ramps and off-ramps need to be solved for. This can happen only and if the community begins engaging with regional regulators and exchanges begin providing solutions. In an ideal world, acquiring stable tokens should be as easy as venmo'ing someone $10 dollar and receiving say $9.90 (1% fee) in Incento (incento.io seems interesting, not shilling but do check them out!)
Incumbent Efficiency In order for a system to scale past a certain point, the value add it brings needs to be considerably higher than the incumbent. Depending on the size of the remittance market, there exists multiple payments and wire transfer corridors set up by startups today to solve for quick transfers. In fact during times when a blockchain like those of Ethereum's or Bitcoin's are clogged - transferwise can prove to be a cheaper, better alternative than tokens. This is not to diss on the fact that decentralisation and immutability has a price attached to them, but for the average user today alternatives are far better than token based products. The challenge when it comes to scaling - especially towards L2 is whether products can be incrementally better than their incumbents in exchange for some trade offs (eg: relative centralisation in lightning for minimal fees and quicker confirmation). Today's DeFi apps have to make a call between being ideological and efficient because it seems there is a price attached to ideology and retail users aren't willing to pay that price.
Slippage Much props to Kyber and Uniswap for solving for this on most DeFi apps but there remains challenges in how settlements for defi instruments today happen. As the scale of volume on products like DyDx and Nuo increase and the expected accuracy at which trade settlements are anticipated to be limited to, there will come a point in time where traditional market-makers will have to enter the system. At $500 million the DeFi space's largest traders constantly reel from price slippages and a lack of liquidity. How can we scale to $10 billion or $1 trillion without the kind of liquidity that could instill confidence in large whales. In order to solve this, there will come a point in time where hedge funds and dark pool service providers from traditional markets begin targetting DeFi instruments. The community will likely see this as an all out assault on the principles DeFi has been built upon but to be honest, this will be a quintessential requirement for the space to grow. We are seeing an early variant of this already with the likes of Cred raising $50 million to re-issue as debt (yes, not entirely DeFi) or with MakerDAO having VC partners that come from traditional backgrounds. Even in the case of products like Dharma and compound, the market-makers are hedge funds. We will see a convergence of traditional market products and DeFi soon. That will be an exciting phase imo.
Product-Market Fit Debt is one of the oldest financial innovations in the markets. Quite literally. Some of the first ever tablets recorded debt obligations and as such have been quintessential to the growth of human civilisation. MakerDAO's proposition of issuing token backed debt is by all means revolutionary but in order to see true scale, DeFi has to grow beyond the individuals that can give assets as collateral. I reckon there will be a new layer of growth for DeFi soon that will be powered with open-data and AI. One where an individual's credit worthiness could be checked with the individual's permission on basis of on-chain tx activity and self sovereign identity. I also see a market for AI based lending rate predictions and forex management by central banks. Autonomous agents can realistically analyse tx's in and out of a country, account for macro-economic indicators and optimise internal lending rates and foreign currency reserves. Ofcourse it is too early for any of this to take place but within the next decade our markets will be far more (i) closer due to globalisation and (ii) automated due to improvements in AI. DeFi is all well and good but if we are going to beat the same old drums of economic instruments that were created thousands of years back, there may be no real value proposition here. LsDAI, rDAI, CDAI, DAI... are all interesting but the average user sees no value yet. Which makes me wonder if we are sitting around patting each other's back before we see something productive (a unicorn from the DeFi ecosystem perhaps?)
Scale 4.5 billion. That's the number of unbanked individuals that can be catered to with an L2 payments solution powered by Ethereum. Challenges? On-ramp, storage of private keys, user education and bloody hell - marketing and user education. Emphasis on the last 2 because I feel not much focus is given on it. We can no longer build and hope the markets come. We are in an era of Zombie startups where startups with north of $100 million+ valuations in Mcap, that raised north of $10million in 2017 from ICOs are sitting on ~1000 users a month. People think the alts blood seepage is done but it is likely that that bleeding wont stop until we find users. And when we do find users, we cant expect them to be using a gazillion tokens, each with weird token economics and even more complex functioning to be using them. Standardising of token interactions through wallets and interoperability will solve for these challenges but its time we asked what are the biggest problems DeFi can solve today? Here are some hints.. NFT based Income share agreements -Non collateralised debt for gig economy corporations that are registered as DAOs -DAO treasury management -Forex off-ramps for tourists (P2P) More on these later..
Get ready for the trading week of February 25th, 2019!
Hey what's happening wallstreetbets! Good morning and happy Saturday to all of you on this subreddit. I hope everyone made out pretty nicely in the market last week, and are ready for the new trading week ahead! :) Here is everything you need to know to get you ready for the trading week beginning February 25th, 2019.
Next week will be pivotal for markets with trade deadline, Powell, Trump-Kim and more - (Source)
The coming week could be one of the most pivotal for the Trump White House and the markets, depending on how President Donald Trump chooses to proceed with China trade tariffs. U.S.-China trade talks apparently have been making progress, and in a positive sign, sources said a possible meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping is being discussed for late March. Strategists expect some eventual deal to be reached, but first and foremost, the March 2 deadline on new tariffs looms at the end of the week. For now, it looks like the deadline could be extended. Trump, in fact, Friday reiterated that he could extend the deadline if progress is being made. He also said there was a very good chance a deal could be reached with China, and that he and Xi would make the big decisions. The week is packed with major events that could be market moving, including two days of economic testimony from Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. He appears before the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday, and then a House committee Wednesday for the semiannual testimony. Trump also heads to Vietnam for a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on Wednesday and Thursday, and U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May faces another Brexit vote in parliament. The markets are also closely watching U.S. economic data after a string of misses on manufacturing and consumer data rattled stocks in the past couple of weeks. The lack of government data during the 35-day government shutdown has made it more difficult than usual to get a handle on the economy, and some economists now see fourth-quarter and first-quarter growth running at just 2 percent or below. Fourth-quarter GDP, delayed because of the shutdown, is finally released on Thursday.
Though earnings season is winding down, quite a few earnings releases are expected, including from retailers Home Depot, Macy'sand Nordstrom. "To me, the biggest story next week for markets is China. Do they announce an agreement or do they at least extend the deadline? That's the one that has the most immediate market impact. The markets are pricing in good news on China next week," said Tom Block, Washington policy strategist at Fundstrat. There were some news reports that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on the Trump campaign and Russia would be provided to the attorney general next week, but a Justice Department official Friday afternoon said that was not true.Whether the Trump campaign was involved with Russia or not matters much less than whether the president himself was involved. "This is of course great for American political drama but as for the $4.3 trillion foreign exchange market or what does this mean for the value of corporate America, it's not a big deal unless there's a smoking gun, and people think Trump is going to get impeached," said Marc Chandler, chief market strategist at Bannockburn Global Forex. "Why this is important is it might paralyze other policy. … The only way it is a really big factor is if it's used as fodder to pursue further investigations that paralyze the administration like Watergate did." Chandler said while the geopolitical events in the coming week could add to tension, they could all remain unresolved. "We want some closure. Next week is not going to bring some closure. We're going to get extensions," said Chandler. The uncertainty around China trade has been impacting the economic data, and business leaders have called on the White House to end the tariffs on China. The farm belt has been hurt as China retaliated against U.S. products. Cowen analysts said the talks are nearing a "term sheet" between Chinese and U.S. trade negotiators. The memorandums are expected to touch on a half-dozen key areas, including forced technology transfers and cybertheft; intellectual property rights; opening up of Chinese financial services to U.S. companies; currency; agriculture, and nontariff barriers to trade. Those barriers include industrial subsidies, licensing procedures and other regulations. The talks are also expected to focus on a list of 10 goods and commodities that China will buy to help narrow the trade balance. That could include an additional $30 billion per year of U.S. farm products including soybeans, corn, and wheat, the Cowen analysts said. Fundstrat's Block said the president understands the political impact of continuing tariffs or raising them to 25 percent by March 2, as he has threatened.
Trade deadline, North Korea, Brexit
Trump has said the deadline could be extended. "The road to 270 electoral votes for Trump goes through the farm states of the Midwest. There's no road map for Trump to get 270 electoral votes if he doesn't carry all those Midwestern farm states," Block said. "China is very big for lots of reasons. …Trump's people have to figure out, at a minimum, how to extend the truce. … The biggest threat to those states is continued trade war with China focused on agricultural products exported from the U.S." Besides China and trade and the Mueller report, Trump plans to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Vietnam in the week ahead, and Trump has said it is not to be his last meeting with Kim. The U.S. and North Korea are expected to seek a common understanding of what is expected in denuclearization, and Trump is expected to push Kim to give up his nuclear ambitions. Block said it's unclear what will come of those talks. "Trump overstates what he does, but the world is a little safer with us talking with North Korea rather than saber rattling with North Korea. That seems to be Trump's approach. Regardless of what his thought process is, the net result is better than not doing it," said Block. Investors are also looking to Europe where the U.K. Parliament votes on a no-deal Brexit, which critics say would disrupt trade and commerce . Prime Minister Theresa May continues to push for Britain's exit from the European Union on March 29. On Wednesday, there will be a vote on an amendment that would give the House of Commons the power to block a no-exit deal if May has not secured the approval by Parliament for a revised Brexit deal by the middle of March. "They're trying to force her to give up the no deal exit. The EU is expecting a request for a 60-day extension," said Chandler.
As for U.S. data, reports on personal income and spending are coming on Friday and fourth-quarter GDP on Thursday. December's disappointing durable goods data showed slower business spending, so analysts are watching closely to see whether there was any improvement in consumer spending. "The U.S. growth slowdown is seen intensifying in the first quarter too. We forecast U.S. GDP growth at a modest 1.5% annual rate in Q1. Slowing global manufacturing activity, tighter financial conditions, sluggish business equipment spending, and lackluster federal government spending (due in part to the government shutdown in January) are all contributing to the weakest quarter for U.S. growth in two years," wrote Scott Anderson, chief economist at Bank of the West. Anderson expects fourth-quarter growth at 2.2 percent. He also said if uncertainties in the U.S. around China trade talks and the Brexit negotiations go away, there is a good chance U.S. economic growth will bounce back in the second quarter. "I should note this is our base case forecast, as none of the parties involved in the negotiations want to see the worst case outcomes realized. If for some reason either of the negotiations go seriously off-track, however, the 2019 U.S. and global economic outlook will become considerably bleaker," he wrote.
This past week saw the following moves in the S&P:
Pre-Election Year March: Small-Caps Perfect 10 for 10
Turbulent March markets tend to drive prices up early in the month and batter stocks at month end. Julius Caesar failed to heed the famous warning to “beware the Ides of March” but investors have been served well when they have. Stock prices have a propensity to decline, sometimes rather precipitously, during the latter days of the month. In March 2001, DJIA plunged 1469 points (-11.8%) from March 9 to the 22. Normally a decent performing market month, March performs even better in pre-election years (see Vital Statistics table below). In pre-election years March ranks: 4th best for DJIA, S&P 500, NASDAQ and Russell 1000 (January, April and December are better). Pre-election year March rank #3 for Russell 2000. Pre-election year March has been up 13 out of the last 14 for DJIA. In fact, since inception in 1979, the Russell 2000 has a perfect, 10-for-10 winning record.
What more can we say about the amazing rebound of the stock market since December 24? For the first time since 1997, the S&P 500 Index is up more than 10% for the year through this point in February. Of course, it was the worst December for stocks since the Great Depression—making a larger bounce possible—but the rebound over the past two months has been historic. That begs the question: What does it mean when stocks are overbought on many short-term levels? “Yes, stocks are quite extended near -term,” explained LPL Senior Market Strategist Ryan Detrick, “but historically, extended markets have tended to deliver continued outperformance over the next several months.” We can see this by looking at the number of stocks in the S&P 500 that are above their 50-day moving average and the subsequent performance of the index. That number recently cleared 90%, which was one of the highest readings ever. And after 90% of stocks in the S&P 500 go above their 50-day moving average, their 1-, 3-, and 6-month returns actually have shown continued strength. In fact, as the LPL Chart of the Day shows, three months after hitting that 90% mark, the S&P 500 has been higher 12 of the previous 13 times going back to 1990.
This tells us the easy part of the recent rally is over, and we do see reasons to expect some type of consolidation or well-deserved pullback at some point, but we still think the stage is potentially set for new highs later this year.
More Good News
As this week’s Weekly Market Commentary suggested, over the near term equities appear quite stretched, but overall we continue to think the bull market has plenty of life left. Today, we’ll take a look at market breadth—one of our favorite technical indicators—to explore whether it may be pointing to better times ahead for equities. Market breadth measures how many stocks are participating in the movement of broader indexes. One of the easiest ways to measure this is via advance/decline (A/D) lines on various exchanges. An A/D line is a ratio of how many stocks go up versus down each day. The thinking is, if gains are caused by increases in many stocks, then there are plenty of buyers and the upward trend should likely continue, all else equal. On the other hand, if an upward move in a broad market gauge is driven by relatively few stocks, this can be a warning sign of cracks in the bull’s armor. Today’s LPL Chart of the Day shows that the NYSE Common Stock Only A/D line has broken out to a new all-time high. “This is another clue to market participants that things are actually quite healthy under the surface. When advance/decline lines are breaking out to new highs, history tells us that stocks usually aren’t too far behind,” explained LPL Senior Market Strategist Ryan Detrick.
One aspect of the rally in stocks this year that we can’t stress enough is how strong breadth has been. Besides the fact that the equal-weighted S&P 500 is outperforming the market cap weighted index by close to three percentage points YTD, the vast majority of S&P 500 Industry Groups are also either right at or very close to YTD highs. The table below lists S&P 500 Industry Groups that, along with the S&P 500, hit YTD highs so far today. Of the 60 Industry Groups, 26 hit YTD highs today and five of them are already up 20% YTD!
In addition to the 26 Industry Groups above, another 16 Industry Groups traded within 1% of a YTD high today and three of those are also up over 20% YTD. Adding both lists together, 70% of S&P 500 Industry Groups either traded at or came within 1% of hitting a YTD high this morning. That’s broad!
Square, Inc. (SQ) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 4:05 PM ET on Wednesday, February 27, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $0.13 per share on revenue of $908.21 million and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $0.16 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 80% expecting an earnings beat The company's guidance was for earnings of $0.12 to $0.13 per share on revenue of $895.00 million to $905.00 million. Consensus estimates are for year-over-year earnings growth of 62.50% with revenue increasing by 47.43%. Short interest has increased by 8.9% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted lower by 4.2% from its open following the earnings release to be 8.3% above its 200 day moving average of $70.25. Overall earnings estimates have been revised lower since the company's last earnings release. On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 there was some notable buying of 5,812 contracts of the $75.00 put and 5,392 contracts of the $75.00 call expiring on Thursday, April 18, 2019. Option traders are pricing in a 8.4% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 4.5% move in recent quarters.
Home Depot, Inc. (HD) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 6:00 AM ET on Tuesday, February 26, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $2.16 per share on revenue of $26.56 billion and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $2.21 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 76% expecting an earnings beat. Consensus estimates are for year-over-year earnings growth of 27.81% with revenue increasing by 11.21%. Short interest has decreased by 13.1% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted higher by 8.5% from its open following the earnings release to be 2.2% above its 200 day moving average of $188.29. Overall earnings estimates have been revised lower since the company's last earnings release. On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 there was some notable buying of 11,051 contracts of the $165.00 put expiring on Friday, March 15, 2019. Option traders are pricing in a 3.6% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 1.1% move in recent quarters.
Chesapeake Energy Corp. (CHK) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 7:00 AM ET on Wednesday, February 27, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $0.17 per share on revenue of $1.04 billion and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $0.20 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 71% expecting an earnings beat. Consensus estimates are for earnings to decline year-over-year by 43.33% with revenue decreasing by 58.71%. Short interest has increased by 117.9% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted lower by 22.2% from its open following the earnings release to be 33.4% below its 200 day moving average of $3.91. Overall earnings estimates have been revised lower since the company's last earnings release. On Friday, January 11, 2019 there was some notable buying of 5,346 contracts of the $7.00 call expiring on Friday, January 15, 2021. Option traders are pricing in a 14.4% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 8.6% move in recent quarters.
Etsy, Inc. (ETSY) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 4:05 PM ET on Monday, February 25, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $0.26 per share on revenue of $194.88 million and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $0.28 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 75% expecting an earnings beat. Consensus estimates are for year-over-year earnings growth of 73.33% with revenue increasing by 43.01%. Short interest has increased by 2.6% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted higher by 22.6% from its open following the earnings release to be 25.1% above its 200 day moving average of $45.29. Overall earnings estimates have been revised higher since the company's last earnings release. On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 there was some notable buying of 2,590 contracts of the $55.00 put expiring on Friday, March 15, 2019. Option traders are pricing in a 11.6% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 10.9% move in recent quarters.
JD.com, Inc. (JD) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 5:25 AM ET on Thursday, February 28, 2019. The consensus estimate is for a loss of $0.04 per share on revenue of $19.15 billion and the Earnings Whisper ® number is ($0.02) per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 60% expecting an earnings beat. Consensus estiamtes are for year-over-year revenue growth of 13.10%. Short interest has increased by 25.4% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted higher by 15.6% from its open following the earnings release to be 9.9% below its 200 day moving average of $28.80. Overall earnings estimates have been revised lower since the company's last earnings release. On Friday, February 15, 2019 there was some notable buying of 17,853 contracts of the $30.00 call expiring on Thursday, April 18, 2019. Option traders are pricing in a 7.9% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 4.4% move in recent quarters.
Macy's, Inc. (M) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 8:00 AM ET on Tuesday, February 26, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $2.65 per share on revenue of $8.46 billion and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $2.60 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 28% expecting an earnings beat. Consensus estimates are for earnings to decline year-over-year by 6.03% with revenue decreasing by 2.38%. Short interest has decreased by 12.4% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted lower by 31.6% from its open following the earnings release to be 28.4% below its 200 day moving average of $33.59. Overall earnings estimates have been revised lower since the company's last earnings release. On Friday, February 22, 2019 there was some notable buying of 3,804 contracts of the $24.50 call expiring on Friday, March 1, 2019. Option traders are pricing in a 10.0% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 9.8% move in recent quarters.
McDermott International Inc. (MDR) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 7:30 AM ET on Monday, February 25, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $0.21 per share on revenue of $2.70 billion and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $0.18 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 62% expecting an earnings beat. Consensus estimates are for year-over-year earnings growth of 110.00% with revenue increasing by 275.99%. Short interest has increased by 9.7% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted lower by 15.0% from its open following the earnings release to be 48.2% below its 200 day moving average of $14.94. Overall earnings estimates have been revised lower since the company's last earnings release. On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 there was some notable buying of 22,689 contracts of the $8.00 call expiring on Friday, May 17, 2019. Option traders are pricing in a 17.4% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 25.9% move in recent quarters.
PG&E Corp. (PCG) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 8:45 AM ET on Thursday, February 28, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $0.62 per share on revenue of $4.29 billion. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 18% expecting an earnings beat. Consensus estimates are for earnings to decline year-over-year by 1.59% with revenue increasing by 4.63%. Short interest has increased by 122.1% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted lower by 60.9% from its open following the earnings release to be 47.6% below its 200 day moving average of $35.85. Overall earnings estimates have been revised lower since the company's last earnings release. On Thursday, January 24, 2019 there was some notable buying of 10,702 contracts of the $20.00 call expiring on Friday, January 17, 2020. Option traders are pricing in a 11.5% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 2.1% move in recent quarters.
Fitbit, Inc. (FIT) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 4:05 PM ET on Wednesday, February 27, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $0.07 per share on revenue of $567.68 million and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $0.08 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 80% expecting an earnings beat The company's guidance was for earnings of at least $0.07 per share on revenue of at least $560.00 million. Consensus estimates are for year-over-year earnings growth of 200.00% with revenue decreasing by 0.54%. Short interest has decreased by 27.1% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted higher by 22.3% from its open following the earnings release to be 9.2% above its 200 day moving average of $6.13. Overall earnings estimates have been revised higher since the company's last earnings release. On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 there was some notable buying of 6,274 contracts of the $6.50 call expiring on Friday, March 1, 2019. Option traders are pricing in a 14.7% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 13.0% move in recent quarters.
Amarin Corporation plc (AMRN) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 5:00 AM ET on Wednesday, February 27, 2019. The consensus estimate is for a loss of $0.08 per share on revenue of $74.45 million and the Earnings Whisper ® number is ($0.08) per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 71% expecting an earnings beat. Consensus estimates are for earnings to decline year-over-year by 0.00% with revenue increasing by 38.21%. Short interest has increased by 15.4% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted lower by 4.8% from its open following the earnings release to be 89.6% above its 200 day moving average of $10.48. Overall earnings estimates have been revised lower since the company's last earnings release. On Friday, February 22, 2019 there was some notable buying of 35,406 contracts of the $20.00 call expiring on Thursday, April 18, 2019. Option traders are pricing in a 17.3% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 4.6% move in recent quarters.
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.
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
Find a country with resources you want.
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
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.” TheWall 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 whomless than 20 percentof 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 LondonDaily 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 PresidentJoe 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 nowwell 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.
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.
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
New Cold War with drastically reduced economic ties
China resolve their tensions, integrate and run the world together
Transactional US-China relationship of the sort during the 1980s
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
Other countries like Japan and South Korea to dependent on China. Too integrated.
Raise objections to Belt and Road. But no alternative
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.
Commitment Regarding Industrial Policy
Provisions to protect IP
Mechanism which complaints by US companies can be addressed
Bilateral meetings adjudicate disputes. If talks don't produce agreement than US can raise tariffs unilaterally
China uses joint venture requirements, foreign investment restrictions, and administrative review and licensing processes to require or pressure technology transfer from U.S. companies.
China deprives U.S. companies of the ability to set market-based terms in licensing and other technology-related negotiations.
China directs and unfairly facilitates the systematic investment in, and acquisition of, U.S. companies and assets to generate large-scale technology transfer.
China conducts and supports cyber intrusions into U.S. commercial computer networks to gain unauthorized access to commercially valuable business information.
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.
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.
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.
China has joined a multitude of international bodies, and at least in trade, these bodies haven't changed its behavior.
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.
China hasn't dealt with issues like IP protection, market access, subsidies to state own companies and state funded industrial spying.
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.
China uses joint venture requirements, foreign investment restrictions, and administrative review and licensing processes to require or pressure technology transfer from U.S. companies.
China deprives U.S. companies of the ability to set market-based terms in licensing and other technology-related negotiations.
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.
Yes, I know there's a lot of lists out there but they all seem a bit .. commercial. Not real.. I'm a traveller of almost 8 yrs. Getting tired of moving around so much. Been trading stocks to fund my travels. Currently looking into forex for a more comfortable way to travel. So far Vietnam has been the best place for good reliable internet and good value for accommodations, not to mention an interesting place to explore when I get bored. Any other digital nomads out there? What's your favorite country for resting and working? Lviv, Ukraine was also nice except for the neo nazi white supremacists and ironically turkish sex tourists. Bali was great but terrible internet disqualified it for me. Thailand was great but too many trashy sex tourists. Looking for something a bit cleaner (tourists wise) Currently in Mexico where u get 6 month tourist visa and good internet. Great food. Interesting culture. Considering Argentina for my next stop but it's much more expensive.
The Ultimate Blockchain Trading Platform A place to buy, exchange and trade blockchain-based tokens and a wide range of digital assets in Vietnam and the rest of the world. Since 2006 when we first joined the Forex market, we have been researching and developing a number of Forex automated trading systems. In 2009, we deployed a real-time data application system to handle penny auction transactions and system order matching, and eventually to operate the trading platform for our foreign partners. Customers Come First Bcnex will continue to mature and improve to give its users the best trading experience possible. That is the core principle of our business philosophy. BCNEX is an exchange platform that offers complete services for users based on Blockchain technology. Through this platform, users can purchase, exchange, and trade blockchain based tokens and a variety of digital assets. It is a highly secure and stable, customer-centered trading platform built on micro service architecture that meets the most stringent customer requirements. BCNEX is supported by experienced and professional people in their fields. The BCNEX team has developed and managed a world-class financial system on the Forex market as well as a real-time data application system. This team has deep understanding and experience in building and operating such a system. BCNEX is designed to trade fast, accurate and low latency with flexible scalability that can handle up to 2,000,000 orders per second. It operates with its own original cryptocurrency, a BCNX token built on the Ethereum block chain, which will be used to trade, buy and sell other cryptocurrency, cover transaction costs and receive incentives up to 75%. Bcnex is a diverse platform for investors and traders. Designed to bring credibility and experience to the digital asset market, the aim is to legitimize the industry as a whole and make the mainstream of cryptocurrency trading. Bcnex generates income by taking a small amount of all orders executed. BCNEX busnis model based on:
Bcnex will charge a fixed fee of 0.15% per transaction. Transaction fee adjustments will be introduced later, including 0% transaction fees, user multitier programs based on the number of user trades, and special incentive programs for Market Makers.
Bcnex will charge a small fee for withdrawals (only applies to certain coins or tokens).
Bcnex will choose breakthrough coins or other leading tokens to be included in the previous changes.
The usual margin is imposed if the user conducts margin trading.
Fees for making coins or tokens. Bcnex will choose breakthrough coins or other leading tokens to be included in the previous changes.
Other costs. Other costs that the platform can collect on services such as manual transaction fees.
Token Generation Event BCNEX is launching a fundraising program, which aims to help finance platform development and marketing so that the BCNEX team can focus on simplifying the trade in cryptocurrencies and making them mainstream. The goal of BCNEX is to create blockchain-based exchanges that are accessible and affordable for all users to increase the benefits of crypto trading. Contributors will receive the full amount of tokens within 2 weeks after the end of the token sale event. Tokens allocated to the development team will be vested for 4 years, at 25% per year.
BCNX tokens shall be distributed as follows:
Public token sale
Founders and advisors team
Bounty and incentives
For fundraising, BCNEX is implementing TGE program to sell BCNX tokens, this is the main token as a tool to get services offered by the platform. BCNEX has released its own token called BCNX Token, symbolized as BCNX. The total supply of BCNX coins will be limited to 200,000,000 (two hundred million) and new coins will not be released in the future. Following are the details of the BCNEX TGE platform:
Token Name = BCNX token
Symbol = BCNX
Type of Token = ERC223
Total Supply = 200,000,000
Public Sales = 100,000,000
Price Tokens From = $ 0.15 to $ 0.45
Additional Token = No
Currency Received = ETH, BTC, USDT, BCN
Soft Cap = $ 2,000,000
Hard Cap = $ 15,000,000 (or sold tokens)
Token distribution = 15 days after the end of TGE
Friends, contact me for more information. My Account BCT : Bloody_revenge
https://preview.redd.it/bjix9mvdw2m31.png?width=864&format=png&auto=webp&s=0c7b463f7bcf30dfe1bff31aa70b33ca6e002e8f Article by Forbes: Joresa Blount In 2018, Asia was one of the leading regions in terms of growth of blockchain jobs, cryptocurrency usage, innovation, and general openness. Despite some early woes with China banning ICOs, China still produces nearly 70% of crypto mining activity. For users and entrepreneurs, the Asian ecosystem is in general a friendly one. For example, in Singapore Bitcoin is taxed as a good rather than a currency, setting a 7% flat tax for trades or purchases using Bitcoin. In Japan, messenger giant, LINE, was just granted a crypto exchange license from the Japanese financial regulator. In Korea, news just broke that the country’s largest entertainment company would be launching its own token. Besides the name brand companies that are exploring crypto solutions, there are hundreds of innovative startups and founders looking to radically disrupt their respective industries with blockchain technology. This list contains ten innovative blockchain startups based in Asia worth watching, including exchanges, fintech startups, and more. Today In: Innovation 1. Level01 Level01 is the world’s first broker less derivatives exchange in collaboration with Thomson Reuters. Through using blockchain technology, the platform eliminates middlemen while providing a decentralized trading experience. Users can trade derivatives and options in forex, cryptocurrencies, commodities, stocks and indices, all from the Level01 platform and app. Level01 does this by using Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) for transparent and automated trade settlement on the blockchain, with their unique Artificial Intelligence (AI) analytics called Fairsense that provides fair value pricing dynamically to counterparties in a trade, based on current and retrospective market data from Thomson Reuters. The platform and app are currently undergoing stringent beta testing by 50 experienced traders. 2. Galaxy Pool Galaxy Pool, also known as GPO, is a brand-new asset issuance style on blockchain that utilizes intelligent contracts for initial digital asset issuance. In general, GPO assets can be best described as mining machines used to explore various kinds of digital assets that can obtain value-added benefits of GPO through the repurchase and destruction of pond profits. With this brand-new asset issuance style on blockchain, more humanistic investment opportunities with free withdrawal rights can be provided to investors. 3. Biki Headquartered in Singapore, BiKi.com is a global cryptocurrency exchange ranked Top 20 on CoinMarketCap. BiKi.com provides a digital assets platform for trading more than 150 cryptocurrencies and 220 trading pairs. Since its official opening in August 2018, BiKi.com is considered one of the fastest-growing cryptocurrency exchanges in the world with an accumulated 1.5 million registered users, 130,000 daily active users, over 2000 community partners and 200,000 community members in under a year. BiKi’s competitive advantages include helping projects with marketing, influencers, brand awareness, and community growth in the Chinese markets and abroad. With a global approach, BiKi also helps Chinese companies go global and international companies penetrate Chinese markets. 4. Whitebit With a global team of over 100 people, Whitebit is a professional digital asset trading platform that services most major Asian markets via a European license. The exchange holds 95% of user funds in cold wallets and offers users an intuitive user interface with real-time orderbooks, charting and technical analysis tools, and automation features. Whitebit’s major competitive advantage is processing speeds of up to 10,000 trades every second and 1,000,000 TCP connections. Whitebit has also announced the release of S.M.A.R.T. Box, a program that allows users to budget and allocate funds based on unique plans with varying durations and interest rates. Next is the launch of margin trading in Q4 2020, as well as mobile iOS and Android apps and an eventual US license. 5. Opu Labs Opu Labs is creating the self-care business model of the future starting with the skincare space. There are over 1.2 billion online skincare consumers with a $3 billion digital services business. Opu Labs helps make the decision-making process easier by offering free advice powered by AI, rewarding users for their purchase data using blockchain technology, and using robust technologies to connect brands and consumers. Under the leadership of CEO Marc Bookman, Opu Labs was named in the top 25 healthcare solutions by CIO Applications and won the start-up GrandSlam in Singapore. To date, $2m in rewards have been earned on the platform and the company will be releasing their long-awaited apps soon. 6. Coinsbit.io Thanks to his vast expertise, experience, and sense of the market, Nikolay Udianskyi created a high-quality crypto exchange called Coinsbit.io. Now leading the Asian crypto market, Coinsbit was named the best 2018 crypto exchange at Asian Blockchain Life 2019. Coinsbit is planning to further distinguish itself from the competition through a series of novel functions. Among its plans is a P2P microfinancing lending service that will enable users to borrow and lend money on the platform. Coinsbit will ensure privacy for all users and will not require borrowers to show their credit history. An additional planned feature is an invest box service, which will reward users who deposit cryptocurrency by paying them interest on various coins. 7. GST Coin GST is a comprehensive digital application platform which integrates encrypted payment currency, blockchain and artificial intelligence technology. It is dedicated to providing the most valuable intelligent digital asset service for every user and creating a new GST digital public chain in a diversified market structure. GST project is committed to using the most advanced technology to create the most perfect user experience, and it has always been in the forefront of the market in the decentralized security sharing architecture. GST was born out of MHC Asset Management Corporation, a high-tech enterprise engaged in R&D and innovation of blockchain technology. Their executive team includes CEO Ms. Zhang Qun and other leading technologists and entrepreneurs in China. 8. Columbu Columbu (CAT) is a global community-based open-source blockchain project that has been active since 2017. Under CTO David Su, CAT’s main focus is building a high-performance DAPP development platform and community encouraging and autonomous system based on software and hardware combined GCloud Everest computing platform. This is the world’s first public blockchain (distributed cloud) using CUDA and blockchain technology. The project will allow for a worldwide distributed and free economic collaborative network of intelligent economies. This will happen through a community incentive mechanism and autonomous system to build in real-time. The project has an ambitious roadmap that will include growing its global developer community and other projects within their ecosystem. 9. KBC Registered in Singapore, KBC is the powering token of a global financial infrastructure and range of products focused around gold. These products include an innovative Voice-over-Blockchain smartphone called IMpulse K1, a crypto payment merchant processor called K-Merchant, and a cryptocurrency exchange and trading platform. Together these products and entities combine to form the Gold Imperium, the company’s financial ecosystem. The company has attracted heavy interest from users who have seen the benefits of having both gold and cryptocurrency exposure, as well as the ease of use of being able to use each day to day through tokens such as KBC. As both markets expand, keep an eye on KBC. 10. TEXCENT TEXCENT is a Singaporean blockchain and fintech startup focused on fully-integrated solutions for remittance, payments, and microfinancing. Using blockchain technology, the company wants to provide seamless and convenient digital financial services solutions to Asia and the world. TEXCENT is currently focusing on the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand as these markets will grow exponentially in the next 5 years. Their current products include PAYCENT, an app and hybrid wallet, as well as TEXCENT, a remittance solution with zero fees. TEXCENT has already acquired a remittance license from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and is in the process of getting similar licenses for UK, Malaysia and Hong Kong in the coming months. The company is also a member of the Singapore Fintech Association.
It feels like just days, not a month since I last published my April updates. At TomoChain changes come fast and furious. Before you know it, the TomoChain team has taken the project yet to a much further step forward. Before another report for the exciting passed month, let’s take a moment to celebrate TomoChain’s OFFICIAL LISTING ON BITFOREX 👏👏👏 Trading pairs TOMO/#ETH & TOMO/#BTC, deposits and withdrawals are now all available! We could not make it here without all of your support and patience, thank you TomoSapiens! Now have a sip of coffee and enjoy browsing through TomoChain’s growing progress: 1.Update on TomoChain Dappathon 2019: for the sake of developers, round 2 and 3 will now be merged into one and the deadline is moved to 22 of June. This means more time for careful building of Dapps. We’re very excited and are looking forward to high-quality submissions. 2. TomoChain events in May, 2019
TomoChain presented at Vietnam Private Sector Economic Forum 2019 among top 50 Vietnam enterprises with 5000+ delegates, 500+ experts, CEOs and CIOs
Blockchain over Beer, another meetup for crypto enthusiasts, was co-hosted by TomoChain and Angel Hack in both poles of Vietnam
TomoChain’s governance Dapp - TomoMaster was acknowledged as Top Finance Dapps on Dapp.com in terms of 7-days active members!
BitForex Trading Competition is coming! Thousands of $TOMO are waiting to be rewarded. Stay tuned!
Monthly AMA series with TomoChain team - just ask it.
More TomoChain's products will be introduced. We will keep you posted!
Join our telegram channel to make sure you are not left behind TomoChain’s fast pace forward https://t.me/tomochain. Embrace yourself for more news coming from TomoChain this June! Keep calm and keep staking 💪🏻TomoChain events in May, 2019
3. Consider the Cost of Trading. Most of Vietnam’s forex brokers do not charge fees and commission. Instead, they base their charges on what is known as spreads. The spread is the difference ... rankings. cotizaciones. crowdfunding Forex Trading Example in Vietnam. Here’s an example of how a forex trade in Vietnam could work. Let’s say the Vietnamese dong is trading at 0.00210/0.00230. You want to buy 500,000 dong and ... Despite the challenges in forex trading Vietnam, there are still a number of individuals and organizations that engage in forex trading Vietnam. There is also a wide operation of many underground exchange floors in the country. The strict implementation of the law is pushed by the government due to the high risk of the fluctuating and unpredictable market of forex trading. It is also because ... For both beginner and expert Forex traders in Vietnam, the trading software is vital. The core purpose of this software is to analyze all the pre-set parameters of your trading and stock exchange options for you. The purpose of this evaluation is to help Vietnamese make enlightened financial decisions based on all the currencies that have the potential to win you back profits. Most importantly ... Vietnam has already started to mark their names in the Forex world. But FOREX TRADING IN VIETNAM is far more challenging than the other countries in the world. There are no specific and particular regulations on the activities related to business through the Forex trading platforms. Some local organizations and individual traders engage in ... How to Trade in Vietnam. Although online forex trading in Vietnam may not be strictly legal, you may still be able to find a foreign broker that will accept you as a client if you live there. Some brokers still maintain versions of their websites in Vietnamese or Ti ế ng Vi ệ t, so that suggests they may be open to taking clients based in Vietnam. Remember that any broker worth trading ... Forex Telegram Bot mang đến cơ hội nâng cao hiệu quả giao dịch trên thị trường ngoại hối. Sử dụng Telegram Bot, nhà đầu tư có thêm một công cụ để xử lý dữ liệu tức thời và đưa ra quyết định giao dịch nhanh nhất có thể. Trading with an offshore forex broker in Vietnam To trade safely and successfully in Vietnam, you’ll first need to register with an offshore forex broker. Whilst being able to trade with international brands gives you a wealth of forex brokers to choose from, it’s important to remember that they were not all created equally. However, Forex Vietnam is attracting the attention of many speculative investors. To learn more about the growing popularity of online Forex trading in Vietnam, keep reading. A Closer Look at Forex. Forex is a melting pot of foreign currencies and exchanges. A person or entity may need to exchange currencies for a variety of reasons.
FOREX TRADING MASTERCLASS: Cách Tồn tại và Kiếm lợi nhuận Ngay từ Đầu là khóa học forex duy nhất dạy các nhà đầu tư không thích rủi ro và các nhà giao dịch c... Forex Traders - Việt Nam hoạt động với mục đích chia sẽ kiến thức Forex hoàn toàn Miễn Phí đến cộng đồng Trader Việt Nam Tập trung vào phương pháp Price Acti... ĐỌC BIỂU ĐỒ BẰNG PHƯƠNG PHÁP PRICE ACTION - Minh Lâm ----- Sàn Forex uy tín hiện nay: Exness: https://bit.ly/Exnessvn ( nạp rút siêu n... Minh Lâm - Forex Trader 25,054 views 32:48 Kinh nghiệm, kiến thức, kỹ năng và bí quyết đầu tư trong mùa Corona - Thị trường giảm là cơ hội - Duration: 51:47. Live Day Trading in Vietnam - How to make money by day trading stocks for $6,000. Meir Barak day trading live on April 23rd. 2017. Helpful links: Watch all c... 🗓 NOVEMBER 9, 2019 🇻🇳 Vietnam Windsor Plaza Hotel, Ho Chi Minh City ️ 9:30 – 18:00 Traders Fair & Crypto Expo and entertainment (FREE admission, just regi... This playlist contains my Forex trading vlogs as I was traveling in Vietnam. It's all about trading foreign exchange while traveling! But this was one of my ...