Tax Advantages for FOREX Traders Finance - Zacks

I'm a 30 year old Teacher with 8k savings, I'm looking to invest some of it somewhere, and start a new career. Teaching is fun but it's draining and doesn't pay enough.

Hi everyone! I have low-income, 35k-50k depending on if I work 2 jobs. My expenses are less than 1k a month, I don't pay rent yet, I have a 750 credit, low utilization on credit cards, no 401k or IRA. I have some precious gemstones and pokemon cards as assets lol Some people were saying learning day trading can be good long term, or getting into wholesaling real estate. I don't know though. I live in the North-east of USA. I can maybe move down south where my money might stretch more. I'd be nice to turn 5k into 10k through investments and find a new job that pays more than 60k so I have more buffer money but I'm not sure if that's possible. It took me so long to save this little bit amount and don't want to lose it
I appreciate any advice or opinions
Thanks all for responding. I will definitely implement the advice given! Sorry for the lack of details in the post, my first time posting here. I'm not a traditional teacher. I'm a Bachelors's level ABA Therapist, I work with people who have autism and it pays 35k before taxes. I'm also a live-in aid to an adult who has autism (hence no rent) that pays 12k after taxes. I haven't worked as an ABA Therapist for a year because I was learning Digital Marketing. I ended up not liking it. I live in NJ, very close to NY. I will go back to get an ABA Job soon so I can save. My cousin flips properties in NJ and Florida so he's the one who told me about wholesaling real estate. He just started day trading Forex and said he's made money on some trades. That's where I got that idea from. I have a Robinhood account with 100 in there that jumped to 119, and I have 300 in bitcoin that I haven't checked in a while. For reference, The little financial advice I've got is from my dad who grew up dirt poor. He's not poor anymore from working hard and saving but he's not much of a sharer. I used to track my monthly spending and I have an excel sheet with my checking, saving, bill dates, and monthly and yearly slots to add numbers and see how the numbers change. But yeah I don't know much and I want to learn...I guess also worth noting I've made a lot of unwise impulse purchases. Vacations, clothes, video games, events, restaurants, shoes, books, alcohol, electronics.
submitted by spacedragonn to povertyfinance [link] [comments]

Dollar is following its heart. Forecast as of 06.11.2020

Dollar is following its heart. Forecast as of 06.11.2020

Weekly US dollar fundamental analysis

Markets are just like people. They follow their hearts from time to time and forget about common sense. Investors like the idea of the division in the Congress and the Democratic president. In this scenario, the risks of tax hikes and high tech companies' strict regulation are much lower. This fact supports the stock indexes. The S&P 500 has been up by 1% and more during four consecutive trading sessions, which has been for the first time since 1982. In percentage terms, those days have been the best since early April. Markets consider Joe Biden to be a better president than Donald Trump, which allowed the yuan to gain back more than 50% of the losses faced during trade wars. The EURUSD tested the resistance at 1.186-1.187.
The growing chance of Biden’s victory encourages investors to spend the cash, which they have been accumulating ahead of the US presidential election. They are buying stocks and bonds. However, traders forget about other factors, such as the pandemic, uncertainty around the new fiscal stimulus, and Donald Trump’s willingness to reject the voting results. It looks like an attempt to give out desirable for valid. According to TD securities, there should not be any concerns about challenging the voting results, which has pushed the risky assets up and weakened the US dollar. DZ Bank believes that the greenback is falling because the voting results were reported earlier than some had expected. I do not think the above arguments to be strong.
I suppose traders are following their hearts. They invest the capitals in the securities as they worry not to miss the uptrend, which sends the S&P 500 up, fuels global risk appetite, and weakens the US dollar against a basket of currencies.

Dynamics of world's currencies versus the US dollar


Source: Financial Times
How long can it be going on? It depends. People in love are passionate during different periods. However, common sense should win sooner or later. The USA performs better than the euro area at the current stage of the economic cycle. The Fed is not willing to boost the monetary stimulus while the ECB tends to increase the current QE pace. According to Bloomberg’s leading indicators, the largest euro-area economies face a deeper drawdown in the PMIs because of the new lockdowns. The euro-area bond yields fall, which signals that the markets expect the ECB to take active measures in December.

Recovery of the world’s economies


Source: Bloomberg

Yields on the euro-area bonds


Source: Wall Street Journal

Weekly EURUSD trading plan

Let us be sensible during times of euphoria. Although the EURUSD has rebounded from the resistance at 1.186, the shorts entered in the zone seem vulnerable. It will be relevant to hold down the shorts if the pair goes below the support at 1.179. The S&P 500 rally could push the euro up above $1.188. The EURUSD medium-term outlook depends on whether the bulls can hold the price above 1.188.
For more information follow the link to the website of the LiteForex
https://www.liteforex.com/blog/analysts-opinions/dollar-is-following-its-heart-forecast-as-of-06112020/?uid=285861726&cid=62423
submitted by Maxvelgus to Finance_analytics [link] [comments]

Dollar's farewell performance. Review as of 30.10.2020

Dollar's farewell performance. Review as of 30.10.2020
What is good for the greenback is good for Trump. Does the current White House tenant have a chance to keep his chair?

Can the USD index's rise right before the election be a tribute to retiring Trump?

Those Americans are so strange: less than a week is left, and they still don't know who will be the president! Financial markets appear not to understand that either. The S&P 500's fall on the eve of the election indicates that the party in power's candidate will lose. The ratings indicate the same, but the US dollar is growing by leaps and bounds, while investors know: what is good for the greenback is good for Donald Trump. Can the Republican still have a chance? Or is it the USD's farewell performance for Trump?

https://preview.redd.it/05ez9n4828w51.jpg?width=1164&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eab79fbf5beec7a869becfef8bb8197116dc1b96
Even if we forget about the pandemic and trade wars, we'll see that a weak dollar has run all through Trump's presidency. The US' 45th president did his best to weaken the greenback, accusing China and Europe of manipulating their currencies, asking the Fed to cut rates and revive QE, and calling Jerome Powell the USA's main enemy.
In the end, things didn't go the way Trump wanted. The USD index was consolidating stably from the beginning of 2018 and up to May 2020. The strong economy helped the Fed raise rates several times, which other central banks couldn't afford. Tax cuts and deregulation became a boon for US companies and the whole stock market. That drove capital to the USA and strengthened the dollar. The trading war slowed global trading down, cut the euro's rate, and boosted demand for safe-haven assets. The greenback won all the same.

https://preview.redd.it/0p75min828w51.jpg?width=1164&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c833d6501df48d672fecb6b4f1340304394b0ff3
The US' 45th president will enter history books as a man who spoiled everything and as a man who first speaks and then thinks. His attempts to describe things better than they are make everybody smile and make him lose his authority. Trust is like paper: once creased, it's hard to smooth it out. Trump called the US' Q3 GDP growth "best in history" and said the year 2021 would be fantastic. However, Sleepy Biden's tax hike may "kill it all"! In fact, the US economy is now 3.5% worse than at the beginning of 2019. To get back to the previous figures, it needs to expand 15% in Q4, which is practically impossible. The current president is to be blamed for that too, as anti-pandemic measures weren't taken in good time. People say a clever man admits his faults, a cunning man blames others, and a stupid man is proud of them. Sounds true.
The key-note of Donald Trump's presidency was looking for a scapegoat. It was either China or Jerome Powell. The president's opponents would keep silent, understanding what consequences return criticism may have. Joe Biden won't keep silent. He says recovery is slowing down or even standing still, while the current high GDP value doesn't help millions of ordinary Americans who have lost their jobs.

https://preview.redd.it/os6pk6vm28w51.jpg?width=1164&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b04eff9aac40e66083524f9bf71674d8d98c0a03
What frightens me the most is that the new US president is neither Trump nor Biden...but Alzheimer!
For more information follow the link to the website of the LiteForex
https://www.liteforex.com/blog/chatty-forex/dollars-farewell-performance-review-as-of-30102020/?uid=285861726&cid=62423
submitted by Maxvelgus to Finance_analytics [link] [comments]

I'm a 30 year old Teacher with 8k savings, I'm looking to invest some of it somewhere, and start a new career. Teaching is fun but it's draining and doesn't pay enough.

Hi everyone! I have low-income, 35k-50k depending on if I work 2 jobs. My expenses are less than 1k a month, I don't pay rent yet, I have a 750 credit, low utilization on credit cards, no 401k or IRA. I have some precious gemstones and pokemon cards as assets lol Some people were saying learning day trading can be good long term, or getting into wholesaling real estate. I don't know though. I live in the North-east of USA. I can maybe move down south where my money might stretch more. I'd be nice to turn 5k into 10k through investments and find a new job that pays more than 60k so I have more buffer money but I'm not sure if that's possible. It took me so long to save this little bit amount and don't want to lose it
I appreciate any advice or opinions

Thanks all for responding. I will definitely implement the advice given! Sorry for the lack of details in the post, my first time posting here. I'm not a traditional teacher. I'm a Bachelors's level ABA Therapist, I work with people who have autism and it pays 35k before taxes. I'm also a live-in aid to an adult who has autism (hence no rent) that pays 12k after taxes. I haven't worked as an ABA Therapist for a year because I was learning Digital Marketing. I ended up not liking it. I live in NJ, very close to NY. I will go back to get an ABA Job soon so I can save. My cousin flips properties in NJ and Florida so he's the one who told me about wholesaling real estate. He just started day trading Forex and said he's made money on some trades. That's where I got that idea from. I have a Robinhood account with 100 in there that jumped to 119, and I have 300 in bitcoin that I haven't checked in a while. For reference, The little financial advice I've got is from my dad who grew up dirt poor. He's not poor anymore from working hard and saving but he's not much of a sharer. I used to track my monthly spending and I have an excel sheet with my checking, saving, bill dates, and monthly and yearly slots to add numbers and see how the numbers change. But yeah I don't know much and I want to learn...I guess also worth noting I've made a lot of unwise impulse purchases. Vacations, clothes, video games, events, restaurants, shoes, books, alcohol, electronics.
submitted by spacedragonn to personalfinance [link] [comments]

Aussie goes against the wind. Forecast as of 05.10.2020

Aussie goes against the wind. Forecast as of 05.10.2020

Monthly Australian dollar fundamental analysis

Hope for the best but do the rest. Although the major drivers of the AUDUSD 30% rally up from the March low have been the rapid recovery of China’s economy and the increase in the global risk appetite, the Australian dollar has domestic drivers as well. Australia efficiently manages the pandemic, and the government is willing to expand the fiscal stimulus. Australia’s Treasurer Josh Frydenberg is willing to provide money until the labor market returns to the full employment state. It is about the unemployment rate of 5%. The current unemployment rate is 6.8%, and it may grow to 8%-10%. It will hardly drop back to 5% before 2022.
Investors expect the Treasury to boost the fiscal stimulus. As a result, the net debt burden will increase to AU$712 billion or to 38% of the GDP. At the same time, the national debt ceiling will be increased above AU$1.1 trillion, and the income tax hike, planned for 2022, will be delayed. In the USA, the national debt exceeds 100% of GDP, in the euro-area, it is close to 100%, the Japanese government debt is more than 200%. Canberra can afford additional stimulus. Besides, the expansion of government bonds issue will support the capital inflow in Australia and strengthen the Aussie. Australia’s government bond rates are the highest among the countries issuing the G10 currencies.

Dynamics of Australia’s net debt, % of the GDP


Source: Bloomberg
Carry trades and high investment rating of Australia’s securities support and will support the AUDUSD bulls amid the high risk appetite and low volatility. That is the reason for the AUD correlation with the US stock indices. The turmoil in the S&P 500 market ahead of the US presidential election will suggest the AUDUSD consolidation.

Dynamics of AUDUSD and S&P 500


Source: Trading Economics
In addition to the size of the additional fiscal stimulus, investors are focused on the RBA's willingness to expand the volume of monetary support. In September, the RBA officials discussed such measures as the interest-rate cut down to 0.1%, purchasing bonds with longer maturities than currently under QE, negative borrowing costs, and even FX interventions. The latter two options are aggressive, and the regulator will hardly resort to such measures. But it is likely to cut the interest rate by 12 basis points. The derivatives market suggests it will happen already this year.

Monthly AUDUSD trading plan

Expectations of monetary expansion is a bearish factor for the AUD. However, I don’t think the RBA will do it in October. It is likely to leave the door open for the interest rate cut in the future and set the Aussie bulls back using verbal interventions. The RBA will hardly turn the uptrend down, so, its dovish stance will give a chance to buy the pair of the price fall. Following ht consolidation in the range of 0.695-0.735, the AUDUSD is likely to continue its rally up to 0.76 and 0.79.

For more information follow the link to the website of the LiteForex
https://www.liteforex.com/blog/analysts-opinions/aussie-goes-against-the-wind-forecast-as-of-05102020/ ?uid=285861726&cid=62423
submitted by Maxvelgus to Finance_analytics [link] [comments]

AUD/USD forecast: Aussie wants to keep the party going

AUD/USD forecast: Aussie wants to keep the party going

Fundamental Australian dollar forecast for today

Are the AUD/USD growth drivers exhausted?

In the second quarter, the Australian economy encountered the deepest downturn since the records started in 1959. Australia’s GDP contracted by 7% Q-o-Q and by 6.3% Y-o-Y. The RBA cut the interest rate to the record lo. The central bank has also bought AU$60 since March amid the QE program. The Aussie should have dropped in value, but the AUD/USD rate has been 32% up since the low hit in March. Doesn’t the major rule of the fundamental analysis “strong economy – strong currency” work here? Now, it perfectly works! The matter is that everything is relative in Forex!
A drop by 6.3% in Australian growth is nothing compared to the US GDP contraction by 32%. AUS$60 billion is very little compared with the trillions of dollars in the USA. In Australia, there are less than 30,000 of coronavirus cases, while there are more than six million of COVID-19 cases in the USA. Australia has managed the pandemic better than many other advanced economies, the economy is not critically weak, the RBA yield control policy allows it not to waste the monetary tools. Besides, China supports Australia’s foreign trade.

Dynamics of RBA interest rate and the Australian dollar exchange rate


Source: Bloomberg
China is the largest market for Australian exports. Although the diplomatic relations between the two countries are tense, after Canberra accused China of COVID-19 laboratory origins, the trade relations are good. Since the beginning of the year, Australia’s exports to China have increased by 75% compared to the same period in 2016, when the last official meeting of the countries’ leaders took place. The core of the China-Australia trade is iron ore. Over the past twelve months, China has imported 700 million tons of iron ore from Australia. It is twice as much as it was in 2010 when the diplomatic relations between Australia and China were much better.

Chinese imports from Australia


Source: Bloomberg
Therefore, the AUD/USD uptrend is strong for several reasons. Australia’s economy is stronger compared to others, China supports Australia’s foreign trade, the Fed’s monetary expansion is unprecedented, which weakens the US dollar. The matter is whether the major bullish drivers have exhausted? Will the Aussie continue its rally?
The analysts polled by Reuters believe the AUD/USD uptrend should slow down. The see the pair trading at 0.72 in one and three months. In six and twelve months, the exchange rate will be at 0.73 and 0.74, accordingly. These levels are close to the current one, which suggests a long consolidation period. In my opinion, it is still relevant to buy the Aussie. China has averted a new round of trade war with the US. The Australian government is working on the income tax reduction bill, which should support GDP growth. The greenback’s’ long-term outlook remains bearish. So, I recommend entering the AUD/USD longs if Australia’s job report for August is positive. The middle-term targets are at 0.75 and 0.763.
For more information follow the link to the website of the LiteForex
https://www.liteforex.com/blog/analysts-opinions/audusd-forecast-aussie-wants-to-keep-the-party-going/?uid=285861726&cid=79634
submitted by Maxvelgus to Finance_analytics [link] [comments]

No, the British did not steal $45 trillion from India

This is an updated copy of the version on BadHistory. I plan to update it in accordance with the feedback I got.
I'd like to thank two people who will remain anonymous for helping me greatly with this post (you know who you are)
Three years ago a festschrift for Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri was published by Shubhra Chakrabarti, a history teacher at the University of Delhi and Utsa Patnaik, a Marxist economist who taught at JNU until 2010.
One of the essays in the festschirt by Utsa Patnaik was an attempt to quantify the "drain" undergone by India during British Rule. Her conclusion? Britain robbed India of $45 trillion (or £9.2 trillion) during their 200 or so years of rule. This figure was immensely popular, and got republished in several major news outlets (here, here, here, here (they get the number wrong) and more recently here), got a mention from the Minister of External Affairs & returns 29,100 results on Google. There's also plenty of references to it here on Reddit.
Patnaik is not the first to calculate such a figure. Angus Maddison thought it was £100 million, Simon Digby said £1 billion, Javier Estaban said £40 million see Roy (2019). The huge range of figures should set off some alarm bells.
So how did Patnaik calculate this (shockingly large) figure? Well, even though I don't have access to the festschrift, she conveniently has written an article detailing her methodology here. Let's have a look.
How exactly did the British manage to diddle us and drain our wealth’ ? was the question that Basudev Chatterjee (later editor of a volume in the Towards Freedom project) had posed to me 50 years ago when we were fellow-students abroad.
This is begging the question.
After decades of research I find that using India’s commodity export surplus as the measure and applying an interest rate of 5%, the total drain from 1765 to 1938, compounded up to 2016, comes to £9.2 trillion; since $4.86 exchanged for £1 those days, this sum equals about $45 trillion.
This is completely meaningless. To understand why it's meaningless consider India's annual coconut exports. These are almost certainly a surplus but the surplus in trade is countered by the other country buying the product (indeed, by definition, trade surpluses contribute to the GDP of a nation which hardly plays into intuitive conceptualisations of drain).
Furthermore, Dewey (2019) critiques the 5% interest rate.
She [Patnaik] consistently adopts statistical assumptions (such as compound interest at a rate of 5% per annum over centuries) that exaggerate the magnitude of the drain
Moving on:
The exact mechanism of drain, or transfers from India to Britain was quite simple.
Convenient.
Drain theory possessed the political merit of being easily grasped by a nation of peasants. [...] No other idea could arouse people than the thought that they were being taxed so that others in far off lands might live in comfort. [...] It was, therefore, inevitable that the drain theory became the main staple of nationalist political agitation during the Gandhian era.
- Chandra et al. (1989)
The key factor was Britain’s control over our taxation revenues combined with control over India’s financial gold and forex earnings from its booming commodity export surplus with the world. Simply put, Britain used locally raised rupee tax revenues to pay for its net import of goods, a highly abnormal use of budgetary funds not seen in any sovereign country.
The issue with figures like these is they all make certain methodological assumptions that are impossible to prove. From Roy in Frankema et al. (2019):
the "drain theory" of Indian poverty cannot be tested with evidence, for several reasons. First, it rests on the counterfactual that any money saved on account of factor payments abroad would translate into domestic investment, which can never be proved. Second, it rests on "the primitive notion that all payments to foreigners are "drain"", that is, on the assumption that these payments did not contribute to domestic national income to the equivalent extent (Kumar 1985, 384; see also Chaudhuri 1968). Again, this cannot be tested. [...] Fourth, while British officers serving India did receive salaries that were many times that of the average income in India, a paper using cross-country data shows that colonies with better paid officers were governed better (Jones 2013).
Indeed, drain theory rests on some very weak foundations. This, in of itself, should be enough to dismiss any of the other figures that get thrown out. Nonetheless, I felt it would be a useful exercise to continue exploring Patnaik's take on drain theory.
The East India Company from 1765 onwards allocated every year up to one-third of Indian budgetary revenues net of collection costs, to buy a large volume of goods for direct import into Britain, far in excess of that country’s own needs.
So what's going on here? Well Roy (2019) explains it better:
Colonial India ran an export surplus, which, together with foreign investment, was used to pay for services purchased from Britain. These payments included interest on public debt, salaries, and pensions paid to government offcers who had come from Britain, salaries of managers and engineers, guaranteed profts paid to railway companies, and repatriated business profts. How do we know that any of these payments involved paying too much? The answer is we do not.
So what was really happening is the government was paying its workers for services (as well as guaranteeing profits - to promote investment - something the GoI does today Dalal (2019), and promoting business in India), and those workers were remitting some of that money to Britain. This is hardly a drain (unless, of course, Indian diaspora around the world today are "draining" it). In some cases, the remittances would take the form of goods (as described) see Chaudhuri (1983):
It is obvious that these debit items were financed through the export surplus on merchandise account, and later, when railway construction started on a large scale in India, through capital import. Until 1833 the East India Company followed a cumbersome method in remitting the annual home charges. This was to purchase export commodities in India out of revenue, which were then shipped to London and the proceeds from their sale handed over to the home treasury.
While Roy's earlier point argues better paid officers governed better, it is honestly impossible to say what part of the repatriated export surplus was a drain, and what was not. However calling all of it a drain is definitely misguided.
It's worth noting that Patnaik seems to make no attempt to quantify the benefits of the Raj either, Dewey (2019)'s 2nd criticism:
she [Patnaik] consistently ignores research that would tend to cut the economic impact of the drain down to size, such as the work on the sources of investment during the industrial revolution (which shows that industrialisation was financed by the ploughed-back profits of industrialists) or the costs of empire school (which stresses the high price of imperial defence)

Since tropical goods were highly prized in other cold temperate countries which could never produce them, in effect these free goods represented international purchasing power for Britain which kept a part for its own use and re-exported the balance to other countries in Europe and North America against import of food grains, iron and other goods in which it was deficient.
Re-exports necessarily adds value to goods when the goods are processed and when the goods are transported. The country with the largest navy at the time would presumably be in very good stead to do the latter.
The British historians Phyllis Deane and WA Cole presented an incorrect estimate of Britain’s 18th-19th century trade volume, by leaving out re-exports completely. I found that by 1800 Britain’s total trade was 62% higher than their estimate, on applying the correct definition of trade including re-exports, that is used by the United Nations and by all other international organisations.
While interesting, and certainly expected for such an old book, re-exporting necessarily adds value to goods.
When the Crown took over from the Company, from 1861 a clever system was developed under which all of India’s financial gold and forex earnings from its fast-rising commodity export surplus with the world, was intercepted and appropriated by Britain. As before up to a third of India’s rising budgetary revenues was not spent domestically but was set aside as ‘expenditure abroad’.
So, what does this mean? Britain appropriated all of India's earnings, and then spent a third of it aboard? Not exactly. She is describing home charges see Roy (2019) again:
Some of the expenditures on defense and administration were made in sterling and went out of the country. This payment by the government was known as the Home Charges. For example, interest payment on loans raised to finance construction of railways and irrigation works, pensions paid to retired officers, and purchase of stores, were payments in sterling. [...] almost all money that the government paid abroad corresponded to the purchase of a service from abroad. [...] The balance of payments system that emerged after 1800 was based on standard business principles. India bought something and paid for it. State revenues were used to pay for wages of people hired abroad, pay for interest on loans raised abroad, and repatriation of profits on foreign investments coming into India. These were legitimate market transactions.
Indeed, if paying for what you buy is drain, then several billions of us are drained every day.
The Secretary of State for India in Council, based in London, invited foreign importers to deposit with him the payment (in gold, sterling and their own currencies) for their net imports from India, and these gold and forex payments disappeared into the yawning maw of the SoS’s account in the Bank of England.
It should be noted that India having two heads was beneficial, and encouraged investment per Roy (2019):
The fact that the India Office in London managed a part of the monetary system made India creditworthy, stabilized its currency, and encouraged foreign savers to put money into railways and private enterprise in India. Current research on the history of public debt shows that stable and large colonies found it easier to borrow abroad than independent economies because the investors trusted the guarantee of the colonist powers.

Against India’s net foreign earnings he issued bills, termed Council bills (CBs), to an equivalent rupee value. The rate (between gold-linked sterling and silver rupee) at which the bills were issued, was carefully adjusted to the last farthing, so that foreigners would never find it more profitable to ship financial gold as payment directly to Indians, compared to using the CB route. Foreign importers then sent the CBs by post or by telegraph to the export houses in India, that via the exchange banks were paid out of the budgeted provision of sums under ‘expenditure abroad’, and the exporters in turn paid the producers (peasants and artisans) from whom they sourced the goods.
Sunderland (2013) argues CBs had two main roles (and neither were part of a grand plot to keep gold out of India):
Council bills had two roles. They firstly promoted trade by handing the IO some control of the rate of exchange and allowing the exchange banks to remit funds to India and to hedge currency transaction risks. They also enabled the Indian government to transfer cash to England for the payment of its UK commitments.

The United Nations (1962) historical data for 1900 to 1960, show that for three decades up to 1928 (and very likely earlier too) India posted the second highest merchandise export surplus in the world, with USA in the first position. Not only were Indians deprived of every bit of the enormous international purchasing power they had earned over 175 years, even its rupee equivalent was not issued to them since not even the colonial government was credited with any part of India’s net gold and forex earnings against which it could issue rupees. The sleight-of-hand employed, namely ‘paying’ producers out of their own taxes, made India’s export surplus unrequited and constituted a tax-financed drain to the metropolis, as had been correctly pointed out by those highly insightful classical writers, Dadabhai Naoroji and RCDutt.
It doesn't appear that others appreciate their insight Roy (2019):
K. N. Chaudhuri rightly calls such practice ‘confused’ economics ‘coloured by political feelings’.

Surplus budgets to effect such heavy tax-financed transfers had a severe employment–reducing and income-deflating effect: mass consumption was squeezed in order to release export goods. Per capita annual foodgrains absorption in British India declined from 210 kg. during the period 1904-09, to 157 kg. during 1937-41, and to only 137 kg by 1946.
Dewey (1978) points out reliability issues with Indian agriculutural statistics, however this calorie decline persists to this day. Some of it is attributed to less food being consumed at home Smith (2015), a lower infectious disease burden Duh & Spears (2016) and diversified diets Vankatesh et al. (2016).
If even a part of its enormous foreign earnings had been credited to it and not entirely siphoned off, India could have imported modern technology to build up an industrial structure as Japan was doing.
This is, unfortunately, impossible to prove. Had the British not arrived in India, there is no clear indication that India would've united (this is arguably more plausible than the given counterfactual1). Had the British not arrived in India, there is no clear indication India would not have been nuked in WW2, much like Japan. Had the British not arrived in India, there is no clear indication India would not have been invaded by lizard people, much like Japan. The list continues eternally.
Nevertheless, I will charitably examine the given counterfactual anyway. Did pre-colonial India have industrial potential? The answer is a resounding no.
From Gupta (1980):
This article starts from the premise that while economic categories - the extent of commodity production, wage labour, monetarisation of the economy, etc - should be the basis for any analysis of the production relations of pre-British India, it is the nature of class struggles arising out of particular class alignments that finally gives the decisive twist to social change. Arguing on this premise, and analysing the available evidence, this article concludes that there was little potential for industrial revolution before the British arrived in India because, whatever might have been the character of economic categories of that period, the class relations had not sufficiently matured to develop productive forces and the required class struggle for a 'revolution' to take place.
A view echoed in Raychaudhuri (1983):
Yet all of this did not amount to an economic situation comparable to that of western Europe on the eve of the industrial revolution. Her technology - in agriculture as well as manufacturers - had by and large been stagnant for centuries. [...] The weakness of the Indian economy in the mid-eighteenth century, as compared to pre-industrial Europe was not simply a matter of technology and commercial and industrial organization. No scientific or geographical revolution formed part of the eighteenth-century Indian's historical experience. [...] Spontaneous movement towards industrialisation is unlikely in such a situation.
So now we've established India did not have industrial potential, was India similar to Japan just before the Meiji era? The answer, yet again, unsurprisingly, is no. Japan's economic situation was not comparable to India's, which allowed for Japan to finance its revolution. From Yasuba (1986):
All in all, the Japanese standard of living may not have been much below the English standard of living before industrialization, and both of them may have been considerably higher than the Indian standard of living. We can no longer say that Japan started from a pathetically low economic level and achieved a rapid or even "miraculous" economic growth. Japan's per capita income was almost as high as in Western Europe before industrialization, and it was possible for Japan to produce surplus in the Meiji Period to finance private and public capital formation.
The circumstances that led to Meiji Japan were extremely unique. See Tomlinson (1985):
Most modern comparisons between India and Japan, written by either Indianists or Japanese specialists, stress instead that industrial growth in Meiji Japan was the product of unique features that were not reproducible elsewhere. [...] it is undoubtably true that Japan's progress to industrialization has been unique and unrepeatable
So there you have it. Unsubstantiated statistical assumptions, calling any number you can a drain & assuming a counterfactual for no good reason gets you this $45 trillion number. Hopefully that's enough to bury it in the ground.
1. Several authors have affirmed that Indian identity is a colonial artefact. For example see Rajan 1969:
Perhaps the single greatest and most enduring impact of British rule over India is that it created an Indian nation, in the modern political sense. After centuries of rule by different dynasties overparts of the Indian sub-continent, and after about 100 years of British rule, Indians ceased to be merely Bengalis, Maharashtrians,or Tamils, linguistically and culturally.
or see Bryant 2000:
But then, it would be anachronistic to condemn eighteenth-century Indians, who served the British, as collaborators, when the notion of 'democratic' nationalism or of an Indian 'nation' did not then exist. [...] Indians who fought for them, differed from the Europeans in having a primary attachment to a non-belligerent religion, family and local chief, which was stronger than any identity they might have with a more remote prince or 'nation'.

Bibliography

Chakrabarti, Shubra & Patnaik, Utsa (2018). Agrarian and other histories: Essays for Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri. Colombia University Press
Hickel, Jason (2018). How the British stole $45 trillion from India. The Guardian
Bhuyan, Aroonim & Sharma, Krishan (2019). The Great Loot: How the British stole $45 trillion from India. Indiapost
Monbiot, George (2020). English Landowners have stolen our rights. It is time to reclaim them. The Guardian
Tsjeng, Zing (2020). How Britain Stole $45 trillion from India with trains | Empires of Dirt. Vice
Chaudhury, Dipanjan (2019). British looted $45 trillion from India in today’s value: Jaishankar. The Economic Times
Roy, Tirthankar (2019). How British rule changed India's economy: The Paradox of the Raj. Palgrave Macmillan
Patnaik, Utsa (2018). How the British impoverished India. Hindustan Times
Tuovila, Alicia (2019). Expenditure method. Investopedia
Dewey, Clive (2019). Changing the guard: The dissolution of the nationalist–Marxist orthodoxy in the agrarian and agricultural history of India. The Indian Economic & Social History Review
Chandra, Bipan et al. (1989). India's Struggle for Independence, 1857-1947. Penguin Books
Frankema, Ewout & Booth, Anne (2019). Fiscal Capacity and the Colonial State in Asia and Africa, c. 1850-1960. Cambridge University Press
Dalal, Sucheta (2019). IL&FS Controversy: Centre is Paying Up on Sovereign Guarantees to ADB, KfW for Group's Loan. TheWire
Chaudhuri, K.N. (1983). X - Foreign Trade and Balance of Payments (1757–1947). Cambridge University Press
Sunderland, David (2013). Financing the Raj: The City of London and Colonial India, 1858-1940. Boydell Press
Dewey, Clive (1978). Patwari and Chaukidar: Subordinate officials and the reliability of India’s agricultural statistics. Athlone Press
Smith, Lisa (2015). The great Indian calorie debate: Explaining rising undernourishment during India’s rapid economic growth. Food Policy
Duh, Josephine & Spears, Dean (2016). Health and Hunger: Disease, Energy Needs, and the Indian Calorie Consumption Puzzle. The Economic Journal
Vankatesh, P. et al. (2016). Relationship between Food Production and Consumption Diversity in India – Empirical Evidences from Cross Section Analysis. Agricultural Economics Research Review
Gupta, Shaibal (1980). Potential of Industrial Revolution in Pre-British India. Economic and Political Weekly
Raychaudhuri, Tapan (1983). I - The mid-eighteenth-century background. Cambridge University Press
Yasuba, Yasukichi (1986). Standard of Living in Japan Before Industrialization: From what Level did Japan Begin? A Comment. The Journal of Economic History
Tomblinson, B.R. (1985). Writing History Sideways: Lessons for Indian Economic Historians from Meiji Japan. Cambridge University Press
Rajan, M.S. (1969). The Impact of British Rule in India. Journal of Contemporary History
Bryant, G.J. (2000). Indigenous Mercenaries in the Service of European Imperialists: The Case of the Sepoys in the Early British Indian Army, 1750-1800. War in History
submitted by GaslightEveryone to u/GaslightEveryone [link] [comments]

Can I trade stocks in my home country while I am travelling ?

Im a stock trader and I live in Turkey (Im a citizen). I use a brokerage firm in Turkey to trade in the Turkish stock market. We don't have capital gains tax on stocks, which is a really nice thing I would like to keep enjoying. (I think also applies to Turkish citizens living abroad)
After(?) corona virus I would like to travel, especially around Europe and USA but open to SEA, Far East Asia and New Zealand (i hate bugs so absolutely no Australia).
(I know I should talk to an accountant/lawyer, I will eventually)
1)Can I trade stocks through my brokerage firm while travelling with tourist visa? If yes, will the countries I travel tax me?
2)Can I trade in foreign markets (both countries I travel and not) through a foreign brokerage firm while travelling with a tourist visa? If yes, would I get taxed from brokerage firms country, my home country Turkey or my vacation country?
3)Can I trade forex? Same questions.
Also 4)Same tax questions but with a seasonal jobs visa?
submitted by Marxs_Beard to digitalnomad [link] [comments]

Four reasons for buying yen. Forecast for 16.09.20

Four reasons for buying yen. Forecast for 16.09.20
Ahead of the Fed’s and Bank of Japan’s meetings, the Japanese yen is certainly worth discussing. Enjoy your popcorn and remember to check out the trading signals and trading plan for USDJPY and EURJPY for the nearest weeks at the end of this article.

Fundamental forecast for yen for today

Yoshihide Suga’s unconditional victory in the party race to become Japan’s next Prime Minister, the US-China trade war’s revival and the upcoming presidential elections in the USA redrew investors’ attention to the yen. USDJPY’s quotes have been falling for three days in a row and got close to the level of 105. Rumour has it that the Bank of Japan may get angry and intervene if that level is broken. The situation around EURJPY is interesting too.
If Shinzo Abe’s dismissal shocked the financial markets, the information about Yoshihide Suga’s appointment calmed them down. Let me remind you that Yoshihide Suga is Abe’s supporter and one of the authors of the “three arrows” strategy. The new Prime Minister isn’t going to put pressure on the BoJ in order to change monetary policy. He believes that there’s no need to raise taxes in the next 10 years, and that economic growth must improve the country’s financial state. He plans to shake up some sectors and bureaucratic mechanisms, but at the beginning of his term, he’ll need to recover GDP.
A clear political context is a boon for a national currency. The fact that Japan chose its PM, while the US has yet to choose its president, is beneficial to USDJPY bears. Still, their main trump is the divergence in the Fed’s and BoJ’s policies: the Fed’s response to recession was so fierce that the fall of the real US bond yields weakened the greenback and would probably continue weakening it.

Dynamics of US bond yields


Source: Wall Street Journal.
The yen is growing on the WTO’s ruling that US tariffs on Chinese imports are illegal. Beijing approved of that. Washington got angry. I doubt that the conflict will escalate before the elections. However, it’s obvious that the trade war is a long-lasting subject no matter who takes the US president’s chair. In 2019, global investors thought it was the main factor in market pricing. In 2020, the trade war dropped to the 4th line: the pandemic, November’s US elections and payment default risks have become the number one priority topics.
I think the trade war subject has been undeservedly neglected. During a pandemic, imports and exports usually reduce proportionally, and the trade balance remains unchanged. It’s true of Canada, Japan, Britain and Germany. Alas, the US foreign trade deficit is growing and the Chinese one is reducing. China’s industrial sectors are recovering faster, and Beijing may face another round of clashes after the US election.

Industrial production dynamics


Source: Bloomberg.

Weekly trading plan for USDJPY and EURJPY

Trading wars were favourable to the yen in 2018-2019, but its fans have other advantages this time too. I don’t think the BoJ will interfere if USDJPY breaks support at 105. So, we can open short positions. Opening shorts in EURJPY at the breakout of 124.6-124.65 looks interesting too.
For more information follow the link to the website of the LiteForex
https://www.liteforex.com/blog/analysts-opinions/four-reasons-for-buying-yen-forecast-as-of-160920/ ?uid=285861726&cid=62423
submitted by Maxvelgus to Finance_analytics [link] [comments]

$4000+ enthusiast aesthetic build

>**What will you be doing with this PC? Be as specific as possible, and include specific games or programs you will be using.**
* Primarily gaming, also forex trading, streaming, possibly content creation although that's a lower possibility
>**What is your maximum budget before rebates/shipping/taxes?**
* $5,000
>**When do you plan on building/buying the PC? Note: beyond a week or two from today means any build you receive will be out of date when you want to buy.**
* Before Cyberpunk 2077 drops
>**What, exactly, do you need included in the budget? (ToweOS/monitokeyboard/mouse/etc\)**
* Tower, OS
>**Which country (and state/province) will you be purchasing the parts in? If you're in US, do you have access to a Microcenter location?**
* No access to Microcenter, South Carolina, USA
>**If reusing any parts (including monitor(s)/keyboard/mouse/etc), what parts will you be reusing? Brands and models are appreciated.**
* Acer Predator X34 Ultrawide (3440x1440), Corsair keyboard, logitech mouse
>**Will you be overclocking? If yes, are you interested in overclocking right away, or down the line? CPU and/or GPU?**
* Down the line/right away, CPU and GPU
>**Are there any specific features or items you want/need in the build? (ex: SSD, large amount of storage or a RAID setup, CUDA or OpenCL support, etc)**
* No mechanical drives, unique aesthetic, minimum wires is the goal
>**Do you have any specific case preferences (Size like ITX/microATX/mid-towefull-tower, styles, colors, window or not, LED lighting, etc), or a particular color theme preference for the components?**
* This is half of what I need help with. I'm very uncreative and although I've built a few PCs over the years, I've never built one quite like this. Usually in the $1,500-$2,000 range
>**Do you need a copy of Windows included in the budget? If you do need one included, do you have a preference?**
* I would assume just Windows 10 Home/Pro
>**Extra info or particulars:**
submitted by OneTrueKram to buildapcforme [link] [comments]

Capital gains tax on overseas shares

Hello,
Im trying to work out if capital gains tax is due on overseas share trades when no gain has been made in $ terms but a forex gain in £ has occured. I am using Interactive Brokers who allow me to loan USD secured against my GBP balance.
Example:
Acquisition: 01.01.20, GBPUSD 1:1.5
- USA shares purchase price $150 (£100) (purchased with loaned amount of $150)
- Interactive Brokers Loan liability $150 (£100) (loan is in $ and will be repaid in $, the repaybale amount in $ will not change)

Disposal: 31.01.20, GBPUSD 1:1.2
- USA shares disposal price $150 (£125) (no change in usd share price but change in gbp due to fx rate, $150 disposal proceeds stay in usd and immediately pay off the loan)
- Interactive brokers loan liability repaid $150 (£125) (In GBP the usd loan has increased from £100 to £125 due to the fx rate change)

Overall Gain/Loss
Gains/Losses:Gain/loss on share price = $0 (£25 gain when converted to gbp due to fx rate change)
Gain/loss on loan repayment = $0 (-£25 loss when converted to gbp due to fx rate change)
Net = £0

Any advice is appreciated, thankyou.
submitted by sami_220 to UKPersonalFinance [link] [comments]

$1200 USD Trading Machine

Mainly needing help with the main build, accessories are taken care of. Want a fast PC that can handle trading 24/7.
[1200USD]My budget
Date I will buy:ASAP
[]before [X]after tax - rate: 6.25
[]OK with rebates - I know I will pay more upfront
Country:USA
Not US/CAN/EU/AUS? Provide websites to shop:
[X]Microcente[]Frys store access
USAGE
List programs and indicate distribution with percentages: xx%
[]Gaming:
[]Gameplay streaming to Twitch, YouTube
[]Photo/Video editing:
[]Music/Audio production:
[]CAD, CFD/FEA, Engineering Simulations:
[]Server:
[X]NAS/Web surfing:100% I will only be using this PC for general use web browsing and Forex trading. Computer will be running 24/7 and primarily running meta trader 4 and on tradingview.com
Percent time spent in each role:
SCREENS Select ONE [X]1080p60Hz []1080p144Hz []1440p60Hz []1440p144Hz []5760x1080-Triple Wide []4K 60Hz [X]I own []don't own this
I plan on having 4 screens total so need support for that.
OVERCLOCKING
[]I am willing to overclock my CPU
Can be very helpful for high refresh rate monitors (144Hz)
Many workstation programs benefit from it
ENVIRONMENT
[]Hot []Dusty/Pets [x]On 24/7 []Low noise [X]Normal
PERIPHERALS
I have: Dell D3218HN
[]Mouse:
[]Keyboard:
[]Headphones/speakers:
I need:
[]Mouse: []flawless sensor, grip: []palm []fingertip []claw []Keyboard: []mechanical []quiet []tenkeyless []backlighting []Headphones/speakers: []over ear []on ear []in ear []Isolation required
OPERATING SYSTEM
I need Windows[], version:
[]I have access to DreamSpark or a similar for cheapefree OS
INTERNET
[]I can connect to this computer with [] a cable or [] a Powerline adapter
[x]I need wireless
CURRENT PARTS
Please list any parts you own we could use, exact part numbers (especially for PSU's) or pcpartpicker.com links are most appreciated:
Dell D3218HN
submitted by IndependentNeck to CabaloftheBuildsmiths [link] [comments]

Just 2 more Conspiracy Theories that turned out to be True

(i couldn't post in the previous one , word limit )

1.Big Brother or the Shadow Government

It is also called the “Deep State” by Peter Dale Scott, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
A shadow government is a "government-in-waiting" that remains in waiting with the intention of taking control of a government in response to some event. It turned out this was true on 9/11, when it was told to us by our mainstream media. For years, this was ridiculed as a silly, crazy conspiracy theory and, like the others listed here, turned out to be 100% true. It is also called the Continuity of Government.
The Continuity of Government (COG) is the principle of establishing defined procedures that allow a government to continue its essential operations in case of nuclear war or other catastrophic event. Since the end of the cold war, the policies and procedures for the COG have been altered according to realistic threats of that time.
These include but are not limited to a possible coup or overthrow by right wing terrorist groups, a terrorist attack in general, an assassination, and so on. Believe it or not the COG has been in effect since 2001.After 9/11, it went into action.
Now here is the kicker, many of the figures in Iran Contra, the Watergate Scandal, the alleged conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy, and many others listed here are indeed members of the COG. This is its own conspiracy as well.
The Secret Team:
The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World is a book written by Air Force Col. L Fletcher Prouty, published in 1973.
From 1955 to 1963 Prouty was the "Focal Point Officer" for contacts between the CIA and the Pentagon on matters relating to military support for "black operations" but he was not assigned to the CIA and was not bound by any oath of secrecy. (From the first page of the 1974 Printing)
It was one of the first tell-all books about the inner workings of the CIA and was an important influence on the Oliver Stone movie JFK. But the main thrust of the book is how the CIA started as a think tank to analyze intelligence gathered from military sources but has grown to the monster it has become. The CIA had no authority to run their own agents or to carry out covert operations but they quickly did both and much more. This book tells about things they actually did and a lot about how the operate. In Prouty's own words, from the 1997 edition of The Secret Team: This is the fundamental game of the Secret Team. They have this power because they control secrecy and secret intelligence and because they have the ability to take advantage of the most modern communications system in the world, of global transportation systems, of quantities of weapons of all kinds, and when needed, the full support of a world-wide U.S. military supporting base structure.
They can use the finest intelligence system in the world, and most importantly, they have been able to operate under the canopy of an assumed, ever-present enemy called "Communism." It will be interesting to see what "enemy" develops in the years ahead. It appears that "UFO's and Aliens" are being primed to fulfill that role for the future.
To top all of this, there is the fact that the CIA, itself, has assumed the right to generate and direct secret operations. "He is not the first to allege that UFOs and Aliens are going to be used as a threat against the world to globalize the planet under One government."
The Report from Iron Mountain
The Report from Iron Mountain is a book, published in 1967 (during the Johnson Administration) by Dial Press, that states that it is the report of a government panel.
According to the report, a 15-member panel, called the Special Study Group, was set up in 1963 to examine what problems would occur if the U.S. entered a state of lasting peace.
They met at an underground nuclear bunker called Iron Mountain (as well as other, worldwide locations) and worked over the next two years. Iron Mountain is where the government has stored the flight 93 evidence from 9/11.A member of the panel, one "John Doe", a professor at a college in the Midwest, decided to release the report to the public. The heavily footnoted report concluded that peace was not in the interest of a stable society, that even if lasting peace, "could be achieved, it would almost certainly not be in the best interests of society to achieve it." War was a part of the economy.
Therefore, it was necessary to conceive a state of war for a stable economy. The government, the group theorized, would not exist without war, and nation states existed in order to wage war. War also served a vital function of diverting collective aggression. They recommended that bodies be created to emulate the economic functions of war.
They also recommended "blood games" and that the government create alternative foes that would scare the people with reports of alien life-forms and out of control pollution.
Another proposal was the reinstitution of slavery.
U.S. News and World Report claimed in its November 20, 1967 issue to have confirmation of the reality of the report from an unnamed government official, who added that when President Johnson read the report, he 'hit the roof' and ordered it to be suppressed for all time.
Additionally, sources were said to have revealed that orders were sent to U.S. embassies, instructing them to emphasize that the book had no relation to U.S. Government policy.
Project Blue Beam is also a common conspiracy theory that alleges that a faked alien landing would be used as a means of scaring the public into whatever global system is suggested. Some researchers suggest the Report from Iron Mountain might be fabricated, others swear it is real.
Bill Moyers, the American journalist and public commentator, has served as White House Press Secretary in the United States President Lyndon B. Johnson Administration from 1965 to 1967. He worked as a news commentator on television for ten years. Moyers has had an extensive involvement with public television, producing documentaries and news journal programs.
He has won numerous awards and honorary degrees. He has become well known as a trenchant critic of the U.S. media. Since 1990, Moyers has been President of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy. He is considered by many to be a very credible outlet for the truth. He released a documentary titled, The Secret Government, which exposed the inner workings of a secret government much more vast that most people would ever imagine.
Though originally broadcast in 1987, it is even more relevant today. Interviews with respected top military, intelligence, and government insiders reveal both the history and secret objectives of powerful groups in the hidden shadows of our government.
Here is that documentary:
vid
For another powerful, highly revealing documentary on the manipulations of the secret government produced by BBC, click here.
The intrepid BBC team clearly shows how the War on Terror is largely a fabrication.
For those interested in very detailed information on the composition of the shadow or secret government from a less well-known source, take a look at the summary available here.

2. The Federal Reserve Bank

The fundamental promise of a central bank like the Federal Reserve is economic stability.
The theory is that manipulating the value of the currency allows financial booms to go higher, and crashes to be more mild. If growth becomes speculative and unsustainable, the central bank can make the price of money go up and force some deleveraging of risky investments - again, promising to make the crashes more mild.
The period leading up to the American revolution was characterized by increasingly authoritarian legislation from England. Acts passed in 1764 had a particularly harsh effect on the previously robust colonial economy.
The Sugar Act was in effect a tax cut on easily smuggled molasses, and a new tax on commodities that England more directly controlled trade over. The navy would be used in increased capacity to enforce trade laws and collect duties.
Perhaps even more significant than the militarization and expansion of taxes was the Currency Act passed later in the year 1764.
"The colonies suffered a constant shortage of currency with which to conduct trade. There were no gold or silver mines and currency could only be obtained through trade as regulated by Great Britain. Many of the colonies felt no alternative to printing their own paper money in the form of Bills of Credit."
The result was a true free market of currency - each bank competed, exchange rates fluctuated wildly, and merchants were hesitant to accept these notes as payment.
Of course, they didn't have 24-hour digital Forex markets, but I'll hold off opinions on the viability of unregulated currency for another time.
England's response was to seize control of the colonial money supply - forbidding banks, cities, and colony governments from printing their own. This law, passed so soon after the Sugar Act, started to really bring revolutionary tension inside the colonies to a higher level.
American bankers had learned early on that debasing a currency through inflation is a helpful way to pay off perpetual trade deficits - but Britain proved that the buyer of the currency would only take the deal for so long...
Following the (first) American Revolution, the "First Bank of the United States" was chartered to pay off collective war debts, and effectively distribute the cost of the revolution proportionately throughout all of the states. Although the bank had vocal and harsh skeptics, it only controlled about 20% of the nation's money supply.
Compared to today's central bank, it was nothing.
Thomas Jefferson argued vocally against the institution of the bank, mostly citing constitutional concerns and the limitations of government found in the 10th amendment.
There was one additional quote that hints at the deeper structural flaw of a central bank in a supposedly free capitalist economy.
"The existing banks will, without a doubt, enter into arrangements for lending their agency, and the more favorable, as there will be a competition among them for it; whereas the bill delivers us up bound to the national bank, who are free to refuse all arrangement, but on their own terms, and the public not free, on such refusal, to employ any other bank" –Thomas Jefferson.Basically, the existing banks will fight over gaining favor with the central bank - rather than improving their performance relative to a free market.
The profit margins associated with collusion would obviously outweigh the potential profits gained from legitimate business.
The Second Bank of the United States was passed five years after the first bank's charter expired. An early enemy of central banking, President James Madison, was looking for a way to stabilize the currency in 1816. This bank was also quite temporary - it would only stay in operation until 1833 when President Andrew Jackson would end federal deposits at the institution.
The charter expired in 1836 and the private corporation was bankrupt and liquidated by 1841.While the South had been the major opponent of central banking systems, the end of the Civil War allowed for (and also made necessary) the system of national banks that would dominate the next fifty years.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) says that this post-war period of a unified national currency and system of national banks "worked well." [3] Taxes on state banks were imposed to encourage people to use the national banks - but liquidity problems persisted as the money supply did not match the economic cycles.
Overall, the American economy continued to grow faster than Europe, but the period did not bring economic stability by any stretch of the imagination. Several panics and runs on the bank - and it became a fact of life under this system of competing nationalized banks. In 1873, 1893, 1901, and 1907 significant panics caused a series of bank failures.
The new system wasn't stable at all, in fact, many suspected it was wrought with fraud and manipulation.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis is not shy about attributing the causes of the Panic of 1907 to financial manipulation from the existing banking establishment.
"If Knickerbocker Trust would falter, then Congress and the public would lose faith in all trust companies and banks would stand to gain, the bankers reasoned."
In timing with natural economic cycles, major banks including J.P. Morgan and Chase launched an all-out assault on Heinze's Knickerbocker Trust.
Financial institutions on the inside started silently selling off assets in the competitor, and headlines about a few bad loans started making top spots in the newspapers.
The run on Knickerbocker turned into a general panic - and the Federal Government would come to the rescue of its privately owned "National Banks.
"During the Panic of 1907, "Depositors 'run' on the Knickerbocker Bank. J.P. Morgan and James Stillman of First National City Bank (Citibank) act as a "central bank," providing liquidity ... [to stop the bank run] President Theodore Roosevelt provides Morgan with $25 million in government funds ... to control the panic. Morgan, acting as a one-man central bank, decides which firms will fail and which firms will survive."
How did JP Morgan get so powerful that the government would provide them with funding to increase their power? They had key influence with positions inside the Administrations.
They had senators, congressmen, lobbyists, media moguls all working for them.
In 1886, a group of millionaires purchased Jekyll Island and converted it into a winter retreat and hunting ground, the USA's most exclusive club. By 1900, the club's roster represented 1/6th of the world's wealth. Names like Astor, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Pulitzer and Gould filled the club's register. Non- members, regardless of stature, were not allowed. Dignitaries like Winston Churchill and President McKinley were refused admission.
In 1908, the year after a national money panic purportedly created by J. P. Morgan, Congress established, in 1908, a National Monetary Authority. In 1910 another, more secretive, group was formed consisting of the chiefs of major corporations and banks in this country. The group left secretly by rail from Hoboken, New Jersey, and traveled anonymously to the hunting lodge on Jekyll Island.
In fact, the Clubhouse/hotel on the island has two conference rooms named for the "Federal Reserve." The meeting was so secret that none referred to the other by his last name. Why the need for secrecy?
Frank Vanderlip wrote later in the Saturday Evening Post,
"...it would have been fatal to Senator Aldrich's plan to have it known that he was calling on anybody from Wall Street to help him in preparing his bill...I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System."
At Jekyll Island, the true draftsman for the Federal Reserve was Paul Warburg. The plan was simple.
The new central bank could not be called a central bank because America did not want one, so it had to be given a deceptive name. Ostensibly, the bank was to be controlled by Congress, but a majority of its members were to be selected by the private banks that would own its stock.
To keep the public from thinking that the Federal Reserve would be controlled from New York, a system of twelve regional banks was designed. Given the concentration of money and credit in New York, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York controlled the system, making the regional concept initially nothing but a ruse.
The board and chairman were to be selected by the President, but in the words of Colonel Edward House, the board would serve such a term as to "put them out of the power of the President."
The power over the creation of money was to be taken from the people and placed in the hands of private bankers who could expand or contract credit as they felt best suited their needs. Why the opposition to a central bank? Americans at the time knew of the destruction to the economy the European central banks had caused to their respective countries and to countries who became their debtors.
They saw the large- scale government deficit spending and debt creation that occurred in Europe. But European financial moguls didn't rest until the New World was within their orbit. In 1902, Paul Warburg, a friend and associate of the Rothschilds and an expert on European central banking, came to this country as a partner in Kuhn, Loeb and Company.
He married the daughter of Solomon Loeb, one of the founders of the firm. The head of Kuhn, Loeb was Jacob Schiff, whose gift of $20 million in gold to the struggling Russian communists in 1917 no doubt saved their revolution. The Fed controls the banking system in the USA, not the Congress nor the people indirectly (as the Constitution dictates). The U.S. central bank strategy is a product of European banking interests.
Government interventionists got their wish in 1913 with the Federal Reserve (and income tax amendment). Just in time, too, because the nation needed a new source of unlimited cash to finance both sides of WW1 and eventually our own entry to the war.
After the war, with both sides owing us debt through the federal reserve backed banks, the center of finance moved from London to New York. But did the Federal Reserve reign in the money trusts and interlocking directorates? Not by a long shot. If anything, the Federal Reserve granted new powers to the National Banks by permitting overseas branches and new types of banking services.
The greatest gift to the bankers, was a virtually unlimited supply of loans when they experience liquidity problems.
From the early 1920s to 1929, the monetary supply expanded at a rapid pace and the nation experienced wild economic growth. Curiously, however, the number of banks started to decline for the first time in American history. Toward the end of the period, speculation and loose money had propelled asset and equity prices to unreal levels.
The stock market crashed, and as the banks struggled with liquidity problems, the Federal Reserve actually cut the money supply. Without a doubt, this is the greatest financial panic and economic collapse in American history - and it never could have happened on this scale without the Fed's intervention.
The number of banks crashed and a few of the old robber barons' banks managed to swoop in and grab up thousands of competitors for pennies on the dollar.
See:
America - From Freedom to Fascism The Money Masters Monopoly Men (below video):
VID
submitted by CuteBananaMuffin to conspiracy [link] [comments]

US Venezuela Policy is About Oligarchy, Not Democracy

US Venezuela Policy is About Oligarchy, Not Democracy

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

Ask yourself:

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

What Corporate-Controlled Media will NOT Tell You

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

Why is the US Corporatocracy so Keen to Remove Maduro?

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

Who cares what currency a country uses to trade petroleum?

Answer: US oligarchy

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

US Foreign Policy is about Oligarchy Not Democracy

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

US CIA Coup Playbook:

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to help the Nano ecosystem # 2018.11.02

Rules for the thread:
 

Chapter 1 - Basics

Upgrading the global monetary system: Nano is a deflationary digital currency that has instant transactions and zero fees: https://nanolinks.info
 

Chapter 2 - Infrastructure | Payment Gateways

 

Chapter 3 - Infrastructure | Exchanges

 

Chapter 4 - Infrastructure | POS

 

Chapter 5 - Infrastructure | ATM

 

Chapter 6 - Usability | Hardware Wallets

 

Chapter 7 - Usability | Programming and Design

 

Chapter 9 - Media

 

Chapter 10 - Social Media

Upgrading the global monetary system: $NANO is a deflationary #cryptocurrency that has instant transactions and zero fees: https://nanolinks.info
 
#money #forex #business #startup #finance #investing #trading #markets #economy #blockchain #bitcoin #ethereum #crypto
 

Chapter 11 - Other

 

Now actually choose something and do it!

submitted by laurbyteball to nanocurrency [link] [comments]

"Satoshi Nakamoto" the mysterious creator of Bitcoin is no other than the CIA

Bitcoin has surged to all time highs, Who created Bitcoin, and why?
The creator of Bitcoin is officially a name, “Satoshi Nakamoto” – very few people believe that it was a single male from Japan. In the early days of Bitcoin development this name is associated with original key-creation and communications on message boards, and then the project was officially handed over to others at which point this Satoshi character never appeared again (Although from time to time someone will come forward saying they are the real Satoshi Nakamoto, and then have their posts deleted).
Bitcoin could very well be the ‘one world currency’ that conspiracy theorists have been talking about for some time. It’s a kill five birds with one stone solution – not only is Bitcoin an ideal one world currency, it allows law enforcement a perfect record of all transactions on the network. It states very clearly on bitcoin.org (the official site) in big letters “Bitcoin is not anonymous” :
Some effort is required to protect your privacy with Bitcoin. All Bitcoin transactions are stored publicly and permanently on the network, which means anyone can see the balance and transactions of any Bitcoin address. However, the identity of the user behind an address remains unknown until information is revealed during a purchase or in other circumstances. This is one reason why Bitcoin addresses should only be used once.
Another advantage of Bitcoin is the problem of Quantitative Easing – the Fed (and thus, nearly all central banks in the world) have painted themselves in a corner, metaphorically speaking. QE ‘solved’ the credit crisis, but QE itself does not have a solution. Currently all currencies are in a race to zero – competing with who can print more money faster. Central Bankers who are in systemic analysis, their economic advisors, know this. They know that the Fiat money system is doomed, all what you can read online is true (just sensationalized) – it’s a debt based system based on nothing. That system was created, originally in the early 1900’s and refined during Breton Woods followed by the Nixon shock (This is all explained well in Splitting Pennies). In the early 1900’s – there was no internet! It is a very archaic system that needs to be replaced, by something modern, electronic, based on encryption. Bitcoin! It’s a currency based on ‘bits’ – but most importantly, Bitcoin is not the ‘one world currency’ per se, but laying the framework for larger cryptocurrency projects. In the case of central banks, who control the global monetary system, that would manifest in ‘Settlement Coin’ :
Two resources available almost exclusively to central banks could soon be opened up to additional users as a result of a new digital currency project designed by a little-known startup and Swiss bank UBS. One of those resources is the real-time gross settlement (RTGS) system used by central banks (it’s typically reserved for high-value transactions that need to be settled instantly), and the other is central bank-issued cash. Using the Utility Settlement Coin (USC) unveiled today, the five-member consortium that has sprung up around the project aims to help central banks open-up access to these tools to more customers. If successful, USC has the potential to create entirely new business models built on instant settling and easy cash transfers. In interview, Robert Sams, founder of London-based Clearmatics, said his firm initially worked with UBS to build the network, and that BNY Mellon, Deutsche Bank, ICAP and Santander are only just the first of many future members.
the NSA/CIA often works for big corporate clients, just as it has become a cliche that the Iraq war was about big oil, the lesser known hand in global politics is the banking sector. In other words, Bitcoin may have very well been ‘suggested’ or ‘sponsored’ by a banker, group of banks, or financial services firm. But the NSA (as we surmise) was the company that got the job done. And probably, if it was in fact ‘suggested’ or ‘sponsored’ by a private bank, they would have been waiting in the wings to develop their own Bitcoin related systems or as in the above “Settlement Coin.” So the NSA made Bitcoin – so what?
The FX markets currently represent the exchange between ‘major’ and ‘minor’ currencies. In the future, why not too they will include ‘cryptocurrencies’ – we’re already seeing the BTC/EUR pair popup on obscure brokers. When BTC/USD and BTC/EUR are available at major FX banks and brokers, we can say – from a global FX perspective, that Bitcoin has ‘arrived.’ Many of us remember the days when the synthetic “Euro” currency was a new artificial creation that was being adopted, although the Euro project is thousands of degrees larger than the Bitcoin project. But unlike the Euro, Bitcoin is being adopted at a near exponential rate by demand (Many merchants resisted the switch to Euros claiming it was eating into their profit margins and they were right!).
And to answer the question as to why Elite E Services is not actively involved in Bitcoin the answer is that previously, you can’t trade Bitcoin. Now we’re starting to see obscure brokers offering BTC/EUR but the liquidity is sparse and spreads are wacky – that will all change. When we can trade BTC/USD just like EUUSD you can bet that EES and a host of other algorithmic FX traders will be all over it! It will be an interesting trade for sure, especially with all the volatility, the cross ‘pairs’ – and new cryptocurrencies. For the record, for brokers- there’s not much difference adding a new symbol (currency pair) in MT4 they just need liquidity, which has been difficult to find.
So there’s really nothing revolutionary about Bitcoin, it’s just a logical use of technology in finance considering a plethora of problems faced by any central bank who creates currency. And there are some interesting caveats to Bitcoin as compared to major currencies; Bitcoin is a closed system (there are finite Bitcoin) – this alone could make such currencies ‘anti-inflationary’ and at the least, hold their value (the value of the USD continues to deteriorate slowly over time as new M3 introduced into the system.) But we need to pay
Here’s some interesting theories about who or whom is Satoshi:
A corporate conglomerate
Some researchers proposed that the name ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ was derived from a combination of tech companies consisting of Samsung, Toshiba, Nakayama, and Motorola. The notion that the name was a pseudonym is clearly true and it is doubtful they reside in Japan given the numerous forum posts with a distinctly English dialect.
Craig Steven Wright
This Australian entrepreneur claims to be the Bitcoin creator and provided proof. But soon after, his offices were raided by the tax authorities on ‘an unrelated matter’
Soon after these stories were published, authorities in Australia raided the home of Mr Wright. The Australian Taxation Office said the raid was linked to a long-running investigation into tax payments rather than Bitcoin. Questioned about this raid, Mr Wright said he was cooperating fully with the ATO. “We have lawyers negotiating with them over how much I have to pay,” he said.
Other potential creators
Nick Szabo, and many others, have been suggested as potential Satoshi – but all have denied it:
The New Yorker published a piece pointing at two possible Satoshis, one of whom seemed particularly plausible: a cryptography graduate student from Trinity College, Dublin, who had gone on to work in currency-trading software for a bank and published a paper on peer-to-peer technology. The other was a Research Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, Vili Lehdonvirta. Both made denials. Fast Company highlighted an encryption patent application filed by three researchers – Charles Bry, Neal King and Vladimir Oks­man – and a circumstantial link involving textual analysis of it and the Satoshi paper which found the phrase “…computationally impractical to reverse” in both. Again, it was flatly denied.
THE WINNER: It was the NSA
The NSA has the capability, the motive, and the operational capacity – they have teams of cryptographers, the biggest fastest supercomputers in the world, and they see the need. Whether instructed by their friends at the Fed, in cooperation with their owners (i.e. Illuminati banking families), or as part of a DARPA project – is not clear and will never be known (unless a whistleblower comes forward). In fact, the NSA employs some of the best mathematicians and cryptographers in the world. Few know about their work because it’s a secret, and this isn’t the kind of job you leave to start your own cryptography company.
But the real smoking Gun, aside from the huge amount of circumstantial evidence and lack of a credible alternative, is the 1996 paper authored by NSA “HOW TO MAKE A MINT: THE CRYPTOGRAPHY OF ANONYMOUS ELECTRONIC CASH”
The NSA was one of the first organizations to describe a Bitcoin-like system. About twelve years before Satoshi Nakamotopublished his legendary white paper to the Metzdowd.com cryptography mailing list, a group of NSA information security researchers published a paper entitled How to Make a Mint: the Cryptography of Anonymous Electronic Cash in two prominent places, the first being an MIT mailing list and the second being much more prominent, The American Law Review
The paper outlines a system very much like Bitcoin in which secure financial transactions are possible through the use of a decentralized network the researchers refer informally to as a Bank. They list four things as indispensable in their proposed network: privacy, user identification (protection against impersonation), message integrity (protection against tampering/substitution of transaction information – that is, protection against double-spending), and nonrepudiation (protection against later denial of a transaction – a blockchain!).
It is evident that SHA-256, the algorithm Satoshi used to secure Bitcoin, was not available because it came about in 2001. However, SHA-1 would have been available to them, having been published in 1993.
Why would the NSA want to do this? One simple reason: Control.
As we explain in Splitting Pennies – Understanding Forex – the primary means the US dominates the world is through economic policy, although backed by bombs. And the critical support of the US Dollar is primarily, the military. The connection between the military and the US Dollar system is intertwined inextricably. There are thousands of great examples only one of them being how Iraq switched to the Euro right before the Army’s invasion.
In October 2000 Iraq insisted on dumping the US dollar – ‘the currency of the enemy’ – for the more multilateral euro. The changeover was announced on almost exactly the same day that the euro reached its lowest ebb, buying just $0.82, and the G7 Finance Ministers were forced to bail out the currency. On Friday the euro had reached $1.08, up 30 per cent from that time.
Almost all of Iraq’s oil exports under the United Nations oil-for-food programme have been paid in euros since 2001. Around 26 billion euros (£17.4bn) has been paid for 3.3 billion barrels of oil into an escrow account in New York. The Iraqi account, held at BNP Paribas, has also been earning a higher rate of interest in euros than it would have in dollars.
The point here is there are a lot of different types of control. The NSA monitors and collects literally all electronic communications; internet, phone calls, everything. They listen in even to encrypted voice calls with high powered microphones, devices like cellphones equipped with recording devices (See original “Clipper” chip). It’s very difficult to communicate on planet Earth in private, without the NSA listening. So it is only logical that they would also want complete control of the financial system, including records of all electronic transactions, which Bitcoin provides.
Could there be an ‘additional’ security layer baked into the Blockchain that is undetectable, that allows the NSA to see more information about transactions, such as network location data? It wouldn’t be so far fetched, considering their past work, such as Xerox copy machines that kept a record of all copies made (this is going back to the 70’s, now it’s common). Of course security experts will point to the fact that this layer remains invisible, but if this does exist – of course it would be hidden.
More to the point about the success of Bitcoin – its design is very solid, robust, manageable – this is not the work of a student. Of course logically, the NSA employs individuals, and ultimately it is the work of mathematicians, programmers, and cryptographers – but if we deduce the most likely group capable, willing, and motivated to embark on such a project, the NSA is the most likely suspect. Universities, on the other hand, didn’t product white papers like this from 1996.
Another question is that if it was the NSA, why didn’t they go through more trouble concealing their identity? I mean, the internet is rife with theories that it was in fact the NSA/CIA and “Satoshi Nakamoto” means in Japanese “Central Intelligence” – well there are a few answers for this, but to be congruent with our argument, it fits their profile.
Where could this ‘hidden layer’ be? Many think it could be in the public SHA-256, developed by NSA (which ironically, was the encryption algorithm of choice for Bitcoin – they could have chosen hundreds of others, which arguably are more secure):
Claims that the NSA created Bitcoin have actually been flung around for years. People have questioned why it uses the SHA-256 hash function, which was designed by the NSA and published by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). The fact that the NSA is tied to SHA-256 leads some to assume it’s created a backdoor to the hash function that no one has ever identified, which allows it to spy on Bitcoin users.
“If you assume that the NSA did something to SHA-256, which no outside researcher has detected, what you get is the ability, with credible and detectable action, they would be able to forge transactions. The really scary thing is somebody finds a way to find collisions in SHA-256 really fast without brute-forcing it or using lots of hardware and then they take control of the network,” cryptography researcher Matthew D. Green of Johns Hopkins University said in a previous interview.
Then there’s the question of “Satoshi Nakamoto” – if it was in fact the NSA, why not just claim ownership of it? Why all the cloak and dagger? And most importantly, if Satoshi Nakamoto is a real person, and not a group that wants to remain secret – WHY NOT come forward and claim your nearly $3 Billion worth of Bitcoin (based on current prices).
Did the NSA create Satoshi Nakamoto?
The CIA Project, a group dedicated to unearthing all of the government’s secret projects and making them public, hasreleased a video claiming Bitcoin is actually the brainchild of the US National Security Agency.
The video entitled CIA Project Bitcoin: Is Bitcoin a CIA or NSA project? claims that there is a lot of compelling evidences that proves that the NSA is behind Bitcoin. One of the main pieces of evidence has to do with the name of the mysterious man, woman or group behind the creation of Bitcoin, “Satoshi Nakamoto”.
According to the CIA Project, Satoshi Nakamoto means “Central Intelligence” in Japanese. Doing a quick web search, you’ll find out that Satoshi is usually a name given for baby boys which means “clear thinking, quick witted, wise,” while Nakamoto is a Japanese surname which means ‘central origin’ or ‘(one who lives) in the middle’ as people with this surname are found mostly in the Ryukyu islands which is strongly associated with the Ry?ky? Kingdom, a highly centralized kingdom that originated from the Okinawa Islands. So combining Nakamoto and Satoshi can be loosely interpreted as “Central Intelligence”.
Is it so really hard to believe? This is from an organization that until the Snowden leaks, secretly recorded nearly all internet traffic on the network level by splicing fiber optic cables. They even have a deep-sea splicing mission that will cut undersea cables and install intercept devices. Making Bitcoin wouldn’t even be a big priority at NSA.
Certainly, anonymity is one of the biggest myths about Bitcoin. In fact, there has never been a more easily traceable method of payment. Every single transaction is recorded and retained permanently in the public “blockchain”. The idea that the NSA would create an anarchic, peer-to-peer crypto-currency in the hope that it would be adopted for nefarious industries and become easy to track would have been a lot more difficult to believe before the recent leaks by Edward Snowden and the revelation that billions of phone calls had been intercepted by the US security services. We are now in a world where we now know that the NSA was tracking the pornography habits of Islamic “radicalisers” in order to discredit them and making deals with some of the world’s largest internet firms to insert backdoors into their systems.
And we’re not the only ones who believe this, in Russia they ‘know’ this to be true without sifting through all the evidence.
Nonetheless, Svintsov’s remarks count as some of the more extreme to emanate from the discussion. Svintsov told Russian broadcast news agency REGNUM:“All these cryptocurrencies [were] created by US intelligence agencies just to finance terrorism and revolutions.”Svintsov reportedly went on to explain how cryptocurrencies have started to become a payment method for consumer spending, and cited reports that terrorist organisations are seeking to use the technology for illicit means.
Let’s elaborate on what is ‘control’ as far as the NSA is concerned. Bitcoin is like the prime mover. All future cryptocurrencies, no matter how snazzy or functional – will never have the same original keys as Bitcoin. It created a self-sustained, self-feeding bubble – and all that followed. It enabled law enforcement to collect a host of criminals on a network called “Silk Road” and who knows what other operations that happened behind the scenes. Because of pesky ‘domestic’ laws, the NSA doesn’t control the internet in foreign countries. But by providing a ‘cool’ currency as a tool, they can collect information from around the globe and like Facebook, users provide this information voluntarily. It’s the same strategy they use like putting the listening device in the chips at the manufacturing level, which saves them the trouble of wiretapping, electronic eavesdropping, and other risky methods that can fail or be blocked. It’s impossible to stop a cellphone from listening to you, for example (well not 100%, but you have to physically rewire the device). Bitcoin is the same strategy on a financial level – by using Bitcoin you’re giving up your private transactional information. By itself, it would not identify you per se (as the blockchain is ‘anonymous’ but the transactions are there in the public register, so combined with other information, which the NSA has a LOT OF – they can triangulate their information more precisely.
That’s one problem solved with Bitcoin – another being the economic problem of QE (although with a Bitcoin market cap of $44 Billion, that’s just another day at the Fed buying MBS) – and finally, it squashes the idea of sovereignty although in a very, very, very subtle way. You see, a country IS a currency. Until now, currency has always been tied to national sovereignty (although the Fed is private, USA only has one currency, the US Dollar, which is exclusively American). Bitcoin is a super-national currency, or really – the world’s first one world currency.
Of course, this is all great praise for the DOD which seems to have a 50 year plan – but after tens of trillions spent we’d hope that they’d be able to do something better than catching terrorists (which mostly are artificial terrorists)
submitted by PeopleWhoDied to conspiracy [link] [comments]

Top 3 recipients of foreign direct investment

Top 3 recipients of foreign direct investment
UN experts published a report included the countries with the most significant and smallest volumes of foreign direct investment in 2018.
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) published its annual report, World Investment Report 2019, in which it was noted that foreign direct investment (FDI) in East Asia grew by 4% to $ 280 billion in 2018.

https://preview.redd.it/j0xecchsm2931.jpg?width=660&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1d5a0248f18fe51ecdc7135f69746205f3765fa6
ITRADER will tell you about the top 3 recipients of foreign investment.
3rd place: Hong Kong, China
FDI inflow: $ 116 billion
The economy of the territory is based on a free market, low taxation and non-interference of the state in the economy.
Hong Kong is an offshore territory, it is a free port, and it does not charge any customs duties on imports, there is no value added tax or its equivalents. Excise taxes are levied on only four types of goods, regardless of whether they are imported or locally produced.
2nd place: China
FDI inflow: $ 139 billion
The country has the most significant mineral reserves, taking on this indicator the first lines of the world ranking, but only partially developed natural wealth.
Over the past decades, China has acquired some high-tech manufacturing facilities through foreign investment and joint ventures with international partners.
The technological level and quality standards in many industries have improved rapidly and fast.
1st place: The USA
The United States is a highly developed country with the first economy in the world in nominal GDP and second in GDP (PPP).
Although the country's population accounts for only 4.3% of the world total, Americans own about 40% of total world wealth.
The United States occupies a leading position in the world in a number of socio-economic indicators, including average wages, HDI, GDP per capita, and labor productivity.
You can find more information about the stock market, commodity market, and FOREX on the ITRADER site.
This material is considered a marketing communication and does not contain, and should not be construed as containing, investment advice or an investment recommendation or, an offer of or solicitation for any transactions in financial instruments. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results.
Risk Warning: CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 87.07% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.
Legal Information: ITRADER is operated by Hoch Capital Ltd., a Cypriot Investment Firm (CIF), authorized and regulated by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) under the license no. 198/13, in accordance with the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II).
submitted by Itrader_com to u/Itrader_com [link] [comments]

How to help the Nano ecosystem # 2018.12.04

Rules for the thread:
 

Chapter 1 - Basics

Upgrading the global monetary system: Nano is a deflationary digital currency that has instant transactions and zero fees: https://nanolinks.info
 

Chapter 2 - Infrastructure | Payment Gateways

 

Chapter 3 - Infrastructure | Exchanges

 

Chapter 4 - Infrastructure | POS

 

Chapter 5 - Infrastructure | ATM

 

Chapter 6 - Usability | Hardware Wallets

 

Chapter 7 - Usability | Programming and Design

 

Chapter 9 - Media

 

Chapter 10 - Social Media

Upgrading the global monetary system: $NANO is a deflationary #cryptocurrency that has instant transactions and zero fees: https://nanolinks.info
 
#money #forex #business #startup #finance #investing #trading #markets #economy #blockchain #bitcoin #ethereum #crypto
 

Chapter 11 - Other

 

Hopefully subscribers start pitching in, and we'll see some comments here about it.

submitted by laurbyteball to nanocurrency [link] [comments]

Need a decent rig for work/gaming! (USA)

I'm really wanting to get into games like Squad and Post Scriptum, also Star Citizen and similar games. I also do quite a bit of work on my current computer, including stock/forex. Anything powerful enough to run aforementioned games on high settings would easily be able to keep up with my trading programs and whatnot.
What is your maximum budget before rebates/shipping/taxes?
For a budget, we're looking at around USD 1000, though I would be able to comfortably afford up to USD 1500. Would like to keep it under if at all possible.
When do you plan on building/buying the PC? Note: beyond a week or two from today means any build you receive will be out of date when you want to buy.
I can start ordering parts today, and so on.
What, exactly, do you need included in the budget? (ToweOS/monitokeyboard/mouse/etc)
Tower, cooling (maybe??), Keyboard and mouse
Which country (and state/province) will you be purchasing the parts in? If you're in US, do you have access to a Microcenter location?
Alaska, USA. No microcenter afaik, so I'll likely order everything possible online.
If reusing any parts (including monitor(s)/keyboard/mouse/etc), what parts will you be reusing? Brands and models are appreciated.
I've got a couple of LG smart TVs with 4k output that can double as monitors.
Will you be overclocking? If yes, are you interested in overclocking right away, or down the line? CPU and/or GPU?
Probably not, I'm a noob!
Are there any specific features or items you want/need in the build? (ex: SSD, large amount of storage or a RAID setup, CUDA or OpenCL support, etc)
SSD, lots of RAM.
Do you have any specific case preferences (Size like ITX/microATX/mid-towefull-tower, styles, colors, window or not, LED lighting, etc), or a particular color theme preference for the components?
Maybe one day, as for now, a simple case that fits everything and has good airflow is key.
Do you need a copy of Windows included in the budget? If you do need one included, do you have a preference?
Already covered.
Thanks in advance!
submitted by SirAmikBARZ to buildapcforme [link] [comments]

How to help the Nano ecosystem # 2018.11.25

Rules for the thread:
 

Chapter 1 - Basics

Upgrading the global monetary system: Nano is a deflationary digital currency that has instant transactions and zero fees: https://nanolinks.info
 

Chapter 2 - Infrastructure | Payment Gateways

 

Chapter 3 - Infrastructure | Exchanges

 

Chapter 4 - Infrastructure | POS

 

Chapter 5 - Infrastructure | ATM

 

Chapter 6 - Usability | Hardware Wallets

 

Chapter 7 - Usability | Programming and Design

 

Chapter 9 - Media

 

Chapter 10 - Social Media

Upgrading the global monetary system: $NANO is a deflationary #cryptocurrency that has instant transactions and zero fees: https://nanolinks.info
 
#money #forex #business #startup #finance #investing #trading #markets #economy #blockchain #bitcoin #ethereum #crypto
 

Chapter 11 - Other

 

Now actually choose something and do it!

submitted by laurbyteball to nanocurrency [link] [comments]

FOREX AND TAXES  WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW !  FOREX TRADING ... How To Qualify for Forex Trader Tax Status - YouTube Do Forex Traders Pay Taxes? - YouTube Forex & Taxes  Do Forex Traders Pay Taxes Day Trading How to File Taxes with US and Offshore Brokers

The US has a series of tax treaties with many countries. This means if you are non-resident, meaning you live outside the USA, you can trade and profit in the US without having to pay “withholding tax” in the US. Understand Withholding Tax. Withholding tax is a tax on your investments applied when you sell a stock. Withholding Tax is ... Forex Options and Futures Traders . For tax purposes, forex options and futures contracts are considered IRC Section 1256 contracts, which are subject to a 60/40 tax consideration.In other words ... Tax rate: Forex futures and options traders, just like retail Forex traders, can tax their gains under the 60/40 rule, ... Keeping a performance record and detailed booking of your trading performance can make tax filing a lot easier by yearend. How to change your tax status? Although the US tax system separates Forex futures and options traders from spot traders, each trader can decide ... Forex Trading and Taxes. Seeing profits from forex trading is an exciting feeling both for you and your portfolio. But then, it hits you. What about taxes? The forex tax code can be confusing at first. This is because some forex transactions are categorized under Section 1256 contracts while others are treated under the Section 988 – the Treatment of Certain Currency Transactions. Section ... Forex trading tax laws in the U.K. are much more trader-friendly than the United States. Currently, spread betting profits are not taxed in the U.K., and many U.K. brokers offer retail forex demo and regular accounts in a spread betting structure. This means a trader can trade the forex market and be free from paying taxes; thus, forex trading is tax-free! This is incredibly positive for ... For the highest income-tax bracket of 39.6 percent, Section 1256 offers a tax rate of 28 percent on FOREX-account profits. However, this tax treatment also limits the amount of losses that a ... If you fall into the 25-35% tax bracket, it will be 15%, and it will be 20% if you fall into the 36.9% tax bracket. The 40% of the gains are considered to be short-term and will be taxed at your usual income tax rate. So, on the whole, forex trading tax implications in the US will be the same as share trading taxes, and most other instruments ...

[index] [26883] [1164] [24091] [6820] [13614] [13650] [28457] [11658] [20563] [6002]

FOREX AND TAXES WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ! FOREX TRADING ...

Forex Trade With Us http://bit.ly/2EYIbgI Email: [email protected] Brokers I use https://bit.ly/35kgYkc P.S MY INSTAGRAM IS GONE NOW SO IF SOMEBODY W... Welcome to my Channel. What is up family !!! Here is the highly anticipated video on Forex & Taxes!! Please Please always check with your Tax Professional when it comes to how you should do your ... Hey everyone! This is the 6th video in my December to Remember series and today I will be touching on how forex taxes are paid. I am NOT a tax professional, ... https://www.intensitystockwatch.com/kevinisw.html Use referral code ISWKEVIN when signing up to Intensity Stock Watch and you will get 30% off the regular pr... How To Qualify for Forex Trader Tax Status - YouTube. How To Qualify for Forex Trader Tax Status. Watch later. Share. Copy link. Info. Shopping. Tap to unmute. If playback doesn't begin shortly ...

https://binaryoptiontrade.lnothupmarmasuchil.cf