I grew up in a typical conservative middle-class household in the 90s. Like most conservative families, I grew up hearing about how horrible Sheikh Mujib became after 71, and how people were so relieved after he was murdered in 1975. This is something I heard from everyone, relatives, friends, etc. I, too, used to hate Sheikh Mujib. I thought he was a dictator, pro-India, anti-Islam, traitor, just wanted to be Pakistan's PM, etc.
Of course, I was a teenager in the 2001-2006 period when the BNP-Jamat government rammed the entire country into the ground. There were hartals and oborodhs all the time, electricity used to go off every other hour, terrorist would blast a bomb every other week while the government would term it all as a "conspiracy", there was no development and we would stagger from one crisis to another. Mullahs would carry out misils all the time calling for Shariah law, and attacking Ahmadiyya houses. Khaleda Zia had zero control over the country. She just didn't have any leadership qualities. I felt that I wanted to leave this shithole as soon as I got the first opportunity.
The BNP regime was interrupted by the caretaker government. Full of "highly educated" bureaucrats, I naturally supported them. But their "Minus 2" plan went nowhere, and they weren't being able to handle the country either. Fakhruddin Ahmed and Moinuddin Ahmed just didn't' have any leadership qualities either. Facing an unfavourable situation, they at least had the decency to organize elections and arrange a respectable exit for themselves.
Then we the Awami League get power in 2008. I still hated them back then. Their first term, 2009-2013 was full of turmoil, with the "Shahbag movement" and the "ICT Tribunal" and the hanging of the senior Jamat leaders. But the country gradually started getting into shape. If you look at the economic indicators we started taking off in 2010. By 2014 political stability was re-established. This was all possible due to Sheikh Hasina's leadership qualities, which others lack. The Awami League's electricity reforms paid off, and loadshedding is largely over in Dhaka. Awami League drastically reduced prices of broadband internet, and we got access to bufferless YouTube for the first time. BNP was jumping up and down screaming that government was looting crores of taka under the name of quick rental power plants. But our forex reserves zoomed from 10 billion to 30 billion. New roads were being built everywhere and Bangladesh's Debt-to-GDP ratio remains one of the lowest in South Asia, and in the world.
So I was really forced to re-evaluate my hatred of Awami League, Sheik Hasina and Sheikh Mujib. When I looked back at the life of Sheikh Mujib, I found that he dedicated his life to the people of East Bengal. He was a part of the Muslim League to get independence for us, and after witnessing the bloody religious riots changed his worldview to secular democratic socialism. That's something very admirable! That's not anti-Islam at all! And then he joined forces with India to free East Pakistan. That's not treason, his loyalty was to the people of East Pakistan. He single-handedly united 60 million very backward and uneducated people and led them to independence. After that, he presided over the creation of a Constitution that was secular, in a overwhelmingly rural, uneducated Muslim country. He could easily have given in to Saudi Arabia in return for oil, like so many Muslim countries, but did not compromise. He could have chosen to recognize Israel, and have gotten instant recognition and support from the West, but stayed firm to his principles of loyalty to the Palestinian people. All of his actions point towards the qualities of a great leader. Sheikh Mujib did not allow the Indians to stay in Bangladesh and ensured their withdrawal.
Just have a look at countries around the world today. Look at Syria, where they have a bastard dictator who murders his own people, and an opposition full of traitors and terrorists. Look at Libya, where the people have no leadership. Look at India, where they are under the thrall of a fascist religious dictator Modi. Sudan is only establishing secularism in their constitution in 2020, while Bangladesh did it 50 years ago!!! Look at Iran, where people are all trying to escape their religious government. Look at Pakistan with their blasphemy laws and their mullahs trying to oppose any law against child marriage! We bypassed all of this thanks to Sheikh Mujib and his foresight!!!
The closest leader who resembles Sheikh Mujib would be Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. While Ataturk was objectively greater than Sheikh Mujib, since he was an accomplished military leader who led the actual Turkish War of Independence himself, Ataturk also modernized a backward, rural, uneducated nation overnight into a modern, secular and democratic state. Of course, Ataturk has many haters. They also accuse him of being a dictator. But his achievements greatly overshadow any sacrifices that may have been required to achieve the goal of a modern independent Turkey. The same goes for Shiekh Mujib. Whatever are his faults, Rakkhi Bahini, BAKSAL, I am willing to forgive him for his leadership during our independence and his creation of a secular and democratic Bangladesh.
Today we are blessed to have his daughter Sheikh Hasina in power. Lots of you might call her "fascist". That's such a lazy and pathetic position to take. Trust me, if there was any other leader other than SH as PM the government would be just as "fascist" as her government is now. Its so easy to sit back behind a PC and cry "fascist fascist fascist". YOU try organizing a political party in a nation of 165 million people, and then successfully leading that country on the path towards economic development. Without a doubt, if those crying 'fascist fascist' were put into power as PM they would be 100 times more fascistic than Sheikh Hasina is right now.
Without a doubt, human rights abuses occur under her. Abrar was beaten to death by BCL thugs (which was fully supported by the 'humanist' Taslima Nasrin btw). But those BCL thugs are in jail now. Major Sinha Rashed Khan was murdered by OC Liakat and Prodip. Both of them are in jail. If SH was as fascist as people claim, they would be out in the streets, like the Hindu thugs who carried out the Delhi riots in February, or the terrorist Mullahs in Pakistan who forcibly convert and kidnap Christian girls.
So, from what I have seen, Awami League is an organic political party of the people of East Bengal. They have deeper roots in the hearts of the people than any other political movement. And they should be lauded because they have established secularism and inclusive nationalism where there is space for Bangladeshis of all religions and ethnicities in a united Bangladesh. While sometimes they have acted in a fascist manner, it is excusable because there is no other alternative in Bangladesh who can win elections and be more liberal than BAL. Instead of pathetically criticizing them, those who want the best for Bangladesh should work with them in order to reduce the human rights abuses which do still occur. BAL will be remembered in history like the PAP of Singapore, or the UMNO of Malaysia, or the Chinese Communist Party; all of whom were authoritarian, who were accused of being fascist, but ultimately ensured the evolution of their societies from backward uneducated agricultural societies to modern, secular democratic industrial ones.

Forex là một kênh giao dịch ngoại hối thu hút sự quan tâm của rất nhiều các nhà đầu tư hiện nay. Nhưng trước khi đầu tư, chắc hẳn ai cũng thắc mắc đầu tư forex có hợp pháp không ? Bài viết này sẽ đi sâu tìm hiểu vấn đề này để cho người đọc cái nhìn khách quan nhất.
Forex là gì?
Forex – Foreign Exchange là quá trình trao đổi ngoại tệ / ngoại hối, và là thị trường tài chính lớn nhất thế giới, với số lượng tiền giao dịch mỗi ngày lên dến 1.95 nghìn tỉ USD ( 2006 ) và năm 2013 là khoảng 4,000 tỷ USD ( 3,98 trillion USD, theo thống kê từ năm 2013).
Các sàn giao dịch Forex thường có trụ sở chính tại nước ngoài, như Sàn Forex.com Uk tại Anh quốc, FXDD ở Mỹ, FXpro ở châu Âu. Các sàn forex này có được đăng ký kinh doanh hợp pháp tại các cơ quan ở nước sở tại, do đó sàn đảm bảo không thực hiện các hành vi gian lận, qua mặt khách hàng. Những sàn giao dịch này có thể giao dịch đối xứng, tương tác với khách hàng.
Đầu tư Forex có hợp pháp không ?
Các ngân hàng thương mại Việt Nam hiện nay hạn chế việc chuyển tiền ra nước ngoài. Pháp lệnh ngoại hối Việt Nam có quy định cấm các cá nhân giao dịch ngoại hối (có hiệu lực từ tháng 3/2010) nhưng chỉ cấm trên lãnh thổ Việt Nam. Trong khi các sàn giao dịch forex trụ sở chính là ở nước ngoài, môi giới cũng ở nước ngoài, họ có đăng ký kinh doanh và đã đạt tiêu chuẩn bắt buộc của các sở giao dịch, hoạt động ngoại hối ở nước sở tại. Thực tế cho thấy các sàn forex phải tuần thủ theo đúng luật nên mới có thể hoạt động hàng chục năm. Nếu các nhà đầu tư quyết định đầu tư vào forex suy cho cùng cũng không phải bất hợp pháp bởi các cá nhân đó không tự động thực hiện giao dịch ngoại hối chuyển tiền ra nước ngoài mà thông qua một sàn giao dịch đã được đăng kí hợp pháp tại nước sở tại. Điều này hoàn toàn không trái với pháp luật Việt Nam.
Thực tế cho thấy ở Việt Nam đúng là các nhà chức trách và pháp luật chưa cho phép, thừa nhận hình thức đầu tư forex. Các sàn forex, các công ty mở ra cho các nhà đầu tư mở tài khoản giao dịch forex cũng là mở theo đường tiểu ngạch, không chính thức đăng kí kinh doanh.
Tuy nhiên, nếu xét về luật thì ta thấy không có luật nào của Việt Nam cấm việc đầu tư vào forex, chính vì thế nên các công ty này vẫn tồn tại. Bằng chứng cho thấy ở miền bắc nước ta hiện nay có khoảng 40 sàn vàng và sàn giao dịch forex vẫn hoạt động. Ở Cần Thơ gần đây cũng đã xuất hiện các sàn giao dịch này. Xét về bản chất thì đây là một kênh đầu tư rất tốt, một sàn giao dịch tốt cho các nhà đầu tư và nó hoàn toàn hợp pháp ở các nước trên thế giới hiện nay, tuy nhiên, đối với Việt Nam thì nhà nước vẫn chưa cho phép nhưng cũng không cấm. Nói cách khác, đầu tư forex không phải là một hoạt động bất hợp pháp, mà đầu tư forex có hợp pháp, vì thế nếu muốn, các bạn hoàn toàn vẫn có thể đầu tư.
Như vậy, trên đây là các quan điểm cũng như các phân tích để đưa ra kết luận đầu tư forex có hợp pháp hay không.

PART 2 : https://www.reddit.com/wallstreetbets/comments/g0sd44/what_is_the_bottom/
PART 3: https://www.reddit.com/wallstreetbets/comments/g2enz2/why_the_printer_must_continue/
Edit: By popular demand, the too long didn't read is now at the top
TL;DR
SPY 220p 11/20
This will likely be a multi-part series. It should be noted that I am no expert by any means, I'm actually quite new to this, it is just an elementary analysis of patterns in price and time. I am not a financial advisor, and this is not advice for a person to enter trades upon.
The fundamental divide in trading revolves around the question of market structure. Many feel that the market operates totally randomly and its’ behavior cannot be predicted. For the purposes of this DD, we will assume that the market has a structure, but that that structure is not perfect. That market structure naturally generates chart patterns as the market records prices in time. We will analyze an instrument, an exchange traded fund, which represents an index, as opposed to a particular stock. The price patterns of the various stocks in an index are effectively smoothed out. In doing so, a more technical picture arises. Perhaps the most popular of these is the SPDR S&P Standard and Poor 500 Exchange Traded Fund ($SPY).
In trading, little to no concern is given about value of underlying asset. We concerned primarily about liquidity and trading ranges, which are the amount of value fluctuating on a short-term basis, as measured by volatility-implied trading ranges. Fundamental analysis plays a role, however markets often do not react to real-world factors in a logical fashion. Therefore, fundamental analysis is more appropriate for long-term investing.
The fundamental derivatives of a chart are time (x-axis) and price (y-axis). The primary technical indicator is price, as everything else is lagging in the past. Price represents current asking price and incorrectly implementing positions based on price is one of the biggest trading errors.
Markets ordinarily have noise, their tendency to back-and-fill, which must be filtered out for true pattern recognition. That noise does have a utility, however, in allowing traders second chances to enter favorable positions at slightly less favorable entry points. When you have any market with enough liquidity for historical data to record a pattern, then a structure can be divined. The market probes prices as part of an ongoing price-discovery process. Market technicians must sometimes look outside of the technical realm and use visual inspection to ascertain the relevance of certain patterns, using a qualitative eye that recognizes the underlying quantitative nature
Markets rise slower than they correct, however they rise much more than they fall. In the same vein, instruments can only fall to having no worth, whereas they could theoretically grow infinitely and have continued to grow over time. Money in a fiat system is illusory. It is a fundamentally synthetic instrument which has no intrinsic value. Hence, the recent seemingly illogical fluctuations in the market.
According to trade theory, the unending purpose of a market is to create and break price ranges according to the laws of supply and demand. We must determine when to trade based on each market inflection point as defined in price and in time as opposed to abandoning the trend (as the contrarian trading in this sub often does). Time and Price symmetry must be used to be in accordance with the trend. When coupled with a favorable risk to reward ratio, the ability to stay in the market for most of the defined time period, and adherence to risk management rules; the trader has a solid methodology for achieving considerable gains.
We will engage in a longer term market-oriented analysis to avoid any time-focused pressure. The market is technically open 24-hours a day, so trading may be done when the individual is ready, without any pressing need to be constantly alert. Let alone, we can safely project months in advance with relatively high accuracy.
Some important terms to keep in mind:
§ Discrete – terminal points at the extremes of ranges
§ Secondary Discrete – quantified retracement or correction between two discrete
§ Longs (asset appreciation) and shorts (asset depreciation)

Technical Indicators

- Technical indicators are often considered self-fulfilling prophecies due to mass-market psychology gravitating towards certain common numbers yielded from them. That means a trader must be especially aware of these numbers as they can prognosticate market movements. Often, they are meaningless in the larger picture of things.
§ Volume – derived from the market itself, it is mostly irrelevant. The major problem with volume is that the US market open causes tremendous volume surges eradicating any intrinsic volume analysis. At major highs and lows, the market is typically anemic. Most traders are not active at terminal discretes because of levels of fear. Allows us confidence in time and price symmetry market inflection points, if we observe low volume at a foretold range of values. We can rationalize that an absolute discrete is usually only discovered and anticipated by very few traders. As the general market realizes it, a herd mentality will push the market in the direction favorable to defending it. Volume is also useful for swing trading, as chances for swing’s validity increases if an increase in volume is seen on and after the swing’s activation.
Therefore, due to the relatively high volume on the 23rd of March, we can safely determine that a low WAS NOT reached.
§ VIX – Volatility Index, this technical indicator indicates level of fear by the amount of options-based “insurance” in portfolios. A low VIX environment, less than 20 for the S&P index, indicates a stable market with a possible uptrend. A high VIX, over 20, indicates a possible downtrend. However, it is equally important to see how VIX is changing over time, if it is decreasing or increasing, as that indicates increasing or decreasing fear. Low volatility allows high leverage without risk or rest. Occasionally, markets do rise with high VIX.
As VIX is unusually high, in the forties, we can be confident that a downtrend is imminent.

Trend Definition Analysis

– Trend definition is highly powerful, cannot be understated. Knowledge of trend logic is enough to be a profitable trader, yet defining a trend is an arduous process. Multiple trends coexist across multiple time frames and across multiple market sectors. Like time structure, it makes the underlying price of the instrument irrelevant. Trend definitions cannot determine the validity of newly formed discretes. Trend becomes apparent when trades based in counter-trend inflection points continue to fail.
Downtrends are defined as an instrument making lower lows and lower highs that are recurrent, additive, qualified swing setups. Downtrends for all instruments are similar, except forex. They are fast and complete much quicker than uptrends. An average downtrend is 18 months, something which we will return to. An uptrend inception occurs when an instrument reaches a point where it fails to make a new low, then that low will be tested. After that, the instrument will either have a deep range retracement or it may take out the low slightly, resulting in a double-bottom. A swing must eventually form.
A simple way to roughly determine trend is to attempt to draw a line from three tops going upwards (uptrend) or a line from three bottoms going downwards (downtrend). It is not possible to correctly draw an uptrend line on the SPY chart, but it is possible to correctly draw a downtrend – indicating that the overall trend is downwards.

Time Symmetry

Now that we have determined that the overall trend is downwards, the next issue is the question of when SPY will bottom out.
Time is the movement from the past through the present into the future. It is a measurement in quantified intervals. In many ways, our perception of it is a human construct. It is more powerful than price as time may be utilized for a trade regardless of the market inflection point’s price. Were it possible to perfectly understand time, price would be totally irrelevant due to the predictive certainty time affords. Time structure is easier to learn than price, but much more difficult to apply with any accuracy. It is the hardest aspect of trading to learn, but also the most rewarding.
Humans do not have the ability to recognize every time window, however the ability to define market inflection points in terms of time is the single most powerful trading edge. Regardless, price should not be abandoned for time alone. Time structure analysis It is inherently flawed, as such the markets have a fail-safe, which is Price Structure. Even though Time is much more powerful, Price Structure should never be completely ignored. Time is the qualifier for Price and vice versa. Time can fail by tricking traders into counter-trend trading.
Time is a predestined trade quantifier, a filter to slow trades down, as it allows a trader to specifically focus on specific time windows and rest at others. It allows for quantitative measurements to reach deterministic values and is the primary qualifier for trends. Time structure should be utilized before price structure, and it is the primary trade criterion which requires support from price. We can see price structure on a chart, as areas of mathematical support or resistance, but we cannot see time structure.
Time may be used to tell us an exact point in the future where the market will inflect, after Price Theory has been fulfilled. In the present, price objectives based on price theory added to possible future times for market inflection points give us the exact time of market inflection points and price.
Time Structure is repetitions of time or inherent cycles of time, occurring in a methodical way to provide time windows which may be utilized for inflection points. They are not easily recognized and not easily defined by a price chart as measuring and observing time is very exact. Time structure is not a science, yet it does require precise measurements. Nothing is certain or definite. The critical question must be if a particular approach to time structure is currently lucrative or not.
We will complete our analysis of time by measuring it in intervals of 180 bars. Our goal is to determine time windows, when the market will react and when we should pay the most attention. By using time repetitions, the fact that market inflection points occurred at some point in the past and should, therefore, reoccur at some point in the future, we should obtain confidence as to when SPY will reach a market inflection point. Time repetitions are essentially the market’s memory. However, simply measuring the time between two points then trying to extrapolate into the future does not work. Measuring time is not the same as defining time repetitions. We will evaluate past sessions for market inflection points, whether discretes, qualified swings, or intra-range. Then records the times that the market has made highs or lows in a comparable time period to the future one seeks to trade in.
What follows is a time Histogram – A grouping of times which appear close together, then segregated based on that closeness. Time is aligned into combined histogram of repetitions and cycles, however cycles are irrelevant on a daily basis. If trading on an hourly basis, do not use hours.
Yearly Lows: 12/31/2000, 9/21/2001, 10/9/2002, 3/11/2003, 8/2/2004, 4/15/2005, 6/12/2006, 3/5/2007, 11/17/2008, 3/9/2009, 7/2/10, 10/3/11, 1/1/12, 1/1/13, 2/3/14, 9/28/15, 2/8/16, 1/3/17, 12/24/18, 6/3/19
Months: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 11, 12, 12
Days: 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 8, 9, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 21, 24, 28, 31
Monthly Lows: 3/23, 2/28, 1/27, 12/3, 11/1, 10/2, 9/3, 8/5, 7/1, 6/3, 5/31, 4/1
Days: 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5, 23, 27, 27, 31
Weighted Times are repetitions which appears multiple times within the same list, observed and accentuated once divided into relevant sections of the histogram. They are important in the presently defined trading time period and are similar to a mathematical mode with respect to a series. Phased times are essentially periodical patterns in histograms, though they do not guarantee inflection points*.*
We see that SPY tends to have its lows between three major month clusters: 1-4, primarily March (which has actually occurred already this year), 6-9, averaged out to July, and 10-12, averaged out to November. Following the same methodology, we get the third and tenth days of the month as the likeliest days. However, evaluating the monthly lows for the past year, the end of the month has replaced the average of the tenth. Therefore, we have four primary dates for our histogram.
7/3/20, 7/27/20, and 11/3/20, 11/27/20 .
How do we narrow this group down with any accuracy? Let us average the days together to work with two dates - 7/15/20 and 11/15/20.
The 8.6-Year Armstrong-Princeton Global Economic Confidence model – states that 2.15 year intervals occur between corrections, relevant highs and lows. 2.15 years from the all-time peak discrete is April 14th of 2022. However, we can time-shift to other peaks and troughs to determine a date for this year. If we consider 1/28/2018 as a localized high and apply this model, we get 3/23/20 as a low - strikingly accurate. I have chosen the next localized high, 9/21/2018 to apply the model to. We achieve a date of 11/14/2020.
The average bear market is eighteen months long, giving us a date of August 19th, 2021 for the end of the bear market - roughly speaking.
Therefore, our timeline looks like:

11/14/20 - yearly low (selected from histogram averages, 11/15/20, and the 8.6 Year Confidence model)
7/28/21 - End of bear market (18 month average of 8/9, averaged with histogram date of 7/15)
4/14/22 - lesser correction.

As we move forward in time, our predictions may be less accurate. It is important to keep in mind that this analysis will likely change and become more accurate as we factor in Terry Laundry’s T-Theory, the Bradley Cycle, a more sophisticated analysis of Bull and Bear Market Cycles, the Fundamental Investor Cyclic Approach, and Seasons and Half-Seasons.
I have also assumed that the audience believes in these models, which is not necessary. Anyone with free time may construct histograms and view these time models, determining for themselves what is accurate and what is not. Take a look at 1/28/2008, that localized high, and 2.15 years (1/4th of the sinusoidal wave of the model) later.
The question now is, what prices will SPY reach on 11/14? Where will we be at 7/28? What will happen on 4/14/22?

TL;DR Just got into Naked Forex trading but I am stuck on backtesting. Can't correctly identify critical zones (supp and res zones) and I haven't found the criteria for my trading system (wammies and moolahs) on the charts that I have back tested. Any advice?

Hi there, I started learning about forex awhile back from a friend and he began to show me the basics while also directing me to babypips for the free course they put you through. Although I got into all of this awhile back, I have been stuck in the stages of finding my own strategy and backtesting it.
At first, I was very much into using the basic indicators (RSI, MACD, SMA/EMA) but then I came across a recommendation in this sub to read 'Naked Forex' and I was hooked. Not in a sense that now I knew exactly what my strategy was and how to implement it, but hooked in the idea of being able to read a chart and make trades based on price action and reversals.
Of course while reading the book, understanding the concepts, and looking at all the examples of the different trading strategies i'm getting hyped in my mind to get to the backtesting stage to see if I can put this knowledge to somewhat of a test. Now here I am, staring at tradingview's daily and 4h charts from 2006 onward.
Here's where I get stuck.
I understand identifying critical support and resistance zones and it all made sense to me in the book, but as I am backtesting I find that the zones are either always changing or I can't figure out which ones are critical. On top of that, my trading system looks something like this (advice is welcome on how this could be improved or if you see any glaring "wtfs" in it)
I trade wammies & moolahs (market touches supp. or res. zone twice, second touch is lowehigher with a bearish/bullish candlestick printed on the 2nd touch) and use either a kangaroo tail or big shadow for confirmation to initiate the trade.
The buy/sell stop is set 8 pips above/below the bearish/bullish candlestick and the stop loss is placed below/above the first touch.
The profit target is the following zone.
There's a bit more criteria for the trade but that's the blueprint of it. I apologize if it either doesn't make sense or confuses you but even after sifting through months/years of backtesting data my eyes never caught any of this action happening in the zones I've identified.
Any help would be appreciated as I am a sponge and will soak in as much criticism and advice as I can.

While reasearching Epstein's known associates, an interesting individual stood out. Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Lady de Rothschild. No intention of this being a Rothschild Conspiracy. If your are uninterested to read the content below, scroll down to Comment to get my summary and take on this information. As always please Fact check this.
(HJI) is a bi-partisan, transatlantic movement of business leaders, senior policy makers and academics focused on promoting a more Inclusive Capitalism. The HJI calls for international collaboration from businesses and other organizations to encourage the widest possible adoption of programs that improve capitalism as a driver of wellbeing for society.
The HJI grew out of the Task Force project For Inclusive Capitalism, which sought solutions to the effects on society and business as a result of the global financial crisis of 2007 – 2008 and the dislocations caused by capitalism’s practice over the past 30 years. The Taskforce, which was co-chaired by Dominic Barton, Global Managing Director, McKinsey & Company, and Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, CEO, El Rothschild, published its inaugural paper Towards a More Inclusive Capitalism in May 2012. The report sets out three pathways for business action that lie at the heart of the HJI’s mandate:

Education for employment: addressing the gap between employer needs and employee skills
Nurture start-ups and SMEs: mentoring small businesses and improving access to credit for them
Reform management and governance for the long term: replacing today’s focus on short term performance

The HJI exists to highlight and support businesses and other organizations working to promote the broadest possible adoption of best practices in these and other areas related to Inclusive Capitalism. The HJI believes there is an urgent and compelling demand for business to act to address the greatest systemic issues facing capitalism today. The HJI also believes that business is best positioned to lead innovations in areas that need them the most.

WHO WAS HENRY JACKSON?

Henry Martin "Scoop" Jackson (May 31, 1912 – September 1, 1983) was an American politician who served as a U.S. Representative (1941–1953) and U.S. Senator (1953–1983) from the state of Washington). A Cold War liberal and anti-Communist Democrat), Jackson supported higher military spending and a hard line against the Soviet Union, while also supporting social welfare programs, civil rights, and labor unions.
Jackson was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously in 1984; Ronald Reagan called him "one of the greatest lawmakers of our century," and stated:

Scoop Jackson was convinced that there's no place for partisanship in foreign and defense policy. He used to say, 'In matters of national security, the best politics is no politics.' His sense of bipartisanship was not only natural and complete; it was courageous. He wanted to be President, but I think he must have known that his outspoken ideas on the security of the Nation would deprive him of the chance to be his party's nominee in 1972 and '76. Still, he would not cut his convictions to fit the prevailing style. I'm deeply proud, as he would have been, to have Jackson Democrats serve in my administration. I'm proud that some of them have found a home here.

Criticism

Jackson was known as a hawkish Democrat. He was often criticized for his support for the Vietnam War and his close ties to the defense industries of his state. His proposal of Fort Lawton as a site for an anti-ballistic missile system was strongly opposed by local residents, and Jackson was forced to modify his position on the location of the site several times, but continued to support ABM development. American Indian rights activists who protested Jackson's plan to give Fort Lawton to Seattle, instead of returning it to local tribes, staged a sit-in. In the eventual compromise, most of Fort Lawton became Discovery Park), with 20 acres (8.1 ha) leased to United Indians of All Tribes, who opened the Daybreak Star Cultural Center there in 1977.
Opponents derided him as "the Senator from Boeing" and a "whore for Boeing" because of his consistent support for additional military spending on weapons systems and accusations of wrongful contributions from the company; in 1965, 80% of Boeing's contracts were military. Jackson and Magnuson's campaigning for an expensive government supersonic transport plane project eventually failed.
After his death, critics pointed to Jackson's support for Japanese American internment camps during World War II as a reason to protest the placement of his bust at the University of Washington.Jackson was both an enthusiastic defender of the evacuation and a staunch proponent of the campaign to keep the Japanese-Americans from returning to the Pacific Coast after the war.

Jackson Papers controversy

Senator Jackson's documents were donated to the University of Washington shortly after his death in 1983, and have been archived there ever since.When the materials were donated in 1983, university staff removed all information considered classified at the time.Additional materials were added to the collection until 1995.
At some point, library staff discovered a classified document in the collection and sent it to the government for declassification. In response, in the summer of 2004, a man who identified himself as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) called the University of Washington asking to inspect Senator Jackson's archived documents housed there. He found a document labelled as classified and showed this to a librarian.[48] In February 2005, 22 years after Jackson's death, a five-person team including staff of the CIA, Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the Information Security Oversight Office came to library to review all of Jackson's papers to remove anything still considered classified, or reclassified since then. The Department of Energy found nothing of concern, but the CIA blanked lines in about 20 papers and pulled 8 documents out of collection. As of 2018, some files in the collection are available only to those regarded by the library as "serious researchers", who must first sign a release not to divulge some of the information contained in the files.

The Henry Jackson Society

The society was founded on 11 March 2005 by academics and students at Cambridge, including Brendan Simms, Alan Mendoza, Gideon Mailer, James Rogers and Matthew Jamison. It organises meetings with speakers in the House of Commons. The society claims that it advocates an interventionist) foreign-policy that promotes human rights and reduces suffering, by both non-military and military methods, when appropriate.
In 2006, the society worked to raise the profile of the Ahwazi Arabs of Iran, who it claims are currently being oppressed by the Iranian government.
After originating within the University of Cambridge, the organisation is now based in London. In April 2011 the entire staff of another London think-tank, the Centre for Social Cohesion (which has since been dissolved), joined the Henry Jackson Society.
The organisation is a registered charity in England and Wales and earns financial backing from private donations and grant-making organisations which support its work. The income of the society increased significantly from 2009 to 2014, from £98,000 to £1.6 million per year.
In 2017 Hannah Stuart, one of the society's Research Fellows, released Islamist Terrorism: Analysis of Offences and Attacks in the UK (1998–2015), which profiled every individual convicted under terrorism legislation in the UK between those dates with an Islamist connection.

Structure and projects

The Society has produced a breadth of research reports and papers. These have mostly focused on Islamist extremist activity in the UK, crackdowns on human rights and democracy elsewhere, and various facets of foreign policy and defence.Its current workstreams include:

Asia Studies Centre. This Centre seeks to provide "an in-depth understanding of the structural shifts, regional complexities and historic tensions that exist alongside the tremendous economic and social growth that traditionally characterise the 'rise of Asia'."Publications include a paper on the possible outcomes of the negotiations with North Korea,and the need to safeguard critical national infrastructure in the West from vulnerabilities which may be built in by China.
Global Britain Programme. Focuses on "the need for an open, confident and expansive British geostrategic policy in the twenty-first century – drawing on the United Kingdom’s unique strengths not only as an advocate for liberalism and national democracy, but also as a custodian of both the European and international orders." This centre has published papers on what the European Union 'owes' the United Kingdom, as well as advocated for increased military spending by NATO members.
Russia & Eurasia Studies Centre. Researches domestic and foreign policy issues in Russia and the former Soviet states. In 2018 the Conservative) MP Bob Seely published a paper through this Centre which sought to define 'Contemporary Russian Conflict', and in which he accused the government of Vladimir Putin of pursuing KGB-style tactics.
Centre for the New Middle East. Established following the Arab Spring, the Society describes this Centre as "dedicated to monitoring political, ideological, and military and security developments across the Middle East and providing informed assessments of their wide-ranging implications". The Centre has released reports highly critical of Iran.
Centre on Radicalisation & Terrorism. Focuses on the threat to the United Kingdom and elsewhere by Islamist terrorism. Reports have ranged from analyses of the UK charitable sector to the way in which criminals utilise the darknet.
Student Rights. Created in 2009 "as a reaction to increasing political extremism and marginalisation of vulnerable students on campus". This project has tracked what it describes as "extreme" speakers on British university campuses.

In September 2018, the Society announced the creation of a new Centre for Social and Political Risk. This Centre will "identify, diagnose and propose solutions to threats to governance in liberal Western democracies", focusing on social cohesion and integration; freedom of speech and political correctness; demographic change; and other issues.

Criticism

The think tank has been described by the media as having right-wing and neoconservative leanings, though it positions itself as non-partisan.In 2014, Nafeez Ahmed, an executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, said that the Henry Jackson Society courts corporate, political power to advance a distinctly illiberal oil and gas agenda in the Middle East.
In 2009 the society became the secretariat of two all-party parliamentary groups (APPGs), for Transatlantic and International Security, chaired by Gisela Stuart, and for Homeland Security, chaired by Bernard Jenkin. A transparency requirement upon non-profit organisations acting as secretariat at that time was that they must reveal, on request, any corporate donors who gave £5,000 or more to the organisation over the past year or cease acting as a secretariat organisation. In 2014, following a query, the society refused to disclose this information and resigned its position as secretariat of the APPGs concerned in order to comply with the Rules. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Kathryn Hudson, upheld a complaint against these APPGs on the grounds data had not been provided, but noted the society had already resigned its position and that the consequence of this non-provision therefore "appears to have taken effect" as the Rules intended. The case was therefore closed with no further action taken and the APPGs themselves dissolved with the dissolution of Parliament in March 2015. The APPG Rules were subsequently changed in March 2015 so that only those non-profit organisations providing services to APPGs of more than £12,500 in value needed to declare their corporate donors.
In July 2014 the Henry Jackson Society was sued by Lady de Rothschild over funds of a "caring capitalism" summit. Lady de Rothschild claims that she has financed the summit and that HJS and its executive director Alan Mendoza are holding £137,000 of “surplus funds” from the conference that should be returned to the couple’s investment company EL Rothschild.
Think tank discussions on the Middle East and Islam have led some media organisations to criticise a perceived anti-Muslim agenda. Marko Attila Hoare, a former senior member, cited related reasons for leaving the think tank and Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy was urged, in 2015, to sever his links with the society.
According to the report published in 2015, "a right-wing politics is apparent not only in the ideas that the Henry Jackson Society promotes, but also emerges distinctly on examination of its funders."
In 2017, the Henry Jackson Society was accused of running an anti-China propaganda campaign after the Japanese embassy gave them a monthly fee of 10,000 pounds.The campaign was said to be aimed at planting Japan's concerns about China in British newspapers.
Co-founder Matthew Jamison wrote in 2017 that he was ashamed of his involvement, having never imagined the Henry Jackson Society "would become a far-right, deeply anti-Muslim racist [...] propaganda outfit to smear other cultures, religions and ethnic groups." "The HJS for many years has relentlessly demonised Muslims and Islam."
In January 2019, Nikita Malik of the Henry Jackson Society provided The Daily Telegraph with information they claimed showed a Muslim scout leader was linked to Islamic extremists and Holocaust deniers.In January 2020 The Daily Telegraph issued a retraction and formal apology saying that:
"the articles said that Ahammed Hussain had links to extremist Muslim Groups that promoted terrorism and anti-Semitism, and could have suggested that he supported those views and encouraged their dissemination. We now accept that this was wrong and that Mr Hussain has never supported or promoted terrorism, or been anti-Semitic.We acted in good faith on information received but we now accept that the article is defamatory of Mr Hussain and false, and apologise for the distress caused to him in publishing it. We have agreed to pay him damages and costs."
The initial signatories of the statement of principles included:

Members of Parliament Michael Ancram, Michael Gove, Edward Vaizey, David Willetts, Denis MacShane, Fabian Hamilton, Gisela Stuart,
former MPs David Trimble, Jackie Lawrence), Greg Pope,
former soldier Tim Collins),
Sir Richard Dearlove – former head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, and formerly Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge – and the American economist Irwin Stelzer.
Times Journalist Oliver Kamm

International patrons included Richard Perle, William Kristol, former CIA Director R. James Woolsey Jr., and former Lithuanian leader Vytautas Landsbergis.

Comments

This has been a rabbit hole and only half the story regarding Lady Forester. Then only link between Lady Forester and Jeffrey Epstein is In 1995, financier Lynn Forester discussed "Jeffrey Epstein and currency stabilization" with Clinton. Epstein, according to his own accounts, was heavily involved in the foreign exchange market and traded large amounts of currency in the unregulated forex market. I will post another story Lady Forester and the coalition for Inclusive Capitalism.

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Jackson_Society
https://henryjacksonsociety.org/who-was-henry-jackson/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson

*////reopened due to lack of follow through with first batch*/////
Hey,
Anyone interested in a study buddy skype group for algo trading? I'm a complete noob to it but whenever i throw myself into something i am usually the last guy standing still doing it. I think it would be nice to collectively build something with some other people.
Im a complete novice programmer, expert in Excel and VBA, pivot tables... used to grind online poker in 2006-2012.. say 50K-200K HANDS_PLAYED a month depending on my free time. So sample size and data is my thing, programming and trading is not my thing, i know the basics to get by but just need to bump heads a few like minded people. Ideally bumping heads with an experienced soul in forex and the same in algos would be my ideal scenario.

I am mainly interested in metals, forex, crypto and 5-10% open to anything else.

I think the next couple of years are a crazy opportunity to make a bucket tone of money which is why I could go on this journey on my own and get where i want to be in like 5 years..... but ideally, i want to get there like yesterday. Looking ideally for say a group of 3-6... people will drop out they always do, as i used to do this a lot in online poker and then make besties with a couple of like minded folk and still talk to them now. I'm on GMT time so bare this in mind when dropping me a pm. I hope this is ok mods? Cheers

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

SUMMARY

When Trump entered the White House people feared he would dismantle the global system the US and its allies had built over the last 75 years, but he hasn't. He has realign into two systems. One between the US and its allies which looks similar to the one built since the 1980s with a few of quota and tariffs. As the article points out

Today, Korus and Nafta have been replaced by updated agreements(one not yet ratified) that look much like the originals. South Korea accepted quotas on steel. Mexico and Canada agreed to higher wages, North American content requirements and quotas for autos. Furthermore, the article points out Douglas Irwin, an economist and trade historian at Dartmouth College, calls these results the “status quo with Trumpian tweaks: a little more managed trade sprinkled about for favored industries. It’s not good, but it’s not the destruction of the system.” Mr. Trump’s actions so far affect only 12% of U.S. imports, according to Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. In 1984, 21% of imports were covered by similar restraints, many imposed by Mr. Reagan, such as on cars, steel, motorcycles and clothing. Protectionist instincts go so far in the US, there are strong lobby groups for both protectionist and freetrade in the US.

The second reflects a emerging rivalry between the US and China. Undo some of the integration that followed China accession to the WTO. Two questions 1) How far is the US willing to decouple with China 2) Can it persuade allies to join.

The second is going to be difficult because China's economic ties are greater than they were between the Soviets, and China isn't waging an ideological struggle. Trump lacks Reagan commitment to alliance and free trade. The status quo with China is crumbling Dan Sullivan, a Republican senator from Alaska, personifies these broader forces reshaping the U.S. approach to the world. When Mr. Xi visited the U.S. in 2015, Mr. Sullivan urged his colleagues to pay more attention to China’s rise. On the Senate floor, he quoted the political scientist Graham Allison: “War between the U.S. and China is more likely than recognized at the moment.” Last spring, Mr. Sullivan went to China and met officials including Vice President Wang Qishan. They seemed to think tensions with the U.S. will fade after Mr. Trump leaves the scene, Mr. Sullivan recalled. “I just said, ‘You are completely misreading this.’” The mistrust, he told them, is bipartisan, and will outlast Mr. Trump. both Bush II and Obama tried to change dialogue and engagement, but by the end of his term, Obama was questioning the approach. Trump has declared engagement. “We don’t like it when our allies steal our ideas either, but it’s a much less dangerous situation,” said Derek Scissors, a China expert at the American Enterprise Institute whose views align with the administration’s more hawkish officials. “We’re not worried about the war-fighting capability of Japan and Korea because they’re our friends.”

The article also points out unlike George Kennan in 1946 who made a case for containing the Soviet Union, the US hasn't explicitly made a case for containing the Soviets, Trump's administration hasn't, because as the the article explains its divided Michael Pillsbury a Hudson Institute scholar close to the Trump team, see 3 scenarios

New Cold War with drastically reduced economic ties
China resolve their tensions, integrate and run the world together
Transactional US-China relationship of the sort during the 1980s

Pillsbury thinks the third is most likely to happen, even though the administration hasn't said that it has adopted that policy. The US is stepping efforts to draw in other trading partners. The US, EU and Japan have launched a WTO effort to crack down on domestic subsidies and technology transfers requirement. US and Domestic concerns with prompted some countries to restrict Huawei. The US is also seeking to walloff China from other trade deals. However, there are risk with this strategy

Other countries like Japan and South Korea to dependent on China. Too integrated.
Raise objections to Belt and Road. But no alternative
The administration is not up to the task

ARTICLE

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

INTRODUCTION

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

OVERVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE ORIENTATION

Before 1940s, the US could be categorized as a free market protectionist economy. For many this may seem like oxymoron, how can an economy be free market and protectionist? In 1913, government spending made up about 7.5% of US GDP, in the UK it was 13%, and for Germany 18% (Public Spending in the 20th Century A Global Perspective: Ludger Schuknecht and Vito Tanzi - 2000). UK had virtual zero tariffs, while for manufactured goods in France it was 20%, 13% Germany, 9% Belgium and 4% Netherlands. For raw materials and agricultural products, it was almost zero. In contrast, for the likes of United States, Russia and Japan it was 44%, 84% and 30% respectively. Even though in 1900 United States was an economic powerhouse along with Germany, manufactured exports only made up 30% of exports, and the US government saw tariffs as exclusively a domestic policy matter and didn't see tariffs as something to be negotiated with other nations. The US didn't have the large constituency to push the government for lower tariffs abroad for their exports like in Britain in the 1830-40s (Reluctant Partners: A History of Multilateral Trade Cooperation, 1850-2000).
The Underwood Tariffs Act of 1913 which legislated the income tax, dropped the tariffs to 1850 levels levels.Until 16th amendment was ratified in 1913 making income tax legal, all US federal revenue came from excise and tariffs. In contrast before 1914, about 50% of UK revenue came from income taxes. The reason for US reluctance to introduced income tax was ideological and the United State's relative weak government compared to those in Europe. After the First World War, the US introduced the Emergency Tariff Act of 1921, than the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922 followed by a Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. Contrary to popular opinion, the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 had a small negative impact on the economy, since imports and exports played a small part of the US economy, and the tariffs were lower than the average that existed from 1850-1914.
Immediately after the Second World War, when the US economy was the only industrialized economy left standing, the economic focus was on rehabilitation and monetary stability. There was no grandiose and ideological design. Bretton Woods system linked the US dollar to gold to create monetary stability, and to avoid competitive devaluation and tariffs that plagued the world economy after Britain took itself off the gold in 1931. The US$ was the natural choice, because in 1944 2/3 of the world's gold was in the US. One reason why the Marshall Plan was created was to alleviate the chronic deficits Europeans countries had with the US between 1945-50. It was to rebuild their economies so they could start exports good to the US. Even before it was full implemented in 1959, it was already facing problems, the trade surpluses that the US was running in the 1940s, turned to deficits as European and Japanese economies recovered. By 1959, Federal Reserves foreign liabilities had already exceeded its gold reserves. There were fears of a run on the US gold supply and arbitrage. A secondary policy of the Bretton woods system was curbs on capital outflows to reduce speculation on currency pegs, and this had a negative impact on foreign investment until it was abandoned in 1971. It wasn't until the 1980s, where foreign investment recovered to levels prior to 1914. Factoring out the big spike in global oil prices as a result of the OPEC cartel, it most likely wasn't until the mid-1990s that exports as a % of GDP had reached 1914 levels.
Until the 1980s, the US record regarding free trade and markets was mediocre. The impetus to remove trade barriers in Europe after the Second World War was driven by the Europeans themselves. The EEC already had a custom union in 1968, Canada and the US have yet to even discuss implementing one. Even with Canada it took the US over 50 years to get a Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA was inspired by the success of the EEC. NAFTA was very much an elite driven project. If the Americans put the NAFTA to a referendum like the British did with the EEC in the seventies, it most likely wouldn't pass. People often look at segregation in the US South as a political issue, but it was economic issue as well. How could the US preach free trade, when it didn't have free trade in its own country. Segregation was a internal non-tariff barrier. In the first election after the end of the Cold War in 1992, Ross Perot' based most of independent run for the Presidency on opposition to NAFTA. He won 19% of the vote. Like Ross Perot before him, Donald Trump is not the exception in how America has handled tariffs since the founding of the Republic, but more the norm.
The embrace of free trade by the business and political elite can be attributed to two events. After the end of Bretton Woods in 1971, a strong vested interest in the US in the form of multinationals and Wall Street emerged advocating for removal of tariffs and more importantly the removal of restrictions on free flow of capital, whether direct foreign investment in portfolio investment. However, the political class embrace of free trade and capital only really took off after the collapse of the Soviet Union propelled by Cold War triumphalism.
As mentioned by the article, the US is reverting back to a pre-WTO relations with China. As Robert Lighthizer said in speech in 2000

I guess my prescription, really, is to move back to more of a negotiating kind of a settlement. Return to WTO and what it really was meant to be. Something where you have somebody make a decision but have it not be binding.

The US is using financial and legal instruments developed during the Cold War like its extradition treaties (with Canada and Europe), and Section 301. Here is a very good recent article about enforcement commitment that China will make.‘Painful’ enforcement ahead for China if trade war deal is reached with US insisting on unilateral terms
NOTE: It is very difficult to talk about US-China trade war without a basic knowledge of global economic history since 1914. What a lot of people do is politicize or subordinate the economic history to the political. Some commentators think US power was just handed to them after the Second World War, when the US was the only industrialized economy left standing. The dominant position of the US was temporary and in reality its like having 10 tonnes of Gold sitting in your house, it doesn't automatically translate to influence. The US from 1945-1989 was slowly and gradually build her influence in the non-Communist world. For example, US influence in Canada in the 1960s wasn't as strong as it is now. Only 50% of Canadian exports went to the US in 1960s vs 80% at the present moment.

BASIS OF THE US TRADE DISCUSSION WITH CHINA

According to preliminary agreement between China and the US based on unnamed sources in the Wall Street Journal article US, China close in on Trade Deal. In this article it divides the deal in two sections. The first aspects have largely to do with deficits and is political.

As part of a deal, China is pledging to help level the playing field, including speeding up the timetable for removing foreign-ownership limitations on car ventures and reducing tariffs on imported vehicles to below the current auto tariff of 15%. Beijing would also step up purchases of U.S. goods—a tactic designed to appeal to President Trump, who campaigned on closing the bilateral trade deficit with China. One of the sweeteners would be an $18 billion natural-gas purchase from Cheniere Energy Inc., people familiar with the transaction said.

The second part will involve the following.

Commitment Regarding Industrial Policy
Provisions to protect IP
Mechanism which complaints by US companies can be addressed
Bilateral meetings adjudicate disputes. If talks don't produce agreement than US can raise tariffs unilaterally

This grouping of conditions is similar to the points filled under the 301 investigation which serve the basis for initiating the tariffs. I have been reading some sources that say this discussion on this second group of broader issues could only be finalized later
The official justifications for placing the tariffs on Chinese goods is found under the March 2018 investigation submitted by the office of the President to Congress titled FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO CHINA’S ACTS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES RELATED TO TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND INNOVATION UNDER SECTION 301 OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974. From this investigation the United States Trade Representative (USTR) place US Tariffs on Chinese goods as per Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Here is a press release by the USTR listing the reasons for placing tariffs, and the key section from the press release. Specifically, the Section 301 investigation revealed:

China uses joint venture requirements, foreign investment restrictions, and administrative review and licensing processes to require or pressure technology transfer from U.S. companies.
China deprives U.S. companies of the ability to set market-based terms in licensing and other technology-related negotiations.
China directs and unfairly facilitates the systematic investment in, and acquisition of, U.S. companies and assets to generate large-scale technology transfer.
China conducts and supports cyber intrusions into U.S. commercial computer networks to gain unauthorized access to commercially valuable business information.

In the bigger context of trade relations between US and China, China is not honoring its WTO commitments, and the USTR issued its yearly report to Congress in early February about the status of China compliance with its WTO commitments. The points that served as a basis for applying Section 301, also deviate from her commitments as Clinton's Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky paving the way for a trade war. Barshefsky argues that China's back sliding was happening as early as 2006-07, and believes the trade war could have been avoided has those commitments been enforced by previous administrations.
I will provide a brief overview of WTO membership and China's process of getting into the WTO.
WTO members can be divided into two groups, first are countries that joined in 1995-97, and were members of GATT, than there are the second group that joined after 1997. China joined in 2001. There is an argument that when China joined in 2001, she faced more stringent conditions than other developing countries that joined before, because the vast majority of developing countries were members of GATT, and were admitted to the WTO based on that previous membership in GATT. Here is Brookings Institute article published in 2001 titled "Issues in China’s WTO Accession"

This question is all the more puzzling because the scope and depth of demands placed on entrants into the formal international trading system have increased substantially since the formal conclusion of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations in 1994, which expanded the agenda considerably by covering many services, agriculture, intellectual property, and certain aspects of foreign direct investment. Since 1994, the international community has added agreements covering information technology, basic telecommunications services, and financial services. WTO membership now entails liberalization of a much broader range of domestic economic activity, including areas that traditionally have been regarded by most countries as among the most sensitive, than was required of countries entering the WTO’s predecessor organization the GATT.
The terms of China’s protocol of accession to the World Trade Organization reflect the developments just described and more. China’s market access commitments are much more far-reaching than those that governed the accession of countries only a decade ago. And, as a condition for membership, China was required to make protocol commitments that substantially exceed those made by any other member of the World Trade Organization, including those that have joined since 1995. The broader and deeper commitments China has made inevitably will entail substantial short-term economic costs.

What are the WTO commitments Barshefsky goes on about? When countries join the WTO, particularly those countries that weren't members of GATT and joined after 1997, they have to work toward fulfilling certain commitments. There are 4 key documents when countries make an accession to WTO membership, the working party report, the accession protocol paper, the goods schedule and service schedule.
In the working party report as part of the conclusion which specifies the commitment of each member country what they will do in areas that aren't compliant with WTO regulations on the date they joined. The problem there is no good enforcement mechanism for other members to force China to comply with these commitments. And WTO punishments are weak.
Here is the commitment paragraph for China
"The Working Party took note of the explanations and statements of China concerning its foreign trade regime, as reflected in this Report. The Working Party took note of the commitments given by China in relation to certain specific matters which are reproduced in paragraphs 18-19, 22-23, 35-36, 40, 42, 46-47, 49, 60, 62, 64, 68, 70, 73, 75, 78-79, 83-84, 86, 91-93, 96, 100-103, 107, 111, 115-117, 119-120, 122-123, 126-132, 136, 138, 140, 143, 145, 146, 148, 152, 154, 157, 162, 165, 167-168, 170-174, 177-178, 180, 182, 184-185, 187, 190-197, 199-200, 203-207, 210, 212-213, 215, 217, 222-223, 225, 227-228, 231-235, 238, 240-242, 252, 256, 259, 263, 265, 270, 275, 284, 286, 288, 291, 292, 296, 299, 302, 304-305, 307-310, 312-318, 320, 322, 331-334, 336, 339 and 341 of this Report and noted that these commitments are incorporated in paragraph 1.2 of the Draft Protocol. "
This is a tool by the WTO that list all the WTO commitment of each country in the working paper. In the goods and service schedule they have commitments for particular sectors. Here is the a press release by the WTO in September 2001, after successfully concluding talks for accession, and brief summary of key areas in which China hasn't fulfilled her commitments. Most of the commitments made by China were made to address its legacy as a non-market economy and involvement of state owned enterprises. In my opinion, I think the US government and investors grew increasingly frustrated with China, after 2007 not just because of China's back sliding, but relative to other countries who joined after 1997 like Vietnam, another non-market Leninist dictatorship. When comparing China's commitments to the WTO its best to compare her progress with those that joined after 1997, which were mostly ex-Soviet Republics.
NOTE: The Chinese media have for two decades compared any time the US has talked about China's currency manipulation or any other issue as a pretext for imposing tariffs on China to the Plaza Accords. I am very sure people will raise it here. My criticism of this view is fourfold. First, the US targeted not just Japan, but France, Britain and the UK as well. Secondly, the causes of the Japan lost decade were due largely to internal factors. Thirdly, Japan, UK, Britain and France in the 1980s, the Yuan isn't undervalued today. Lastly, in the USTR investigation, its China's practices that are the concern, not so much the trade deficit.

REASONS FOR TRUMPS UNILATERAL APPROACH

I feel that people shouldn't dismiss Trump's unilateral approach toward China for several reasons.

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

To his credit, Trump has said his aim was not to overthrow authoritarian governments, and that even applies to the likes of Iran. The Arab spring scared Russia and China, because the US for a brief moment placed the spread of democracy over its security interest.

UNDERSTANDING HOW THE US MAKES DECISIONS REGARDING CHINA

At this moment, China or the trade war isn't an area of great concern for the American public, among international issues it ranks lower than international terrorism, North Korea and Iran's nuclear program.

According to the survey, 39 percent of the country views China’s growing power as a “critical threat” to Americans. That ranked it only eighth among 12 potential threats listed and placed China well behind the perceived threats from international terrorism (66 percent), North Korea’s nuclear program (59 percent) and Iran’s nuclear program (52 percent). It’s also considerably lower than when the same question was asked during the 1990s, when more than half of those polled listed China as a critical threat. That broadly tracks with a recent poll from the Pew Research Center that found concern about U.S.-China economic issues had decreased since 2012.

In looking at how US conducts relations foreign policy with China, we should look at it from the three areas of most concern - economic, national security and ideology. Each sphere has their interest groups, and sometimes groups can occupy two spheres at once. Security experts are concerned with some aspects of China's economic actions like IP theft and industrial policy (China 2025), because they are related to security. In these sphere there are your hawks and dove. And each sphere is dominated by certain interest groups. That is why US policy toward China can often appear contradictory. You have Trump want to reduce the trade deficit, but security experts advocating for restrictions on dual use technology who are buttressed by people who want export restrictions on China, as a way of getting market access.
Right now the economic concerns are most dominant, and the hawks seem to dominate. The economic hawks traditionally have been domestic manufacturing companies and economic nationalist. In reality the hawks aren't dominant, but the groups like US Companies with large investment in China and Wall Street are no longer defending China, and some have turned hawkish against China. These US companies are the main conduit in which China's lobby Congress, since China only spends 50% of what Taiwan spends lobbying Congress.
THE ANGLO SAXON WORLD AND CHINA
I don't think many Chinese even those that speak English, have a good understanding Anglo-Saxon society mindset. Anglo Saxons countries, whether US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland are commerce driven society governed by sanctity of contracts. The English great philosophical contributions to Western philosophy have primarily to do with economics and politics like Adam Smith, John Locke, David Hume and Thomas Hobbes. This contrast with the French and Germans. Politics in the UK and to a lesser extent the US, is centered around economics, while in Mainland Europe its religion. When the Americans revolted against the British Empire in 1776, the initial source of the grievances were taxes.
Outside of East Asia, the rest of the World's relationship with China was largely commercial, and for United States, being an Anglosaxon country, even more so. In Southeast Asia, Chinese aren't known for high culture, but for trade and commerce. Outside Vietnam, most of Chinese loans words in Southeast Asian languages involve either food or money. The influence is akin to Yiddish in English.
Some people point to the Mao and Nixon meeting as great strategic breakthrough and symbol of what great power politics should look like. The reality is that the Mao-Nixon meeting was an anomaly in the long history of relations with China and the West. Much of China-Western relations over the last 500 years was conducted by multitudes of nameless Chinese and Western traders. The period from 1949-1979 was the only period were strategic concerns triumphed trade, because China had little to offer except instability and revolution. Even in this period, China's attempt to spread revolution in Southeast Asia was a threat to Western investments and corporate interest in the region. During the nadir of both the Qing Dynasty and Republican period, China was still engaged in its traditional commercial role. Throughout much of history of their relations with China, the goals of Britain and the United States were primarily economic,
IMAGINE JUST 10% OF CHINA BOUGHT MY PRODUCT
From the beginning, the allure of China to Western businesses and traders has been its sheer size I. One of the points that the USTR mentions is lack of market access for US companies operating in China, while Chinese companies face much less restrictions operating in the US.

China uses joint venture requirements, foreign investment restrictions, and administrative review and licensing processes to require or pressure technology transfer from U.S. companies.
China deprives U.S. companies of the ability to set market-based terms in licensing and other technology-related negotiations.

This is supported by remarks by Henry Paulson and Charlene Barshefsky. As Paulson remarked

Trade with China has hurt some American workers. And they have expressed their grievances at the ballot box.
So while many attribute this shift to the Trump Administration, I do not. What we are now seeing will likely endure for some time within the American policy establishment. China is viewed—by a growing consensus—not just as a strategic challenge to the United States but as a country whose rise has come at America’s expense. In this environment, it would be helpful if the US-China relationship had more advocates. That it does not reflects another failure:
In large part because China has been slow to open its economy since it joined the WTO, the American business community has turned from advocate to skeptic and even opponent of past US policies toward China. American business doesn’t want a tariff war but it does want a more aggressive approach from our government. How can it be that those who know China best, work there, do business there, make money there, and have advocated for productive relations in the past, are among those now arguing for more confrontation? The answer lies in the story of stalled competition policy, and the slow pace of opening, over nearly two decades. This has discouraged and fragmented the American business community. And it has reinforced the negative attitudinal shift among our political and expert classes. In short, even though many American businesses continue to prosper in China, a growing number of firms have given up hope that the playing field will ever be level. Some have accepted the Faustian bargain of maximizing today’s earnings per share while operating under restrictions that jeopardize their future competitiveness. But that doesn’t mean they’re happy about it. Nor does it mean they aren’t acutely aware of the risks — or thinking harder than ever before about how to diversify their risks away from, and beyond, China.

What is interesting about Paulson's speech is he spend only one sentence about displaced US workers, and a whole paragraph about US business operating in China. While Kissinger writes books about China, how much does he contribute to both Democrats and the Republicans during the election cycle? China is increasingly makING it more difficult for US companies operating and those exporting products to China.

Forex: SilverTrend Indicator

Bcnex Congratulations! #Bcnex #IcoEnd #Thankyou #Congrats Since 2006 when we first joined the Forex market, we have been researching and developing a number of Forex trading trading systems.

Have any of you radically changed your political views since childhood?

Đầu tư forex ở Việt Nam có hợp pháp hay không?

Deutsche Bank denies it knew of forex woes since 2006

When will we bottom out?

EUR/USD forecast: Euro took up math

Fundamental Euro forecast for today

Open EUUSD position according to the euro-area PMI data

Demand for euro-dollar options

Naked Forex Noob

2006 Performance 278 %, per Month 17%, Managed account, Trading system, Forex system

FX Solutions Announces 2006 Forex World Cup Competition

The Henry Jackson Initiative by Lady Forester

WHO WAS HENRY JACKSON?

Criticism

Jackson Papers controversy

The Henry Jackson Society

Structure and projects

Criticism

Comments

References

A Quick List of the Best Forex Signal Service Providers (Paid and Free)

1. JKonFX

2. Forex Signals

3. DDMarkets

4. 1000pip Builder

5. Traders Academy Club

6. Forex Mentor Pro

7. Honest Forex Signals

8. Daily Forex

9. Baby Pips

10. Forex Peace Army

Tiny Algo Study Group for noobs?

2k More Subs For Your Marketing

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

SUMMARY

ARTICLE

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

INTRODUCTION

OVERVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE ORIENTATION

BASIS OF THE US TRADE DISCUSSION WITH CHINA

REASONS FOR TRUMPS UNILATERAL APPROACH

UNDERSTANDING HOW THE US MAKES DECISIONS REGARDING CHINA

CONTINUED

95% Winning Forex Trading Formula - Beat The Market Maker ...