Welcome to the Support Portal for Global Forex Institute ...

The Henry Jackson Initiative by Lady Forester

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:
  1. Education for employment: addressing the gap between employer needs and employee skills
  2. Nurture start-ups and SMEs: mentoring small businesses and improving access to credit for them
  3. 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:
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:
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
submitted by DeusEx1991 to Epstein [link] [comments]

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

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

SUMMARY

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Today, Korus and Nafta have been replaced by updated agreements(one not yet ratified) that look much like the originals.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

ARTICLE

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

INTRODUCTION

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

OVERVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE ORIENTATION

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

BASIS OF THE US TRADE DISCUSSION WITH CHINA

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

REASONS FOR TRUMPS UNILATERAL APPROACH

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

UNDERSTANDING HOW THE US MAKES DECISIONS REGARDING CHINA

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

CONTINUED

submitted by weilim to IntlScholars [link] [comments]

DIGITAL GOLD STABLE COIN; A GOLD TOKEN BACKED BY GOLD METAL

DIGITAL GOLD STABLE COIN; A GOLD TOKEN BACKED BY GOLD METAL
The basic truth I actually have learnt as an investor inside the crypto forex global is the reality which you cannot lollygag around with your earnings; you need to find a manner to cozy your investment go back at the long run. Then to relaxed that, there may be a need to widen your ROI and seamlessly target a luxurious saving approach.
Since bitcoin dominated complaints in 2017, leaving lots of humans in an initial income before big losses; there have been numerous techniques implemented to make certain that funds may be stored in a solid cost and steady charge over a big period of time (more than 20 years). And when you consider that then we were introduced to the importance and strong point of Stable coins.

https://preview.redd.it/ouqq6bd0kr641.jpg?width=299&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e74bf8d389dc665c55c40fbea8f5d2551ece4a02
Stable coins are neutrally known as strong coins because they make certain that your money or coin continues a stable charge over massive duration of years. This has precipitated numerous blessings to traders as well as a pivotal remedy to the volatility existent in crypto currency today and albeit talking, stable coin is the way. And similarly, it has furnished options to the banking device.
Interestingly within the olden days, the mode of strong cash (store of wealth) become gold and diamonds and other reliable natural sources that can be mined and renewable, which have secured values; however given that blockchain technology became added we've visible collection of Stable coins consisting of tether, usdt, usdc, and so on.


https://preview.redd.it/39yblh77kr641.jpg?width=275&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e3a0043afc15378d5f43776d710a47f5be123541
The existent stable cash are similarly appropriate but it has barriers and lengthy undue approaches such as:
You want to create an exchange platform, complete kyc (recognise your customer), then convert your bitcoins or etherum or altcoins to usdt in massive portions; you equally need to do 2fa (Two factor authentication) and additionally sms notifications to cozy your alternate account; all due to the fact you need to store your fists or earnings in Stable coins.
The exchange platform could be binance Exchange, kucoin Exchange, gate change and different reliable exchanges that provide such features. You can visit coinmarketcap for that records.

https://preview.redd.it/0sjemwy0kr641.jpg?width=275&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3fb3530cf36ad1c530a88331dab88c6129a332bf
NB: centralized exchanges are at risk of get hacked or lose finances with none shape of coverage.
With problems as that; tell me the person who doesn’t want some thing more particular? This is why both me and you, along with your friends or corporations need to embrace the ideology of the Digital Gold Platform.

Digital Gold platform has introduced a remedial remedy to every issues concerning the effectiveness of strong cash and the Digital Gold Platform is reaching this feat uniquely.

https://preview.redd.it/0wvcp103kr641.jpg?width=307&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a2dfa3d7329be4a8a2a1446ef8af6d797d7abb9b

Who wouldn’t need Digital Gold ??
I can tell optimistically that gold token is the fine stable coin for any investor or all of us who needs to use Stable coins as its very own financial institution
The Digital Gold Platform provides you an possibility to store your budget in gold tokens, (solid and dependable) with none need to join up, OR WORRY BECAUSE YOUR WEALTH ARE STORED ALTERNATIVELY IN GOLD VAULTS.
Just purchase and preserve to your wallets, then convert to fiat each time you need too at the identical price.


https://preview.redd.it/5b6skvj4kr641.jpg?width=300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bb57e0a104fd765b724497143ec2c9585bdd2e33
Digital Gold platform helps you to buy or personal the gold token within the etherum blockchain and allows you to seamlessly keep your wealth.
Remember, the gold token liquidity is equated to the price of actual gold in authentic stock marketplace.

Official Website : https://gold.storage/
White paper: https://gold.storage/wp.pdf
Wire: https://t.me/digitalgoldcoin
Twitter: https://twitter.com/gold_erc20
Medium: https://medium.com/@digitalgoldcoin


Writer's Details Name:
hushpupppy
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2650208
submitted by labenbe to CryptoCurrencyChat [link] [comments]

Cashaa — What it means to a Common Man!

CashaaCommunity
Cashaa
Bitcoin
altcoin
altcoin_news
Cashaa Finally, a new innovation of the century is up here! People wondering what this token is? Is this a Wallet? Is this a bank? Is this about transferring money? Is this lending / loans or financing?
Or is this just a one other Virtual Currency trading?
Well, the answer is ‘Yes’, to all the questions above. Cashaa is a next generation banking platform. So you can relate it now. A Utility tokenwhich can satisfy the banking needs of people across the globe. In Cashaa, we usually say we are “banking the unbanked”. A statistics shows (you can google it) that around two billion people worldwide do not have a bank account or access to any financial institution. Do you believe that? As I am writing this, I believe the total world population is 7.6 Billion out of which around 25% are children. That brings 5.7 billion people above the age of 15 out of which 2 Billion are unbanked meaning 35% of people are unbanked globally.
Today, there is NO one solution, one country, one remittance company or one product who can even bank the 65% banked population, forget the unbanked 35%. Here comes “CASHAA” to rescue the present generations and future generations to come and to offer one stop solution, one product which can serve the humanity.
Have you ever thought there can be safe, secure, legal, quick & affording way to send and receive money from anywhere to anyone. Yes, it is gonna be a reality soon, Cashaa is a utility token basically to send money from “anywhere anyone to anyone anywhere” without even having any knowledge of cryptocurrencies or blockchain or even Cashaa. Yes, it’s true!
If you are a person in UK and if you would like to send money to someone let’s say in Sri Lanka, today both of you (sender & receiver) cannot do it without a local bank account or without going through a Forex exchange and following tedious processes of money transfer especially when it is from one country to another or without any cuts on the money that you send. And finally it’s gonna be days for your loved ones or friends or businesses to receive it on the other end. OMG, have we been sinned to go through this for ever?
Here’s the path breaking solution that Cashaa offers wherein the receiver can receive the money from the sender within 30 minutes and offcourse in his/her local currency, legally, safely without owning a single Cashaa token or even knowing about it and without any fee.
One can say that’s what other cryptocurrencies do! Well if you judge a book by its cover, you need to face the reality soon. Yes off-course you can buy say bitcoin through a regulated / unregulated crypto exchange in your country, then transfer it on blockchain across borders who can receive it and then convert it again through local country crypto exchange back to fiat of his/her local currency. Do you think the unbanked population or a lay man can do this at ease? And most importantly will this route be always legal? Or if you think you prefer to continue with global remittance Forex exchanges you can do so by taking days to transfer and by paying high service fees to the intermediaries. Again this traditional method doesn’t bother about common man / lay man or the unbanked population.
There is just one product which works with both, cryptocurrencies (Yes, even other Cryptos or tokens) and local fiat currencies globally and it is “THE CASHAA” aiming to bring the people closer. With that being said, the next obvious question is, “Is Cashaa” going against traditional banks or central agencies? The answer is a BIG NO. The greatest stability & framework to Cashaa is that it is working with banks & regulatory agencies which are part of its ecosystem. Else this solution would simply not work. A live example is that Cashaa is the first ever ICO rejecting around 14 Million dollars from unverified users to ensure KYC compliance.
Apart from the next generation banking solution, with Cashaa tokens you can store, save, spend, receive, borrow and get insured. It is the only product which shall be complaint, transparent, safe, secure, simple, easy to use and abides by regulation.
Mr. Kumar Gaurav is the CEO and the brain behind Cashaa (UK Based Company) who is a serial entrepreneur and Chairman of Auxesis Group, India’s first enterprise Blockchain company and his team together brings in 200 years of experience into it. He is among top 100 most influential people in the world who are leading the evolution of Blockchain and was awarded Extraordinary status (O1 visa) by United States government.
Kumar is a tirelessly working CEO, one of his kind who leads, strategizes and works on ground towards bringing this product into live globally enabling users to send money without any fee anywhere in the world.. He has already brought Cashaa & Auxesis among top 100 blockchain companies in the world. It is said that Kumar once personally faced the money transfer problem while he was out of his home country which later instigated him to come up with this idea to serve the humanity, “The true Satoshi Vision”.
https://www.cashaa.com
submitted by KM_Incredible to CashaaCommunity [link] [comments]

[EVENT] Market shock mitigation deployed by CPC, PBOC in response to American sanctions

Ministry of Finance of the People's Republic of China, Sanlihe, Xicheng District, Beijing
 
Shock Mitigation, Market and Sector Responses
 
A strong statement today by President Xi Jinping as news trickled in of yet another American policy shift: "America cannot win a trade war." Over successive policy statements and briefs from central Ministry of Finance officials, it has become clear that the response of Chinese authorities is directed to drive home the President's sentiment. China holds vastly more capacity to outlast the United States in a protracted trade war, including over $3T in Forex reserves to the United States $118 billion, finalized and active RCEP and nearly finalized SCO agreements, and large internalized increases in domestic consumption.
However, President Jinping has stated that "Beijing will not allow the Washington to display a complete lack of international diplomatic respect and sensibility, treating China as an inferior nation to be brought to heel." Many Chinese news outlets are now quoting Finance Minister Lou Jiwei, who noted that "American middle and lower class consumers will be the real losers here, while Chinese manufacturers will seek to accelerate their move to developing markets and focus greater on our emerging middle class."
Finance and administration officials have touted a recently released package of counter active industry and domestic economic actions as the first step in a "decisive Chinese response," signaling that Beijing intends to both sharply mitigate Chinese economic damage while fighting back against American tariffs, both defensively and offensively.
 
Internal Economic Measures
 
CPC leaders are aware that in a war of tariff attrition with their largest export market, they have a distinct major advantage: a burgeoning domestic consumption market driven by a developing middle class and decade high level of economic growth, and have made a point of contrasting this with a mature and developed American market.
Leaders have quickly sought to boost market confidence, banking on the successful and level response of the administration in Beijing in sharp contrast to the erratic and damaging actions lately from Washington. Having successfully prevented and even boosted capital reserves over the past five years far across the $3T line while slowly shrinking various bubbles under the SAFE program, officials are confident that the Chinese economy is well positioned to absorb the external shock through a variety of means, including the following:
 
 
These measures are designed as a temporary stopgap while the CPC works on releasing a long term, sustainable economic rebalance, which is widely expected in the following days.
 
Yuan Adjustment
 
The Yuan is currently pegged in a "managed floating rate" against the USD at ¥6.2/$1. To ease the pressure on Chinese exporters driven by US tariffs, and to ensure that exports remain competitive especially in critical developing markets - which Beijing is now seeking to dominate, as has been for years - the PBOC has instituted a small change to the managed reference rate. This is not referred to as a devaluation in any way.
 
 
Beijing is looking to quietly engineer a 2pc reduction in the CNY in a single sweep, with a maximum trading rate falling against to ¥7/$1. However, Yang Gi, Deputy Minister of the PBOC, has put out a statement noting:
 
"The assumption that the People's Bank is attempting to engineer a ten percent devaluation is groundless. The volatility in the market is currently under careful control, and is largely in relation to American financial pressures. However, the PBOC stands ready to step in with capital control measures - including forex buybacks of the Yuan - if the market turns sour."
 
Specific Industry Stimulus
 
Party officials and Financial deputies have examined at the situation in each of the general tariffed areas excepting automobiles; steel/iron, aluminum, textiles, industrial machinery, and heavy manufacturing. In several cases, demand is incredibly saturated domestically; in others, the addition of SCO/RCEP FTAs and the progress of the Silk Road to Western Asia and Europe have insulated the sectors. However, officials also view this as a chance to rebalance growth in several over-capacitated sectors, a long standing goal.
 
 
Automotive parts and finished exports have not been given specific attention due to the second part of the package, where reciprocal measures will soon be imposed; leading to the belief that American car parts manufacturers will soon lobby the government to remove the shortsighted 30% duty.
 
submitted by S01780 to GlobalPowers [link] [comments]

The TRUTH About IMARKETSLIVE Global Market Wealth Review  SCAM or Legit? Lets Kick Start 2019 with an Additional IncomeStream - YouTube The Coronavirus and Reselling: Current and Future Impacts IM ACADEMY Scam: Why I left IML/IM - YouTube - YouTube Best Trend Lines Trading Strategy (Advanced) - YouTube

Market Trader’s Institute is all about how to learn how to become a Forex trader, with a primary focus on binary trading options. It will provide you with a convenient chart that you can use to track the stats of various trades. Unlike other programs, it does not promise that you’ll make money completely on auto-pilot. Welcome to the Support Portal for Global Forex Institute and TDMarkets. Use the search or browse by category. Learning How to Trade. A How do I get my $200 bonus? When do I start my advanced class? Do you run webinars? and 2 more ... Compliments and complaints. Add videos to explain things more clearly; Compliments and complaints. No suggestions yet. We Proudly Run on LiveAgent . LiveAgent is ... Forex Wealth Group Mike 617-756-92777 Ronald Ameral Forex SCAM [email protected] Grand Capital Forex Scam, [email protected] Mike Takes your Investment and Disappears San Diego CALIFORNIA Forex trading agorithm, aka ea-ex[ert advisor, aka robot trader : RIP-OFF : forex trading : Forex Wealth Group Mike 617-756-92777 Ronald Ameral Forex SCAM [email protected] Market Traders Institute. MarketTraders.com is the Market Traders Institute (MTI), a trader education, training and trading platform catering to traders of all levels of experience. They provide a comprehensive program that provides front-to-end education and training with sophisticated customized trade management, charting tools and scanning software to can enhance analysis and performance. Global Forex Broker : BEST SPREADS Visit broker. 4.8 . Featured Forex Broker. AvaTrade was established in 2006 and is located in Dublin, Ireland. Offering trading services in over 150 countries with offices located worldwide. AvaTrade is a forex broker that is committed to providing a safe trading environment and is fully regulated and licensed in the EU and BVI, with additional regulation in ... The spot forex market traded over $6.6 trillion a day as of April 2019, including currency options and futures contracts.   With this enormous amount of money floating around in an ... Forex markets trade trillions of dollars a day. Traders around the globe are always looking for the best broker to trade forex, CFDs, binary options, stocks, cryptocurrencies, etc. With new forex brokers popping up constantly, determining the legitimacy of a broker can be a real challenge. These scam Forex, Binary, Crypto or other types of brokers swindle away the hard-earned money of traders through unfair ways. Here is a table of scam brokers who have been suspected as scam brokers by Broker Complaint Registry due to non-regulated activities or other suspected terms and conditions. If you are victimized by any of the scam brokers mentioned below, please click the name of the ... This billionaire chooses to trade currencies because he knows that money can be made in the Forex.It is time for you to learn why billionaires like Soros are Forex traders. In MTI's Ultimate Traders Package on Demand, you'll get a step-by-step education that will show you how you too could learn how to get involved in this money-making market and possibly even place trades that could go down ... This organization is not BBB accredited. Trade Exchange in Detroit, MI. See BBB rating, reviews, complaints, & more.

[index] [18586] [28315] [18269] [11978] [29101] [5168] [25892] [19376] [11066] [14463]

The TRUTH About IMARKETSLIVE

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. In this video, I provide some information on the coronavirus as well as current and future impacts to the reselling community. Rockstar Flipper Video: http:/... In this video we show you the BEST trend line trading strategy that NO ONE talks about. Trend lines and combining them with price action as part of your trad... Share your videos with friends, family, and the world Global Market Wealth Review == http://budurl.me/GOHere212← Start Here Locating an unbiased review for several binary options trading software programs could... The REAL Truth About Imarketslive #imarketslive #truth Real traders make money by learning from mentors who've done it for longer than them. This is not a game. Want to learn how I make $1000 a ... I've been getting many questions on whether IM ACADEMY (IML) is a scam or not. In this video I explain the truth about IML and why I left. Get our Exact Stra...

https://arab-binary-option.leikupiteper.cf