Price Pattern Software Indicator For Mt4 Awesome Forex ...

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Today, Korus and Nafta have been replaced by updated agreements(one not yet ratified) that look much like the originals.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]

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

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

The Difference between Bitcoin 1.0 and Bitcoin 2.0 Companies

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

A Real World Comparison of Bitcoin Companies

Tickers Available

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Difference between Bitcoin 1.0 and Bitcoin 2.0 Companies

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

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

Tickers Available

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

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

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

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

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

I looked at over 3000 apps on sale for Black Friday & Cyber Monday and here are the best 49

There are over 3400 iOS & Mac apps on sale for Black Friday & Cyber Monday and I looked at them all. Here are the best:
Updated with new apps for Cyber Monday. Updates in bold

Games

Productivity & Utilities

Resources & Education

And that's it! The best app deals of the more 3000 apps on sale for Black Friday & Cyber Monday! Enjoy getting some fantastic apps at great prices! (If you find a sale no longer offered, please let me know and I'll update the post)
Note: These were originally tweeted out via my Twitter, @MarkDMill where I tweet out the best app deals each day.
Edit: removed Mac & iPad links as I missed that in the rules. Sorry it's no longer 49 apps, but you can see the complete list on my website if you want. Edit: added more apps
submitted by MarkDMill to IPhoneApps [link] [comments]

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

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

The Difference between Bitcoin 1.0 and Bitcoin 2.0 Companies

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

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

Tickers Available

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

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

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

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

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

99% Accurate Price Action Trading System  Technical ... Free Forex Trading Signals Live Now! How to Trade Forex Using Price Action (Webinar) - YouTube Free Forex Trading Course - 1 of 19 - Trading Price Action ... Forex Price Action Trading - Best way to trade using Price Action Best Forex Trading Strategy: Powerful Price Action Entry ... Day Trading Price Action  How To Read Momentum On Forex ...

Online generator for forex trading expert advisor systems compatible with all forex brokers offering the MetaTrader 4 ( MT4 ) trading platform. Mq4 builder. Get free VPS for Trading EA trading broker comparison. Online Forex Expert Advisor Generator - Automate Your Trading. Open Buy: Open Sell: Close Buy: Close Sell: Options: Expert Advisor Code: Condition This is the section where you can set ... Forex Expert Advisor Generator - Download Notice. Using Forex Expert Advisor Generator Free Download crack, warez, password, serial numbers, torrent, keygen, registration codes, key generators is illegal and your business could subject you to lawsuits and leave your operating systems without patches. We do not host any torrent files or links of Forex Expert Advisor Generator on rapidshare.com ... Articles tagged with 'Trade the Price Action Laurentiu Damir Pdf' at Awesome Forex Trading. Skip to content. Awesome Forex Trading . Start Trading Awesome in Forex and see the Market in a different way. Tag: trade the price action laurentiu damir pdf. Posted on August 31, 2017. 50 Pips A Day Forex Strategy Pdf Free. Really, don’t cut price the following booklet since the device is usually ... Categories best forex reviews, forex basics, forex expert advisor, forex for beginners, forex learn, forex learning, forex profit, forex pros, forex reviews, forex rules Tags ", "indikator price pattern harmonics 5.0, 1-2-3 price patterns forex, 123 price pattern, agilent stock price pattern forms cup-and-handle, best price action patterns trading, breakout, candlestick charts (patterns) are ... Free Forex robot is now available, my newest and favorite creation is here to ignite your accounts. As you know I have promised to release another free system and all of you faithful Forex Robot Nation readers have been very patient. This free Forex robot will auto trade for you 100%. In order to use it you will just have to place the software on the correct MetaTrader4 chart and the software ... forex price action expert advisor forex moving average expert advisor forex arbitrage (mt4 expert advisor) ... expert advisor forex pdf professional forex expert advisor forex real profit expert advisor forex profit system expert advisor forex profit supreme expert advisor reliable forex expert advisor 5 pips a day forex expert advisor reviews forex winners ru expert advisor free download ... November 5, 2018 Comments Off on Price Action Dashboard Indicator-powerful price action patterns Trading Systems FX Eagle Dashboard Forex System- Trading Signals For Every Day Profits

[index] [4437] [9440] [25827] [5947] [15540] [17066] [12147] [23786] [8258] [2125]

99% Accurate Price Action Trading System Technical ...

Skip trial 1 month free. Find out why Close. Forex Price Action Trading - Best way to trade using Price Action forexformulasuccess. Loading... Unsubscribe from forexformulasuccess? Cancel ... In this webinar I cover the basics of my price action trading strategy. I show you how you can use price action to master Forex trading.Day 2: https://youtu.be/... The most successful stock and forex traders are the ones who have developed an edge, and this is where simple market analysis and profitable stock trading te... Forex trading indicators signal live stream for FREE Financial Market Big Data Buy Sell Trading Signals Alert Dashboard for all fx currency pairs, gold, silver, bitcoin, ethereum, litecoin, UK ... Welcome to our Free Forex trading course! This is video 1 of 19. Subscribe to the playlist here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL73KHYWzhYix03CBKTrtm... #forex #forexlifestyle #forextrader Want to join the A1 Trading Team? See trades taken by our top trading analysts, join our live trading chatroom, and acces... Free signals group- https://t.me/forexvisitsignals For free Signals Contact me- [email protected] Subscribe my Channel to learn Price Action Trading Tri...

https://binary-optiontrade.recbusisboson.tk