Sophisticated Investor Definition - investopedia.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

addaff

addaff

What Is Capitalism?

Capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals or businesses own capital goods. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market—known as a market economy—rather than through central planning—known as a planned economy or command economy.
The purest form of capitalism is free market or laissez-faire capitalism. Here, private individuals are unrestrained. They may determine where to invest, what to produce or sell, and at which prices to exchange goods and services. The laissez-faire marketplace operates without checks or controls.
Today, most countries practice a mixed capitalist system that includes some degree of government regulation of business and ownership of select industries.
Volume 75% 2:05

Capitalism

Understanding Capitalism

Functionally speaking, capitalism is one process by which the problems of economic production and resource distribution might be resolved. Instead of planning economic decisions through centralized political methods, as with socialism or feudalism, economic planning under capitalism occurs via decentralized and voluntary decisions.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership of the means of production, especially in the industrial sector.
  • Capitalism depends on the enforcement of private property rights, which provide incentives for investment in and productive use of productive capital.
  • Capitalism developed historically out of previous systems of feudalism and mercantilism in Europe, and dramatically expanded industrialization and the large-scale availability of mass-market consumer goods.
  • Pure capitalism can be contrasted with pure socialism (where all means of production are collective or state-owned) and mixed economies (which lie on a continuum between pure capitalism and pure socialism).
  • The real-world practice of capitalism typically involves some degree of so-called “crony capitalism” due to demands from business for favorable government intervention and governments’ incentive to intervene in the economy.

Capitalism and Private Property

Private property rights are fundamental to capitalism. Most modern concepts of private property stem from John Locke's theory of homesteading, in which human beings claim ownership through mixing their labor with unclaimed resources. Once owned, the only legitimate means of transferring property are through voluntary exchange, gifts, inheritance, or re-homesteading of abandoned property.
Private property promotes efficiency by giving the owner of resources an incentive to maximize the value of their property. So, the more valuable the resource is, the more trading power it provides the owner. In a capitalist system, the person who owns the property is entitled to any value associated with that property.
For individuals or businesses to deploy their capital goods confidently, a system must exist that protects their legal right to own or transfer private property. A capitalist society will rely on the use of contracts, fair dealing, and tort law to facilitate and enforce these private property rights.
When a property is not privately owned but shared by the public, a problem known as the tragedy of the commons can emerge. With a common pool resource, which all people can use, and none can limit access to, all individuals have an incentive to extract as much use value as they can and no incentive to conserve or reinvest in the resource. Privatizing the resource is one possible solution to this problem, along with various voluntary or involuntary collective action approaches.

Capitalism, Profits, and Losses

Profits are closely associated with the concept of private property. By definition, an individual only enters into a voluntary exchange of private property when they believe the exchange benefits them in some psychic or material way. In such trades, each party gains extra subjective value, or profit, from the transaction.
Voluntary trade is the mechanism that drives activity in a capitalist system. The owners of resources compete with one another over consumers, who in turn, compete with other consumers over goods and services. All of this activity is built into the price system, which balances supply and demand to coordinate the distribution of resources.
A capitalist earns the highest profit by using capital goods most efficiently while producing the highest-value good or service. In this system, information about what is highest-valued is transmitted through those prices at which another individual voluntarily purchases the capitalist's good or service. Profits are an indication that less valuable inputs have been transformed into more valuable outputs. By contrast, the capitalist suffers losses when capital resources are not used efficiently and instead create less valuable outputs.

Free Enterprise or Capitalism?

Capitalism and free enterprise are often seen as synonymous. In truth, they are closely related yet distinct terms with overlapping features. It is possible to have a capitalist economy without complete free enterprise, and possible to have a free market without capitalism.
Any economy is capitalist as long as private individuals control the factors of production. However, a capitalist system can still be regulated by government laws, and the profits of capitalist endeavors can still be taxed heavily.
"Free enterprise" can roughly be understood to mean economic exchanges free of coercive government influence. Although unlikely, it is possible to conceive of a system where individuals choose to hold all property rights in common. Private property rights still exist in a free enterprise system, although the private property may be voluntarily treated as communal without a government mandate.
Many Native American tribes existed with elements of these arrangements, and within a broader capitalist economic family, clubs, co-ops, and joint-stock business firms like partnerships or corporations are all examples of common property institutions.
If accumulation, ownership, and profiting from capital is the central principle of capitalism, then freedom from state coercion is the central principle of free enterprise.

Feudalism the Root of Capitalism

Capitalism grew out of European feudalism. Up until the 12th century, less than 5% of the population of Europe lived in towns. Skilled workers lived in the city but received their keep from feudal lords rather than a real wage, and most workers were serfs for landed nobles. However, by the late Middle Ages rising urbanism, with cities as centers of industry and trade, become more and more economically important.
The advent of true wages offered by the trades encouraged more people to move into towns where they could get money rather than subsistence in exchange for labor. Families’ extra sons and daughters who needed to be put to work, could find new sources of income in the trade towns. Child labor was as much a part of the town's economic development as serfdom was part of the rural life.

Mercantilism Replaces Feudalism

Mercantilism gradually replaced the feudal economic system in Western Europe and became the primary economic system of commerce during the 16th to 18th centuries. Mercantilism started as trade between towns, but it was not necessarily competitive trade. Initially, each town had vastly different products and services that were slowly homogenized by demand over time.
After the homogenization of goods, trade was carried out in broader and broader circles: town to town, county to county, province to province, and, finally, nation to nation. When too many nations were offering similar goods for trade, the trade took on a competitive edge that was sharpened by strong feelings of nationalism in a continent that was constantly embroiled in wars.
Colonialism flourished alongside mercantilism, but the nations seeding the world with settlements were not trying to increase trade. Most colonies were set up with an economic system that smacked of feudalism, with their raw goods going back to the motherland and, in the case of the British colonies in North America, being forced to repurchase the finished product with a pseudo-currency that prevented them from trading with other nations.
It was Adam Smith who noticed that mercantilism was not a force of development and change, but a regressive system that was creating trade imbalances between nations and keeping them from advancing. His ideas for a free market opened the world to capitalism.

Growth of Industrial Capitalism

Smith's ideas were well-timed, as the Industrial Revolution was starting to cause tremors that would soon shake the Western world. The (often literal) gold mine of colonialism had brought new wealth and new demand for the products of domestic industries, which drove the expansion and mechanization of production. As technology leaped ahead and factories no longer had to be built near waterways or windmills to function, industrialists began building in the cities where there were now thousands of people to supply ready labor.
Industrial tycoons were the first people to amass their wealth in their lifetimes, often outstripping both the landed nobles and many of the money lending/banking families. For the first time in history, common people could have hopes of becoming wealthy. The new money crowd built more factories that required more labor, while also producing more goods for people to purchase.
During this period, the term "capitalism"—originating from the Latin word "capitalis," which means "head of cattle"—was first used by French socialist Louis Blanc in 1850, to signify a system of exclusive ownership of industrial means of production by private individuals rather than shared ownership.
Contrary to popular belief, Karl Marx did not coin the word "capitalism," although he certainly contributed to the rise of its use.

Industrial Capitalism's Effects

Industrial capitalism tended to benefit more levels of society rather than just the aristocratic class. Wages increased, helped greatly by the formation of unions. The standard of living also increased with the glut of affordable products being mass-produced. This growth led to the formation of a middle class and began to lift more and more people from the lower classes to swell its ranks.
The economic freedoms of capitalism matured alongside democratic political freedoms, liberal individualism, and the theory of natural rights. This unified maturity is not to say, however, that all capitalist systems are politically free or encourage individual liberty. Economist Milton Friedman, an advocate of capitalism and individual liberty, wrote in Capitalism and Freedom (1962) that "capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. It is not a sufficient condition."
A dramatic expansion of the financial sector accompanied the rise of industrial capitalism. Banks had previously served as warehouses for valuables, clearinghouses for long-distance trade, or lenders to nobles and governments. Now they came to serve the needs of everyday commerce and the intermediation of credit for large, long-term investment projects. By the 20th century, as stock exchanges became increasingly public and investment vehicles opened up to more individuals, some economists identified a variation on the system: financial capitalism.

Capitalism and Economic Growth

By creating incentives for entrepreneurs to reallocate away resources from unprofitable channels and into areas where consumers value them more highly, capitalism has proven a highly effective vehicle for economic growth.
Before the rise of capitalism in the 18th and 19th centuries, rapid economic growth occurred primarily through conquest and extraction of resources from conquered peoples. In general, this was a localized, zero-sum process. Research suggests average global per-capita income was unchanged between the rise of agricultural societies through approximately 1750 when the roots of the first Industrial Revolution took hold.
In subsequent centuries, capitalist production processes have greatly enhanced productive capacity. More and better goods became cheaply accessible to wide populations, raising standards of living in previously unthinkable ways. As a result, most political theorists and nearly all economists argue that capitalism is the most efficient and productive system of exchange.

Capitalism vs. Socialism

In terms of political economy, capitalism is often pitted against socialism. The fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism is the ownership and control of the means of production. In a capitalist economy, property and businesses are owned and controlled by individuals. In a socialist economy, the state owns and manages the vital means of production. However, other differences also exist in the form of equity, efficiency, and employment.

Equity

The capitalist economy is unconcerned about equitable arrangements. The argument is that inequality is the driving force that encourages innovation, which then pushes economic development. The primary concern of the socialist model is the redistribution of wealth and resources from the rich to the poor, out of fairness, and to ensure equality in opportunity and equality of outcome. Equality is valued above high achievement, and the collective good is viewed above the opportunity for individuals to advance.

Efficiency

The capitalist argument is that the profit incentive drives corporations to develop innovative new products that are desired by the consumer and have demand in the marketplace. It is argued that the state ownership of the means of production leads to inefficiency because, without the motivation to earn more money, management, workers, and developers are less likely to put forth the extra effort to push new ideas or products.

Employment

In a capitalist economy, the state does not directly employ the workforce. This lack of government-run employment can lead to unemployment during economic recessions and depressions. In a socialist economy, the state is the primary employer. During times of economic hardship, the socialist state can order hiring, so there is full employment. Also, there tends to be a stronger "safety net" in socialist systems for workers who are injured or permanently disabled. Those who can no longer work have fewer options available to help them in capitalist societies.

Mixed System vs. Pure Capitalism

When the government owns some but not all of the means of production, but government interests may legally circumvent, replace, limit, or otherwise regulate private economic interests, that is said to be a mixed economy or mixed economic system. A mixed economy respects property rights, but places limits on them.
Property owners are restricted with regards to how they exchange with one another. These restrictions come in many forms, such as minimum wage laws, tariffs, quotas, windfall taxes, license restrictions, prohibited products or contracts, direct public expropriation, anti-trust legislation, legal tender laws, subsidies, and eminent domain. Governments in mixed economies also fully or partly own and operate certain industries, especially those considered public goods, often enforcing legally binding monopolies in those industries to prohibit competition by private entities.
In contrast, pure capitalism, also known as laissez-faire capitalism or anarcho-capitalism, (such as professed by Murray N. Rothbard) all industries are left up to private ownership and operation, including public goods, and no central government authority provides regulation or supervision of economic activity in general.
The standard spectrum of economic systems places laissez-faire capitalism at one extreme and a complete planned economy—such as communism—at the other. Everything in the middle could be said to be a mixed economy. The mixed economy has elements of both central planning and unplanned private business.
By this definition, nearly every country in the world has a mixed economy, but contemporary mixed economies range in their levels of government intervention. The U.S. and the U.K. have a relatively pure type of capitalism with a minimum of federal regulation in financial and labor markets—sometimes known as Anglo-Saxon capitalism—while Canada and the Nordic countries have created a balance between socialism and capitalism.
Many European nations practice welfare capitalism, a system that is concerned with the social welfare of the worker, and includes such policies as state pensions, universal healthcare, collective bargaining, and industrial safety codes.

Crony Capitalism

Crony capitalism refers to a capitalist society that is based on the close relationships between business people and the state. Instead of success being determined by a free market and the rule of law, the success of a business is dependent on the favoritism that is shown to it by the government in the form of tax breaks, government grants, and other incentives.
In practice, this is the dominant form of capitalism worldwide due to the powerful incentives both faced by governments to extract resources by taxing, regulating, and fostering rent-seeking activity, and those faced by capitalist businesses to increase profits by obtaining subsidies, limiting competition, and erecting barriers to entry. In effect, these forces represent a kind of supply and demand for government intervention in the economy, which arises from the economic system itself.
Crony capitalism is widely blamed for a range of social and economic woes. Both socialists and capitalists blame each other for the rise of crony capitalism. Socialists believe that crony capitalism is the inevitable result of pure capitalism. On the other hand, capitalists believe that crony capitalism arises from the need of socialist governments to control the economy.
SPONSORED

Start with $30 trading bonus

Trade forex and CFDs on stock indices, commodities, stocks, metals and energies with a licensed and regulated broker. For all clients who open their first real account, XM offers a $30 trading bonus to test the XM products and services without any initial deposit needed. Learn more about how you can trade over 1000 instruments on the XM MT4 and MT5 platforms from your PC and Mac, or from a variety of mobile devices.Compare Investment Accounts


https://preview.redd.it/grfmt8oe4le41.png?width=1199&format=png&auto=webp&s=49d71283e37563aff53287dff7c1f99f993fb8b5
submitted by MattPetroski to ItalicoIntegralism [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]

COMPREHENSIVE Forex Trading SOLUTION/ANSWER; FEEDBACK NEEDED

The following is a comprehensive response outlining a viable, reasonable, scalable, and sustainable solution for achieving financial independence/prosperity. Please let me know what you think as I would appreciate your feedback.
Trade the financial markets, specifically Forex trading. It's a fkin trillion dollar industry! There are a plethora of businesses online that sell software to meet the trading/investment needs of various demanding clients.
Just look up online EAs (Expert Advisor, which is automated/algorithmic trading, for Meta Trader 4), verify results using the myfxbook website (i.e. a reputable independent third-party website that certifies and tracks the record/performance of various trading strategies/systems, including commercial EAs), purchase the EA, verify results again by running/performing both a backtest and a forward test (i.e. paper trading on a demo account), and then, and only then can/should you use the EA with real money trading on a live/real account.
You can verify the EA's reliability by performing a backtest for a "significant" time period (for example 5-10 years; or depending on the "frequency" of trades placed from the EA) coupled with 2-3 months of forward testing (i.e. paper trading on a demo account) and if the results are "consistently" profitable (i.e. "overall consistent" "monthly" profits from both backtesting and forward testing) with drawdowns being not "too much/high/extreme" AND not "too frequent", then you can go live and trade using real money.
It's okay to expect a particular trading strategy/system to expire (i.e. lose its edge, or for profits to weaken/deteriorate/diminish). When that time comes, simply go onto the next “hot/trendy” EA or if you were fortunate enough to accumulate significant profits, you can store those profits in an interest-savings account and receive periodic income that way.
The purpose of backtesting and forward testing is to ensure drawdowns are not "too much/high/extreme" AND not "too frequent", AND that there is proper risk management "embedded within the EA", thus minimizing/avoiding the risk of "extreme" drawdown or "extreme" losses when using real money.
Note: The switch to "another" hot/trendy EA should be made when the profits earned from the "current" EA have reached a point/level where it no longer appeals to the individual's interest/preference. However, if there is an "unusual/unexpected/unanticipated" "significant" drawdown (according to the performed backtest and forward test), then that would unfortunately represent an actual/real risk/loss incurred by the individual (and would still require a switch to another hot/trendy EA). This risk can be "mitigated/minimized" by performing a backtest "AND" a forward test (both for a "significant" time period, i.e. depending on the "frequency" of trades placed from the EA), AND by conducting a proper psychological evaluation of the EA seller (as an "individual" entity), i.e. evaluating their reliability, logic, and confidence when it comes to addressing/answering relevant/crucial questions pertaining to Forex/Finance/Trading/Investing (rather than asking for or needing specific details regarding their intellectual property or proprietary strategy/system/software, i.e. their source code or trading methodology).
Ultimately, it comes down to “risk tolerance” while taking into account the results obtained from backtesting and forward testing, as well as the level of confidence and trust you impart/place on the person/group selling/distributing the EA.
Note: refer to the Investopedia website for definitions on the following terminology/vocabulary: backtesting, forward testing (i.e. paper trading on a demo account), drawdown (DD), maximum drawdown (MDD or MaxDD), and monthly/annual ROI (return on investment, as a percentage).
Also, note: "focus" on testing for maximum drawdown (MDD or MaxDD) (making sure drawdowns are not "too much/high/extreme" AND not "too frequent"; for example, not greater than 30%-50%, depending on your risk tolerance or preference) and looking for a "track-record" of "overall consistent" "monthly" profits from both backtesting and forward testing, i.e. paper trading on a demo account (both for a "significant" time period, depending on the "frequency" of trades placed from the EA). This "track-record" can be "verified" either through the "myfxbook" website or through the combined use of backtesting and forward testing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Each and every year, students graduate from college and university. How is it "economically feasible" to provide jobs for all or most of these people? My understanding is that people need to display a good understanding of the psychology of first impression, which includes genuine/authentic personality, trustworthiness, and competency (reflected in education); in other words, honest, reliable, and competent in relevant matters, or integrity, energy, and intelligence.
Problem: The individual's attainment of their “desired dream/career job", which is their ultimate purpose for pursuing "rigorous" higher education (i.e. college or university) or "rigorous" professional education (i.e. apprenticeship or trades).
I believe that a lot of people attend college and university with the hope that they will obtain a job after they graduate, a job that will support them financially. If money is the primary reason for their pursuing higheprofessional education, shouldn't they be "informed" (as part of a global/collective civic/social responsibility) that there are alternative ways of making money (personally, namely, trading the financial markets), ones that will actually lead them to, or at least have a higher probability of leading them to, financial independence/prosperity, since the chances of them achieving such goal upon graduation from college/university is realistically slim – if not the problem of difficulty finding employment related to their “desired careedream job”, then the problem of a dead-end mediocre job with a “fixed” “small” salary?
Should we, as a society, steer people away from college/university, often temporarily, since, let's be honest, our society is currently producing "a lot" of "mediocre" individuals with no real chance of obtaining a job that they were initially in pursuit of? Can we, as a society, do a better job of "realizing" and "maximizing" the talents/skills of these "mediocre" individuals, i.e. individuals who have no real chance of obtaining a job which they had been (or currently are) pursuing/studying rigorously for?
After going through a proper evaluation of current circumstances and current options, I've realized that people need to get certain things in their life straight "before" working on pursuing higheprofessional education – i.e. Health > Wealth > Education/”Prestige”.
The mass of people who pursue college and university because their program is in high demand are ones that are studying the program not for its unique intricacies, but rather only for graduation with the expectation that they "deserve" to be rewarded a job. As opposed to, respect and appreciation to the language their subject takes on (whether that be Accounting language or Computer Programming language, etc.). Respect and appreciation for a subject or field is displayed when the person engages with the subject or field with a “critical thinking” mindset, with the main purpose/goal of analyzing and critiquing thoroughly the accuracy of any statement presented to them that is related to their chosen subject or field, i.e. effectively utilizing journaling and documentation (see relevant section below, point #1 of 2 under “ESSENTIAL/CRUCIAL” for more details); this main purpose/goal is often rooted from a genuine desire/interest/passion for pursuing/studying their chosen subject or field.
The simple fact remains that it is simply not economically feasible to provide jobs to meet the constant influx of supply being produced by colleges and universities, "each" and "every" year. As a result, why are people making the foolish decision to incur immense amount of “DEBT” (keyword) while pursuing higheprofessional education when the economic reality simply does not provide enough jobs for society, i.e. jobs that are specifically expected of from college and university graduates?
Quoted from someone else: "Our societies have for so long told us that education can and should equate to professional success, which should equate to economic success, yet we are entering a period where that simply can't occur. The foundation that those notions were created upon doesn't exist any longer, given how we have evolved and grown as a species, and we have yet to make the transition to a new set of notions."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some ESSENTIAL/CRUCIAL characteristics of an individual who exhibits genuine desire/interest/passion for pursuing/studying their chosen subject/field (especially at the higher education or professional education level) are as follows:
1) Effective "Information Management" strategy (utilizing journaling and documentation). The individual had made it a priority to create and compile personal notes or online documents for the purpose of future-reference and documentation – for potential revision, self-reflection, self-correction, or discovery, as this is crucial for knowledge retrieval, knowledge retention, as well as knowledge synthesis and creating/generating new knowledge. Note: information becomes knowledge when you regard the information as valuable and when you make the conscious decision to keep it as part of your notes with the expectation/option of using it in the future; knowledge is information in action, so actually using the information, instead of dismissing it as irrelevant.
Response from another individual/writer:
  • I don't mean that all information has to be kept as notes, nor that other strategies/tactics of finding/retrieving information aren't valuable. I don't even mean that it's impossible for someone to exist/operate without ever taking any notes. Most saliently, I'm more saying that to categorically omit note-taking from one's information management capabilities/strategy is to invite unnecessary trouble, likely to the point of dysfunction, unless one happens to never be doing anything that involves any significantly elusive information to begin with.
  • My bias toward this assessment is reinforced by 25+ years of highly-technical work that has resulted in literally thousands (or tens-of-thousands) of pieces of information, extremely valuable to me, that can't be readily found anywhere but in my notes.
  • Some of it is information specifically originating with myself – there's no one or nowhere else from which it can be gotten. Some of it is information that took me immense amounts of time, thought, and effort to find/acquire, and I would never want to have to try to find it again. Most of these things are in my notes because they have either already disappeared, or are likely to disappear, off of the internet, or don't lend themselves well to simple bookmark-able reference.
  • Another way of saying this is that personally-kept notes are a reflection of the time/effort/insight one has had to put into acquiring the information, combined with the value of retrieval efficiency (organized for one's own retrieval needs). To subject yourself to relying on reproduction of that time/effort and self-organization is to either admit that the time/effort isn't significant (i.e. the information is rather trivial or ubiquitous in nature), or that your own time/effort spent isn't worth much (if you're willing to repeat it).
  • Also, if one assumes that the information is always going to be right where you can easily find it, or even right where you found it before, that's actually just naive.
  • While its true you still need to expend time/effort into locating the info, it has been organized specifically how YOU determine it should be, and thus truncates any actual "overhead" involved in the typical "location" process, not to mention the guarantee that it's actually there to find. Note: overhead expense refers to an ongoing expense of operating a business; it is also known as an "operating expense".
  • As a simple/clear example: if you've never spent hours sifting through the deluge from the Google sewer pipe flooding into your browser, just to find anything remotely relevant to the fairly elusive technical scenario you're trying to resolve, then you're probably not acquainted with really anything I'm talking about, and your dismissal would then represent simply being unaware.
2) The individual is ASSERTIVE and NOT PASSIVE towards the subject they are studying. They are WILLING to articulate and share important ideas and concepts from the subject they are studying. The individual is not seen as someone who is under the spell/act (i.e. false and disingenuous impression of superior intelligence) of mindless regurgitation but rather, the individual is able to offer their OWN UNIQUE interpretation on the subject they are studying, while also citing important concepts or ideas where citation is necessary. In other words, the individual demonstrates "individual competency" THROUGH the subject they are studying and are ultimately/inherently passionate about. The individual's competency (i.e. his/her opinion or interpretation of what is relevant or accurate information) is demonstrated through the individual's pattern of logical and coherent thinking, as well as through the individual's writing style (which displays "CONFIDENCE" in what the individual is presenting as relevant or accurate information).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Relevant response from another individual:
Decide where you fall on the self-directed spectrum.
Highly self-directed: technical books and MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses)
Average: an online community + curriculum like Free Code Camp or theodinproject.com
Not very self-directed: An in-person coding boot camp like Hack Reactor or App Academy; similar to “subpamediocre” college/university “classroom” learning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are only so many ways of acquiring wealth (with only some methods actually leading to long-term/sustainable financial independence/prosperity):
1) Real Estate
2) Owning a business; being an entrepreneur
3) Career Job requiring higher education (i.e. college or university) or professional education (i.e. apprenticeship or trades)
4) Minimum Wage Jobs
5) Trading the financial markets; making financial “investments” (stocks, forex, futures, options, equities, commodities, etc.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pseudo-Intellectual versus Intellectual (the following is a response from another individual/writer):
An intellectual follows the values and attitudes of Critical Thinking, and exercises good thinking habits. Their interest lies in discovery and self-correction.
The traits of a true intellectual are as follows:
  • intellectual humility – recognizing the limits and sensitivities of one's experience.
  • intellectual courage – ability to examine things and/or state results or potentialities, even if it may be costly/risky to your personal beliefs, or social acceptance, established norms or theories. The ability to put things at risk. Even if they are your own cherished ideas or beliefs that you are putting at risk.
  • intellectual empathy – knowing that you have to imaginatively put yourself in the place of others in order to understand them.
  • intellectual autonomy – being able to think independently, to carry through without constant guidance from others, and sometimes even to come to different conclusions.
  • intellectual integrity – holding yourself to the same standards you hold others, and holding all beliefs to the same standards.
  • intellectual honesty – being willing to admit discrepancies and avoid overlooking exceptions, even to oneself.
  • intellectual perseverance – having the patience to struggle through difficult or complex problems.
  • confidence in reason – willingness to follow the logic where-ever it leads.
  • fair-mindedness – avoiding making unjustified special exceptions or privileges. Holding all viewpoints to the same standards. This does not mean that all views are equal; it means they all are held to the same universal standards. They might end up meeting those standards very unequally. For instance: the theory of evolution vs the fable of creation, or climate change vs science denialism.
A pseudo-intellectual does not do these things. Their interest lies not in discovery and self-correction, but in confirmation of what is already believed. Confirmation Bias. Their "thinking" style is characterized by cognitive biases, a lack of self-reflection/self-correction, a lack of rigor and completeness, and applying woefully different standards to beliefs/ideas that they cherish, and any information that calls them into question.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
submitted by gentlestream to Forex [link] [comments]

Feedback Needed

The following is a comprehensive response outlining a viable, reasonable, scalable, and sustainable solution for achieving financial independence/prosperity. Please let me know what you think as I would appreciate your feedback.
Trade the financial markets, specifically Forex trading. It's a fkin trillion dollar industry! There are a plethora of businesses online that sell software to meet the trading/investment needs of various demanding clients.
Just look up online EAs (Expert Advisor, which is automated/algorithmic trading, for Meta Trader 4), verify results using the myfxbook website (i.e. a reputable independent third-party website that certifies and tracks the record/performance of various trading strategies/systems, including commercial EAs), purchase the EA, verify results again by running/performing both a backtest and a forward test (i.e. paper trading on a demo account), and then, and only then can/should you use the EA with real money trading on a live/real account.
You can verify the EA's reliability by performing a backtest for a "significant" time period (for example 5-10 years; or depending on the "frequency" of trades placed from the EA) coupled with 2-3 months of forward testing (i.e. paper trading on a demo account) and if the results are "consistently" profitable (i.e. "overall consistent" "monthly" profits from both backtesting and forward testing) with drawdowns being not "too much/high/extreme" AND not "too frequent", then you can go live and trade using real money.
It's okay to expect a particular trading strategy/system to expire (i.e. lose its edge, or for profits to weaken/deteriorate/diminish). When that time comes, simply go onto the next “hot/trendy” EA or if you were fortunate enough to accumulate significant profits, you can store those profits in an interest-savings account and receive periodic income that way.
The purpose of backtesting and forward testing is to ensure drawdowns are not "too much/high/extreme" AND not "too frequent", AND that there is proper risk management "embedded within the EA", thus minimizing/avoiding the risk of "extreme" drawdown or "extreme" losses when using real money.
Note: The switch to "another" hot/trendy EA should be made when the profits earned from the "current" EA have reached a point/level where it no longer appeals to the individual's interest/preference. However, if there is an "unusual/unexpected/unanticipated" "significant" drawdown (according to the performed backtest and forward test), then that would unfortunately represent an actual/real risk/loss incurred by the individual (and would still require a switch to another hot/trendy EA). This risk can be "mitigated/minimized" by performing a backtest "AND" a forward test (both for a "significant" time period, i.e. depending on the "frequency" of trades placed from the EA), AND by conducting a proper psychological evaluation of the EA seller (as an "individual" entity), i.e. evaluating their reliability, logic, and confidence when it comes to addressing/answering relevant/crucial questions pertaining to Forex/Finance/Trading/Investing (rather than asking for or needing specific details regarding their intellectual property or proprietary strategy/system/software, i.e. their source code or trading methodology).
Ultimately, it comes down to “risk tolerance” while taking into account the results obtained from backtesting and forward testing, as well as the level of confidence and trust you impart/place on the person/group selling/distributing the EA.
Note: refer to the Investopedia website for definitions on the following terminology/vocabulary: backtesting, forward testing (i.e. paper trading on a demo account), drawdown (DD), maximum drawdown (MDD or MaxDD), and monthly/annual ROI (return on investment, as a percentage).
Also, note: "focus" on testing for maximum drawdown (MDD or MaxDD) (making sure drawdowns are not "too much/high/extreme" AND not "too frequent"; for example, not greater than 30%-50%, depending on your risk tolerance or preference) and looking for a "track-record" of "overall consistent" "monthly" profits from both backtesting and forward testing, i.e. paper trading on a demo account (both for a "significant" time period, depending on the "frequency" of trades placed from the EA). This "track-record" can be "verified" either through the "myfxbook" website or through the combined use of backtesting and forward testing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Each and every year, students graduate from college and university. How is it "economically feasible" to provide jobs for all or most of these people? My understanding is that people need to display a good understanding of the psychology of first impression, which includes genuine/authentic personality, trustworthiness, and competency (reflected in education); in other words, honest, reliable, and competent in relevant matters, or integrity, energy, and intelligence.
Problem: The individual's attainment of their “desired dream/career job", which is their ultimate purpose for pursuing "rigorous" higher education (i.e. college or university) or "rigorous" professional education (i.e. apprenticeship or trades).
I believe that a lot of people attend college and university with the hope that they will obtain a job after they graduate, a job that will support them financially. If money is the primary reason for their pursuing higheprofessional education, shouldn't they be "informed" (as part of a global/collective civic/social responsibility) that there are alternative ways of making money (personally, namely, trading the financial markets), ones that will actually lead them to, or at least have a higher probability of leading them to, financial independence/prosperity, since the chances of them achieving such goal upon graduation from college/university is realistically slim – if not the problem of difficulty finding employment related to their “desired careedream job”, then the problem of a dead-end mediocre job with a “fixed” “small” salary?
Should we, as a society, steer people away from college/university, often temporarily, since, let's be honest, our society is currently producing "a lot" of "mediocre" individuals with no real chance of obtaining a job that they were initially in pursuit of? Can we, as a society, do a better job of "realizing" and "maximizing" the talents/skills of these "mediocre" individuals, i.e. individuals who have no real chance of obtaining a job which they had been (or currently are) pursuing/studying rigorously for?
After going through a proper evaluation of current circumstances and current options, I've realized that people need to get certain things in their life straight "before" working on pursuing higheprofessional education – i.e. Health > Wealth > Education/”Prestige”.
The mass of people who pursue college and university because their program is in high demand are ones that are studying the program not for its unique intricacies, but rather only for graduation with the expectation that they "deserve" to be rewarded a job. As opposed to, respect and appreciation to the language their subject takes on (whether that be Accounting language or Computer Programming language, etc.). Respect and appreciation for a subject or field is displayed when the person engages with the subject or field with a “critical thinking” mindset, with the main purpose/goal of analyzing and critiquing thoroughly the accuracy of any statement presented to them that is related to their chosen subject or field, i.e. effectively utilizing journaling and documentation (see relevant section below, point #1 of 2 under “ESSENTIAL/CRUCIAL” for more details); this main purpose/goal is often rooted from a genuine desire/interest/passion for pursuing/studying their chosen subject or field.
The simple fact remains that it is simply not economically feasible to provide jobs to meet the constant influx of supply being produced by colleges and universities, "each" and "every" year. As a result, why are people making the foolish decision to incur immense amount of “DEBT” (keyword) while pursuing higheprofessional education when the economic reality simply does not provide enough jobs for society, i.e. jobs that are specifically expected of from college and university graduates?
Quoted from someone else: "Our societies have for so long told us that education can and should equate to professional success, which should equate to economic success, yet we are entering a period where that simply can't occur. The foundation that those notions were created upon doesn't exist any longer, given how we have evolved and grown as a species, and we have yet to make the transition to a new set of notions."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some ESSENTIAL/CRUCIAL characteristics of an individual who exhibits genuine desire/interest/passion for pursuing/studying their chosen subject/field (especially at the higher education or professional education level) are as follows:
1) Effective "Information Management" strategy (utilizing journaling and documentation). The individual had made it a priority to create and compile personal notes or online documents for the purpose of future-reference and documentation – for potential revision, self-reflection, self-correction, or discovery, as this is crucial for knowledge retrieval, knowledge retention, as well as knowledge synthesis and creating/generating new knowledge. Note: information becomes knowledge when you regard the information as valuable and when you make the conscious decision to keep it as part of your notes with the expectation/option of using it in the future; knowledge is information in action, so actually using the information, instead of dismissing it as irrelevant.
Response from another individual/writer:
  • I don't mean that all information has to be kept as notes, nor that other strategies/tactics of finding/retrieving information aren't valuable. I don't even mean that it's impossible for someone to exist/operate without ever taking any notes. Most saliently, I'm more saying that to categorically omit note-taking from one's information management capabilities/strategy is to invite unnecessary trouble, likely to the point of dysfunction, unless one happens to never be doing anything that involves any significantly elusive information to begin with.
  • My bias toward this assessment is reinforced by 25+ years of highly-technical work that has resulted in literally thousands (or tens-of-thousands) of pieces of information, extremely valuable to me, that can't be readily found anywhere but in my notes.
  • Some of it is information specifically originating with myself – there's no one or nowhere else from which it can be gotten. Some of it is information that took me immense amounts of time, thought, and effort to find/acquire, and I would never want to have to try to find it again. Most of these things are in my notes because they have either already disappeared, or are likely to disappear, off of the internet, or don't lend themselves well to simple bookmark-able reference.
  • Another way of saying this is that personally-kept notes are a reflection of the time/effort/insight one has had to put into acquiring the information, combined with the value of retrieval efficiency (organized for one's own retrieval needs). To subject yourself to relying on reproduction of that time/effort and self-organization is to either admit that the time/effort isn't significant (i.e. the information is rather trivial or ubiquitous in nature), or that your own time/effort spent isn't worth much (if you're willing to repeat it).
  • Also, if one assumes that the information is always going to be right where you can easily find it, or even right where you found it before, that's actually just naive.
  • While its true you still need to expend time/effort into locating the info, it has been organized specifically how YOU determine it should be, and thus truncates any actual "overhead" involved in the typical "location" process, not to mention the guarantee that it's actually there to find. Note: overhead expense refers to an ongoing expense of operating a business; it is also known as an "operating expense".
  • As a simple/clear example: if you've never spent hours sifting through the deluge from the Google sewer pipe flooding into your browser, just to find anything remotely relevant to the fairly elusive technical scenario you're trying to resolve, then you're probably not acquainted with really anything I'm talking about, and your dismissal would then represent simply being unaware.
2) The individual is ASSERTIVE and NOT PASSIVE towards the subject they are studying. They are WILLING to articulate and share important ideas and concepts from the subject they are studying. The individual is not seen as someone who is under the spell/act (i.e. false and disingenuous impression of superior intelligence) of mindless regurgitation but rather, the individual is able to offer their OWN UNIQUE interpretation on the subject they are studying, while also citing important concepts or ideas where citation is necessary. In other words, the individual demonstrates "individual competency" THROUGH the subject they are studying and are ultimately/inherently passionate about. The individual's competency (i.e. his/her opinion or interpretation of what is relevant or accurate information) is demonstrated through the individual's pattern of logical and coherent thinking, as well as through the individual's writing style (which displays "CONFIDENCE" in what the individual is presenting as relevant or accurate information).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Relevant response from another individual:
Decide where you fall on the self-directed spectrum.
Highly self-directed: technical books and MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses)
Average: an online community + curriculum like Free Code Camp or theodinproject.com
Not very self-directed: An in-person coding boot camp like Hack Reactor or App Academy; similar to “subpamediocre” college/university “classroom” learning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are only so many ways of acquiring wealth (with only some methods actually leading to long-term/sustainable financial independence/prosperity):
1) Real Estate
2) Owning a business; being an entrepreneur
3) Career Job requiring higher education (i.e. college or university) or professional education (i.e. apprenticeship or trades)
4) Minimum Wage Jobs
5) Trading the financial markets; making financial “investments” (stocks, forex, futures, options, equities, commodities, etc.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pseudo-Intellectual versus Intellectual (the following is a response from another individual/writer):
An intellectual follows the values and attitudes of Critical Thinking, and exercises good thinking habits. Their interest lies in discovery and self-correction.
The traits of a true intellectual are as follows:
  • intellectual humility – recognizing the limits and sensitivities of one's experience.
  • intellectual courage – ability to examine things and/or state results or potentialities, even if it may be costly/risky to your personal beliefs, or social acceptance, established norms or theories. The ability to put things at risk. Even if they are your own cherished ideas or beliefs that you are putting at risk.
  • intellectual empathy – knowing that you have to imaginatively put yourself in the place of others in order to understand them.
  • intellectual autonomy – being able to think independently, to carry through without constant guidance from others, and sometimes even to come to different conclusions.
  • intellectual integrity – holding yourself to the same standards you hold others, and holding all beliefs to the same standards.
  • intellectual honesty – being willing to admit discrepancies and avoid overlooking exceptions, even to oneself.
  • intellectual perseverance – having the patience to struggle through difficult or complex problems.
  • confidence in reason – willingness to follow the logic where-ever it leads.
  • fair-mindedness – avoiding making unjustified special exceptions or privileges. Holding all viewpoints to the same standards. This does not mean that all views are equal; it means they all are held to the same universal standards. They might end up meeting those standards very unequally. For instance: the theory of evolution vs the fable of creation, or climate change vs science denialism.
A pseudo-intellectual does not do these things. Their interest lies not in discovery and self-correction, but in confirmation of what is already believed. Confirmation Bias. Their "thinking" style is characterized by cognitive biases, a lack of self-reflection/self-correction, a lack of rigor and completeness, and applying woefully different standards to beliefs/ideas that they cherish, and any information that calls them into question.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
submitted by gentlestream to algotrading [link] [comments]

Feedback Needed

The following is a comprehensive response outlining a viable, reasonable, scalable, and sustainable solution for achieving financial independence/prosperity. Please let me know what you think as I would appreciate your feedback.
Trade the financial markets, specifically Forex trading. It's a fkin trillion dollar industry! There are a plethora of businesses online that sell software to meet the trading/investment needs of various demanding clients.
Just look up online EAs (Expert Advisor, which is automated/algorithmic trading, for Meta Trader 4), verify results using the myfxbook website (i.e. a reputable independent third-party website that certifies and tracks the record/performance of various trading strategies/systems, including commercial EAs), purchase the EA, verify results again by running/performing both a backtest and a forward test (i.e. paper trading on a demo account), and then, and only then can/should you use the EA with real money trading on a live/real account.
You can verify the EA's reliability by performing a backtest for a "significant" time period (for example 5-10 years; or depending on the "frequency" of trades placed from the EA) coupled with 2-3 months of forward testing (i.e. paper trading on a demo account) and if the results are "consistently" profitable (i.e. "overall consistent" "monthly" profits from both backtesting and forward testing) with drawdowns being not "too much/high/extreme" AND not "too frequent", then you can go live and trade using real money.
It's okay to expect a particular trading strategy/system to expire (i.e. lose its edge, or for profits to weaken/deteriorate/diminish). When that time comes, simply go onto the next “hot/trendy” EA or if you were fortunate enough to accumulate significant profits, you can store those profits in an interest-savings account and receive periodic income that way.
The purpose of backtesting and forward testing is to ensure drawdowns are not "too much/high/extreme" AND not "too frequent", AND that there is proper risk management "embedded within the EA", thus minimizing/avoiding the risk of "extreme" drawdown or "extreme" losses when using real money.
Note: The switch to "another" hot/trendy EA should be made when the profits earned from the "current" EA have reached a point/level where it no longer appeals to the individual's interest/preference. However, if there is an "unusual/unexpected/unanticipated" "significant" drawdown (according to the performed backtest and forward test), then that would unfortunately represent an actual/real risk/loss incurred by the individual (and would still require a switch to another hot/trendy EA). This risk can be "mitigated/minimized" by performing a backtest "AND" a forward test (both for a "significant" time period, i.e. depending on the "frequency" of trades placed from the EA), AND by conducting a proper psychological evaluation of the EA seller (as an "individual" entity), i.e. evaluating their reliability, logic, and confidence when it comes to addressing/answering relevant/crucial questions pertaining to Forex/Finance/Trading/Investing (rather than asking for or needing specific details regarding their intellectual property or proprietary strategy/system/software, i.e. their source code or trading methodology).
Ultimately, it comes down to “risk tolerance” while taking into account the results obtained from backtesting and forward testing, as well as the level of confidence and trust you impart/place on the person/group selling/distributing the EA.
Note: refer to the Investopedia website for definitions on the following terminology/vocabulary: backtesting, forward testing (i.e. paper trading on a demo account), drawdown (DD), maximum drawdown (MDD or MaxDD), and monthly/annual ROI (return on investment, as a percentage).
Also, note: "focus" on testing for maximum drawdown (MDD or MaxDD) (making sure drawdowns are not "too much/high/extreme" AND not "too frequent"; for example, not greater than 30%-50%, depending on your risk tolerance or preference) and looking for a "track-record" of "overall consistent" "monthly" profits from both backtesting and forward testing, i.e. paper trading on a demo account (both for a "significant" time period, depending on the "frequency" of trades placed from the EA). This "track-record" can be "verified" either through the "myfxbook" website or through the combined use of backtesting and forward testing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Each and every year, students graduate from college and university. How is it "economically feasible" to provide jobs for all or most of these people? My understanding is that people need to display a good understanding of the psychology of first impression, which includes genuine/authentic personality, trustworthiness, and competency (reflected in education); in other words, honest, reliable, and competent in relevant matters, or integrity, energy, and intelligence.
Problem: The individual's attainment of their “desired dream/career job", which is their ultimate purpose for pursuing "rigorous" higher education (i.e. college or university) or "rigorous" professional education (i.e. apprenticeship or trades).
I believe that a lot of people attend college and university with the hope that they will obtain a job after they graduate, a job that will support them financially. If money is the primary reason for their pursuing higheprofessional education, shouldn't they be "informed" (as part of a global/collective civic/social responsibility) that there are alternative ways of making money (personally, namely, trading the financial markets), ones that will actually lead them to, or at least have a higher probability of leading them to, financial independence/prosperity, since the chances of them achieving such goal upon graduation from college/university is realistically slim – if not the problem of difficulty finding employment related to their “desired careedream job”, then the problem of a dead-end mediocre job with a “fixed” “small” salary?
Should we, as a society, steer people away from college/university, often temporarily, since, let's be honest, our society is currently producing "a lot" of "mediocre" individuals with no real chance of obtaining a job that they were initially in pursuit of? Can we, as a society, do a better job of "realizing" and "maximizing" the talents/skills of these "mediocre" individuals, i.e. individuals who have no real chance of obtaining a job which they had been (or currently are) pursuing/studying rigorously for?
After going through a proper evaluation of current circumstances and current options, I've realized that people need to get certain things in their life straight "before" working on pursuing higheprofessional education – i.e. Health > Wealth > Education/”Prestige”.
The mass of people who pursue college and university because their program is in high demand are ones that are studying the program not for its unique intricacies, but rather only for graduation with the expectation that they "deserve" to be rewarded a job. As opposed to, respect and appreciation to the language their subject takes on (whether that be Accounting language or Computer Programming language, etc.). Respect and appreciation for a subject or field is displayed when the person engages with the subject or field with a “critical thinking” mindset, with the main purpose/goal of analyzing and critiquing thoroughly the accuracy of any statement presented to them that is related to their chosen subject or field, i.e. effectively utilizing journaling and documentation (see relevant section below, point #1 of 2 under “ESSENTIAL/CRUCIAL” for more details); this main purpose/goal is often rooted from a genuine desire/interest/passion for pursuing/studying their chosen subject or field.
The simple fact remains that it is simply not economically feasible to provide jobs to meet the constant influx of supply being produced by colleges and universities, "each" and "every" year. As a result, why are people making the foolish decision to incur immense amount of “DEBT” (keyword) while pursuing higheprofessional education when the economic reality simply does not provide enough jobs for society, i.e. jobs that are specifically expected of from college and university graduates?
Quoted from someone else: "Our societies have for so long told us that education can and should equate to professional success, which should equate to economic success, yet we are entering a period where that simply can't occur. The foundation that those notions were created upon doesn't exist any longer, given how we have evolved and grown as a species, and we have yet to make the transition to a new set of notions."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some ESSENTIAL/CRUCIAL characteristics of an individual who exhibits genuine desire/interest/passion for pursuing/studying their chosen subject/field (especially at the higher education or professional education level) are as follows:
1) Effective "Information Management" strategy (utilizing journaling and documentation). The individual had made it a priority to create and compile personal notes or online documents for the purpose of future-reference and documentation – for potential revision, self-reflection, self-correction, or discovery, as this is crucial for knowledge retrieval, knowledge retention, as well as knowledge synthesis and creating/generating new knowledge. Note: information becomes knowledge when you regard the information as valuable and when you make the conscious decision to keep it as part of your notes with the expectation/option of using it in the future; knowledge is information in action, so actually using the information, instead of dismissing it as irrelevant.
Response from another individual/writer:
  • I don't mean that all information has to be kept as notes, nor that other strategies/tactics of finding/retrieving information aren't valuable. I don't even mean that it's impossible for someone to exist/operate without ever taking any notes. Most saliently, I'm more saying that to categorically omit note-taking from one's information management capabilities/strategy is to invite unnecessary trouble, likely to the point of dysfunction, unless one happens to never be doing anything that involves any significantly elusive information to begin with.
  • My bias toward this assessment is reinforced by 25+ years of highly-technical work that has resulted in literally thousands (or tens-of-thousands) of pieces of information, extremely valuable to me, that can't be readily found anywhere but in my notes.
  • Some of it is information specifically originating with myself – there's no one or nowhere else from which it can be gotten. Some of it is information that took me immense amounts of time, thought, and effort to find/acquire, and I would never want to have to try to find it again. Most of these things are in my notes because they have either already disappeared, or are likely to disappear, off of the internet, or don't lend themselves well to simple bookmark-able reference.
  • Another way of saying this is that personally-kept notes are a reflection of the time/effort/insight one has had to put into acquiring the information, combined with the value of retrieval efficiency (organized for one's own retrieval needs). To subject yourself to relying on reproduction of that time/effort and self-organization is to either admit that the time/effort isn't significant (i.e. the information is rather trivial or ubiquitous in nature), or that your own time/effort spent isn't worth much (if you're willing to repeat it).
  • Also, if one assumes that the information is always going to be right where you can easily find it, or even right where you found it before, that's actually just naive.
  • While its true you still need to expend time/effort into locating the info, it has been organized specifically how YOU determine it should be, and thus truncates any actual "overhead" involved in the typical "location" process, not to mention the guarantee that it's actually there to find. Note: overhead expense refers to an ongoing expense of operating a business; it is also known as an "operating expense".
  • As a simple/clear example: if you've never spent hours sifting through the deluge from the Google sewer pipe flooding into your browser, just to find anything remotely relevant to the fairly elusive technical scenario you're trying to resolve, then you're probably not acquainted with really anything I'm talking about, and your dismissal would then represent simply being unaware.
2) The individual is ASSERTIVE and NOT PASSIVE towards the subject they are studying. They are WILLING to articulate and share important ideas and concepts from the subject they are studying. The individual is not seen as someone who is under the spell/act (i.e. false and disingenuous impression of superior intelligence) of mindless regurgitation but rather, the individual is able to offer their OWN UNIQUE interpretation on the subject they are studying, while also citing important concepts or ideas where citation is necessary. In other words, the individual demonstrates "individual competency" THROUGH the subject they are studying and are ultimately/inherently passionate about. The individual's competency (i.e. his/her opinion or interpretation of what is relevant or accurate information) is demonstrated through the individual's pattern of logical and coherent thinking, as well as through the individual's writing style (which displays "CONFIDENCE" in what the individual is presenting as relevant or accurate information).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Relevant response from another individual:
Decide where you fall on the self-directed spectrum.
Highly self-directed: technical books and MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses)
Average: an online community + curriculum like Free Code Camp or theodinproject.com
Not very self-directed: An in-person coding boot camp like Hack Reactor or App Academy; similar to “subpamediocre” college/university “classroom” learning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are only so many ways of acquiring wealth (with only some methods actually leading to long-term/sustainable financial independence/prosperity):
1) Real Estate
2) Owning a business; being an entrepreneur
3) Career Job requiring higher education (i.e. college or university) or professional education (i.e. apprenticeship or trades)
4) Minimum Wage Jobs
5) Trading the financial markets; making financial “investments” (stocks, forex, futures, options, equities, commodities, etc.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pseudo-Intellectual versus Intellectual (the following is a response from another individual/writer):
An intellectual follows the values and attitudes of Critical Thinking, and exercises good thinking habits. Their interest lies in discovery and self-correction.
The traits of a true intellectual are as follows:
  • intellectual humility – recognizing the limits and sensitivities of one's experience.
  • intellectual courage – ability to examine things and/or state results or potentialities, even if it may be costly/risky to your personal beliefs, or social acceptance, established norms or theories. The ability to put things at risk. Even if they are your own cherished ideas or beliefs that you are putting at risk.
  • intellectual empathy – knowing that you have to imaginatively put yourself in the place of others in order to understand them.
  • intellectual autonomy – being able to think independently, to carry through without constant guidance from others, and sometimes even to come to different conclusions.
  • intellectual integrity – holding yourself to the same standards you hold others, and holding all beliefs to the same standards.
  • intellectual honesty – being willing to admit discrepancies and avoid overlooking exceptions, even to oneself.
  • intellectual perseverance – having the patience to struggle through difficult or complex problems.
  • confidence in reason – willingness to follow the logic where-ever it leads.
  • fair-mindedness – avoiding making unjustified special exceptions or privileges. Holding all viewpoints to the same standards. This does not mean that all views are equal; it means they all are held to the same universal standards. They might end up meeting those standards very unequally. For instance: the theory of evolution vs the fable of creation, or climate change vs science denialism.
A pseudo-intellectual does not do these things. Their interest lies not in discovery and self-correction, but in confirmation of what is already believed. Confirmation Bias. Their "thinking" style is characterized by cognitive biases, a lack of self-reflection/self-correction, a lack of rigor and completeness, and applying woefully different standards to beliefs/ideas that they cherish, and any information that calls them into question.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
submitted by gentlestream to Forex [link] [comments]

COMPREHENSIVE Forex Trading SOLUTION/ANSWER; FEEDBACK NEEDED

The following is a comprehensive response outlining a viable, reasonable, scalable, and sustainable solution for achieving financial independence/prosperity. Please let me know what you think as I would appreciate your feedback.
Trade the financial markets, specifically Forex trading. It's a fkin trillion dollar industry! There are a plethora of businesses online that sell software to meet the trading/investment needs of various demanding clients.
Just look up online EAs (Expert Advisor, which is automated/algorithmic trading, for Meta Trader 4), verify results using the myfxbook website (i.e. a reputable independent third-party website that certifies and tracks the record/performance of various trading strategies/systems, including commercial EAs), purchase the EA, verify results again by running/performing both a backtest and a forward test (i.e. paper trading on a demo account), and then, and only then can/should you use the EA with real money trading on a live/real account.
You can verify the EA's reliability by performing a backtest for a "significant" time period (for example 5-10 years; or depending on the "frequency" of trades placed from the EA) coupled with 2-3 months of forward testing (i.e. paper trading on a demo account) and if the results are "consistently" profitable (i.e. "overall consistent" "monthly" profits from both backtesting and forward testing) with drawdowns being not "too much/high/extreme" AND not "too frequent", then you can go live and trade using real money.
It's okay to expect a particular trading strategy/system to expire (i.e. lose its edge, or for profits to weaken/deteriorate/diminish). When that time comes, simply go onto the next “hot/trendy” EA or if you were fortunate enough to accumulate significant profits, you can store those profits in an interest-savings account and receive periodic income that way.
The purpose of backtesting and forward testing is to ensure drawdowns are not "too much/high/extreme" AND not "too frequent", AND that there is proper risk management "embedded within the EA", thus minimizing/avoiding the risk of "extreme" drawdown or "extreme" losses when using real money.
Note: The switch to "another" hot/trendy EA should be made when the profits earned from the "current" EA have reached a point/level where it no longer appeals to the individual's interest/preference. However, if there is an "unusual/unexpected/unanticipated" "significant" drawdown (according to the performed backtest and forward test), then that would unfortunately represent an actual/real risk/loss incurred by the individual (and would still require a switch to another hot/trendy EA). This risk can be "mitigated/minimized" by performing a backtest "AND" a forward test (both for a "significant" time period, i.e. depending on the "frequency" of trades placed from the EA), AND by conducting a proper psychological evaluation of the EA seller (as an "individual" entity), i.e. evaluating their reliability, logic, and confidence when it comes to addressing/answering relevant/crucial questions pertaining to Forex/Finance/Trading/Investing (rather than asking for or needing specific details regarding their intellectual property or proprietary strategy/system/software, i.e. their source code or trading methodology).
Ultimately, it comes down to “risk tolerance” while taking into account the results obtained from backtesting and forward testing, as well as the level of confidence and trust you impart/place on the person/group selling/distributing the EA.
Note: refer to the Investopedia website for definitions on the following terminology/vocabulary: backtesting, forward testing (i.e. paper trading on a demo account), drawdown (DD), maximum drawdown (MDD or MaxDD), and monthly/annual ROI (return on investment, as a percentage).
Also, note: "focus" on testing for maximum drawdown (MDD or MaxDD) (making sure drawdowns are not "too much/high/extreme" AND not "too frequent"; for example, not greater than 30%-50%, depending on your risk tolerance or preference) and looking for a "track-record" of "overall consistent" "monthly" profits from both backtesting and forward testing, i.e. paper trading on a demo account (both for a "significant" time period, depending on the "frequency" of trades placed from the EA). This "track-record" can be "verified" either through the "myfxbook" website or through the combined use of backtesting and forward testing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Each and every year, students graduate from college and university. How is it "economically feasible" to provide jobs for all or most of these people? My understanding is that people need to display a good understanding of the psychology of first impression, which includes genuine/authentic personality, trustworthiness, and competency (reflected in education); in other words, honest, reliable, and competent in relevant matters, or integrity, energy, and intelligence.
Problem: The individual's attainment of their “desired dream/career job", which is their ultimate purpose for pursuing "rigorous" higher education (i.e. college or university) or "rigorous" professional education (i.e. apprenticeship or trades).
I believe that a lot of people attend college and university with the hope that they will obtain a job after they graduate, a job that will support them financially. If money is the primary reason for their pursuing higheprofessional education, shouldn't they be "informed" (as part of a global/collective civic/social responsibility) that there are alternative ways of making money (personally, namely, trading the financial markets), ones that will actually lead them to, or at least have a higher probability of leading them to, financial independence/prosperity, since the chances of them achieving such goal upon graduation from college/university is realistically slim – if not the problem of difficulty finding employment related to their “desired careedream job”, then the problem of a dead-end mediocre job with a “fixed” “small” salary?
Should we, as a society, steer people away from college/university, often temporarily, since, let's be honest, our society is currently producing "a lot" of "mediocre" individuals with no real chance of obtaining a job that they were initially in pursuit of? Can we, as a society, do a better job of "realizing" and "maximizing" the talents/skills of these "mediocre" individuals, i.e. individuals who have no real chance of obtaining a job which they had been (or currently are) pursuing/studying rigorously for?
After going through a proper evaluation of current circumstances and current options, I've realized that people need to get certain things in their life straight "before" working on pursuing higheprofessional education – i.e. Health > Wealth > Education/”Prestige”.
The mass of people who pursue college and university because their program is in high demand are ones that are studying the program not for its unique intricacies, but rather only for graduation with the expectation that they "deserve" to be rewarded a job. As opposed to, respect and appreciation to the language their subject takes on (whether that be Accounting language or Computer Programming language, etc.). Respect and appreciation for a subject or field is displayed when the person engages with the subject or field with a “critical thinking” mindset, with the main purpose/goal of analyzing and critiquing thoroughly the accuracy of any statement presented to them that is related to their chosen subject or field, i.e. effectively utilizing journaling and documentation (see relevant section below, point #1 of 2 under “ESSENTIAL/CRUCIAL” for more details); this main purpose/goal is often rooted from a genuine desire/interest/passion for pursuing/studying their chosen subject or field.
The simple fact remains that it is simply not economically feasible to provide jobs to meet the constant influx of supply being produced by colleges and universities, "each" and "every" year. As a result, why are people making the foolish decision to incur immense amount of “DEBT” (keyword) while pursuing higheprofessional education when the economic reality simply does not provide enough jobs for society, i.e. jobs that are specifically expected of from college and university graduates?
Quoted from someone else: "Our societies have for so long told us that education can and should equate to professional success, which should equate to economic success, yet we are entering a period where that simply can't occur. The foundation that those notions were created upon doesn't exist any longer, given how we have evolved and grown as a species, and we have yet to make the transition to a new set of notions."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some ESSENTIAL/CRUCIAL characteristics of an individual who exhibits genuine desire/interest/passion for pursuing/studying their chosen subject/field (especially at the higher education or professional education level) are as follows:
1) Effective "Information Management" strategy (utilizing journaling and documentation). The individual had made it a priority to create and compile personal notes or online documents for the purpose of future-reference and documentation – for potential revision, self-reflection, self-correction, or discovery, as this is crucial for knowledge retrieval, knowledge retention, as well as knowledge synthesis and creating/generating new knowledge. Note: information becomes knowledge when you regard the information as valuable and when you make the conscious decision to keep it as part of your notes with the expectation/option of using it in the future; knowledge is information in action, so actually using the information, instead of dismissing it as irrelevant.
Response from another individual/writer:
  • I don't mean that all information has to be kept as notes, nor that other strategies/tactics of finding/retrieving information aren't valuable. I don't even mean that it's impossible for someone to exist/operate without ever taking any notes. Most saliently, I'm more saying that to categorically omit note-taking from one's information management capabilities/strategy is to invite unnecessary trouble, likely to the point of dysfunction, unless one happens to never be doing anything that involves any significantly elusive information to begin with.
  • My bias toward this assessment is reinforced by 25+ years of highly-technical work that has resulted in literally thousands (or tens-of-thousands) of pieces of information, extremely valuable to me, that can't be readily found anywhere but in my notes.
  • Some of it is information specifically originating with myself – there's no one or nowhere else from which it can be gotten. Some of it is information that took me immense amounts of time, thought, and effort to find/acquire, and I would never want to have to try to find it again. Most of these things are in my notes because they have either already disappeared, or are likely to disappear, off of the internet, or don't lend themselves well to simple bookmark-able reference.
  • Another way of saying this is that personally-kept notes are a reflection of the time/effort/insight one has had to put into acquiring the information, combined with the value of retrieval efficiency (organized for one's own retrieval needs). To subject yourself to relying on reproduction of that time/effort and self-organization is to either admit that the time/effort isn't significant (i.e. the information is rather trivial or ubiquitous in nature), or that your own time/effort spent isn't worth much (if you're willing to repeat it).
  • Also, if one assumes that the information is always going to be right where you can easily find it, or even right where you found it before, that's actually just naive.
  • While its true you still need to expend time/effort into locating the info, it has been organized specifically how YOU determine it should be, and thus truncates any actual "overhead" involved in the typical "location" process, not to mention the guarantee that it's actually there to find. Note: overhead expense refers to an ongoing expense of operating a business; it is also known as an "operating expense".
  • As a simple/clear example: if you've never spent hours sifting through the deluge from the Google sewer pipe flooding into your browser, just to find anything remotely relevant to the fairly elusive technical scenario you're trying to resolve, then you're probably not acquainted with really anything I'm talking about, and your dismissal would then represent simply being unaware.
2) The individual is ASSERTIVE and NOT PASSIVE towards the subject they are studying. They are WILLING to articulate and share important ideas and concepts from the subject they are studying. The individual is not seen as someone who is under the spell/act (i.e. false and disingenuous impression of superior intelligence) of mindless regurgitation but rather, the individual is able to offer their OWN UNIQUE interpretation on the subject they are studying, while also citing important concepts or ideas where citation is necessary. In other words, the individual demonstrates "individual competency" THROUGH the subject they are studying and are ultimately/inherently passionate about. The individual's competency (i.e. his/her opinion or interpretation of what is relevant or accurate information) is demonstrated through the individual's pattern of logical and coherent thinking, as well as through the individual's writing style (which displays "CONFIDENCE" in what the individual is presenting as relevant or accurate information).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Relevant response from another individual:
Decide where you fall on the self-directed spectrum.
Highly self-directed: technical books and MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses)
Average: an online community + curriculum like Free Code Camp or theodinproject.com
Not very self-directed: An in-person coding boot camp like Hack Reactor or App Academy; similar to “subpamediocre” college/university “classroom” learning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are only so many ways of acquiring wealth (with only some methods actually leading to long-term/sustainable financial independence/prosperity):
1) Real Estate
2) Owning a business; being an entrepreneur
3) Career Job requiring higher education (i.e. college or university) or professional education (i.e. apprenticeship or trades)
4) Minimum Wage Jobs
5) Trading the financial markets; making financial “investments” (stocks, forex, futures, options, equities, commodities, etc.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pseudo-Intellectual versus Intellectual (the following is a response from another individual/writer):
An intellectual follows the values and attitudes of Critical Thinking, and exercises good thinking habits. Their interest lies in discovery and self-correction.
The traits of a true intellectual are as follows:
  • intellectual humility – recognizing the limits and sensitivities of one's experience.
  • intellectual courage – ability to examine things and/or state results or potentialities, even if it may be costly/risky to your personal beliefs, or social acceptance, established norms or theories. The ability to put things at risk. Even if they are your own cherished ideas or beliefs that you are putting at risk.
  • intellectual empathy – knowing that you have to imaginatively put yourself in the place of others in order to understand them.
  • intellectual autonomy – being able to think independently, to carry through without constant guidance from others, and sometimes even to come to different conclusions.
  • intellectual integrity – holding yourself to the same standards you hold others, and holding all beliefs to the same standards.
  • intellectual honesty – being willing to admit discrepancies and avoid overlooking exceptions, even to oneself.
  • intellectual perseverance – having the patience to struggle through difficult or complex problems.
  • confidence in reason – willingness to follow the logic where-ever it leads.
  • fair-mindedness – avoiding making unjustified special exceptions or privileges. Holding all viewpoints to the same standards. This does not mean that all views are equal; it means they all are held to the same universal standards. They might end up meeting those standards very unequally. For instance: the theory of evolution vs the fable of creation, or climate change vs science denialism.
A pseudo-intellectual does not do these things. Their interest lies not in discovery and self-correction, but in confirmation of what is already believed. Confirmation Bias. Their "thinking" style is characterized by cognitive biases, a lack of self-reflection/self-correction, a lack of rigor and completeness, and applying woefully different standards to beliefs/ideas that they cherish, and any information that calls them into question.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
submitted by gentlestream to investing [link] [comments]

calculate and interpret the percentage change in a currency relative to another currency; Forex - Spotting Market Manipulation before it happens! Absolute Purchase Power Parity Theory Investopedia - YouTube Forex Keys  Pip Goals Interest Rate Parity Theory in Forex - By CA Gopal Somani

This sophistication requirement may be satisfied by having a purchaser representative for the investor who satisfies the criteria. An investor engaging a purchaser representative should pay particular attention to any conflicts of interest the representative may have. As with a Rule 505 offering, if non-accredited investors are involved, the issuer must disclose certain information about ... INREV’s objective in establishing these guidelines is to provide managers with guidance on how to calculate and disclose an INREV NAV in financial reports of non-listed European real estate vehicles.This should lead to transparency and comparability of the performance of different types of vehicle and will enable investors to understand the information provided. Forex brokers that trade for you / Virginia 529 invest ratings of insurance; Return on investment calculator for capital equipment hartland / GPS Forex robot v300; Purchaser representative investopedia Forex; Dividends investment and cash flow uncertainty evidence from china; Paprasta Forex strategija obrazovanja / Theo mylonas investment ; Signal 24option / Binary options trading strategy ... Forex Trading Was der Hype ist alles über von Uchenna Ani-Okoye Forex Trading ist alles über das Geld zu verdienen Einige Investoren haben Fand es ganz einfach, eine große Menge an Geld zu machen, wie der Forex-Markt ändert sich täglich Forex ist der Devisenmarkt Online und offline finden Sie Verweise auf die Forex-mar Ähnliche Editorials Forex Trading Course Tags Forex Funds. Why Im ... Forex factory app android 2020 / Investment interest tax rate canada; Alpari mmcis; Usance letter of credit investopedia Forex / Nkg2d fc chimera investment; Forex 09 08 12; Martin bruhl union investment / Smart grid investment worldwide sport; Best binary options trading platform / Best return on investment when selling home; Future fund investment beliefs of buddhism / Non regulated binary ... Forex Trading Course Forex Market - Investopedia Academy; IAS 7 — Statement of Cash Flows - IAS Plus; Sales and Trading - A Comprehensive Guide; Foreign Exchange Gain/Loss - Overview, Recording, Example; Revenue variances — AccountingTools; 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 ... Sophisticated investors are investors who have a high net-worth and extensive experience in financial markets. There is no single correct definition of a sophisticated investor, and it varies ... Investopedia Forex indepth walkthrough can all act as invaluable guides on your journey into currency trading. Now that you've got your feet wet in the Forex market, let's take a look at the role leverage plays in the fx market. Level 2 Markets - Research And Testing When trading anything, you never want to trade impulsively. You need to be able to justify your trades, and the best way to do ... A dealer is a person or firm who buys and sells securities for their own account, whether through a broker or otherwise. The real-time Economic Calendar covers economic events and indicators from around the world, including the US, the UK, Canada and Australia, and is automatically updated when new data is released

[index] [3792] [29001] [2363] [537] [19500] [22426] [23328] [11126] [23833] [9390]

calculate and interpret the percentage change in a currency relative to another currency;

All purchasers of services or products referenced at this site are encouraged to consult with a licensed representative of their choice regarding any particular trade or trading strategy. No ... Forex Tutorial: How to Read a Currency Quote 🙌 - Duration: 8:00. UKspreadbetting Recommended for you. 8:00. Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) - Duration: 5:51. G Conomics Recommended for you. 5:51 ... B2B Purchasing Negotiation Five Strategies to Reduce Vendor Prices - Duration: 9:28. ... Best FX Trading Strategies (THE Top Strategy for Forex Trading) - Duration: 32:00. No Nonsense Forex ... All purchasers of products referenced at this site are encouraged to consult with a licensed representative of their choice regarding any particular trade or trading strategy. No representation is ... Purchasing Power Parity Theory in FOREX - By CA Gopal Somani - Duration: 18 ... Investopedia 36,479 views. 1:26. Foreign Exchange Exposure (hindi) by H.L.YADAV ( JRF-2 AND NET-3) - Duration: 5:44 ... Absolute Purchase Power Parity Theory http://www.tradingintl.com. Purchasing Managers Index PMI Definition Investopedia by Forex Trader. 1:31. Goodwill Definition Investopedia by Zafar Waqas. 1:43. Investopedia Video: The Debt-Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) by ...

https://arab-binary-option.clipsealiti.tk