|submitted by g_otto20 to u/g_otto20 [link] [comments]|
|submitted by victoria_richard_ to u/victoria_richard_ [link] [comments]|
submitted by 8088Aust to forextradingsystem [link] [comments]
|submitted by Newtipsusa to u/Newtipsusa [link] [comments]|
|submitted by theitalianbot to italypremium [link] [comments]|
submitted by raddit-bot to FuturologyRemovals [link] [comments]
|submitted by ImagesOfNetwork to ImagesOfUSA [link] [comments]|
submitted by top1markets to u/top1markets [link] [comments]
As the pandemic has spread around the world this year, new rhetoric about being "tough" on China has unfurled throughout the political conversation in the United States.
Trump VS. Biden: Attitudes to China
Biden and his campaign have spoken in broad strokes without offering details about exactly how far he would be willing to confront China on trade, human rights, cyber-espionage, or its growing presence in the South China Sea.
Biden also says that he would shore up U.S. alliances, which he says Trump has badly damaged, to present a united front against Beijing and that he would invest in high-tech research and education to make the U.S. economy more competitive.
Biden only mentioned China once in his speech on Aug. 20th.
In comparison, Trump mentioned China many times in his speech on Aug. 27th.
During his speech, President Donald Trump claimed that he has "very good information" that China wants Biden to win because Biden cheers for China.
In fact, Trump enjoyed good relations with China leader Xi Jinping early in his administration while the two leaders engaged in major trade talks, and later, after the coronavirus began to spread, Trump praised Xi for his handling of the crisis. Once the relationship soured, and Trump began blaming China for U.S. public health and economic woes.
"Joe Biden's agenda is made in China. My agenda is made in the USA," Trump said.
Trump or Biden? China expects no favours either way
This word gets used a lot these days. President Trump and his administration talk about it in tweets and in press statements in relation to China.
Decoupling basically means undoing more than three decades' worth of U.S. business relations with China.
Everything is on the cards: from getting American factories to pull their supply chains out of the mainland, to forcing Chinese-owned companies that operate in the U.S. - like TikTok and Tencent - to swap their Chinese owners for American ones.
Make no mistake, under a Trump administration "decoupling will be accelerated", according to Solomon Yue, vice chairman and chief executive of the Republicans Overseas lobby group.
While the U.S. has had some success in forcing American companies to stop doing business with Chinese tech giants like Huawei, it is pushing Chinese firms to develop self-sufficiency in some key industries, like chip-making and artificial intelligence.
As part of its focus on China, the Trump administration has come up with a set of recommendations for Chinese firms listed in the U.S., setting a January 2022 deadline to comply with new rules on auditing.
While a Biden administration may not necessarily push through with the exact same ban, analysts say the scrutiny and tone of these recommendations is likely to stay.
While fears of being delisted aren't high on the list of concerns for Chinese companies that are already listed in the U.S., it's enough to sway the decisions of companies that are looking to float in the future.
Take Ant Group, for example, the mammoth Chinese digital financial services group that this week filed for an IPO.
Affiliated to the Alibaba Group, which is listed in the U.S. and Hong Kong, it chose Hong Kong and Shanghai in which to sell its shares instead of the U.S.
Increasingly other Chinese companies are likely to follow suit, as tensions between the U.S. and China get worse.
China has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of globalisation over the last 30 years. It has helped hundreds of millions of Chinese afford a better quality and standard of life, the bedrock upon which President Xi Jinping's Chinese Dream is based.
But that's precisely what President Trump says needs to change: his administration argues that China has become richer while the U.S. has become poorer.
During Mr. Trump's term, deglobalisation - where borders are less open, and trade is less free - has become a trend. And it's something that Beijing knows won't change even after the election.
Regardless of whether Biden or Trump is elected president, US-China relations Relations have a great impact on financial markets. The global market is anxiously awaiting the end of this election.
For more information please download “TOP 1 Markets” at APP store or google play.
Ahead of the Fed’s and Bank of Japan’s meetings, the Japanese yen is certainly worth discussing. Enjoy your popcorn and remember to check out the trading signals and trading plan for USDJPY and EURJPY for the nearest weeks at the end of this article.submitted by Maxvelgus to Finance_analytics [link] [comments]
Fundamental forecast for yen for todayYoshihide Suga’s unconditional victory in the party race to become Japan’s next Prime Minister, the US-China trade war’s revival and the upcoming presidential elections in the USA redrew investors’ attention to the yen. USDJPY’s quotes have been falling for three days in a row and got close to the level of 105. Rumour has it that the Bank of Japan may get angry and intervene if that level is broken. The situation around EURJPY is interesting too.
If Shinzo Abe’s dismissal shocked the financial markets, the information about Yoshihide Suga’s appointment calmed them down. Let me remind you that Yoshihide Suga is Abe’s supporter and one of the authors of the “three arrows” strategy. The new Prime Minister isn’t going to put pressure on the BoJ in order to change monetary policy. He believes that there’s no need to raise taxes in the next 10 years, and that economic growth must improve the country’s financial state. He plans to shake up some sectors and bureaucratic mechanisms, but at the beginning of his term, he’ll need to recover GDP.
A clear political context is a boon for a national currency. The fact that Japan chose its PM, while the US has yet to choose its president, is beneficial to USDJPY bears. Still, their main trump is the divergence in the Fed’s and BoJ’s policies: the Fed’s response to recession was so fierce that the fall of the real US bond yields weakened the greenback and would probably continue weakening it.
Dynamics of US bond yields
Source: Wall Street Journal.
The yen is growing on the WTO’s ruling that US tariffs on Chinese imports are illegal. Beijing approved of that. Washington got angry. I doubt that the conflict will escalate before the elections. However, it’s obvious that the trade war is a long-lasting subject no matter who takes the US president’s chair. In 2019, global investors thought it was the main factor in market pricing. In 2020, the trade war dropped to the 4th line: the pandemic, November’s US elections and payment default risks have become the number one priority topics.
I think the trade war subject has been undeservedly neglected. During a pandemic, imports and exports usually reduce proportionally, and the trade balance remains unchanged. It’s true of Canada, Japan, Britain and Germany. Alas, the US foreign trade deficit is growing and the Chinese one is reducing. China’s industrial sectors are recovering faster, and Beijing may face another round of clashes after the US election.
Industrial production dynamics
USDJPY breaks support at 105. So, we can open short positions. Opening shorts in EURJPY at the breakout of 124.6-124.65 looks interesting too.
For more information follow the link to the website of the LiteForex
submitted by Maxvelgus to Finance_analytics [link] [comments]
Fundamental Australian dollar forecast for today
Are the AUD/USD growth drivers exhausted?In the second quarter, the Australian economy encountered the deepest downturn since the records started in 1959. Australia’s GDP contracted by 7% Q-o-Q and by 6.3% Y-o-Y. The RBA cut the interest rate to the record lo. The central bank has also bought AU$60 since March amid the QE program. The Aussie should have dropped in value, but the AUD/USD rate has been 32% up since the low hit in March. Doesn’t the major rule of the fundamental analysis “strong economy – strong currency” work here? Now, it perfectly works! The matter is that everything is relative in Forex!
A drop by 6.3% in Australian growth is nothing compared to the US GDP contraction by 32%. AUS$60 billion is very little compared with the trillions of dollars in the USA. In Australia, there are less than 30,000 of coronavirus cases, while there are more than six million of COVID-19 cases in the USA. Australia has managed the pandemic better than many other advanced economies, the economy is not critically weak, the RBA yield control policy allows it not to waste the monetary tools. Besides, China supports Australia’s foreign trade.
Dynamics of RBA interest rate and the Australian dollar exchange rate
China is the largest market for Australian exports. Although the diplomatic relations between the two countries are tense, after Canberra accused China of COVID-19 laboratory origins, the trade relations are good. Since the beginning of the year, Australia’s exports to China have increased by 75% compared to the same period in 2016, when the last official meeting of the countries’ leaders took place. The core of the China-Australia trade is iron ore. Over the past twelve months, China has imported 700 million tons of iron ore from Australia. It is twice as much as it was in 2010 when the diplomatic relations between Australia and China were much better.
Chinese imports from Australia
Therefore, the AUD/USD uptrend is strong for several reasons. Australia’s economy is stronger compared to others, China supports Australia’s foreign trade, the Fed’s monetary expansion is unprecedented, which weakens the US dollar. The matter is whether the major bullish drivers have exhausted? Will the Aussie continue its rally?
The analysts polled by Reuters believe the AUD/USD uptrend should slow down. The see the pair trading at 0.72 in one and three months. In six and twelve months, the exchange rate will be at 0.73 and 0.74, accordingly. These levels are close to the current one, which suggests a long consolidation period. In my opinion, it is still relevant to buy the Aussie. China has averted a new round of trade war with the US. The Australian government is working on the income tax reduction bill, which should support GDP growth. The greenback’s’ long-term outlook remains bearish. So, I recommend entering the AUD/USD longs if Australia’s job report for August is positive. The middle-term targets are at 0.75 and 0.763.
For more information follow the link to the website of the LiteForex
Capítulos anteriores:submitted by jreddredd to merval [link] [comments]
Capítulo 3: Derivados
Aplica mismo disclaimer que el capítulo 1
En esta oportunidad vamos a analizar oportunidades de inversión en activos físicos a través de tokens en Ethereum.
Synthetix es un protocolo que permite comprar y vender "activos sintéticos" o dicho de otra manera, lograr exposición a activos del "mundo real" mediante el trading de Synths. Todo on-chain, sin intermediarios o terceros que controlen las operaciones.
Los Synths son tokens basados en Ethereum que proveen exposición a activos como el oro, plata, monedas (USD, GBP), commodities, índices de stock markets y próximamente incluso a acciones individuales. Estos tokens cotizan como el activo que representan y van siguiendo el precio según el mercado real de ese activo. Aunque lejos esta de ser lo mismo, sería como un ETF tipo GLD que "sigue" el precio del oro físico. Algunos de los Synths que hoy están disponibles son:
De esta manera uno puede, con sus USDC o DAI, comprar por ejemplo sXAU y de esa manera tener un criptoactivo que representa una onza de oro, generando exposición a su fluctuación de precio. O diversificarse en varias monedas y armar una cartera con Euros, Libras y Francos Suizos para no estar únicamente expuesto al Dólar. Siempre con la posibilidad de hacerlo en fracciones (0.045 sXAU) y sin restricciones, reglamentaciones, trabas, burocracia y todo el listado que venimos repitiendo en estas guías.
La cotización de sXAU con respecto al dólar (sUSD) en el último mes
En poco tiempo, a medida que se vayan lanzando nuevos synths, uno podría armarse una cartera de inversiones de la misma manera que lo hace en un broker tradicional con acciones de diferentes empresas o ETFs compuestos de mercados enteros como el S&P500.
Para empezar a usar Synthetix no hace falta nada más que un wallet y tener disponibles sUSD, que puede comprarse en varios exchanges o en la misma plataforma de Synthetix. Luego ingresar al exchange e intercambiar por el Synth que se quiera. Ese Synth se puede vender en cualquier momento en el mismo exchange por sUSD, que luego podrá ser intercambiado por la crypto que se quiera (o mantener en sUSD que representa al dólar, al igual que USDC o DAI).
Hoy cada Synth sigue al precio de su activo mediante un Oracle, que es un servicio centralizado que informa el precio. Ese es hoy el "punto débil" del sistema, ya que ese Oracle podría ser hackeado o intervenido, pero ya se está trabajando en utilizar ChainLink (otra blockchain descentralizada) para informar los precios y poder deshacerse de los Oracles. El proyecto y todos los synths están garantizados por el token SNX que es guardado como collateral, aportado por gente que por bloquear ("staking") sus SNX en la plataforma recibe a cambio ingresos por los trading fees del exchange. Hoy el proyecto está sobrecolateralizado en un 820%.
Synthetix es uno de los proyectos más innovadores en el espacio y el segundo en volumen de operación después de Maker DAO (donde se crean los DAI). Hoy todavía es limitado en la diversidad de Activos o Synths que se pueden comprar, pero de a poco van agregando más cantidad y variedad (acciones, commodities, forex). La promesa de la plataforma es llegar a un momento donde una persona pueda invertir on-chain y de manera descentralizada con exactamente las mismas posibilidades y oportunidades que en un broker tradicional.
Leer más: AMA con el fundador de Synthetix, Kain Warwick y su CTO Justin Moses (en inglés)
Otro proyecto interesante para participar de la economía real vía blockchain es RealT. Antes que nada es importante aclarar la diferencia con Synthetix: esta plataforma tiene un nivel de centralización muchísimo mayor, depende de un administrador central que gestiona la inversión mediante diferentes vehículos legales en USA, consiste en la inversión en activos físicos y varias cuestiones más que la convierten en un híbrido que igualmente me parece que es interesante evaluar.
RealT permite participar de manera fraccionada de un negocio inmobiliario real en USA (por ahora, en Detroit), a través de tokens en Ethereum. Está apuntado a pequeños inversores internacionales, permitiendo de una manera muy sencilla y con poca inversión ser parte de la compra de una propiedad y luego de sus ingresos por el alquiler. Sería algo asi como una réplica digital de invertir en un REIT en el mercado tradicional (como siempre aclaro, con sus obvias diferencias).
RealT ofrece distintas propiedades fraccionadas en partes de aproximadamente 0.1% de su valor. Hoy por ejemplo se puede comprar por $53.13 un token de una propiedad de $74.389, que va a generar $5.88 por año de ingresos por el alquiler (después de fees), rindiendo un 11.06%. Se pueden comprar cuantas tokens se deseen, y se puede participar de varias propiedades para diversificar. Lo interesante de todo esto es que la participación implica la compra de un token en Ethereum (RealToken), y a partir de ahi quien tenga ese token recibirá los dividendos en forma diaria en DAI. Esto quiere decir que también existe un mercado secundario, ya que los RealTokens pueden luego transferirse y venderse, ya sea a través de su sitio o en Uniswap. Para participar en una compra es necesario registrarse en el sitio y pasar por el proceso KYC presentando documentación, y las direcciones ETH adonde se transfiere el token deben ser whitelisteadas con la comprobación de identidad (los puristas de la descentralización se están arrancando los ojos al leer esto)
Es posible ver la actividad de cada propiedad en el blockchain (ejemplo), con sus transferencias, pagos, etc. Desde el lado legal, para cada propiedad se crea una LLC, donde los dueños son los tenedores del token, y estas LLC son independientes de la quien las administra (RealT). Sin dudas es el proyecto más riesgoso de los que venimos comentando por su alto nivel de centralización, pero por otro lado ofrece un rendimiento anual muy alto y la posibilidad de diversificar en un negocio distinto y atado a la economía real.
Próximo capítulo: robots de inversión
Akcje amerykańskich firm, które mogą wzrosnąć po zatwierdzeniu przez USA szczepionki na koronawirusa według analityków banku Goldman Sachs. Kilka wariantów szczepionek jest testowanych w Stanach Zjednoczonych i mają zostać ukończone do końca tego miesiąca. Oczekuje się, że po zatwierdzeniu szczepionki, kwotowaniu większości spółek nastąpi poprawa. Są to takie firmy, jak: -United Airlines -Cedar Fair (sieć parków rozrywkowych) -Bunge (amerykański holding rolno-przemysłowy) -SL Green (fundusz inwestycji w nieruchomości) -Boeingsubmitted by barclaystoneltd to u/barclaystoneltd [link] [comments]
Ekonomiści z Goldman Sachs sugerują, że Stany Zjednoczone mogą zacząć stosować szczepionkę do końca roku, więc wzrost gospodarczy może być silniejszy, niż oczekuje obecny rynek.
Na tej liście znalazły się również firmy, których akcje spadły na falę sprzedaży w 2020 r., ale powinny odzyskać równowagę, gdy ludzie przywrócą zwykły rytm życia (jak Becton Dickinson, Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Lamb Weston Holdings i in.), firmy oczekujące zniesienia ograniczeń kwarantanny (Walt Disney, IMAX, Starbucks, Ulta Beauty i in.) oraz firmy, które mają rosnąć w perspektywie długoterminowej (naprz. Domtar).
Zapraszamy na naszą platformę handlową!
#barclaystone #forex #broker #trading #traderzyforex #giełda #handel #brokerzyorex #kryptowaluty #akjce #bitcoin #rynekwalutowy
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).
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 drainMoving 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.
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,
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 unrepeatableSo 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.
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'.
submitted by Maxvelgus to Finance_analytics [link] [comments]
Fundamental US dollar forecast for today
Investors are staying aside ahead of Jerome Powell’s speech and the publications of the US important domestic dataPeople see what they want to see. The euro fans are so enthusiastic that they prefer to ignore the flaws of the single European currency. Is the US-China trade resumed? It is not a problem! In 2018-2019, the EUUSD pair was falling amid the trade conflict escalation. In 2020, however, it will be rising in this case because of the diversification of the PBOC FX reserves in favor of the euro. Are there talks about the expansion of European QE? It is not a problem! The ECB just can’t ease its monetary policy as much as the Fed. Is there the second pandemic wave in Europe? It doesn’t matter; the illness is asymptomatic; there won’t be another lockdown.
Optimism grows stronger. However, people with accompanying pathologies most often die from COVID-19. If we transfer this metaphor to the global economic sense, the accompanying pathology of the export-led euro-area economy is a downturn of the international trade. The process started because of trade wars, and the pandemic intensified it. According to the CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, flows of goods across borders were 12.5% lower in the second quarter than in the first quarter of the year. It is the worst drop since records started in 2000. In the three months through June, the US exports contracted by 24.8%, the euro-area exports were 19.2% down. However, the US exports account for 20% of the country’s GDP; in the Eurozone, they exceed 40%. The euro-area exporters will have a difficult time, taking into account the euro’s rapid growth.
With this regard, the USA is in a better position, which allows the White House to repeat its mantra about the V-shaped economic recovery. People see what they want to see. Larry Kudlow, the chief economic advisor to Trump, ignores the problems of the US labor market and the drop in consumer confidence to the lowest level since 2014. He stresses the best new home sales over the past 14 years, industrial recovery, and the S&P500 record highs.
Dynamics of US consumer confidence
Dynamics of new home sales in USA
Unlike the White House, the Federal Reserve is more cautious. Jerome Powell has many times stressed the slow GDP recovery, the necessity to take control over OCVID-19, and fresh fiscal stimulus. The Republicans and Democrats can’t reach an agreement for a new financial aid package, and the Fed has to take the responsibility. So, investors anticipate Powell’s speech in Jackson Hole to get something meaningful.
According to MUFG Bank, Powell will focus on holding low interest rates, thereby weakening the greenback. Investors expect the Fed Chair to express the Fed’s willingness to “seek a moderate inflation overshoot” and reinforce its commitment to full employment. If so, there will be other evidence that the Fed is running out of monetary tools. If the number of Americans seeking unemployment benefits falls while durable goods orders rise, the EUUSD bears can go ahead and try to break out the support levels of 1.178 and 1.1755. Otherwise, weak data and the Fed’s willingness to weaken the dollar can resume the greenback’s downtrend.
For more information follow the link to the website of the LiteForex
The ForexBrokers.com annual forex broker review (four years running) is the most cited in the industry. With over 50,000 words of research across the site, we spend hundreds of hours testing forex brokers each year. How we test. Trading forex (currencies) in the United States (US) is popular among fx traders. Forex trading involves significant risk of loss and is not suitable for all investors. Full Disclosure. Spot Gold and Silver contracts are not subject to regulation under the U.S. Commodity Exchange Act. *Increasing leverage increases risk. GAIN Capital Group LLC (dba FOREX.com) 135 US Hwy 202/206 Bedminster NJ 07921, USA. When it comes to US forex brokers, Forex.com has to be an immediate consideration for opening your forex trading account in the USA. They are CFTC licensed and NFA regulated (#0339826) and provide a selection of flexible and accessible account types with low spreads starting from 0.2 pips, including their Direct Market Access account.This offers some of the most unbeatable spreads among any of ... Trading with a forex broker in the USA means that you are subject to leverage limitations. The Dodd-Frank Act imposes a maximum leverage of 50:1 for major currency pairs and 20:1 for minors and exotics. By comparison, some forex brokers based in other countries offer leverage as high as 1000:1. Forex trading involves significant risk of loss and is not suitable for all investors. Full Disclosure. Spot Gold and Silver contracts are not subject to regulation under the U.S. Commodity Exchange Act. *Increasing leverage increases risk. GAIN Capital Group LLC (dba FOREX.com) 135 US Hwy 202/206 Bedminster NJ 07921, USA.
[index]          
Hey everyone! This is the 6th video in my December to Remember series and today I will be touching on how forex taxes are paid. I am NOT a tax professional, ... https://www.intensitystockwatch.com/kevinisw.html Use referral code ISWKEVIN when signing up to Intensity Stock Watch and you will get 30% off the regular pr... Too often new traders come into the market without getting to know the most fundamental components of foreign exchange and how currencies work. So we decided... These are our top 3 forex Brokers! Insanely I forgot to mention who ranks best for spreads & currently Blueberry Markets seems to be giving you the best bang... Which Online Forex Broker Should You Use? ★ SUMMARY ★ Who should I pick? I get this question a lot – people are always trying to figure out what broker I use...