Trading to win... - page 10
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
...
Pava Loca,
Do you seriously believe that your arguments deserve my posts?
You are not as stupid as you seem(cross my fingers,I am not so sure on that,but,ok,I give you the benefit of the doubt)so,you know you don`t have any argument,you just have non chained words in an illogical order,motivated by your lack of self worth...Oh,yes,projection
...you projected that into your words,it is so obvious that walander,myself and a couple hundred members tried to help you with your lack of self worth by giving you (negative) recognition...which you seem to crave since at least helps you in feeling alive...actually,everytime I post here,I am doing a good deed towards you .
What did it got you?...A new friend
....Bongoloid wants to be your friend,so,you are in good company,you can play doctor and nurse with him,or do a Hannibal lecter(he will probably enjoy it),or you can just chat among yourselves and feel that,at least,somebody understands you...Isn`t it a pleasurable sensation for you both?...Do not be mislead,by pleasurable sensation I was not pointing to those games you play with the inflatable dog you sleep with....that is another story,subject of another post.
Kindest Regards to you both,and, keep us informed if there is a wedding.
SIncoherent rantings of a wounded animal..and...shouldn't it be Simba Loca?
named pava
Incoherent rantings of a wounded animal..and...shouldn't it be Simba Loca?
Yes,For somebody named Pava(female turkey) your posts sound like incoherent ramblings of an intellectually limited animal,I don`t think you are wounded,just limited by your genetics and the very appropiate name your parents gave you. ...
S
:)
Yes,For somebody named Pava(female turkey) your posts sound like incoherent ramblings of an intellectually limited animal,I don`t think you are wounded,just limited by your genetics and the very appropiate name your parents gave you. ...
Not a single thought ( if I can call it thoughts) in your post is valid...saying again...you sound insane....
turkey
Not a single thought ( if I can call it thoughts) in your post is valid...saying again...you sound insane....
You can do better,just try harder
S
:)
You can do better,just try harder
Nice try...see...even wall under ran away...why don't you do same?...and stop giving me valuable timing signals?....
Pava,
There's a difference between running away, and choosing not to waste my valuable time talking to a child.
That's right Pava- you are a child.
Cheers,
...
Pava,
There's a difference between running away, and choosing not to waste my valuable time talking to a child.
That's right Pava- you are a child.
Cheers,"my valuable time" you said...with sarcasm I hope...
Wow!
Shoot!...I had a strangest dream just now...I was dreaming of CashDNA EA having a bug the size of a hamster inside that was forcing that EA into making bad trades eating away all the gains it had for the last 2 weeks over and over....day after day...I got to stop taking the red pill and switch to the blue one....
Are Chinese exports good for America?
President Obama said better relations with China could help China and the U.S., but critics see little good from a widening trade gap.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- As President Obama completes his trip to China, it's a natural time to ask if trade with the greatest source of U.S. imports is a good thing or bad thing for the still battered U.S. economy
Obama said he spoke to Chinese President Hu Jintao about the need for more balanced trade between the two major trading partners. He also urged China to allow the Chinese yuan to gain value against the dollar.
But he also told an audience of students in Shanghai this week that increased trade between the two nations is good for both countries, despite some friction between the two governments. And Obama said he hoped that trade will continue to grow.
"This trade could create even more jobs on both sides of the Pacific, while allowing our people to enjoy a better quality of life," Obama said.
But there are plenty of critics who believe that nothing good comes out of the U.S. trade gap with China, which so far this year has dwarfed the combined gap with the rest of the world by more than a third.
"I think the U.S.-China relationship was the worst economic policy mistake of the last generation," said Scott Paul, executive director of Alliance for American Manufacturing, a coalition of small-to-mid-size manufacturers and some unions which has been a long-time critic of U.S. trade policy.
Paul and other critics argue currency manipulation by the Chinese to undervalue their currency, government subsidies to Chinese manufacturers and low wages paid to Chinese workers have put U.S. workers at an unfair disadvantage.
The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, estimates that 2.3 million U.S. jobs were lost between 2001 and 2007 due to the Chinese trade gap.
University of Maryland professor Peter Morici has written that this trade gap "threatens to torpedo the economic recovery and keep unemployment above 10 percent for the foreseeable future."
But others argue that even if there needs to be some changes in U.S.-China trade policy, the U.S. economy benefits more than it is damaged by the relationship.
Gary Hufbauer, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said that there is little evidence to support that trade gaps lead to big increases in job losses.
"If it was a cause of unemployment, why wasn't unemployment rising from the late 90's all the way through to today as Chinese imports rose," he said.
Jay Bryson, global economist with Wells Fargo Securities, added that even though the growing trade gap has caused some harm to the U.S. economy, there are plusses that should not be overlooked.
"It doesn't mean that every person in the United States benefits, but from a national perspective it's a positive," said Bryson.
Bryson and Hufbauer both said that lower priced Chinese goods reduces the cost of living for American consumers, giving them more money to spend on other goods and services.
Bryson said limiting Chinese imports through tariffs or other barriers would raise the price of those goods.
"While it would protect the jobs of some people making toys or shirts here, it would cost other jobs because we wouldn't have the money to spend on other goods and services," Bryson said. "If I'm spending more on toys for my kids or my shirts, I have less money to go to the movies or go out to a restaurant."
Hufbauer conceded that the Chinese yuan is grossly undervalued. But he said there is reason to hope for some change on that front.
China has pegged its yuan to the dollar, rather than letting it trade freely like other currencies. So it has been declining as the dollar has lost value in recent months.
The decline in the yuan means that other countries in Asia and Europe are starting to pressure Chinese leaders to allow their currency to trade more freely. And strong economic growth in China, coupled with the declining dollar, is creating inflation risks for China.
So the Chinese may start to relent on the yuan due to their own self interest, rather than American pressure.
"Once there is some evidence the global recovery is more sustainable, the Chinese worries about inflation are likely to mean they'll allow [the yuan] to appreciate versus the dollar," said Bryson.
3 things that could kill bank reform
This week, the House and Senate will work on bills to avoid another financial collapse. But several key conflicts could get in the way.
WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) -- More than a year after the financial system came to the brink of collapse, Congress is finally starting to make headway on bills that aim to prevent future catastrophes.
The House has been drafting and re-working legislation for a month, and a key committee is set to delve back into it on Tuesday. The Senate will begin discussing its lengthy version on Thursday and is expected to get into the details of the legislation next month.
But Congress is far from reaching consensus on a bill that could get the filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate and pass both chambers.
And there are several key issues on which the ideological gulf between the Senate and House, or between Republicans and Democrats, may not be bridgeable. The divisions could threaten passage of meaningful legislation or drag out the debate and even prevent final passage.
Here are three big points of controversy.
The role of the Federal Reserve: The Senate and House couldn't be further apart on how they see the Federal Reserve and its role as a regulator going forward.
The House proposes stripping away the Fed's consumer protection powers, leaving in place its banking regulatory powers. In fact, the House would make the Fed the principal overseer of financial firms tied to the global economy.
The Senate, by contrast, would limit the Fed's powers to mostly monetary policy. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., is proposing stripping the Fed of its banking regulatory authority and giving that power to a new consolidated agency.
"It's not designed to basically punish the Federal Reserve at all, but rather to enhance their role and their independence," said Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. "You start loading up the Fed with additional responsibilities and that independence could be threatened."
Late last week, high-ranking Treasury and White House officials made it clear in public statements that they're at odds with the Senate on this idea and they think the Fed should keep its regulatory powers and oversee the biggest financial firms.
"No regulator had a perfect record leading up to the crisis, but in our view, the Federal Reserve is the agency best equipped for the task of supervising the largest, most complex firms," Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin said Friday. "It is the only agency with broad and deep knowledge of financial institutions and the capital markets necessary to do the job effectively."
See where the banks are failing
Too big to fail: Congress has many different ideas when it comes to how to prevent big firms from taking down the entire financial system. Experts say this is one of the most important parts of the regulatory effort. But there are a lot of details involved and a consensus has yet to gel.
The White House and congressional Democrats want to create a mechanism for monitoring large financial firms, like American International Group (AIG, Fortune 500), and unwinding them with a new power called "resolution authority."
Both chambers would charge the Federal Deposit of Insurance Corp. with such unwinding. But some lawmakers from both parties are worried about giving such broad powers to the executive branch.
A related - and contentious - debate is emerging over whether a government agency should have the power to break up companies that could threaten the economy before they do damage.
Lobbyists for the big banks are fighting the break-up proposal hard, calling it "misguided." The proposal could "lead to long-term damage" to the economy, wrote Rob Nichols, president of the Financial Services Forum, in a letter Monday to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
But community banks are big fans of the break-up idea, which is included in the Senate bill and is expected to be debated in the House later this week when Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., offers such an amendment.
Another point of disagreement: How to pay for a catastrophe fund without tapping taxpayers. The House is leaning toward making financial firms pony up before disaster strikes. The Senate is leaning toward charging after a firm falls.
Consumer Financial Protection Agency: Of the three trouble spots, easily the most high-profile one is the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
The agency faces a more familiar problem for financial-related legislation in Congress: opposition from the minority party and big business. That push-back could be a deal breaker in the Senate.
The agency would put new regulators in charge of keeping an eye out for consumers, while requiring more disclosure and scrutiny over some of the financial products, like mortgages, credit cards and auto loans, that contributed to last year's crisis.
A wave of populism propelled credit card legislation earlier this year. But Republicans are mostly united against the creation of the consumer agency, calling it an added layer of bureaucracy that could threaten bank soundness.
Observers say the consumer agency is one of the biggest stalemates between Dodd and Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., whose cooperation was key to getting the credit card bill passed by an overwhelmingly margin. President Obama even invited Shelby to the bill signing ceremony.
In late October, the House passed a version of the proposal to create a new consumer agency, with one Republican voting for it and two Democrats voting against it. But that version was watered down to exclude small banks and credit unions from being examined by the agency's enforcement arm. The House bill also excludes auto loans and title insurance from the agency's jurisdiction.