Paper "AMERO" will replace the dollar by spring!? - page 18
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
Food for thought
It's a funny link, but it's the phrase that makes me laugh the hardest :
....
it should be mandatory for Freemasons to give a regular quarterly report on their
activities, including the sources of funding. In addition, personal records should be kept of
of all Freemasons, that is to say, all their activities should be under state control.
and who owns Siberia now? The people? Definitely not. A man lives in a rich country (Russia) - but cannot make ends meet (Timbo, for example) - he spits on everything - goes to Australia - and makes a life for himself. Then he wonders what would have happened if there had been 50 small countries instead of one. People would benefit from that, wouldn't they? (The people, not the politicians). And it is time to abolish serfdom in Russia - people are not given land to own. In short - let's have anarchy :)
I do not understand, what you wanted to say?
Zeitgeist III "The men behind the curtain"
"There is more than a king behind any throne" - Sir William Pitt, House of Lords, 1770. Zeitgeist was first released on 26 June 2007 and almost immediately became the most-watched film on the video service. The third film tells the story of how a group of bankers (John Morgan, John Rockefeller and others) in the early 20th century joined forces, wanting to create a cartel in which they could control and own all the financial resources of the USA, thereby gaining world domination. This group of people used their financial resources and personal connections to create financial panic in society and use this to eliminate competition from independent banks. According to Peter Joseph, this leads to the electronic conspiracy theory. The third part also claims that the US Federal Reserve and the Central Bank were fraudulently created for one purpose, to steal the nation's wealth and control military, political and cultural events for personal financial gain, which, according to the film, will eventually lead to creation of a single state on the planet where the oligarchy will play the dominant role. Some have compared The Spirit of Time in general to The Da Vinci Code, calling it anti-Christian.
Дух времени ІІІ "Люди за занавесом"
В третьей части также звучат заявления о том, что ФРС США и ЦБ США были созданы мошенническим путём ради одной цели — украсть богатство нации и контролировать военные, политические и культурные события для личной финансовой выгоды, что, по мнению автора фильма, в итоге приведёт к созданию на планете единого государства, в котором главенствующую роль будет играть олигархия. Некоторые сравнивают фильм «Дух времени» в целом с фильмом «Код да Винчи», называя его антихристианским.
Great recommendation, thank you! The DaVinci Code was a dud, so it's a dud too. I'm not gonna watch it.
Great recommendation, thank you! The DaVinci Code was a load of crap, so this movie is the same. >> I'm not gonna watch it.
Honestly, I'm sick of your dogma when you tell people the rules. Let's talk economics... how do you create demand for something, for example the quid (a definite and achievable goal by the way), not by margin trading?
ZS: you can scout with Sabluk))))
SZY: Timbo, take this paper, by the way, any paper, you have plenty of them (I think you know the difference between money and banknotes) and look at who owns the commitments for them.
Here's the economics ... how do you get demand for something, for example the quid (a definite and achievable goal by the way), not by margin trading?
Try it ;). The same time maybe people will understand why no one needs the rouble, hryvnia, etc. (in the broad sense), why Russia has kept part of its budget in dollars, euros (still doing so) and US securities to reduce risk (imho - idiots who do not see development prospects for their own country should not run the country) and thus develop the economy of a foreign country for budget money. There may be enough time to read the basics of market funkioning and you may get the idea that the investor does not care about politics in general. The only thing he is interested in is the possibility of making a profit at best and losing as little as possible at worst. At the same time you may understand the difference between freely convertible currency and fiat currency (which they are fond of talking about and how it is all secured, by the way, how are the rouble, hryvnia, Euro, Yen secured? ;) ).
At the same time many "military experts" might realize that wars are not fought on battlefields in this century and that the USSR lost the main war. It`s enough not to feed the troops for a couple of weeks, cut off power and fuel supply, etc. and any equipment will not work. To do this, it is quite possible, for example, to collapse the value of oil or simply fail to meet obligations locally to a trader (in this case that is exactly what Russia is doing with quite a bit of its budget ;) ) - just "stupidly screwed" and not returning the deposit ( I exaggerate somewhat :) )... The main lifeblood of the economy is finance: cut an artery and the whole organism is ruined...
The USSR fought America throughout the post-war history, trying to ruin it. The latter, in turn, tried to do the same thing and we are looking at the results. Who did better? I wish we could draw conclusions, but no one is angry about something....
Good luck.
SZS The answer to your question - no not marginal trading. The demand for an asset is supported by its liquidity (not counting the speculative component, where the volatility and predictability of the price dynamics of the asset is no less important). It is important for an investor that at any time he can not only buy an asset, but also get rid of it at the current market price. This is the basis for calculating market risk... Read about "buy-back" agreement.
By the way, remind me: when the euro was introduced, all currencies of all countries were exchanged 1x1 ;) ? Where will the eu go when the eu collapses? Or do you think that's impossible? From my point of view it is more likely than the collapse of America... The dollar has not been subjected to such cataclysms so far ...
Try it ;). At the same time, maybe you will understand why nobody needs the ruble, hryvnia, etc. (in the broad sense), why Russia kept part of its budget in quid, euros (still does) and US securities to reduce risk (imho - idiots who do not see the prospects of their own country should not run the country) and thus develop the economy of a foreign country for budget money. There may be enough time to read the basics of market funkioning and you may get the idea that the investor does not care about politics in general. The only thing he is interested in is the possibility of making a profit at best and losing as little as possible at worst. At the same time you may understand the difference between freely convertible currency and fiat currency (which they are fond of talking about and how it is all secured, by the way, how are the rouble, hryvnia, Euro, Yen secured? ;) ).
At the same time many "military experts" might realize that wars are not fought on battlefields in this century and that the USSR lost the main war. It`s enough not to feed the troops for a couple of weeks, cut off power and fuel supply, etc. and any equipment will not work. To do this, it is quite possible, for example, to collapse the value of oil or simply fail to meet obligations locally to a trader (in this case that is exactly what Russia is doing with quite a bit of its budget ;) ) - just "stupidly screwed" and not returning the deposit ( I exaggerate somewhat :) )... The main lifeblood of the economy is finance: cut an artery and the whole organism is ruined...
The USSR fought America throughout the post-war history, trying to ruin it. The latter, in turn, tried to do the same thing and we are looking at the results. Who did better? I wish we could draw conclusions, but no one is angry about something....
Good luck.
SZS The answer to your question - no not margin trading. Demand is supported by liquidity. What matters to the investor is that at any time he can not only buy an asset, but also get rid of it at the current market price. This is the basis for calculating market risk... Read about the "buy-back" agreement.
By the way, remind me : when the eur was introduced all currencies of all countries were changed to 1x1 ;) ? Where will the eura go when the eu collapses ? Or do you think that's impossible? From my point of view it is more likely than the collapse of America... The dollar has not been subjected to such cataclysms so far ...
Vladislav, let's keep it on a first name basis. I can't build the logic of "Demand is supported by liquidity", as demand on one side and supply on the other are the criteria of liquidity.
To answer your question: in our world anything is possible, besides why should America collapse, the U.S. Federal Reserve is a private entity (I hinted at that when I wrote to read what was written on the banknotes), controlled by specific individuals ...
Honestly, I'm sick of your dogma...
Get dressed, then.
Then get dressed already...
:)
Vladislav, let's keep it on a first-come-first-served basis. I cannot make the logic "Demand is supported by liquidity", because demand on the one hand and supply on the other are the criteria of liquidity.
To answer your question: in our world anything is possible, besides why should America collapse, the U.S. Federal Reserve is a private entity (I hinted at that when I wrote to read what was written on the banknotes), controlled by specific individuals ...
Let's keep it on a first name basis - no problem. Not really - look: let's say there are two entities in the market - you and me. I bought an asset from you, in the expectation that it (the asset) will go up... you, in turn, sold it in the expectation that it will go down. Time passes... No matter who is right, I try to get rid of the asset and no one buys it (you in particular - you still think the decline will continue) .... That's it - pipe, no liquidity. Although there is supply. But there is no demand... I, as an investor, cannot know when the demand is there and when it is not. This situation will be the limit of liquidity. Like the other one, I want to buy more, but no one is selling...
Now let's introduce a market maker into the scheme (this is not just a participant with large assets, as many mistakenly assume - it is a participant with an obligation to maintain certain functions - the liquidity of the asset). Again the same example: if I have no one to buy from then the market maker is obliged to sell to me (price level is not at issue now), if I want to sell and you don't want to buy then the market maker will buy. This is what is called maintaining the liquidity of the asset. Now me or you, as an investor, know that we will always be able to both buy and get rid of the asset. It is absolute liquidity (not all assets have that liquidity) - freely convertible currencies do and that is their main difference from freely convertible ones. And consequently it is one of the most attractive instruments in this sense (not taking into account predictability, volatility (amplitude of price fluctuations) etc.).
Good luck.
I hope I've made my thoughts clear... About the federal reserve system - that's its strength and its weakness. 11 banks, 9 of them private. But it also means that the government, shoving its 'nickel' into the economy, will not be able to influence it much - a huge plus for the investor. The main change in value is economically justified. There is a weakness in the speculative component and it affects predictability, but that is a separate topic.