Datasets:

---

nthakur

/

bge-retrieval-data-law-50K

like 0

[ { "docid": "9cf24905eb8a622c1f126f7420ec46f5", "text": "Assets can be acquired in different ways and for different purposes. I will only address common legal ways of acquiring assets. You can trade one asset for another asset. This usually takes place in the form of trading cash or a cash equivalent for an asset. The asset received should be of equal or greater value than the asset given in the eyes of the purchaser in order for the trade to be rational. Take this example: I am selling a bike that has been sitting on my porch for a few months. It's worth about $25 to me. My friend, Andy, comes by and offers $90 for it. I happily accept. Andy valued the bike at $110. This transaction produced value for both parties. I had a value benefit of $65 (90 - 25) and Andy had a value benefit of $20 (110 - 90). You can receive an asset as a gift or an inheritance. Less common, but still frequent. Someone gives you a gift or a family member dies and you receive an asset you did not own previously. You can receive an asset in exchange for a liability. When you take out a loan, you receive an asset (cash) which is financed by a liability (loan payable). In your case: Why would I buy a mall if having assets worth the same amount as the mall? I must value the mall more than the assets I currently have. This may stem from the possibility of greater future returns than I am currently making on my asset, or, if I financed the purchase with a liability, greater future returns than the cost associated with payment on the principal and interest of the liability.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dae3c71c0be6a7e8dbc23075eadc0e3", "text": "Your question seems to be premised on your personal understanding of economics, and asking that people present to you an explanation of business transactions that is consistent with your own personal worldview. But your premises are flawed, so an accurate answer should not accept them. The basics of trade is that something is worth more to one person than another; a wheat farmer has more wheat that they could possibly eat, and so it has no value other than what they can get by selling it, while an accountant will starve if they do not have any food and thus is willing to pay what the market demands. The two parties can both be better off by having a transaction. The other motivation for transactions is that parties may disagree as to what something is worth; even if one party will lose from the transaction, they may both believe they will profit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b2dd431b4ecc0f4628fb920d23cf43c", "text": "You don't start out buying a shopping mall, you have to work up to it. You can start with any amount and work up to a larger amount. For me, I saved 30% of my salary(net), investing in stocks for 8 years. It was tough to live on less, but I had a goal to buy passive income. I put down this money to buy 3 houses, putting 35% down and maintaining enough cash to make 5 years of payments. I rented out the houses making a cap of 15%. The cap is the net payment per year / cost of the property, where the net accounts for taxes and repairs. I did not spend any of the profits, but I did start saving less salary. After 5 years of appreciation, mortgage payments and rental profit, I sold one house to get a loan for a convenience store. Buildings go on the market all the time, it takes 14 years to directly recoup an investment at a 7% cap, which is the average for a commercial property sale. Many people cash out for this reason, it's slow, but steady growth, though the earnings on property appreciation is a nice bonus. Owning real estate is a long term game, after a long time of earning, you can reinvest, but it comes with the risk of bad or no tenants. You can start both slower and smaller, just make sure you're picking up assets, not liabilities. Like investing in cars is generally bad unless you are sure it will appreciate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4078a96aeff4715cb00cb0d8b5b0b48e", "text": "There are a number of ways someone acquires assets without buying it. People could have inherited assets. They could have been gifted assets. They might have won assets in a lawsuit (unlikely to be a mall, but not impossible). They could have married into the assets. So there's other ways of acquiring assets without purchasing them.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "bb750db5c4afe36515022584db08d3dd", "text": "There is no reason to ever do DCA. You'll notice that no asset managers would ever dream of it. You should invest your money as soon as you get it. Throughout history, this is the utility maximizing choice. The market rises on average. Why would you keep money out of it?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4be1712bc31d7fa78eee37ac2c171b30", "text": "\"Your question asks \"\"how\"\" but \"\"if\"\" may be your issue. Most companies will not permit an external transfer while still employed, or under a certain age, 55 or so. If yours is one of the rare companies that permits a transfer, you simply open an IRA with the broker of your choice. Schwab, Fidelity, eTrade, or a dozen others. That broker will give you the paperwork you need to fill out, and they initiate the transfer. I assume you want an IRA in which you can invest in stocks or funds of your choosing. A traditional IRA. The term \"\"self-directed\"\" has another meaning, often associated with the account that permits real estate purchases inside the account. The brokers I listed do not handle that, those custodians have a different business model and are typically smaller firms with fewer offices, not country-wide.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "230984d1dc54df5eba50d8d40e9b1046", "text": "Most likely, this will not work they way you think. First things first, to get a loan, the bank needs to accept your collateral. Note that this is not directly related to the question what you plan to do with the loan. Example: you have a portfolio of stocks and bonds worth USD 2 million. The bank decides to give you a loan of USD 1 million against that collateral. The bank doesn't care if you will use the loan to invest in foreign RE or use it up in a casino, it has your collateral as safety. So, from the way you describe it, I take it you don't have the necessary local collateral but you wish to use your foreign investments as such. In this case it really doesn't matter where you live or where you incorporate a company, the bank will only give you the loan if it accepts the foreign collateral. From professional experience with this exact question I can tell you, there are very few banks that will lend against foreign property. And there are even less banks, if any, that will lend against foreign projects. To sum it up: Just forget banks. You might find a private lender to help you out but it will cost you dearly. The best option you have is to find a strategic partner who can cough up the money you need but since he is taking the bigger risk, he will also take the bigger profit share.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e43f9d61bad87cff37e8eca0c342c31e", "text": "I find that when I have to justify why I want something to someone else, I eliminate impulse buys because I have to think about it enough to explain to someone else why it is desirable. Simply going through that process in my own head in advance of a conversation to justify it I talk myself out of a lot of purchases. I'm married, so I have these conversations with my wife. She is very supportive of me buying things that I want if they will bring value. If I wasn't married and couldn't control my spending, I'd find a good friend or relative that I trust, and I would create a trust with me as the primary beneficiary, and I would appoint a trustee who was willing to sign off on any purchase that I wanted to make after justifying it to them. If I had no friends or relatives that I trusted in that role, I'd hire a financial adviser to fill the same role. Contractually I would want to be able to terminate the arrangement if it was not working, but that would mean sacrificing the legal fees to alter the trust and appoint a new trustee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b150e9c76963f936b4a6cfa0b2a5ae48", "text": "\"I'll skip the \"\"authorizing....\"\" and go right to uses of new shares: Companies need stock as another liquid asset for a variety of purposes, and if not enough stock is available, then may be forced to the open market to acquire, either by exchanging cash or taking on debt to get the cash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad563586bd99c80f736b254758cb0f82", "text": "You can put it in a CD, or use a CD investment service like http://www.jumbocdinvestments.com/ (no affiliation).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49f29b55b33e9105340e11bfb78539e9", "text": "You also may want to consider how this interacts with the stepped up basis of estates. If you never sell the stock and it passes to your heirs with your estate, under current tax law the basis will increase from the purchase price to the market price at the time of transfer. In a comment, you proposed: Thinking more deeply though, I am a little skeptical that it's a free lunch: Say I buy stock A (a computer manufacturer) at $100 which I intend to hold long term. It ends up falling to $80 and the robo-advisor sells it for tax loss harvesting, buying stock B (a similar computer manufacturer) as a replacement. So I benefit from realizing those losses. HOWEVER, say both stocks then rise by 50% over 3 years. At this point, selling B gives me more capital gains tax than if I had held A through the losses, since A's rise from 80 back to 100 would have been free for me since I purchased at 100. And then later thought Although thinking even more (sorry, thinking out loud here), I guess I still come out ahead on taxes since I was able to deduct the $20 loss on A against ordinary income, and while I pay extra capital gains on B, that's a lower tax rate. So the free lunch is $20*[number of shares]*([my tax bracket] - [capital gains rates]) That's true. And in addition to that, if you never sell B, which continues to rise to $200 (was last at $120 after a 50% increase from $80), the basis steps up to $200 on transfer to your heirs. Of course, your estate may have to pay a 40% tax on the $200 before transferring the shares to your heirs. So this isn't exactly a free lunch either. But you have to pay that 40% tax regardless of the form in which the money is held. Cash, real estate, stocks, whatever. Whether you have a large or small capital gain on the stock is irrelevant to the estate tax. This type of planning may not matter to you personally, but it is another aspect of what wealth management can impact.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ca2a36926c308393a021d671a4ad8ff", "text": "\"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold. Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession. You do not seem to be in that category. Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy. No matter what you do, you should be diversified. All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there). The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund. Or several. These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it. There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later. It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea: Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments. Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify. Buy a \"\"total stock market\"\" fund and a \"\"total bond fund\"\" in a ratio that you like. If you want, also buy an \"\"international fund.\"\" If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider). The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry. Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3dd94d11762f4a6bb127f5f9da57cd75", "text": "No, this is not generally possible, as each security purchase is booked as a separate order => hence separate transaction. You can do this through purchasing of a fund, i.e.: purchasing one share of a ETF will get you a relative share of the ETF holdings, but the actual holdings are not up to you then.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c2486bf10b899839d0c29cb649f96a3", "text": "Yes, but only if they're looking for investors. You would need to contact them directly. Unless you're looking to invest a significant sum, they may not be interested in speaking with you. (Think at least 6 figures, maybe 7 depending on their size and needs). This is otherwise known as being a Venture Capitalist. Some companies don't want additional investors because the capital isn't yet needed and they don't want to give up shares in the profit/control. Alternatively, you could try and figure out which investment groups already have a stake in the company you're interested in. If those companies are publicly traded, you could buy stocks for their company with the expectation that their stock price will increase if the company you know of does well in the long run.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e7f88b56677a917045c41db97d6ced0", "text": "\"I'd suggest you start by looking at the mutual fund and/or ETF options available via your bank, and see if they have any low-cost funds that invest in high-risk sectors. You can increase your risk (and potential returns) by allocating your assets to riskier sectors rather than by picking individual stocks, and you'll be less likely to make an avoidable mistake. It is possible to do as you suggest and pick individual stocks, but by doing so you may be taking on more risk than you suspect, even unnecessary risk. For instance, if you decide to buy stock in Company A, you know you're taking a risk by investing in just one company. However, without a lot of work and financial expertise, you may not be able to assess how much risk you're taking by investing in Company A specifically, as opposed to Company B. Even if you know that investing in individual stocks is risky, it can be very hard to know how risky those particular individual stocks are, compared to other alternatives. This is doubly true if the investment involves actions more exotic than simply buying and holding an asset like a stock. For instance, you could definitely get plenty of risk by investing in commercial real estate development or complicated options contracts; but a certain amount of work and expertise is required to even understand how to do that, and there is a greater likelihood that you will slip up and make a costly mistake that negates any extra gain, even if the investment itself might have been sound for someone with experience in that area. In other words, you want your risk to really be the risk of the investment, not the \"\"personal\"\" risk that you'll make a mistake in a complicated scheme and lose money because you didn't know what you were doing. (If you do have some expertise in more exotic investments, then maybe you could go this route, but I think most people -- including me -- don't.) On the other hand, you can find mutual funds or ETFs that invest in large economic sectors that are high-risk, but because the investment is diversified within that sector, you need only compare the risk of the sectors. For instance, emerging markets are usually considered one of the highest-risk sectors. But if you restrict your choice to low-cost emerging-market index funds, they are unlikely to differ drastically in risk (at any rate, far less than individual companies). This eliminates the problem mentioned above: when you choose to invest in Emerging Markets Index Fund A, you don't need to worry as much about whether Emerging Markets Index Fund B might have been less risky; most of the risk is in the choice to invest in the emerging markets sector in the first place, and differences between comparable funds in that sector are small by comparison. You could do the same with other targeted sectors that can produce high returns; for instance, there are mutual funds and ETFs that invest specifically in technology stocks. So you could begin by exploring the mutual funds and ETFs available via your existing investment bank, or poke around on Morningstar. Fees will still matter no matter what sector you're in, so pay attention to those. But you can probably find a way to take an aggressive risk position without getting bogged down in the details of individual companies. Also, this will be less work than trying something more exotic, so you're less likely to make a costly mistake due to not understanding the complexities of what you're investing in.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c69c1b2b0e3b0843a3c06ab45855ff3", "text": "\"You want to \"\"begin building a nice portfolio\"\" comprised of \"\"real estate\"\" and \"\"solar and wind\"\". There are ways to do that without starting your own solar power farm or buying giant wind turbines, or whole apartment complexes. They're called ETFs. They're diversified and it's unlikely that you'll use the entirety of your initial investment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e6b3c3d49316238ac8a589d1dd171d9", "text": "\"The problem here can be boiled down to that fact you are attempting to obtain a loan without collateral. There are times it can be done, but you have to have a really good relationship with a banker. Your question suggests that avenue has been exhausted. You are looking for an investor, but you are offering something very speculative. Suppose an investor gives you 20K, what recourse does he have if you do not pay the terms of the loan? From what income will this be paid from? What event will trigger the capability to make a balloon payment? Now if you can find a really handy guy that really needs a place to live could you swap rent for repairs? Maybe. Perhaps you buy the materials, and he does the roof in exchange for 6 months worth of rent or whatever. If you approached me with this \"\"investment\"\", the thing that would raise a red flag is why don't you have 20K to do this yourself? If you don't how will you be able to make payments? For example of the items you mentioned: That is a weekend worth of work and some pretty inexpensive materials. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? A weekend worth of demo, and $500 worth of material and another weekend to build something serviceable for a rental. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? 2K? Why does money need to be borrowed for this? This can be expensive, but most roofing companies offer financing. Also doing some of the work yourself can save a ton of money. Demoing an old roof is typically about 1/3 of the roofing cost and is technically simple, but physically difficult. So besides the new roof, you could have a lot of your list solved for less than 3K and three weekends worth of work. You are attempting to change this into a rental, not the Taj Mahal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "310df1360ddc30221c22f9e789f10fc1", "text": "This is how its done I am a certain french bank, aka sg I have some PIIGS debt, I can use this as collateral at face value (100), with the ECB in order to secure cash... Lets say I use 1mn of BTPS (italian debt), this has an MTM (clean) of 88. I use that 88 to get me 100 (1mn) of cash, from which I buy another BTPS, for (88), of which I use as collateral pledged to the ECB to get this, get another BTPS. So now I am long 3 BTPS, all pledged to the ECB and I have 36 in cash and I owe the ECB 300+r in 3 years. remember the yield on my shitty btps is a lot higher than the interest on the deposits. Secondly, I have three years, so I don't need to give a fuck about the mark to market on the notes (I could even buy a 2 year and n month note maturing just before). So I can make some free yield at the ECB's expense. Also this frees up 36 in cash, of which I can use to meet short term funding instead of tapping the bond market, this trade can be made infinitely, although the ECB might catch on. You can view it as getting a mortgage on your house to buy another house, then mortgaging house #2 to buy house #3, and so on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbc8773cb5a67bbf55cba1b513b1816b", "text": "\"Due to the zero percent interest rate on the Euro right now you won't find any investment giving you 5% which isn't equivalent to gambling. One of the few investment forms which still promises gains without unreasonable risks right now seems to be real estate, because real estate prices in German urban areas (not so in rural areas!) are growing a lot recently. One reason for that is in fact the low interest rate, because it makes it very cheap right now to take a loan and buy a home. This increased demand is driving up the prices. Note that you don't need to buy a property yourself to invest in real estate (20k in one of the larger cities of Germany will get you... maybe a cardboard box below a bridge?). You can invest your money in a real estate fund (\"\"Immobilienfond\"\"). You then don't own a specific property, you own a tiny fraction of a whole bunch of different properties. This spreads out the risk and allows you to invest exactly as much money as you want. However, most real estate funds do not allow you to sell in the first two years and require that you announce your sale one year in advance, so it's not a very liquid asset. Also, it is still a risky investment. Raising real estate prices might hint to a bubble which might burst eventually. Financial analysts have different opinions about this. But fact is, when the European Central Bank starts to take interest again, then the demand for real estate property will drop and so will the prices. When you are not sure what to do, ask your bank for investment advise. German banks are usually trustworthy in this regard.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d47d1d96b13fb1d436e6802cf96bb61c", "text": "Each country would have to go back to its own currency, or the rich countries would just kick the poor ones out of the EU. It would be bad for the poor countries, and the global economy would suffer, but it really wouldn't be a big deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aab8bfc32c55710d1b90338183b1a0fc", "text": "These rumors are here just to help dollar stay alive. Euro have problems, but they are rather solvable, unlike dollar situation. Even if something wrong would happen - countries would return to their national currencies, mainly Germany & France are important here. This does not means that EuroUnion would be destroyed - some countries live in EU without Euro and they are just fine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e3ceaab19aa92b952daca64edf09669", "text": "If the Euro went bust then it would be the 12th government currency to go belly up in Europe (according to this website). Europe holds the record for most failed currencies. It also holds the record for the worst hyperinflation in history - Yugoslavia 1993. I'm not sure what would happen if the Euro failed. It depends on how it fails. If it fails quickly (which most do) then there will be bank runs, bank holidays, capital controls, massive price increases, price controls, and just general confusion as people race to get rid of their Euros. Black markets for everything will pop up if the price controls remain in place. Some countries may switch to a foreign currency (i.e. the US dollar if it is still around) until they can get their own currency in circulation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "332c7311f705acec1dd28a25e372bdce", "text": "I'd have anything you would need for maybe 3-6 months stored up: food, fuel, toiletries, other incidentals. What might replace the currency after the Euro collapses will be the least of your concerns when it does collapse.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9068374da97395610198f6d0ad280764", "text": "Krugman (Nobel prize in Economy) has just said: Greek euro exit, very possibly next month. Huge withdrawals from Spanish and Italian banks, as depositors try to move their money to Germany. 3a. Maybe, just possibly, de facto controls, with banks forbidden to transfer deposits out of country and limits on cash withdrawals. 3b. Alternatively, or maybe in tandem, huge draws on ECB credit to keep the banks from collapsing. 4a. Germany has a choice. Accept huge indirect public claims on Italy and Spain, plus a drastic revision of strategy — basically, to give Spain in particular any hope you need both guarantees on its debt to hold borrowing costs down and a higher eurozone inflation target to make relative price adjustment possible; or: 4b. End of the euro. And we’re talking about months, not years, for this to play out. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/eurodammerung-2/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ff08107bbfa13cbfeed8f5187580bce", "text": "\"The result would be catastrophic. The almost-reserve currency would collapse which would produce a medium sized depression, perhaps same with with 2008-now, or even larger, since don't forget, that one was produced from a housing bubble existing in only a part of the american economy; imagine what would happen if almost the full size of the economy (Europe) would collapse, even if Europe isn't as much \"\"connected\"\". But reality here is, there's no chance to that. The real reason you hear those rumors is that America (along with minor partners like the British Sterling) want to bring down the Euro for medium-term benefit. e.g. Several economists get on Bloomberg announcing they are short selling the Euro. Irony is, all this is helping the Euro since selling and short-selling and selling and short-selling helps massively its liquidity. It's like several nay sayers actually making a politician famous with their spite.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "23dcb346982a8bdcf2ec460e8c272c4c", "text": "There are many different things that can happen, all or some. Taking Russia and Argentina as precedence - you may not be able to withdraw funds from your bank for some period of time. Not because your accounts will be drained, but because the cash supply will be restricted. Similar thing has also happened recently in Cyprus. However, the fact that the governments of Russia and Argentina limited the use of cash for a period of time doesn't mean that the US government will have to do the same, it my choose some other means of restraint. What's for sure is that nothing good will happen. Nothing will probably happen to your balance in the bank (Although Cyprus has shown that that is not a given either). But I'm not so sure about FDIC maintaining it's insurance if the bank fails (meaning if the bank defaults as a result of the chain effect - you may lose your money). If the government is defaulting, it might not have enough cash to take over the bank deposits. After the default the currency value will probably drop sharply (devaluation) which will lead to inflation. Meaning your same balance will be worth much less than it is now. So there's something to worry about for everyone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53a33eed609d2c59d67a43cc281aea4f", "text": "There are various indexes on the stock market that track the currencies. Though it is different than Forex (probably less leverage), you may be able to get the effects you're looking for. I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area, but looked some into FXE, to trade the Euro debt crisis. Here's an article on Forex, putting FXE down (obviously a biased view, but perhaps will give you a starting point for comparison, should you want to trade something specific, like the current euro/dollar situation).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e087c06ec9a617707d80075a5f8175b", "text": "It depends on what actions the European Central Bank (ECB) takes. If it prints Euros to bail out the country then your Euros will decline in value. Same thing with a US state going bankrupt. If the FED prints dollars to bailout a state it will set a precedent that other states can spend carelessly and the FED will be there to bail them out by printing money. If you own bonds issued by the bankrupting state then you could lose some of your money if the country is not bailed out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6cc7e456751c9ae6e555519de100de88", "text": "In many countries in Europe the prices shot through the roof, so it is not all positive. Also the switching country gives out lot of monetary control that is not welcomed by many. I think that UK is not going to change to euro for a long long time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "776a0fad3abfce8445dedec1de473ff6", "text": "Short the Pound and other English financial items. Because the English economy is tied to the EU, it will be hit as well. You might prefer this over Euro denominated investments, since it's not exactly clear who your counterpart is if the Euro really crashes hard. Meaning suppose you have a short position Euro's versus dollars, but the clearing house is taken down by the crash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cef4fa3efefe86f85f703ff4e020704f", "text": "\"If there is a very sudden and large collapse in the exchange rate then because algorithmic trades will operate very fast it is possible to determine “x” immediately after the change in exchange rate. All you need to know is the order book. You also need to assume that the algorithmic bot operates faster than all other market participants so that the order book doesn’t change except for those trades executed by the bot. The temporarily cheaper price in the weakened currency market will rise and the temporarily dearer price in the strengthened currency market will fall until the prices are related by the new exchange rate. This price is determined by the condition that the total volume of buys in the cheaper market is equal to the total volume of sells in the dearer market. Suppose initially gold is worth $1200 on NYSE or £720 on LSE. Then suppose the exchange rate falls from r=0.6 £/$ to s=0.4 £/$. To illustrate the answer lets assume that before the currency collapse the order book for gold on the LSE and NYSE looks like: GOLD-NYSE Sell (100 @ $1310) Sell (100 @ $1300) <——— Sell (100 @ $1280) Sell (200 @ $1260) Sell (300 @ $1220) Sell (100 @ $1200) ————————— buy (100 @ $1190) buy (100 @ $1180) GOLD-LSE Sell (100 @ £750) Sell (100 @ £740) ————————— buy (200 @ £720) buy (200 @ £700) buy (100 @ £600) buy (100 @ £550) buy (100 @ £530) buy (100 @ £520) <——— buy (100 @ £500) From this hypothetical example, the automatic traders will buy up the NYSE gold and sell the LSE gold in equal volume until the price ratio \"\"s\"\" is attained. By summing up the sell volumes on the NYSE and the buy volumes on the LSE, we see that the conditions are met when the price is $1300 and £520. Note 800 units were bought and sold. So “x” depends on the available orders in the order book. Immediately after this, however, the price of the asset will be subject to the new changes of preference by the market participants. However, the price calculated above must be the initial price, since otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72bad22ce0b9a53d90e41eec6a0b3030", "text": "\"Why will they find financing when they leave the Euro? Why would their currencies not simply hyperinflate due to excessive issuance in an attempt to devalue? Which is worse for unemployment, austerity or hyperinflation? &gt;they'd be expelled by Germany This is a union correct? Why do you assume Germany holds all the cards? I've read that Gonzalo Lira essay and have read Mish about everyday since 2009, yet still do not think it is so obvious that the Euro will collapse. I gained quite a bit of skepticism from Barry Eichengreen's paper on the [Breakup of the Euro Area.](http://www.nber.org/papers/c11654.pdf?new_window=1) What I see right now is that so far the ECB has only acted in such a way as to prevent outright deflation and meet its 2% inflation target, but not to continuously outright fund the profligate governments. They let the bond markets force those governments into contraction or into default whereas the fed, with its dual mandate, will always buy the US bonds and eventually will inflate the currency as opposed to having a sovereign default. So I think we will see the ECB continue to print as much is needed to meet its mandate but at the same time there will be defaults, bank nationalizations and failures, and a continued lack of growth in the Euro area until eventually the austerity measures bring revenue and spending in line at which point the countries under heavy debt would be stupid not to default because they can self finance. Whereas in the US we are so dependent on deficit financing that as foreigners move further away from holding treasuries we become more susceptible to bond vigilantes taking the reigns which will force the feds hand into outright monetization. Then I think we will see our own government exacerbate inflation by bidding on the same goods that those dollars which no longer are going into treasuries are bidding on. Then I think we'll finally see bad inflation in the US. Of course as long as there is hoards of money fleeing Europe for the US \"\"safe haven,\"\" the lack of foreign treasury investment is pretty moot. *spelling\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd99462a2beb0902adf9f5e34c303db6", "text": "I suppose they still could risk hyperinflation? Anyways, if they got their own currency that would probably be positive for their exports. Still, what are they going to export? Buying any raw materials would be super expensive with their devalued currency. What is your thought about their exporting with devalued currency?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a316b4e61c79499efab27a0de2c74573", "text": "I am going to clone an answer from another question that I wrote ;) and refer you to an article in the Wall Street Journal that I read this morning, What's at Stake in the Greek Vote, summarizing the likely outcome of the situation if a Euro exit looks likely after the election: ... we will see a full-fledged bank run. Greek banks would collapse ... The market exchange-rate would likely be two or three drachmas to the euro, which would double or triple the Greek price of imported goods within a few days. Prices of assets, including real-estate assets, would crumble. Those who moved their deposits abroad would be able to buy these assets cheaply, leading to a significant, regressive redistribution of Greek wealth. In short, you'd lose about two-thirds of your savings unless you were storing them somewhere safe from the conversion. The article also predicts difficulty importing goods (other nations will demand to be paid in euro, not drachma) leading to disruption of trade and various supply shortages.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed038e26e5efea7e3bd88d6f5689b257", "text": "&gt; The European economy was not utterly doomed before the Euro, therefore the fall of the Euro does not doom their economy. I'm not sure how that's related at all. Just because at some random point in time, the European economy was doing OK, doesn't mean that it will definitely be ok again in the future after a jarring multi-national currency shift. There are tons of other factors in play. First of all, who's going to accept drachma again? What is it worth? What about pesata and lira? These currencies haven't been used in over a decade. Who is going to value them? Who is going to accept them? What happens when the Greeks default? When their pension checks start bouncing? This is what Germany is fearing. Who is going to buy their products when there is a major currency crisis going on?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cdaadc6c03da77b13a3596a89844273", "text": "Rising rates is going to counteract the asset bubble and Draghi &amp; the rest of the ECB are well aware of this. Now that Spain &amp; Italy got their shit together they're going to go full steam ahead. Also Germany specifically is in trouble given its large companies such as BASF and others are threatened as companies on countries globally are consolidating and a focus by domestic experts on the trade deficit the U.S. holds with Germany. The European economy will be fine. Certain European assets too, but do not be too sure on the DAX.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "652a441b503ccae88a469cfbf4f0a0d6", "text": "I can't think of any specifically, but if you haven't already done so it would be worthwhile reading a textbook on macro-economics to get an idea of how money supply, exchange rates, unemployment and so on are thought to relate. The other thing which might be interesting in respect of the Euro crisis would be a history of past economic unions. There have been several of these, not least the US dollar (in the 19C, I believe); the union of the English and Scottish pound (early 1600s); and the German mark. They tend to have some characteristic problems, caused partly by different parts of the union being at different stages in an economic cycle. Unfortunately I can't think of a single text which gathers this together.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4d799f952082cf6768813a8df4b3127", "text": "The Swiss franc has appreciated quite a bit recently against the Euro as the European Central Bank (ECB) continues to print money to buy government bonds issues by Greek, Portugal, Spain and now Italy. Some euro holders have flocked to the Swiss franc in an effort to preserve the savings from the massive Euro money printing. This has increased the value of the Swiss franc. In response, the Swiss National Bank (SNB) has tried to intervene multiple times in the currency market to keep the value of the Swiss franc low. It does this by printing Swiss francs and using the newly printed francs to buy Euros. The SNB interventions have failed to suppress the Swiss franc and its value has continued to rise. The SNB has finally said they will print whatever it takes to maintain a desired peg to the Euro. This had the desired effect of driving down the value of the franc. Which effect will this have long term for the euro zone? It is now clear that all major central bankers are in a currency devaluation war in which they are all trying to outprint each other. The SNB was the last central bank to join the printing party. I think this will lead to major inflation in all currencies as we have not seen the end of money printing. Will this worsen the European financial crisis or is this not an important factor? I'm not sure this will have much affect on the ongoing European crisis since most of the European government debt is in euros. Should this announcement trigger any actions from common European people concerning their wealth? If a European is concerned with preserving their wealth I would think they would begin to start diverting some of their savings into a harder currency. Europeans have experienced rapidly depreciating currencies more than people on any other continent. I would think they would be the most experienced at preserving wealth from central bank shenanigans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9436fc2ca722cf39549c45710f53c2c0", "text": "It's slightly more complicated than that. Usually a country that was in Greece's situation would be able to use inflation to devalue their currency which would have the effect of lowering the value of the government's debts and also of making Greek prices more competitive in the international market. Or they could use quantitative easing to inject cheap cash into the economy to help stimulate it. Because Greece is on the Euro, however, they have no control over their own currency and their options are highly limited. Additionally, when you join the EU, especially the Eurozone, that's supposed to come with additional internal responsibilities, but it's also supposed to come with additional external ones as well. Greece has a responsibility to get its shit together, but the whole point is that more financially stable countries have a responsibility to help them. Right now that means Germany; they're the ones with the greatest control over the Euro and they're shying away from their duties. If the rest of Europe didn't want to risk ending up in this position they shouldn't have let Greece into the Eurozone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e27dbab65c841fe330d918640d3b114", "text": "\"&gt; Just because at some random point in time, the European economy was doing OK, doesn't mean that it will definitely be ok I'm not claiming it will be \"\"definitely be ok\"\". definitely ok != utterly doomed. &gt; What happens when the Greeks default? If they were paying in drachma, they wouldn't default. They'd print more drachma and inflation would occur. That's how currency imbalances adjust. Germany wants it both ways. They want a stable Europe-wide currency but they don't want a Europe-wide economy, they want their economy isolated from the problems in the rest of Europe. Germany should leave the Euro.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "648f6347d16224f43171a32628d4a67e", "text": "Currently the credit history are not International but are local. Many countries don't have a concept of credit history yet. Having said that, if you are moving to US, depending on your history in your country, you can ask the same bank to provide you with a card and then start building history. For example in India I had a card with Citi Bank and when I moved to US for a short period, I was given a card based on my India Card, with equivalent credit in USD. If you are moving often internationally, it would make sense to Bank with a leading bank that provide services in geographies of your interest [Citi, HSBC, etc] and then in a new country approach these institutions to get you some starting credit for you to build a history.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "762f38a3a0d17031245925ce5ae08704", "text": "\"It's not just that credit history is local; it's that it's a private business run for profit. The \"\"big three\"\" credit bureaus in the US are Experian, Equifax and Transunion. They collect information on debt usage and abuse from various companies in the US, and charge a fee to provide that information (and their judgement of you) to companies interested in offering you further credit. But there's nothing stopping a company from collecting international credit histories, or specialized credit histories either (for instance, there's a company called ChexSystems which focuses on retail purchase financing (mostly auto) and checking account abuse, while ignoring other types of lending). That being said, I don't know of any companies which currently collect international credit histories. Perhaps in Europe, with more nations in close geographic proximity, there would be, but not in North America.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9aca3ed9a7f0fbd96ff27dc29906f179", "text": "Credit history is local, so when you move to the US you start with the blank slate. Credit history length is a huge factor, so in the first year expect that nobody would trust you and you may be refused credit or asked for deposits. I was asked for deposits at cell phone company and refused for store cards couple of times. My advice - get a secured credit card (that means you put certain sum of money as a deposit in the bank and you get credit equal to that sum of money) and if you have something like a car loan that helps too (of course, you shouldn't buy a car just for that ;) but if you're buying anyway, just know it's not only hurting but also helping when you pay). Once you have a year or two of the history and you've kept with all the payments, you credit score would be OK and everybody would be happy to work with you. In 4-5 years you can have excellent credit record if you pay on time and don't do anything bad. If you are working it the US, a lot of help at first would be to take a letter from your company on an official letterhead saying that you are employed by this and that company and are getting salary of this and that. That can serve as an assurance for some merchants that otherwise would be reluctant to work with you because of the absence of credit history. If you have any assets overseas, especially if they are held in a branch of international bank in US dollars, that could help too. In general, don't count too much on credit for first 1-2 years (though you'd probably could get a car loan, for example, but rates would be exorbitant - easily 10 percentage points higher than with good credit), but it will get better soon.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8f00666597667cba3f609b5c26ee232", "text": "Some countries in European Union are starting to implement credit history sharing, for example now history from polish bureau BIK and German Schufa are mutually available. Similar agreements are planned between polish BIK and bureaus in the Netherlands and United Kingdom.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5bf8916a07958f21f05d6bdb91a0000f", "text": "\"First, a note of my personal experience: up until a year ago, my credit lines were composed exclusively of credit cards with perfect payment histories, and my credit score is fine. If you mean that credit cards have no impact on a person's credit score until they miss a payment, that is certainly not correct. FICO's website identifies \"\"payment history\"\" as 35% of your FICO score: The first thing any lender wants to know is whether you’ve paid past credit accounts on time. This is one of the most important factors in a FICO® Score. ... Credit payment history on many types of accounts Account types considered for payment history include: ... Details on late or missed payments (\"\"delinquencies\"\") and public record and collection items FICO® Scores consider: How many accounts show no late payment A good track record on most of your credit accounts will increase your FICO® Scores. Clearly, from the last item alone, we see that credit lines (a category which includes credit cards) with no late payments is a factor in computing your FICO score, and certainly other credit bureaus behave similarly. Possibly the banker was trying to explain some other point, like \"\"If you're careful not to spend more on your card than you have in the bank, you can functionally treat your credit card as a debit line,\"\" but did so in a confusing way.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b64b7488d616ae026c37b3cf64919b2", "text": "In addition to the already good answers: I am assuming you are playing a long game and have no specific need for a high credit score in the next couple of years. This list is just good practice that will raise you score.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1f1bd2ee9a6d2caf9bfec545571ff8c", "text": "I came to US as an international student several years ago, and I have also experienced the same situation like most of the international students in finding ways to build credit history. Below I list out some possible approaches you may want to consider: I. Get a student job at campus (recommended) I think the best way is to get a student job in university, say a teaching assistant or student helper. In this case, you can be provided with a social security number and start to build your own credit history. II. Get credit card You can also consider to apply for a credit card. There are indeed some financial institutions that can provide credit cards for international students with no or limited credit scores requirement, say Discover and Bank of America. However, it is relatively hard to get approved, simply because hey may put more restriction in other aspects. For example, you may be required to keep sufficient bank balance above several thousand dollars during a period of time, or you should prove that you have relatives with citizenship in US who can provide your financial aid if needed. III. Apply for a loan (recommended) Getting a loan product is another alternative to get out of this difficult situation, but most of people don’t realize that. There are some FinTech start-ups in United States that specifically focus on international students’ loan financing. One representative example is Westbon (Westbon ), an online lending company that specializes in providing car loan for international students with no SSN or credit history. I once used their loan product to finance a Honda Accord, and Westbon reported my loan transaction records to US credit bureau during my repayment process. Later when I officially got my SSN number, I found my credit history has been automatically synchronized and I don’t have to start from all over again. It never be an easy journey for international students to build credit history in United States. What approach you should make really depends on you own situation. I hope the information above can be useful and good luck for your credit journey!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc8923bef2dbee376d2121e54cd03757", "text": "Yes, they do. Generally though you'll only see it on one or two reports. With regards to the impact on your credit score. Hard inquiries only stay on your credit for 2 years, after that they fall off. For most credit scores (specifically FICO) they only have an impact for 1 year after their date. If you have a few in the same 30 day period FICO will lump these into 1 pull to allow you to shop around for credit/loans. They also have a low to medium impact on your score.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71c5d6bcf38f61d6e21be33a3a5e1dd3", "text": "Sorry. As far as I know, a person's SS is the only way to establish credit. This is the first thing they ask whenever you apply for any service in the US.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07a8e5710dceceec0f5f187e0a021a6f", "text": "The negative effects of multiple hard inquiries in a short span of time don't stack, they're treated as a single inquiry (and inquiries aren't *that* bad anyway, the only ding you by a few points). The bigger problem here is the **other** reason your bank gave you - Too many overdrawn accounts. If you don't believe you currently have any overdrawn accounts, you need to pull your credit report *now* and make sure it's accurate. Maybe there's a mistake on your credit, maybe you're a victim of identity theft. That said, 1.5 years isn't really very long in credit terms for managing to keep your record clean, so maybe your credit just needs a few more years to heal. But *definitely* pull your credit report to rule out the worst possibilities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a0c5da5d45000dd5a41105eb72828b9", "text": "The reason you would want to report to all three is because lenders don't usually query all three. Thus, it may be that your negative mark will be missed by a future lender because that lender didn't query the agency you chose to report to. Generally, it is cheaper to report to more agencies than to query more agencies, and since those reporting are also those querying, it is in their best interest to continue reporting to all agencies, and expecting others to do the same. Each agency calculates the score independently based on the information reported to that agency. Thus only reporting a negative item to Experian will mean that TransUnion and Equifax scores for the same person will be higher.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6520e3b663c9d07ae98d430a59c8934e", "text": "I talked to the director of equity research at an international us based bank. He said that with mifid ii would force them to unbundle research fees in the US. It would be very difficult to have a different fee structure only for UK clients.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b72477e5c6869fd1514ba798f7f597b5", "text": "\"Going off hearsay here. I believe your question is. \"\"Does not having a credit card lower your credit score\"\" If that is the question then in the UK at least the answer appears to be yes. Having a credit card makes you less of a risk because you have proven that you can handle a little bit of debt and pay it back. I have a really tiny credit history. Never had a credit card and the only people who will lend to me are my own bank because they can actually see my income / expenditure. When I have queried my bank and at stores offering credit they have said that no credit history isn't far off a bad credit record. Simply having a credit card and doing the odd transactions show's lenders you are at least semi-responsible and is seen as a positive. Not having a credit card and not having much else for that matter makes you an unknown and an unknown is a risk in the eyes of lenders.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99cc24666a7edbd24d598e9a9a0bfd1e", "text": "I never received any bad treatment as a foreigner. I have dinner with my landlord once a month, and go to the bar with the guy that sold me the plan. Why the fuck would you take out a loan in a foreign country? If you need to so badly, then you obviously don't have the collateral to do so and that's why they are turning you away. Homogenous countries are naturally xenophobic, get over it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "872d37b659b196edc2b87bc5f87f3ac7", "text": "It won't hurt your credit rating. I wouldn't worry about it. The company can certainly pursue debt collections across borders but unless its a massive sum.. they will write it off. Now.. what the right thing to do is to take care of it... 1. for karma's sake and 2. so you don't make a bad name for foreigners.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afb354dbf0db4b576653e9d344a89438", "text": "Assuming you are asking about a credit score in the United States, the following applies. To find out your FICO score, navigate to AnnualCreditReport, the official site to help consumers receive their credit report from each of the three organizations providing these scores - Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. You are - in many states - entitled to a free copy of your credit report from each of these organizations annually. This copy of your credit report will not contain your credit score from that organization. It will, however, contain information that goes into your credit score - the lines of credits on file, any delinquencies reported, etc. If you decide you would like to pay for your credit score from each bureau, you will have the option to receive this information while getting your credit report, but you will have to pay a nominal fee for it. Remember that each of the 3 bureaus gives you a different score. Averaging your 3 scores should give you a good idea of your FICO score. Note that your report is far more important than your score - once you know that, you know if you're in a good place or not. These other questions are so close that they might even be considered duplicates, and provide other suggestions for how to check your score. As a warning, don't trust the many ads out there saying you can get your score for free. Only AnnualCreditReport is considered a safe place for entering the very personal information required to get a score. The FTC backs this up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "160c33cef70d54dbee73af39f0c42327", "text": "No. I have several that I haven't used in a year or so (legacy of the time when they gave you money to sign up :-)), and credit rating's something over 800 last I checked.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11b39e366f3d2845e53b28c60886fc9e", "text": "\"This question has the [united kingdom] tag, so the information about USA or other law and procedures is probably only of tangential use. Except for understanding that no, this is not something to ignore. It may well indicate someone trying to use your id fraudulently, or some other sort of data-processing foul-up that may adversely impact your credit rating. The first thing I would do is phone the credit card company that sent the letter to inform them that I did not make his application, and ask firmly but politely to speak to their fraud team. I would hope that they would be helpful. It's in their interests as well as yours. (Added later) By the way, do not trust anything written on the letter. It may be a fake letter trying to lure or panic you into some other sort of scam, such as closing your \"\"compromised\"\" bank account and transferring the money in it to the \"\"fraud team\"\" for \"\"safety\"\". (Yes, it sounds stupid, but con-men are experts at what they do, and even finance industry professionals have fallen victim to such scams) So find a telephone number for that credit card company independently, for example Google, and then call that number. If it's the wrong department they'll be able to transfer you internally. If the card company is unhelpful, you have certain legal rights that do not cost much if anything. This credit company is obliged to tell you as an absolute minimum, which credit reference agencies they used when deciding to decline \"\"your\"\" application. Yes, you did not make it, but it was in your name and affected your credit rating. There are three main credit rating agencies, and whether or not the bank used them, I would spend the statutory £2 fee (if necessary) with each of them to obtain your statutory credit report, which basically is all data that they hold about you. They are obliged to correct anything which is inaccurate, and you have an absolute right to attach a note to your file explaining, for example, that you allege entries x,y, and z were fraudulently caused by an unknown third party trying to steal your ID. (They may be factually correct, e.g. \"\"Credit search on \"\", so it's possible that you cannot have them removed, and it may not be in your interests to have them removed, but you certainly want them flagged as unauthorized). If you think the fraudster may be known to you, you can also use the Data Protection Act on the company which write to you, requiring them to send you a copy of all data allegedly concerning yourself which it holds. AFAIR this costs £10. In particular you will require sight of the application and signature, if it was made on paper, and the IP address details, if it was made electronically, as well as all the data content and subsequent communications. You may recognise the handwriting, but even if not, you then have documentary evidence that it is not yours. As for the IP address, you can deduce the internet service provider and then use the Data Protection act on them. They may decline to give any details if the fraudster used his own credentials, in which case again you have documentary evidence that it was not you ... and something to give the police and bank fraud investigators if they get interested. I suspect they won't be very interested, if all you uncover is fraudulent applications that were declined. However, you may uncover a successful fraud, i.e. a live card in your name being used by a criminal, or a store or phone credit agreement. In which case obviously get in touch with that company a.s.a.p. to get it shut down and to get the authorities involved in dealing with the crime. In general, write down everything you are told, including phone contact names, and keep it. Confirm anything that you have agreed in writing, and keep copies of the letters you write and of course, the replies you receive. You shouldn't need any lawyer. The UK credit law puts the onus very much on the credit card company to prove that you owe it money, and if a random stranger has stolen your id, it won't be able to do that. In fact, it's most unlikely that it will even try, unless you have a criminal record or a record of financial delinquency. But it may be an awful lot of aggravation for years to come, if somebody has successfully stolen your ID. So even if the first lot of credit reference agency print-outs look \"\"clean\"\", check again in about six weeks time and yet again in maybe 3 months. Finally there is a scheme that you can join if you have been a victim of ID theft. I've forgotten its name but you will probably be told about it. Baically, your credit reference files will be tagged at your request with a requirement for extra precautions to be taken. This should not affect your credit rating but might make obtaining credit more hassle (for example, requests for additional ID before your account is opened after the approval process). Oh, and post a letter to yourself pdq. It's not unknown for fraudsters to persuade the Post Office to redirect all your mail to their address!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c96a10c6eee402bcb40dbc20e9facc5", "text": "Unless stated otherwise, these terms apply to all bonds. The par value or face value of a bond refers to the value of the bond when it's redeemed at maturity. A bond with a par value of $10,000 simply means that if you purchase the bond and hold it until the maturity date specified in the contract, you receive $10,000. The purchase price, however, is exactly that: it's what you paid for the bond. Bonds may sell below, at, or above par. Continuing the example from above, if you paid $9,800 for a bought a bond with a $10,000 par value, you bought the bond below par. A bond selling below par is said to be selling at a discount. For bonds selling above bar, they're selling at a premium. If the purchase price and the par value are the same, the bond is selling at par. These terms apply to callable bonds only, which are bond contracts that allow the issuer of the bond (in the case of municipal bonds, the institution or agency who created the contract) to buy back from bond holders at a given date (the call date) and at a given price (the call price) before the bond reaches maturity and pays the holder the full par value. Yes, the coupon rate is essentially the interest paid. It's usually represented as a percent of the par value, so if the $10,000 in the example above had a 5% coupon rate, this means that it paid out 0.05 * 10,000 = $500 each year. Usually, this payment is made as two semi-annual payments of $250. Some bonds are zero-coupon bonds, which means exactly what you would think; they don't make any coupon payments. U.S. Treasury Bills are one example of a zero-coupon bond. All of these factors are linked, because the coupon rate, callable provisions, and par value, along with the overall economic environment, can affect the purchase price of a bond.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4918534ff779f1f19ed9ab1e18c78017", "text": "\"I read an account of why the U.K. didn't end up with the euro as its currency in David M. Smick's great book The World Is Curved: Hidden Dangers to the Global Economy. Chapter 6 of the book is titled \"\"Nothing Stays the Same: The 1992 Sterling Crisis.\"\" Here's a very brief excerpt; emphasis mine: [...] As this story shows, such blindness to the realities of a changing world can be very dangerous. In this case, the result was the brutal collapse of the British pound, which explains why the British people still use their own currency, the pound or sterling, and not the euro. The events that unfolded in the autumn of 1992 were totally unforeseen, yet they reshaped the European monetary world and represent a phenomenon that continues to impact global economies. [...] Smick's account of the events around 1992 runs about 28 pages. Here's my version, in a nutshell: At the time, Britain was part of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, or ERM. The belief in Europe was that by uniting currencies under a common mechanism, Europe could gain influence in international financial policy largely dominated by the United States. The ERM was a precursor to monetary union. The Maastricht Treaty would eventually create the European Union and the euro. Britain joined the ERM later than other nations, in 1990, and after some controversy. Being part of the ERM required member nations to agree to expand and contract their currencies only within certain agreed upon limits called currency bands. Due to the way this had been structured, Germany's strong position placed it at the top of the system. At some point in 1992, Germany had raised interest rates to curb future inflation. However, Britain wanted Germany to cut rates – Britain was not in as enviable a position, economically speaking, and its currency was under pressure. The currency band system would put Britain in a tighter spot with Germany raising rates. Enter George Soros, the Hungarian billionaire, a.k.a. \"\"the man who broke the Bank of England.\"\" Soros took a huge short position against the Sterling. He believed the Sterling was overvalued relative to the German deutsche mark, and Britain would be forced to devalue its currency and realign with respect to the ERM. Other traders followed and also sold the Sterling short. With much pressure on the currency, the Bank of England had to buy up Sterling in order to maintain its agreement under the ERM. Of course, they needed to borrow other currencies to do this. Soon the BoE was in over its head defending the Sterling, realizing the exchange rate it needed to maintain under the ERM simply wasn't sustainable. Britain was forced to withdraw from the ERM on Black Wednesday, September 16th, 1992. And so, Britain does not use the euro today – and any talk of doing so is politically controversial. Therefore I wouldn't bet on Britain adopting the euro any time soon – too many of the players are still in politics and remember 1992 well. I think if Britain adopting the euro is ever to happen, it will be when the memory of 1992 has faded away. BTW, George Soros made off with more than US$1 billion. Soros is a very smart guy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17b51bc610cbce0f58d07b01916d0533", "text": "Not anytime soon, I suspect, but not necessarily for financial reasons. I found this interesting, including the link to the five tests, but I think that this topic is only partially judged through financial eyes, there's a lot of political issues around this with national identity/immigration issues already in the spot light as well as political aspirations. If there will be a call in the near future to join the Euro, how would that reflect on the financial industry in the UK from a PR perspective? and on the political leadership and how it managed the financial crisis? I believe that it is in the interest of all the people in the high positions to show the country getting back on track rather than making ground shaking moves. But what do I know....:-)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef80263b369e51a638758552741f4eed", "text": "When economies are strong, it is particularly alluring to have a single currency as it makes trade and tourism simpler and helps reduce costs. The problem comes when individual member economies get into trouble. Because the Eurozone is a loose grouping of nations, there is no direct equivalent of the US Federal government to coordinate a response, there is instead an odd mixture of National and Central government that makes it harder to get a unified approach to the economy (OK, it's maybe not so different to the US in reality). This lack of flexibility means that some of the key levers of international finance are compromised, for example a weak economy can't float its currency to improve exports. Similarly individual country's interest rates can't be adjusted to balance spending. I suspect the main reason though is political and based on concepts of sovereignty and national pride. The UK does the majority of its trade with the Eurozone, so the pros would possibly outweigh the cons, but the UK as a whole (and some of our papers in particular) have always regarded Europe with suspicion. Most Brits only speak English and find France and Germany a strange and obtuse place. The (almost) common language makes it easier to relate to the US and Canada than our near neighbours. It seems the perception amongst the political establishment is that any attempt to join the Euro is political suicide, while that is the case it is unlikely to happen. Purely from a personal perspective, I'd welcome the Euro except it means a lot of the products I routinely buy would become a lot more expensive if price is 'harmonised'. For an example compare the price of the iPod Touch in the UK (£209.99) to France(€299). The French pay £262 at the current exchange rate, which is close to 25% more. Ouch. See also my question about Canada adopting the US Dollar", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13ec3c8d310d30d31f350c0251af4f40", "text": "I can't see it happening because most of the population seems to be against it, even if their reasoning on the whole is wrong. Theoretically, people are against the Euro here as a result of national pride. If it's the best thing to do for the good of the country then national pride shouldn't be taken into account. It'd be perverse in the sense that you'd be stopping your country from progressing because you love it. That doesn't add up. Personally, I don't think it's possible for an entire continent to have a single currency. There's too many different countries and cultures involved. For it to work you'd have to have centralised fiscal policy and this makes no sense at all for a continent. What works here might not work in France or Germany. What works in Greece might not work here. etc, etc. The make up of each country's economies is different.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95ce912acd7a4989895d064ae70790be", "text": "A lot of smaller (and/or weaker) countries did not have much choice when Germany and France decided to rename the German Mark as the Euro, as most of their trade was already in Marks. It was even common for their population to have their savings in Marks. So the question was. Do we wish to have to use the Euro with or without a seat on the board? It was a no brainer for them at the time... The UK has a lot of trade with the USA and other countries outside of the Euro zone, so we are unlikely to have to join the Euro. So in the end it comes down to this point - if the British voters trust a UK government they elected more or less than an EEC government mostly elected by people in the other EEC countries. I don’t think the UK will be joining the Euro anytime soon, but everything can (and will) change with the passage of time. (After all the USA used to be part of the pound trading zone and please can you pay us all the back dated tax you stop paying after a little tea party!) Update: Given what has just happen to Grease and Spain and the Conservative Party has the most seats in the UK parliament, I don’t think the UK will not be joining the Euro for the next 5 years at least", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6cc7e456751c9ae6e555519de100de88", "text": "In many countries in Europe the prices shot through the roof, so it is not all positive. Also the switching country gives out lot of monetary control that is not welcomed by many. I think that UK is not going to change to euro for a long long time.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2c73a1a0bd1d304831e47d5f9a7718ca", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-economy/uk-stuck-in-slow-growth-gear-boe-on-course-to-raise-rates-idUSKBN1CF1F1) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; LONDON - Britain&amp;#039;s Brexit-bound economy remains stuck in a low gear but is probably not weak enough to dissuade the Bank of England from raising interest rates next month, economic data showed. &gt; The BoE said last month that most of its policymakers thought it was likely that they would need to raise rates for the first time in a decade in the coming months. &gt; The BoE believes last year&amp;#039;s Brexit vote will create more inflation pressure by dampening business investment and slowing migration to Britain. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/75iaad/uk_stuck_in_slow_growth_gear_boe_on_course_to/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~225637 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Britain**^#1 **month**^#2 **economy**^#3 **data**^#4 **year**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "324db0b73ebde0b9908675aaec81ed4f", "text": "I'm travelling to the US soon and will transfer to a US $ account from either an € account or £ account. My dad recommends transferring € because it's strong at the moment compared to previously. The £ is weak compared to what it was, but still stronger than €. Which is the best option at the moment?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "031f7677868338ead3397e82547dabd7", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-sterling-idUSKBN1AR0M9) reduced by 75%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; LONDON - Sterling fell to a fresh 10-month low against the euro on Friday as investors added bearish bets against the British currency on concerns the economy may be struggling to gain momentum. &gt; Sterling fell 0.2 percent to 90.92 pence against the euro, its lowest level since October 2016. &gt; It has fallen for two consecutive weeks and has weakened nearly 9 percent against the euro since early May. Morgan Stanley strategists are predicting euro parity with the pound in the first quarter of 2018. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6thf3f/british_pound_further_down/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~190040 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **against**^#1 **since**^#2 **Sterling**^#3 **week**^#4 **euro**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7228ac919920c2b403555de25be31a4", "text": "If you are really worried your best bet is to move all your cash from Sterling into a foreign currency that you think will be resilient should Brexit occur. I would avoid the Euro! You could look at the US Dollar perhaps, make sure you are aware of the charges for moving the money over and back again, as you will at some stage probably want to get back into Sterling once it settles down, if it does indeed fall. Based on my experience on the stock markets (I am not a currency trader) I would expect the pound to fall fairly sharply on a vote for Brexit and the Euro to do the same. Both would probably rebound quite quickly too as even if there is a Brexit vote it doesn't mean the UK Government will honour the outcome or take the steps quickly. ** I AM NOT A FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND HAVE NO QUALIFICATIONS AS SUCH **", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f07f11ef961fba7897da39b6b1e87f3e", "text": "The interpretation is correct. The Reuters may give you the London 4PM rates if you query after the close for the day. The close rate is treated as the rate. http://uk.reuters.com/business/currencies/quote?srcAmt=1&srcCurr=GBP&destAmt=&destCurr=USD The London 4PM rate may be obtained from Bank of England at the link below; http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/mfsd/iadb/index.asp?Travel=NIxSTxTIx&levels=1&XNotes=Y&XNotes2=Y&Nodes=X3790X3791X3873X33940&SectionRequired=I&HideNums=-1&ExtraInfo=false&A3836XBMX3790X3791.x=4&A3836XBMX3790X3791.y=3 Or any other Bank that provides such data", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24f047182185523c6a864864bc1ebf1f", "text": "I personally don't agree with a currency union. I'd rather follow Ireland's example when they gained independence and created the Irish Pound and peg it to Sterling, which they did for over 70 years before transitioning to the Euro. There isn't any debt to reject or default on.The UK treasury has already assured the debt market that it's 100% responsible for it. Scotland has no responsibility for taking on any debt, but might/will in response to negotiations and in return for something. Debt markets will be far more receptive of a country which has 0 government debt. We're not talking South Sudan or a tin pot south american country, we're talking about a mature northern european democratic state. I should also note, that oil is a bonus, but not a required export. With oil, Scotland has higher revenue per person than the entire UK, but if it disappeared tomorrow, we're only slightly below the UK average. [Institute for financial studies.](http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6881)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b36c234151124c34fb9189a4356e13d3", "text": "Either way you'll be converting to US Dollars somewhere along the line. You are seeking something that is very redundant", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5ad8f7505f1e6b36d1f04037c3d7275", "text": "22 June 2016 would have been the time to do this. Nobody on here can tell you what GBP/EUR will do in the next few months and years now. Brexit is going to happen, which implies lower UK growth and consequently a lower path for GBP interest rates, but this is all already priced in. If you believe the UK economy will underperform current forecasts and/or the euro-area economy will outperform current forecasts, that may imply there's scope for further GBP depreciation. If you believe the probability of a further political shock from a 'no deal' Brexit is materially higher than the market thinks, the same is true. But the opposite of these things could happen also. I would worry less about playing the currency markets as a retail investor and more about what currency your outgoings are denominated in. You live in Spain. Do you have significant GBP expenses or liabilities, or do you expect to have them in the future? If not, why are you taking currency risk by holding GBP balances? Whereas if you do - e.g. if you plan to move (back?) to the UK in the near future - then it makes more sense.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef460d634d8c9cabb476c9eb30f28f93", "text": "A Yen is like a penny. Buy a chocolate bar 100¥ or £1.00. Should the UK get rid of pennies and only price things to the pound?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0917358d7171dfb49f861e4ea004f0e4", "text": "GBP is widely traded currency and it is definitely possible to send GBP internationally with out any conversion. Of late banks are trying to maximize the FX and if they see a Euro country the sending bank assumes the beneficiary account is in Euro and converts to get FX spread than letting the beneficiary bank decide. Keep complaining to your bank and then the sending bank will put your account in exception and not convert next payments", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e651432466f0d37eb0787dcba0048ec2", "text": "There is (at least) one service that allows you to convert USD, GBP and EUR at the interbank spot rate, and make purchases using a prepaid MasterCard in many more currencies (also at the interbank rate). They currently don't charge any fees (as of September 2015). You could use your US prepaid card to fund your account with Revolut and then spend them in your local currency (HRK?) without fees (you can check the current USD/HRK rate with their currency calculator); you can also withdraw to non-EUR SEPA-enabled bank accounts, but then your bank would charge you for the necessary currency conversion (both by fees and their exchange rate). If you have a bank account in EUR, you could alternatively convert your USD balance to EUR and then withdraw that to your EUR bank account. If your US prepaid card has a corresponding bank account which can be used for ACH direct debit or domestic wire transfers (ask the issuer if you are unsure), TransferWise or a similar service might also be an option; they allow you to fund a transaction using one of those methods and then credit an account in", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbf4a5de9f84ac8dfd484389fa250ed0", "text": "\"Currently, there is simply no reason to do so. It's not a problem. It is no more of a problem or effort to denote \"\"5,000\"\" than it is to denote \"\"50.00\"\". But if there were a reason to do so, it wouldn't be all that difficult. Of course there would be some minor complications because some people (mostly old people presumably) would take time getting used to it, but nothing that would stop a nation from doing so. In Iceland, this has happened on several occasions in the past and while Iceland is indeed a very small economy, it shouldn't be that difficult at all for a larger one. A country would need a grace period while the old currency is still valid, new editions of already circulating cash would need to be produced, and a coordinated time would need to be set, at which point financial institutions change their balances. Of course it would take some planning and coordination, but nothing close to for example unifying two or more currencies into one, like the did with the euro. The biggest side-effect there was an inflation shot when the currencies got changed in each country, but this can be done even with giant economies like Germany and France. Cutting off two zeros would be a cakewalk in comparison. But in case of currencies like the Japanese Yen, there is simply no reason to take off 2 zeros yet. Northern-Americans may find it strange that the numbers are so high, but that's merely a matter of what you're used to. There is no added complication in paying 5.000 vs. 50 at a restaurant, it merely takes more space on a computer screen and bill, and that's not a real problem. Besides, most of the time, even in N-America, the cents are listed as well, and that doesn't seem to be enough of a problem for people to concern themselves with. It's only when you get into hyper-inflation when the shear space required for denoting prices becomes a problem, that economies have a real reason to cut off zeros.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e61919cc2567f96df4868a9c4de17281", "text": "At any instant, three currencies will have exchange rates so if I know the rate between A and B, and B to C, the A to C rate is easily calculated. You need X pounds, so at that moment, you are subject to the exchange rate right then. It's not a deal or bargain, although it may look better in hindsight if the currencies move after some time has passed. But if a currency is going to depreciate, and you have the foresight to know such things, you'd already be wealthy and not visiting here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73f0f5884654654b0658b3caef2f0620", "text": "You will most likely not be able to avoid some form of format conversion, regardless of which data you use since there is, afaik, no standard for this data and everyone exports it differently. One viable option would be, like you said yourself, using the free data provided by Dukascopy. Please take into consideration that those are spot currency rates and will most likely not represent the rate at which physical and business-related exchange would have happened at this time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94d2490c97d88ed2dc63b9efb26711fb", "text": "\"You are right, if by \"\"a lot of time\"\" you mean a lot of occasions lasting a few milliseconds each. This is one of the oldest arbitrages in the book, and there's plenty of people constantly on the lookout for such situations, hence they are rare and don't last very long. Most of the time the relationship is satisfied to within the accuracy set by the bid-ask spread. What you write as an equality should actually be a set of inequalities. Continuing with your example, suppose 1 GBP ~ 2 USD, where the market price to buy GBP (the offer) is $2.01 and to sell GBP (the bid) is $1.99. Suppose further that 1 USD ~ 2 EUR, and the market price to buy USD is EUR2.01 and to sell USD is EUR1.99. Then converting your GBP to EUR in this way requires selling for USD (receive $1.99), then sell the USD for EUR (receive EUR3.9601). Going the other way, converting EUR to GBP, it will cost you EUR4.0401 to buy 1 GBP. Hence, so long as the posted prices for direct conversion are within these bounds, there is no arbitrage.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5ed06b4b485a29dc989f8c087d98d527", "text": "The total size of the eurozone economy is $13 trillion, whereas Switzerland'd GDP is about $0.5 trillion, so the eurozone is about 26 times larger. As such, I would not expect this move to have a large effect on the eurozone economy. On the margins, this may decrease somewhat eurozone exports to Switzerland and increase imports from Switzerland, so this would be a slight negative for eurozone growth. Switzerland accounts for 5.2% of the EU's imports, and these imports will now be slightly cheaper, which puts some deflationary pressure on the EU, particularly in the Swiss-specialized industries of chemicals, medicinal products, machinery, instruments and time pieces. But overall, 5.2% is a rather small proportion. Bottom line, most common eurozone countries' people should probably not fret too much about this announcement. What it means for Switzerland and Swiss citizens, however, is a totally different (and much more interesting) question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7577e9124a4a8752111a7e91e5033a0", "text": "The idea behind this move is to avoid or mitigate long-term deflationary pressure and to boost the competitiveness of Swiss exporters. This is primarily a Swiss-based initiative that does not appear likely to have a major impact on the broader Eurozone. However, some pressure will be felt by other currencies as investors look to purchase - ie. this is not a great scenario for other countries wanting to keep their currencies weak. In terms of personal wealth - if you hold Swiss f then you are impacted. However, 1.2 is still very strong (most analysts cite 1.3 as more realistic) so there seems little need for a reaction of any kind at the personal level at this time, although diversity - as ever - is good. It should also be noted that changing the peg is a possibility, and that the 1.3 does seem to be the more realistic level. If you hold large amounts of Swiss f then this might cause you to look at your forex holdings. For the man in the street, probably not an issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4d799f952082cf6768813a8df4b3127", "text": "The Swiss franc has appreciated quite a bit recently against the Euro as the European Central Bank (ECB) continues to print money to buy government bonds issues by Greek, Portugal, Spain and now Italy. Some euro holders have flocked to the Swiss franc in an effort to preserve the savings from the massive Euro money printing. This has increased the value of the Swiss franc. In response, the Swiss National Bank (SNB) has tried to intervene multiple times in the currency market to keep the value of the Swiss franc low. It does this by printing Swiss francs and using the newly printed francs to buy Euros. The SNB interventions have failed to suppress the Swiss franc and its value has continued to rise. The SNB has finally said they will print whatever it takes to maintain a desired peg to the Euro. This had the desired effect of driving down the value of the franc. Which effect will this have long term for the euro zone? It is now clear that all major central bankers are in a currency devaluation war in which they are all trying to outprint each other. The SNB was the last central bank to join the printing party. I think this will lead to major inflation in all currencies as we have not seen the end of money printing. Will this worsen the European financial crisis or is this not an important factor? I'm not sure this will have much affect on the ongoing European crisis since most of the European government debt is in euros. Should this announcement trigger any actions from common European people concerning their wealth? If a European is concerned with preserving their wealth I would think they would begin to start diverting some of their savings into a harder currency. Europeans have experienced rapidly depreciating currencies more than people on any other continent. I would think they would be the most experienced at preserving wealth from central bank shenanigans.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e1efb7090aedbe05bd825078862807e9", "text": "It's not necessary to convert it back for the changes to affect value. Lets say you have a euro account with 1000 euro and a gbp account with 920 gbp (the accounts are equal in value given current exchange rates). You could exchange either account for ~$1180 usd. If you exchange the euro account for USD, and say the euro gets stronger against the pound and dollar (and subsequently the pound and dollar are weaker against the euro); then if you would've kept the 1000 euro it would now be worth more than 920 gbp and more than 1180 usd, and you would've been better off exchanging the gbp account for usd. Barring some cataclysmic economic event; exchange rates between well established currencies don't radically change over a few weeks trip, so I wouldn't really worry about it one way or the other.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5887589fd2f004e5ffadf2a922b01929", "text": "Im creating a 5-year projection on Profit and loss, cash flow and balance sheet and i\\m suppose to use the LIBOR (5 year forward curve) as interest rate on debt. This is the information i am given and it in USD. Thanks for the link. I guess its the USD LIBOR today, in one year, in two years, three years, four years and five years", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a829b0cd8b0cae7deedf77c992b58af3", "text": "It's impossible to determine which event will cause a major shift for a certain currency pair. However, this does not mean that it's not possible to identify events that are important to the overall market sentiment and direction. There are numerous sites that provide a calendar for upcoming and past events and their impact which is most of the time indicated as low, medium and high. Such sites are: Edit: I would like to add to that, that while these are major market movers, you cannot forget that they mainly provide a certain direction for the market but that it's not always clear in which direction the market will go. A recent and prime example of a major event that triggered opposite effects of what you would expect, is the ECB meeting that took place the 3rd of December. Due to the fact that the market already priced in further easing by the ECB the euro strengthened instead of weakening compared to the dollar. This strengthening happened even though the ECB did in fact adjust the deposit by 10 base points to -0.30 % and increased the duration of the QE. Taking above example into consideration it's important to always remember that fundamentals are hard to grasp and that it will take a while to make it a second nature and become truly successful in this line of trading. Lastly, fundamentals are only a part of the complete picture. Don't lose sight of support and resistance levels as well as price action to determine when and how to enter a trade.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3336d6fc35d673959c37b0dcb67d246c", "text": "It's not. If you look at the page you link to and change dates, it's clear the rate changes a bit. 120.15 120.1 per hundred. The Swiss can keep the 1.200 as a target and if it's higher, sell agingst the euro to bring it down, if lower, buy. If the swiss experienced a serious financial crisis and their currency fell, they may not have the power to control it, if the rest of the world said it was worth less, you can be sure it will fall.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3200217e7939b7c9eb0a82e4a1124feb", "text": "Here is the technical guidance from the accounting standard FRS 23 (IAS 21) 'The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates' which states: Exchange differences arising on the settlement of monetary items or on translating monetary items at rates different from those at which they were translated on initial recognition during the period or in previous financial statements shall be recognised in profit or loss in the period in which they arise. An example: You agree to sell a product for $100 to a customer at a certain date. You would record the sale of this product on that date at $100, converted at the current FX rate (lets say £1:$1 for ease) in your profit loss account as £100. The customer then pays you several $100 days later, at which point the FX rate has fallen to £0.5:$1 and you only receive £50. You would then have a realised loss of £50 due to exchange differences, and this is charged to your profit and loss account as a cost. Due to double entry bookkeeping the profit/loss on the FX difference is needed to balance the journals of the transaction. I think there is a little confusion as to what constitutes a (realised) profit/loss on exchange difference. In the example in your question, you are not making any loss when you convert the bitcoins to dollars, as there is no difference in the exchange rate between the point you convert them. Therefore you have not made either a profit or a loss. In terms of how this effects your tax position; you only pay tax on your profit and loss account. The example I give above is an instance where an exchange difference is recorded to the P&L. In your example, the value of your cash held is reflected in your balance sheet, as an asset, whatever its value is at the balance sheet date. Unfortunately, the value of the asset can rise/fall, but the only time where you will record a profit/loss on this (and therefore have an impact on tax) is if you sell the asset.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cef4fa3efefe86f85f703ff4e020704f", "text": "\"If there is a very sudden and large collapse in the exchange rate then because algorithmic trades will operate very fast it is possible to determine “x” immediately after the change in exchange rate. All you need to know is the order book. You also need to assume that the algorithmic bot operates faster than all other market participants so that the order book doesn’t change except for those trades executed by the bot. The temporarily cheaper price in the weakened currency market will rise and the temporarily dearer price in the strengthened currency market will fall until the prices are related by the new exchange rate. This price is determined by the condition that the total volume of buys in the cheaper market is equal to the total volume of sells in the dearer market. Suppose initially gold is worth $1200 on NYSE or £720 on LSE. Then suppose the exchange rate falls from r=0.6 £/$ to s=0.4 £/$. To illustrate the answer lets assume that before the currency collapse the order book for gold on the LSE and NYSE looks like: GOLD-NYSE Sell (100 @ $1310) Sell (100 @ $1300) <——— Sell (100 @ $1280) Sell (200 @ $1260) Sell (300 @ $1220) Sell (100 @ $1200) ————————— buy (100 @ $1190) buy (100 @ $1180) GOLD-LSE Sell (100 @ £750) Sell (100 @ £740) ————————— buy (200 @ £720) buy (200 @ £700) buy (100 @ £600) buy (100 @ £550) buy (100 @ £530) buy (100 @ £520) <——— buy (100 @ £500) From this hypothetical example, the automatic traders will buy up the NYSE gold and sell the LSE gold in equal volume until the price ratio \"\"s\"\" is attained. By summing up the sell volumes on the NYSE and the buy volumes on the LSE, we see that the conditions are met when the price is $1300 and £520. Note 800 units were bought and sold. So “x” depends on the available orders in the order book. Immediately after this, however, the price of the asset will be subject to the new changes of preference by the market participants. However, the price calculated above must be the initial price, since otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "634ae536b1c98d917d05eebcab734301", "text": "Operation twist is just an asset swap. The balance sheet isn't being expanded, money isn't being printed to buy treasuries. The fed is just selling short term assets and buying longer term assets. If more longer term treasuries are bought this brings the yield down (for bonds the more you buy them, the lower the yield goes). Lower long term interest rates means people can borrow at low rates and this is supposed help the economy. No printing of money means that gold doesn't get more precious. I do think gold will do well though, if the ECB wants to save the EU they're going to have to print, and print a lot. The Bank of England is doing some QE too. Lots of countries will be/ are easing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12b36b072e86700840072c0c1575631c", "text": "Well, you could just deposit the Euros in your French bank. In the US, you'll have to deal with foreign exchange services, unless you're talking large amounts for banks to want to handle (they'll handle small amounts too, of course, but not without a significant fee). Best thing I can think of is keeping them in a drawer with your passport. You'll use them on your next flight. Being French national, you're undoubtedly bound to visit the Euro zone again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d87984f8fd0b68c76fb7161190f20fd", "text": "\"The risk is that greece defaults on it's debts and the rest of the eurozone chose to punish it by kicking it out of the Eurozone and cutting off it's banks from ECB funds. Since the greek government and banks are already in pretty dire straits this would leave greece with little choice but to forciblly convert deposits in those banks to a \"\"new drachma\"\". The exchange rate used for the forced conversions would almost certainly be unfavorable compared to market rates soon after the conversion. There would likely be capital controls to prevent people pulling their money out in the runup to the forced conversion. While I guess they could theoretically perform the forced conversion only on Euro deposits this seems politically unlikely to me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a49a74eb5a5c0016c80d3cba33b34eb", "text": "The real, short-term effect is that prices will go up a bit, have no effect on the amount of actual travel, and the government(s) that impose this tax will rake in more money to waste. This is what the governments actually want, but CO2 emissions is a good way to sell it. The long-term effect is that people will be just a bit more, on the margin, likely to avoid interacting with the European economy, which sucks for everyone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a3a4bfb1af5d188ee9d565c1c846036", "text": "\"There's an ideological/psychological aspect of this too apart from the practical problems. Eurozone leaders keep saying the mantra: conversion to the euro is \"\"irreversible\"\". There are analogies of this in recent history, it reminds me of the soviet leaders and their belief that communism is where history ends. They genuinely thought that once a communist system is built up in a country, it would stay forever. They believed in the superiority of their system, among other things this lead to the isolation of the Soviet Union from the West and the start of the Cold War. Then, in 1956 they were proven wrong with the Hungarian revolution and while they tried to \"\"clean up\"\" the situation as fast as they could and forget about it, their downhill inevitably started. Back to the present, you can easily see the importance of keeping Greece in the EZ. If Greece exits, the illusion of the irreversibility of the Euro is gone, and it would start to fall apart.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "381ec914798b6e7bd9ca5a71455574e1", "text": "Their biggest problem is that their main industry is shipping. Anything they could do to their currency wouldn't help the shipping industry at all. They can't even raise taxes, they aren't the only convenience flag in the world and ships are obviously very easy to move out. The only industry they have that could get any benefit from a devaluation would be tourism, but that would be mostly negated by moving out of the euro.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78c84c5efcb07192d4a37d43f50b678c", "text": "I think the point is that m2 is 13.7 trillion usd, the Swiss investment is not even *half* a percent. The us equities marker valuation is larger at 22.5 trillion USD. Dumping an extra 100 bil usd is too little to do anything. Even dumping a trillion USD is a relatively small number.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ea314b3dbeec651d17d4d45e178c4b9", "text": "Balanced out might be a better way to put it. Imports become cheaper, driving down inflation, which should permit companies to operate at a lower cost, which should eventually work to limit or eliminate the impact of the shift. These balancing factors generally occur in the long term and specific sectors of the economy will be impacted to different degrees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9584a6f6554b2d2367ec417532961f0", "text": "e.g. a European company has to pay 1 million USD exactly one year from now While that is theoretically possible, that is not a very common case. Mostly likely if they had to make a 1 million USD payment a year from now and they had the cash on hand they would be able to just make the payment today. A more common scenario for currency forwards is for investment hedging. Say that European company wants to buy into a mutual fund of some sort, say FUSEX. That is a USD based mutual fund. You can't buy into it directly with Euros. So if the company wants to buy into the fund they would need to convert their Euros to to USD. But now they have an extra risk parameter. They are not just exposed to the fluctuations of the fund, they are also exposed to the fluctuations of the currency market. Perhaps that fund will make a killing, but the exchange rate will tank and they will lose all their gains. By creating a forward to hedge their currency exposure risk they do not face this risk (flip side: if the exchange rate rises in a favorable rate they also don't get that benefit, unless they use an FX Option, but that is generally more expensive and complicated).", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "20e4a5eb388c4491e671bc71b905befc", "text": "\"What EU wanted to force Cyprus to do is to break the insurance contract the government has with the bank depositors. The parliament rightfully refused, and it didn't pass. In the EU, and Cyprus as part of it, all bank deposits are insured up to 100,000EUR by the government. This is similar to the US FDIC insurance. Thus, requiring the \"\"small\"\" (up to 100K) depositors to participate in the bank reorganization means that the government breaks its word to people, and effectively defaults. That is exactly what the Cyprus government wanted to avoid, the default, so I can't understand why the idea even came up. Depositors of more than 100k are not guaranteed against bank failures, and indeed - in Cyprus these depositors will get \"\"haircuts\"\". But before them, first come shareholders and bondholders who would be completely wiped out. Thus, first and foremost, those who failed (the bank owners) will be the first to pay the price. However, governments can default. This happened in many places, for example in Russia in the 90's, in Argentina in 2000's (and in fact numerous times during the last century), the US in the 1930's, and many other examples - you can see a list in Wikipedia. When government defaults on its debts, it will not pay some or all of them, and its currency may also be devaluated. For example, in Russia in 1998 the currency lost 70% of its value against the USD within months, and much of the cash at hands of the public became worthless overnight. In the US in 1933 the President issued an executive order forbidding private citizens keeping gold and silver bullions and coins, which resulted in dollar devaluation by about 30% and investors in precious metals losing large amounts of money. The executive order requiring surrender of the Treasury gold certificates is in fact the government's failure to pay on these obligations. While the US or Russia control their own currency, European countries don't and cannot devaluate the currency as they wish in order to ease their debts. Thus in Euro-zone the devaluation solutions taken by Russia and the US are not possible. Cyprus cannot devaluate its currency, and even if it could - its external debt would not likely to be denominated in it (actually, Russian debt isn't denominated in Rubles, that's why they forced restructuring of their own debt, but devaluating the currency helped raising the money from the citizens similarly to the US seizing the gold in 1930's). Thus, in case of Cyprus or other Euro-zone countries, direct taxes is the only way to raise money from the citizens. So if you're in a country that controls its own currency (such as the US, Russia, Argentina, etc) and especially if the debt is denominated in that currency (mainly the US) - you should be worried more of inflation than taxes. But if you're in the Euro-zone and your country is in troubles (which is almost any country in the zone) - you can expect taxes. How to avoid that? Deal with your elected officials and have them fix your economy, but know that you can't just \"\"erase\"\" the debt through inflation as the Americans can (and will), someone will have to pay.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93bd1971ca0c84f2a6edc1cea926be7d", "text": "Don't worry. The Cyprus situation could only occur because those banks were paying interest rates well above EU market rates, and the government did not tax them at all. Even the one-time 6.75% tax discussed is comparable to e.g. Germany and the Netherlands, if you average over the last 5 years. The simple solution is to just spread your money over multiple banks, with assets at each bank staying below EUR 100.000. There are more than 100 banks large enough that they'll come under ECB supervision this year; you'd be able to squirrel away over 10 million there. (Each branch of the Dutch Rabobank is insured individually, so you could even save 14 million there alone, and they're collectively AAA-rated.) Additionally, those savings will then be backed by more than 10 governments, many of which are still AAA-rated. Once you have to worry about those limits, you should really talk to an independent advisor. Investing in AAA government bonds is also pretty safe. The examples given by littleadv all involve known risky bonds. E.g. Argentina was on a credit watch, and paying 16% interest rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aface92198df28c3d0d1148bbc9a3571", "text": "Over the last few years I've read quite a bit about monetary history. I've developed two very important rules from this study: If you follow these two rules you will be able to weather almost any governmental or banking crisis.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "eb0aaf07385a614da2199677cdbf2c77", "text": "Look into the Coverdell Education Savings Account (ESA). This is like a Roth IRA for higher education expenses. Withdrawals are tax free when used for qualified expenses. Contributions are capped at $2000/year per beneficiary (not per account) so it works well for young kids, and not so well for kids about to go to College. This program (like all tax law) are prone to changes due to action (or inaction) in the US Congress. Currently, some of the benefits are set to sunset in 2010 though they are expected to be renewed in some form by Congress this year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29079941bcf673433726120d468485ea", "text": "If you have multiple accounts, you have to empty them all before you can deduct any losses. Your loss is not a capital loss, its a deduction. It is calculated based on the total amount you have withdrawn from all your Roth IRA's, minus the total basis. It will be subject to the 2% AGI treshhold (i.e.: if your AGI is > 100K, none of it is deductible, and you have to itemize to get it). Bottom line - think twice. Summarizing the discussion in comments: If you have a very low AGI, I would guess that your tax liability is pretty low as well. Even if you deduct the whole $2K, and all of it is above the other deductions you have (which in turn is above the standard deduction of almost $6K), you save say $300 if you're in 15% tax bracket. That's the most savings you have. However I'm assuming something here: I'm assuming that you're itemizing your deductions already and they're above the standard deduction. This is very unlikely, with such a low income. You don't have state taxes to deduct, you probably don't spend a lot to deduct sales taxes, and I would argue that with the low AGI you probably don't own property, and if you do - you don't have a mortgage with a significant interest on it. You can be in 15% bracket with AGI between (roughly) $8K and $35K, i.e.: you cannot deduct between $160 and $750 of the $2K, so it's already less than the maximum $300. If your AGI is $8K, the deduction doesn't matter, EIC might cover all of your taxes anyway. If your AGI is $30K, you can deduct only $1400, so if you're in the 15% bracket - you saved $210. That, again, assuming it's above your other deductions, which in turn are already above the standard deduction. Highly unlikely. As I said in the comments - I do not think you can realistically save on taxes because of this loss in such a manner.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a9e5e503ff2d51c31561721478e15c2", "text": "You can't max out your retirement savings. There are vehicles that aren't tax-advantaged that you can fund after you've exhausted the tax-advantaged ones. Consider how much you want to put into these vehicles. There are disadvantages as well as advantages. The rules on these can change at any time and can make it harder for you to get your money out. How's your liquid (cash) emergency fund? It sounds like you're in a position to amass a good one. Don't miss this opportunity. Save like crazy while you can. Kids make this harder. Paying down your mortgage will save you interest, of course, but make sure you're not cash-poor as a result. If something happens to your income(s), the bank will still foreclose on you even if you only owe $15,000. A cash cushion buys you time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "132ecb257ac4664dc0b3037828419962", "text": "You should definitely favor holding bonds in tax-advantaged accounts, because bonds are not tax-efficient. The reason is that more of their value comes in the form of regular, periodic distributions, rather than an increase in value as is the case with stocks or stock funds. With stocks, you can choose to realize all that appreciation when it is most advantageous for you from a tax perspective. Additionally, stock dividends often receive lower tax rates. For much more detail, see Tax-efficient fund placement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a827f57147977cbd2526a8de675299a", "text": "If your regular withholding is not enough to cover your tax due, then you can withhold extra taxes to avoid owing anything the following April 15. Alternatively, you may make estimated tax payments to avoid owing anything the following year. Some taxpayers will be required to make estimated payments, typically when the tax due will be sufficiently larger than the amount of withholding. If your husband says that you owed $5,000 in April, then he wants you both to withhold $2,500 for the entire year. If all your income is shared, then that makes sense. But if your income is not entirely shared and your personal luxury expenses come from your income, then this sounds a little unfair (you are paying some of the tax on his income). If you don't share 100% of your income, then he should withhold more extra than you do (something more like $2,700 for him and $2,300 for you, depending on the details). If you share everything, then all the income and all the taxes are shared so the individual accounting matters little. Yes, if you overpay taxes, you may get a refund. Do not do this, that's just an interest-free loan to the government. Instead, put the extra money into a savings account of your choice and withdraw it whenever you want.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95e90433ef39fdd56ddc0a47483bb000", "text": "Keep in mind that chasing after tax savings tends to not be a good way of saving money. What is a good strategy? Making sure that you take all the deductions you are entitled to. What is a bad strategy: You asked for a book recommendation. The problem is that I don't know of any books that cover all these topics. Also keep in mind that all books, blogs, articles, and yes answers to questions have a bias. Sometimes the bias can be ignored, other times it can't. Just keep looking for information on this site, and ask good specific questions about these topics.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c60dde0bae237546b457df7b10b7b21c", "text": "Ditto @MichaelBorgwardt Just to get concrete: I just checked one bank in India and they say they are paying 4% on savings accounts. I don't know what you're getting or if 4% is typical in India, but it's at least an example. So if the bank pays interest based on average daily balance, and you left the money in the bank for a week, you'd get 4%/52 = .077%. So on Rs 95,000 that would be Rs 73. I live in the US where typical interest on a savings account today is about 1%. So an equivalent amount of money -- I think that would be about $1,500 -- would get 1/52 of 1%, or 29 cents. Don't leave the lights turned on while you do the calculations -- you'll spend more on the electricity than you make on the interest. :-) ** Addendum ** This suddenly reminds me ... I read a news story a few years ago about a man who was expecting a tax refund check from the IRS of a few hundred dollars, and when the check arrived it was for several million. Well obviously it was a mistake. But he came up with the clever idea: Deposit the check in an interest-bearing account. Promptly contact the IRS, inform them of the mistake, and ask how and where to go about returning the money. Hope that it takes at least a few days for them to figure everything out. Then keep the interest accumulated on the several-million dollars for the time that he had the money. And as he contacted them immediately about the error, they can't say he was trying to hide anything. It was a nice try, but it didn't work. They demanded he send them the interest as well as the principle.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "068bed5880ce9e76d2f629508242671d", "text": "You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ed949c726920255e6c945d8db1f3e72", "text": "\"Your #1 problem is the Government both in it's form as a taxation outfit and as a 'law and order' outfit. You'd be very surprised at how fast a bank seizes your bank account in response to a court order. Purchase 100 Mexican 50 Peso Gold (1.2 oz/ea). These coins are cheap (lowest cost to get into) and will not be reportable on sale to taxing authorities. That money is out of the banking system and legal system(s). Do not store them in a bank! You need to find a tax strategist, probably a former IRS agent / CPA type. With the rest remaining money... There's an old saying, Don't fight the Fed. As well as \"\"The trend is your friend\"\". So, the Fed wants all savers fully invested right now (near 0 interest rates). When investing, I find that if you do exactly opposite what you think is the smart thing, that's the best thing. Therefore, it follows: 1) Don't fight the Fed 2) Do opposite of smart 3) Do: Fight the Fed (and stay 100% out of the market and in cash) We're looking like Japan so could remain deflationary for decades to come. Cash is king...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "085e2dffab276a036853dd071ebe34cc", "text": "\"Offset against taxable gains means that the amount - $25 million in this case - can be used to reduce another sum that the company would otherwise have to pay tax on. Suppose the company had made a profit of $100 million on some other investments. At some point, they are likely to have to pay corporation tax on that amount before being able to distribute it as a cash dividend to shareholders. However if they can offset the $25 million, then they will only have to pay tax on $75 million. This is quite normal as you usually only pay tax on the aggregate of your gains and losses. If corporation tax is about 32% that would explain the claimed saving of approximately $8 million. It sounds like the Plaintiffs want the stock to be sold on the market to get that tax saving. Presumably they believe that distributing it directly would not have the same effect because of the way the tax rules work. I don't know if the Plaintiffs are right or not, but if they are the difference would probably come about due to the stock being treated as a \"\"realized loss\"\" in the case where they sell it but not in the case where they distribute it. It's also possible - though this is all very speculative - that if the loss isn't realised when they distribute it directly, then the \"\"cost basis\"\" of the shareholders would be the price the company originally paid for the stock, rather than the value at the time they receive it. That in turn could mean a tax advantage for the shareholders.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "671a7c03188d20ca748faab01b5e0b28", "text": "Asset protection is broad subject. In your examples it is certainly possible to have accounts that exist undisclosed from a spouse and legally inaccessible by said spouse. In the US, balances in 401k retirement accounts are exempt from forfeitures in bankruptcy. The only trick to secret stashes is that it involves you having any wealth in the first place, that you don't need to access. It is more worth it, for most people, to use all of their access to wealth to get out of debt, earn claims to property, and save for retirement. This takes up all of their earnings, making hidden wealth of any significant portion to be an impractical pipe dream. But with trust laws, corporate laws, and marriage property laws being different in practically every jurisdiction, there is plenty of flexibility to construct the form of your secret wealth. Cryptocurrency makes it much easier, at the expense of net asset value volatility.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9261b5cc8faec072e234aace913f48c3", "text": "@BlackJack does a good answer of addressing the gains and when you are taxed on them and at what kind of rate. Money held in a brokerage account will usually be in a money-market fund, so you would own taxes on the interest it earned. There is one important consideration that must be understood for capitol Losses. This is called the Wash Sale Rule. This rule comes into affect if you sell a stock at a LOSS, and buy shares of the same stock within 30 days (before or after) the sale. A common tactic used to minimize taxes paid is to 'capture losses' when they occur, since these can be used to offset gains and lower your taxes. This is normally done by selling a stock in which you have a LOSS, and then either buying another similar stock, or waiting and buying back the stock you sold. However, if you are intending to buy back the same stock, you must not 'trigger' the Wash Sale Rule or you are forbidden to take the loss. Examples. Lets presume you own 1000 shares of a stock and it's trading 25% below where you bought it, and you want to capture the loss to use on your taxes. This can be a very important consideration if trading index ETF's if you have a loss in something like a S&P500 ETF, you would likely incur a wash sale if you sold it and bought a different S&P500 ETF from another company since they are effectively the same thing. OTOH, if you sold an S&P500 ETF and bought something like a 'viper''total stock market' ETF it should be different enough to not trigger the wash sale rule. If you are trying to minimize the taxes you pay on stocks, there are basically two rules to follow. 1) When a gain is involved, hold things at least a year before selling, if at all possible. 2) Capture losses when they occur and use to offset gains, but be sure not to trigger the wash sale rule when doing so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17c82c8934c11cba29787c4df49b7d52", "text": "In a comment on this answer you asked It's not clear to me why the ability to defer the gains would matter (since you never materially benefit until you actually sell) but the estate step up in basis is a great point! Could you describe a hypothetical exploitive scenario (utilizing a wash sale) in a little more detail? This sounds like you still have the same question as originally, so I'll take a stab at answering with an example. I sell some security for a $10,000 profit. I then sell another security at a $10,000 loss and immediately rebuy. So pay no taxes (without the rule). Assuming a 15% rate, that's $1500 in savings which I realize immediately. Next year, I sell that same security for a $20,000 profit over the $10,000 loss basis (so a $10,000 profit over my original purchase). I sell and buy another security to pay no taxes. In fact, I pay no taxes like this for fifty years as I live off my investments (and a pension or social security that uses up my tax deductions). Then I die. All my securities step up in basis to their current market value. So I completely evade taxes on $500,000 in profits. That's $75,000 in tax savings to make my heirs richer. And they're already getting at least $500,000 worth of securities. Especially consider the case where I sell a privately held security to a private buyer who then sells me back the same shares at the same price. Don't think that $10,000 is enough? Remember that you also get the original value. But this also scales. It could be $100,000 in gains as well, for $750,000 in tax savings over the fifty years. That's at least $5 million of securities. The effective result of this would be to make a 0% tax on capital gains for many rich people. Worse, a poorer person can't do the same thing. You need to have many investments to take advantage of this. If a relatively poor person with two $500 investments tried this, that person would lose all the benefit in trading fees. And of course such a person would run out of investments quickly. Really poor people have $0 in investments, so this is totally impractical.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd6eecc9738b213f4a0e3ccc7411900f", "text": "You have two different operations going on: They each have of a set of rules regarding amounts, timelines, taxes, and penalties. The excess money can't be recharacterized except during a specific window of time. I would see a tax professional to work through all the details.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a17f801749c61e70721be29bae27a51d", "text": "There is the underpayment penalty, and of course the general risk of any balloon-style loan. While you think that you have enough self-discipline, you never know what may happen that may prevent you from having enough cash at hands to pay the accumulated tax at the end of the year. If you try to do more risky investments (trying to maximize the opportunity) you may lose some of the money, or have some other kind of emergency that may preempt the tax payment.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "61bbfe419b10a8b75e647ebabeaa7088", "text": "\"But do you know about a US state risking to go default now or in the past? In 1847 four states - Mississippi, Arkansas, Michigan, and Florida - failed to pay all or some of their debts. All of these states had issued debt to invest in banks. From the detailed source listed below: \"\"...it should be remembered that all cases of state debt repudiation, as contrasted with mere default, involved banks.\"\" Jackson had killed the federal central bank 10 years earlier and the states were trying to create their own inflationary central banks. Six other states delayed debt payments from three to six years (source, page 103, this source has more details). This is the only case I know of where US states defaulted. US cities default more frequently. I'm very confused do US single states like IOWA have debt and emits obligations on their own like Italy does in EU? Yes. Individual states can issue their own bonds. Oh, and just another little thing I would like to know, is Dollar a fiat currency too like the Euro? Yes, the US dollar is a fiat currency. I think the better question is: \"\"Is there any currency that is not a fiat currency?\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0d0368bdda605c51b53c580867697f1", "text": "US or EU states are sovereigns which cannot go bankrupt. US states have defaulted in the 1840's, but in most of those cases creditors were eventually repaid in full. (I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that Indiana was an exception with regard to costs incurred building a canal system) The best modern example of a true near-default was New York City in the late 1970's. Although New York City isn't a state, the size and scope of its finances is greater than many US states. What happened then in a nutshell: Basically, a default of a major state or a city like NYC where creditors took major losses would rock the financial markets and make it difficult for all states to obtain both short and long term financing at reasonable rates. That's why these entities get bailed out -- if Greece or California really collapse, it will likely create a domino effect that will have wide reaching effects.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85cc61ce4cae47e915371baf9aea5ef4", "text": "\"But do you know about a US state risking to go default now or in the past? Ultimately, a US state could go into default. However, I doubt that such a scenario would be allowed to transpire. This seems to happen to California with some regularity. That is, risking default. What would happen is not quite well known: \"\"There is no provision for a state to go bankrupt,\"\" Kyser said. \"\"I don't think anyone really knows what will happen or even if the state will go into receivership if it does default. I can tell you this, officials are looking at all the (current) laws.\"\" (source) I believe that the answer to your question is that it could happen, but likely would not be allowed to occur. The nature of the EU and US are quite different. The individual states forming the US are not separate nations. For better or for worse, the US is a stronger federation than the EU. (Something that is lamented at times when the Feds mess with the purview of the locals.)\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1e5936595150d32c4c51e53c0bffc161", "text": "Have seen analysis that at least one state won't be able to repay their obligations using reasonable assumptions, I'm sure it applies to more. A lot of greed went into securitizing those payments the way they did.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0639d406a8990b39b5ae168d9ebf638", "text": "There no legal framework that allows states like the US or countries in Europe to default on their debt. Should congress pass a law to default the US supreme court is likely to nullify the law.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc4e575ac33da3618e4a5bc3d3820746", "text": "What? Our currency isn't backed by debt currently. It's a fiat currency. Now, if you're asking whether we could back the value of our currency against some type of debt, sure we could, but it would be an incredibly poor decision. The Constitution doesn't specify the type of currency the U.S. has. It gives Congress that power to either delegate that decision, as in the case of the Federal Reserve or pass their own laws.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dea8171566d9141f05c3d4f716818442", "text": "Oh, you mean converting your money to that of a country whose public debt is [103% of GDP, instead of the 108% of your own?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt) That seems hardly an advancement, even more so considering that the public debt of the Eurozone as a whole is 82.5% of GDP. Greece is just 2% of the European economy, its default would not mean the collapse of the Euro.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b5d19c84907af1282291361ec88cd5c", "text": "\"Any clearing/ legal experts out there? Is this possible- and if so, is it that big of a deal? Here are my thoughts: 1. The EU is right to request euros to be cleared on \"\"home soil\"\" for sovereignty reasons since 2/3s of euro currency is cleared in London. 2. Moving euro clearing back to the eurozone... would just mirror US regulations. Whats the big deal?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39430e9e2b7e42a65b94a9ad0d7d55bf", "text": "\"Correct! But this is only true when a central bank is involved. So if there's a single institution that has a territorial monopoly on the production of money (and competing currencies aren't allowed via \"\"legal tender laws\"\"), then the debt-based money system OP describes isn't actually the system being used. That's the problem with his post: he's trying to make it seem like our current system of fiat currencies is somehow natural or emergent. It's not. What we have now is the result of a legal monopoly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8f6e63d5633a6b93d55ac418d50aa71", "text": "Typically the debt is held by individuals, corporations and investment funds, not by other countries. In cases where substantial amounts are held by other countries, those countries are typically not in debt themselves (e.g. China has huge holdings of US Treasuries). If the debts were all cancelled, then the holders of the debt (as listed above) would lose out badly and the knock-on effects on the economy would be substantial. Also, governments that default tend to find it harder to borrow money again in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ecbce6fb051a2cb6791038ba17979cbf", "text": "There is no situation one can imagine in which the US defaults (beyond a day or three) on its obligations. The treasury can print money, and while it would be disastrous, 'monetizing' the debt would simply eliminate all outstanding debt at the risk of devaluing the dollar to hyperinflation levels.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23dcb346982a8bdcf2ec460e8c272c4c", "text": "There are many different things that can happen, all or some. Taking Russia and Argentina as precedence - you may not be able to withdraw funds from your bank for some period of time. Not because your accounts will be drained, but because the cash supply will be restricted. Similar thing has also happened recently in Cyprus. However, the fact that the governments of Russia and Argentina limited the use of cash for a period of time doesn't mean that the US government will have to do the same, it my choose some other means of restraint. What's for sure is that nothing good will happen. Nothing will probably happen to your balance in the bank (Although Cyprus has shown that that is not a given either). But I'm not so sure about FDIC maintaining it's insurance if the bank fails (meaning if the bank defaults as a result of the chain effect - you may lose your money). If the government is defaulting, it might not have enough cash to take over the bank deposits. After the default the currency value will probably drop sharply (devaluation) which will lead to inflation. Meaning your same balance will be worth much less than it is now. So there's something to worry about for everyone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53a265388afd1f3bb9d2e8b6440301ff", "text": "As do other states. The state and national debts are created by big government politicians. Such as bloated civil services, pension funds, more borrowing instead of fiscally responsible. The USA federal gov keeps trillions of shadow debt off its books and downplays the actual unemployment rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5916d0641665dba5b9bd44c1ea6d82c8", "text": "It's all about risk. In 1990, expressing the idea of the US defaulting on debt payments would result in you being labelled as a crank. Yet in 2011, the President and Speaker of the House played chicken with the credit of the United States, and have a date to do it again in December 2011.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "955eded50460f4e3770185808e6b9088", "text": "&gt; Europe is a temporary problem. Lol.. The better question for this thread is how is the European economy not utterly doomed? I see no way at all of the Euro surviving. Greece has already technically defaulted by saying it's not going to pay back all of it's debt. They will officially default when Germany stops bailing them out. Spain is in the exact same situation, just about a year behind. They haven't technically defaulted yet, but they will. They're receiving bailout after bailout and the Greece situation only makes their interest rates worse. Italy is just barely behind Spain, the Greek default followed by the Spanish defualt will send Italian interest rates through the roof dooming them to the same fate. This will eventually effect the US, but our borrowing rates are held artificially low due to the Fed just printing up more fake money and letting the US borrow as much as it wants. If you don't see this scheme crumbling and collapsing, I'm just curious what you actually think *will* happen?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "102709659e6804bc3eaebde899eb282a", "text": "\"Your question is expressed as a run-on sentence, which I'm having trouble parsing. Maybe you could restate. I'm just pointing out the stupidity of the statist canard that [the debt is not a problem because] \"\"we owe it to ourselves\"\". Collectivists like to think we're all in this together, but that's not reality. Some people are taking from others by force of law. The debt is owed to BANKS, and they want to keep this system going. Wouldn't you like to have a legal monopoly on the supply of currency? Institutions which are funded by loose credit (government, academia, military contractors, crony corporations) likewise benefit from this system. Those who invest in US dollars, and those who are farthest from the central planning spigot are the losers in this scheme. But there is more debt than currency, so it can't ever be repaid. So that is a moot point - it can't even hypothetically be considered. There are however a number of other ways that this system could unwind, when it inevitably does. The banks could be left to fail, and their assets would be bid on by others through the bankruptcy process. Or the Fed could keep issuing currency to keep the banks solvent, eventually inflating the whole system into irrelevance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da65d37e11ced3265657280ccf9478aa", "text": "\"For political reasons, almost all governments (including the US) spend more money than they get from taxes etc. There are a number of things a government can do to cover the difference: Most governments opt for selling bonds. The \"\"National Debt\"\" of a country can be thought of as being the sum of all the \"\"Bonds\"\" that are still paying interest, and that the Government hasn't Redeemed. It can all go horribly wrong. If the Government gets into a situation where it cannot pay the interest, or it cannot Redeem the Bonds it has promised to, then it may have to break its promise (\"\"Default\"\" on its payments). This makes the owners of the Bonds unhappy and means potential buyers of future Bond sales are less likely to want to buy the Governments new Bonds - effectively meaning the Government has to promise to pay more interest in the future. Recent examples of this include Argentina; and may include Greece soon. The US is in the fortunate position that not many people believe it will Default. Therefore the new Bonds it sells (which it does on a regular basis) are still in demand, even though its interest payments, and promises to Redeem Bonds are huge.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "856f1f7783b7124bfef17de4e11454f0", "text": "Don't you need ironclad sovereign debt that will never default type of trust to be a global currency? US is the closest we have at this point? If Europe wasn't on the Euro maybe you can say Germany but who else?", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "25ca07a4f6fc2d4c3e31a1469f25d378", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA's harmful effects on American industry outweigh its benefits. Americans are not helped by lower prices if they lose their job and have no money. Furthermore, evidence shows the American jobs lost through NAFTA were largely high-wage manufacturing jobs, thereby exacerbating income inequality.\n", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a8e82c19298afe65c6fbb0c8cfabbc99", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all If anything, NAFTA has harmed international cooperation by damaging the parties involved. Due to the continental free trade agreement, Mexican farmers have lost their livelihoods, American manufacturers have been laid off, environmental harms have increased, and the agreement has failed to create the job stimulus it promised. We can only hope that NAFTA is not a typical example of international cooperation, for such would not bode well for the international community.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6588777962ce79881ede122551be0748", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all There is little reason to believe that NAFTA was a key agent in Mexican political change. In the time after NAFTA was signed, Mexico also experienced an economic crisis linked to a currency collapse1. Its president fled the country on corruption charges and drug-related corruption continues to plague the country. Mexico has had both good and bad political and economic experiences since the implementation of NAFTA, and it is impossible to say that NAFTA caused the freer elections in 1994 and therefore has been overall beneficial for Mexico.\n\n1Paul Magnusson, \"Did NAFTA Backers Bamboozle America?\" Business Week, May 8, 2000.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b00015aef7a5855a529e6db7e93e5d5", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all While Canada has experienced some economic benefits due to NAFTA, these benefits do not outweigh the harms for North America overall. Furthermore, as the Con discusses below, Canada has struggled to reconcile its environmental regulations with NAFTA, thereby hurting it environmentally, if not economically.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8e4b329fa85a2ef4a6cdbda5defb357", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all The loss of US production jobs is part of a greater global trend; NAFTA is not responsible for this change. Mexico and Canada are responsible for only one-fifth of the growth in the US trade deficit. The rapid acceleration of technological communication has made outsourcing and offshore production easier than ever1, and the US is losing jobs to countries that do the work as a fraction of the cost.\n\n1 Thomas L. Friedman, \"The World is Flat: a Brief History of the Twenty-First Century,\" (New York: Picador, 2007), 148.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "142bde9d46213f82c874ad549e1e9fbb", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA gave Mexico an edge; that does not mean Mexico's problems would disappear. Mexico's economic problems are the result of a low tax base and poor education, among other issues1. A trade agreement alone cannot solve a nation's complex socioeconomic issues. Though it is impossible to know what would have happened, it is fair to speculate that Mexico would import even fewer goods to the US if not for NAFTA. Therefore, even if Mexico has yet to become an industrial powerhouse, NAFTA can still be considered advantageous.\n\n1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA,\" New York Times, January 6, 2004\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0cf673d57c20d1a80f39fda854f03909", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all Corn is only one product in a complex trade system. While NAFTA has undoubtedly given US corn farmers an advantage, it has also benefited Mexican avocado famers- and everyone employed in the industry1. Automobile production has shifted away from the US and towards Mexico after NAFTA2. Each country cannot expect to export more of every product- what Mexico has lost in corn production, it has gained in other areas.\n\n1Amy Clark, \"Is NAFTA good for Mexico's Farmers?,\" CBS, February 11, 2009.\n\n2 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers.\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b130565be663d09480bc72cfca16c04e", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA allows companies to shed light on antiquated regulations. The advantages and disadvantages of MMT are contested1, and the Canada's grounds for prohibitions on the water exportation that Sun Belt wanted to do were questionable1. Environmental protection is necessary, but should be reasonable; if regulations are preventing business for no good reason, those regulations should be reconsidered.\n\n1 http://www.autos.ca/auto-tech/environment/auto-tech-mmt-the-controversy-... \"&gt; Jim Kerr, \"Auto Tech: MMT: the Controversy Over this Fuel Additive Continues,\" March 10, 2004, &lt;\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05c6733bfac657c15258c9eb2c132b3f", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has reduced the cost of production. In a free trade economy, workers only have the upper hand in bargaining if there is a labor shortage. NAFTA does not deprive workers of something they are entitled to; if a company saves money by relocating production, new workers get hired, goods become cheaper, and consumers benefit. NAFTA may have disadvantaged certain workers, but it benefits other workers and consumers.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca9776d53968dc4cf83ae765cb088b16", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has improved democracy in Mexico.\n\nTrade liberalization has caused social upheaval that created greater demand for genuine democracy within Mexico1. The election of 1994 is considered to be the first free election in the modern history of Mexico2. In 2000, the first opposition president (not a member of the Institutional Revolution Party) since 1929 was elected3. Many scholars credit the liberalized economic environment fostered by NAFTA for this political development towards a genuine democracy4.\n\n1Kevin Kelley, \"Good NAFTA?,\" Utne: The Best of the Alternative Press, 2011, 2.\n\n2Renee G. Scherlen, \"Lessons to Build on: the 1994 Mexican Presidential Election,\" Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 1998, 21.\n\n3Sam Dillon, \"Mexico's Ousted Party Tries to Regroup After Stunning Defeat,\" New York Times, July 13, 2000.\n\n4 Geri Smith and Cristina Lindblad, \"Mexico: Was NAFTA Worth it: A Tale of What Free Trade Can and Cannot Do,\" Business Week, December 22, 2003.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5cd37690fba1033838d92adacd719a1c", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has benefitted Canada.\n\nCanada already benefited from having the world's biggest market next door and under NAFTA this benefit is expanded immensely. Under NAFTA, Between 1994 and 2003, Canada's economy grew at 3.6% annually, and employment has risen1. NAFTA has also help equalize agricultural flows between the US and Canada. NAFTA has given Canada an advantage in the US, the world's biggest market, as well as zero-tariff access to a wide variety of American products2.\n\n1 Lee Hudson Teslik, \"NAFTA's Economic Impact,\" Council on Foreign Relations, July 7, 2009.\n\n2 George Myles and Matthe Cahoon, \"Canada and NAFTA: a 10-Year Measure of Success,\" BNET, January 2004.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9471a25c35fd34a0887ce709cf2f96b", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has bolstered cross-continental cooperation.\n\nBy expanding their free trade regions to the entire continent, Canada, the US, and Mexico have demonstrated the plausibility of greater international cooperation. Although NAFTA is not on the scale of the EU, it similarly demonstrates the ability of nations to work together for mutual benefit, thereby increasing international cooperation. NAFTA helps create a secure North American continent where none of the states need be worried about the other members in much the same way as the European Union does in Europe. Competition and potentially wars are prevented through greater trade integration as is shown by European integration since the second world war.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c51c38a7a337f974af9a6edde021003f", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has reduced workers' bargaining power.\n\nIn reducing barriers to imports and exports, NAFTA has shifted bargaining power in favor of producers, who can more easily relocate factories if workers in an area are too demanding. This allows more exploitation of workers, something that we should be preventing rather than encouraging. By allowing companies to move production across the US, Canada, and Mexico, NAFTA creates a disadvantage for workers in all three countries1. This essentially helps the rich get richer while making those who are poor, or middle class poorer increasing income inequality.\n\n1 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers.\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee053c2bd575172880493b331b5eaa15", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has interfered with Canadian laws concerning environmental protection.\n\nUnder NAFTA, if foreign investors believe they are being harmed by regulations, they may sue for reparations under special tribunals1. Canada regulates commercial use of its lake and river water2, fearing ecosystem damage, and had previously banned the importation of a gasoline additive MMT3. Due to lawsuits brought by American companies Sun Belt Water Inc. and Ethyl Corporation, the Canadian government was forced to change legislation to allow these companies to conduct business. By compelling Canada to reduce its standards for environmental protection, NAFTA has failed to meet Canada's interests.\n\n1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA,\" New York Times, January 6, 2004.\n\n2 \"The Sun Belt NAFTA Case.\" Sun Belt Water, 2004.\n\n3 Kerr, Jim. \"Auto Tech: MMT: the Controversy Over this Fuel Additive Continues.\" March 10, 2004.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5a5fa87b79d303b84f001b59cca61ec", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has failed to give Mexico a competitive edge in the global economy.\n\nAlthough NAFTA gives Mexico a slight advantage over its competitors, this edge has been insufficient; Chinese labor is still cheaper, and imports more goods to the US than Mexico does1. Real wages in Mexico have actually decreased 0.2% and income disparities between Mexico and the US have grown2. In failing to provide sufficient means for Mexico to compete with other developing nations, NAFTA has failed to serve its parties' interests.\n\n1 Smith, Geri and Cristina Lindblad. \"Mexico: Was NAFTA Worth it: A Tale of What Free Trade Can and Cannot Do.\" Business Week, December 22, 2003.\n\n2 Stiglitz, Joseph E. \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA.\" New York Times, January 6, 2004.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd5d4713a69d9f28c5bca2ecb1247449", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA caused a severe trade imbalance between the US and its neighbors.\n\nAs NAFTA has allowed manufacturing to relocate south of the border and export to the United States the US has turned from having a trade surplus to a trade deficit. In 1993, the US had a trade surplus with Mexico and a stable deficit with Canada1. After NAFTA, the US' deficit with its neighbors increased $107.3 billion, creating a net displacement of over 1 million jobs. NAFTA was supposed to stimulate job growth in the US, not job loss; this failure demonstrates the harms that NAFTA has caused its members.\n\n1 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers.\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "449adc4a83a9cf4d39d3e242cce686a5", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA was severely damaging to independent Mexican farmers.\n\nUS farm subsidies make it impossible for Mexican farmers to compete without tariffs; the so-called free trade act disadvantages Mexican workers because their American counterparts are not working under a free trade system1. While Mexican consumers benefit from lower prices, rural farmers tend to be much poorer than city residents in Mexico. Therefore this agricultural loss benefits the rich at the expense of the poor1.\n\n1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA,\" New York Times, January 6, 2004.\n", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0b00015aef7a5855a529e6db7e93e5d5", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all While Canada has experienced some economic benefits due to NAFTA, these benefits do not outweigh the harms for North America overall. Furthermore, as the Con discusses below, Canada has struggled to reconcile its environmental regulations with NAFTA, thereby hurting it environmentally, if not economically.\n", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "25ca07a4f6fc2d4c3e31a1469f25d378", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA's harmful effects on American industry outweigh its benefits. Americans are not helped by lower prices if they lose their job and have no money. Furthermore, evidence shows the American jobs lost through NAFTA were largely high-wage manufacturing jobs, thereby exacerbating income inequality.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8e82c19298afe65c6fbb0c8cfabbc99", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all If anything, NAFTA has harmed international cooperation by damaging the parties involved. Due to the continental free trade agreement, Mexican farmers have lost their livelihoods, American manufacturers have been laid off, environmental harms have increased, and the agreement has failed to create the job stimulus it promised. We can only hope that NAFTA is not a typical example of international cooperation, for such would not bode well for the international community.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6588777962ce79881ede122551be0748", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all There is little reason to believe that NAFTA was a key agent in Mexican political change. In the time after NAFTA was signed, Mexico also experienced an economic crisis linked to a currency collapse1. Its president fled the country on corruption charges and drug-related corruption continues to plague the country. Mexico has had both good and bad political and economic experiences since the implementation of NAFTA, and it is impossible to say that NAFTA caused the freer elections in 1994 and therefore has been overall beneficial for Mexico.\n\n1Paul Magnusson, \"Did NAFTA Backers Bamboozle America?\" Business Week, May 8, 2000.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8e4b329fa85a2ef4a6cdbda5defb357", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all The loss of US production jobs is part of a greater global trend; NAFTA is not responsible for this change. Mexico and Canada are responsible for only one-fifth of the growth in the US trade deficit. The rapid acceleration of technological communication has made outsourcing and offshore production easier than ever1, and the US is losing jobs to countries that do the work as a fraction of the cost.\n\n1 Thomas L. Friedman, \"The World is Flat: a Brief History of the Twenty-First Century,\" (New York: Picador, 2007), 148.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "142bde9d46213f82c874ad549e1e9fbb", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA gave Mexico an edge; that does not mean Mexico's problems would disappear. Mexico's economic problems are the result of a low tax base and poor education, among other issues1. A trade agreement alone cannot solve a nation's complex socioeconomic issues. Though it is impossible to know what would have happened, it is fair to speculate that Mexico would import even fewer goods to the US if not for NAFTA. Therefore, even if Mexico has yet to become an industrial powerhouse, NAFTA can still be considered advantageous.\n\n1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA,\" New York Times, January 6, 2004\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0cf673d57c20d1a80f39fda854f03909", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all Corn is only one product in a complex trade system. While NAFTA has undoubtedly given US corn farmers an advantage, it has also benefited Mexican avocado famers- and everyone employed in the industry1. Automobile production has shifted away from the US and towards Mexico after NAFTA2. Each country cannot expect to export more of every product- what Mexico has lost in corn production, it has gained in other areas.\n\n1Amy Clark, \"Is NAFTA good for Mexico's Farmers?,\" CBS, February 11, 2009.\n\n2 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers.\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b130565be663d09480bc72cfca16c04e", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA allows companies to shed light on antiquated regulations. The advantages and disadvantages of MMT are contested1, and the Canada's grounds for prohibitions on the water exportation that Sun Belt wanted to do were questionable1. Environmental protection is necessary, but should be reasonable; if regulations are preventing business for no good reason, those regulations should be reconsidered.\n\n1 http://www.autos.ca/auto-tech/environment/auto-tech-mmt-the-controversy-... \"&gt; Jim Kerr, \"Auto Tech: MMT: the Controversy Over this Fuel Additive Continues,\" March 10, 2004, &lt;\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05c6733bfac657c15258c9eb2c132b3f", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has reduced the cost of production. In a free trade economy, workers only have the upper hand in bargaining if there is a labor shortage. NAFTA does not deprive workers of something they are entitled to; if a company saves money by relocating production, new workers get hired, goods become cheaper, and consumers benefit. NAFTA may have disadvantaged certain workers, but it benefits other workers and consumers.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6230e4ec5e3b4e8c1eb0e9e0bac328b9", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all The US has benefitted from NAFTA through lower prices and increased trade\n\nThe increase in low-cost Mexican goods has benefitted US consumers1, thereby improving the standard of living for working Americans. US exports have increased by $104 billion2, thereby bolstering manufacturing. While some jobs have been lost due to NAFTA, these have been primarily low-skill jobs; reducing the number of low-skill jobs in the economy allows the US to concentrate on more profitable, white-collar jobs. And even these low skilled workers benefit from having to pay less for their goods.\n\n1 Marla Dickerson, \"NAFTA has had its Tradeoffs for the U.S.: Consumers and Global Companies Benefitted, but Critics See Pitfalls,\" Los Angeles Times, March 3, 2008.\n\n2 Robert Scott, Carlos Salas, Bruce Campbell, \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers,\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006, 5.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca9776d53968dc4cf83ae765cb088b16", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has improved democracy in Mexico.\n\nTrade liberalization has caused social upheaval that created greater demand for genuine democracy within Mexico1. The election of 1994 is considered to be the first free election in the modern history of Mexico2. In 2000, the first opposition president (not a member of the Institutional Revolution Party) since 1929 was elected3. Many scholars credit the liberalized economic environment fostered by NAFTA for this political development towards a genuine democracy4.\n\n1Kevin Kelley, \"Good NAFTA?,\" Utne: The Best of the Alternative Press, 2011, 2.\n\n2Renee G. Scherlen, \"Lessons to Build on: the 1994 Mexican Presidential Election,\" Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 1998, 21.\n\n3Sam Dillon, \"Mexico's Ousted Party Tries to Regroup After Stunning Defeat,\" New York Times, July 13, 2000.\n\n4 Geri Smith and Cristina Lindblad, \"Mexico: Was NAFTA Worth it: A Tale of What Free Trade Can and Cannot Do,\" Business Week, December 22, 2003.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9471a25c35fd34a0887ce709cf2f96b", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has bolstered cross-continental cooperation.\n\nBy expanding their free trade regions to the entire continent, Canada, the US, and Mexico have demonstrated the plausibility of greater international cooperation. Although NAFTA is not on the scale of the EU, it similarly demonstrates the ability of nations to work together for mutual benefit, thereby increasing international cooperation. NAFTA helps create a secure North American continent where none of the states need be worried about the other members in much the same way as the European Union does in Europe. Competition and potentially wars are prevented through greater trade integration as is shown by European integration since the second world war.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c51c38a7a337f974af9a6edde021003f", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has reduced workers' bargaining power.\n\nIn reducing barriers to imports and exports, NAFTA has shifted bargaining power in favor of producers, who can more easily relocate factories if workers in an area are too demanding. This allows more exploitation of workers, something that we should be preventing rather than encouraging. By allowing companies to move production across the US, Canada, and Mexico, NAFTA creates a disadvantage for workers in all three countries1. This essentially helps the rich get richer while making those who are poor, or middle class poorer increasing income inequality.\n\n1 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers.\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee053c2bd575172880493b331b5eaa15", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has interfered with Canadian laws concerning environmental protection.\n\nUnder NAFTA, if foreign investors believe they are being harmed by regulations, they may sue for reparations under special tribunals1. Canada regulates commercial use of its lake and river water2, fearing ecosystem damage, and had previously banned the importation of a gasoline additive MMT3. Due to lawsuits brought by American companies Sun Belt Water Inc. and Ethyl Corporation, the Canadian government was forced to change legislation to allow these companies to conduct business. By compelling Canada to reduce its standards for environmental protection, NAFTA has failed to meet Canada's interests.\n\n1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA,\" New York Times, January 6, 2004.\n\n2 \"The Sun Belt NAFTA Case.\" Sun Belt Water, 2004.\n\n3 Kerr, Jim. \"Auto Tech: MMT: the Controversy Over this Fuel Additive Continues.\" March 10, 2004.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5a5fa87b79d303b84f001b59cca61ec", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has failed to give Mexico a competitive edge in the global economy.\n\nAlthough NAFTA gives Mexico a slight advantage over its competitors, this edge has been insufficient; Chinese labor is still cheaper, and imports more goods to the US than Mexico does1. Real wages in Mexico have actually decreased 0.2% and income disparities between Mexico and the US have grown2. In failing to provide sufficient means for Mexico to compete with other developing nations, NAFTA has failed to serve its parties' interests.\n\n1 Smith, Geri and Cristina Lindblad. \"Mexico: Was NAFTA Worth it: A Tale of What Free Trade Can and Cannot Do.\" Business Week, December 22, 2003.\n\n2 Stiglitz, Joseph E. \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA.\" New York Times, January 6, 2004.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd5d4713a69d9f28c5bca2ecb1247449", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA caused a severe trade imbalance between the US and its neighbors.\n\nAs NAFTA has allowed manufacturing to relocate south of the border and export to the United States the US has turned from having a trade surplus to a trade deficit. In 1993, the US had a trade surplus with Mexico and a stable deficit with Canada1. After NAFTA, the US' deficit with its neighbors increased $107.3 billion, creating a net displacement of over 1 million jobs. NAFTA was supposed to stimulate job growth in the US, not job loss; this failure demonstrates the harms that NAFTA has caused its members.\n\n1 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers.\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "449adc4a83a9cf4d39d3e242cce686a5", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA was severely damaging to independent Mexican farmers.\n\nUS farm subsidies make it impossible for Mexican farmers to compete without tariffs; the so-called free trade act disadvantages Mexican workers because their American counterparts are not working under a free trade system1. While Mexican consumers benefit from lower prices, rural farmers tend to be much poorer than city residents in Mexico. Therefore this agricultural loss benefits the rich at the expense of the poor1.\n\n1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA,\" New York Times, January 6, 2004.\n", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a8e82c19298afe65c6fbb0c8cfabbc99", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all If anything, NAFTA has harmed international cooperation by damaging the parties involved. Due to the continental free trade agreement, Mexican farmers have lost their livelihoods, American manufacturers have been laid off, environmental harms have increased, and the agreement has failed to create the job stimulus it promised. We can only hope that NAFTA is not a typical example of international cooperation, for such would not bode well for the international community.\n", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "25ca07a4f6fc2d4c3e31a1469f25d378", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA's harmful effects on American industry outweigh its benefits. Americans are not helped by lower prices if they lose their job and have no money. Furthermore, evidence shows the American jobs lost through NAFTA were largely high-wage manufacturing jobs, thereby exacerbating income inequality.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6588777962ce79881ede122551be0748", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all There is little reason to believe that NAFTA was a key agent in Mexican political change. In the time after NAFTA was signed, Mexico also experienced an economic crisis linked to a currency collapse1. Its president fled the country on corruption charges and drug-related corruption continues to plague the country. Mexico has had both good and bad political and economic experiences since the implementation of NAFTA, and it is impossible to say that NAFTA caused the freer elections in 1994 and therefore has been overall beneficial for Mexico.\n\n1Paul Magnusson, \"Did NAFTA Backers Bamboozle America?\" Business Week, May 8, 2000.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b00015aef7a5855a529e6db7e93e5d5", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all While Canada has experienced some economic benefits due to NAFTA, these benefits do not outweigh the harms for North America overall. Furthermore, as the Con discusses below, Canada has struggled to reconcile its environmental regulations with NAFTA, thereby hurting it environmentally, if not economically.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8e4b329fa85a2ef4a6cdbda5defb357", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all The loss of US production jobs is part of a greater global trend; NAFTA is not responsible for this change. Mexico and Canada are responsible for only one-fifth of the growth in the US trade deficit. The rapid acceleration of technological communication has made outsourcing and offshore production easier than ever1, and the US is losing jobs to countries that do the work as a fraction of the cost.\n\n1 Thomas L. Friedman, \"The World is Flat: a Brief History of the Twenty-First Century,\" (New York: Picador, 2007), 148.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "142bde9d46213f82c874ad549e1e9fbb", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA gave Mexico an edge; that does not mean Mexico's problems would disappear. Mexico's economic problems are the result of a low tax base and poor education, among other issues1. A trade agreement alone cannot solve a nation's complex socioeconomic issues. Though it is impossible to know what would have happened, it is fair to speculate that Mexico would import even fewer goods to the US if not for NAFTA. Therefore, even if Mexico has yet to become an industrial powerhouse, NAFTA can still be considered advantageous.\n\n1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA,\" New York Times, January 6, 2004\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0cf673d57c20d1a80f39fda854f03909", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all Corn is only one product in a complex trade system. While NAFTA has undoubtedly given US corn farmers an advantage, it has also benefited Mexican avocado famers- and everyone employed in the industry1. Automobile production has shifted away from the US and towards Mexico after NAFTA2. Each country cannot expect to export more of every product- what Mexico has lost in corn production, it has gained in other areas.\n\n1Amy Clark, \"Is NAFTA good for Mexico's Farmers?,\" CBS, February 11, 2009.\n\n2 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers.\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b130565be663d09480bc72cfca16c04e", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA allows companies to shed light on antiquated regulations. The advantages and disadvantages of MMT are contested1, and the Canada's grounds for prohibitions on the water exportation that Sun Belt wanted to do were questionable1. Environmental protection is necessary, but should be reasonable; if regulations are preventing business for no good reason, those regulations should be reconsidered.\n\n1 http://www.autos.ca/auto-tech/environment/auto-tech-mmt-the-controversy-... \"&gt; Jim Kerr, \"Auto Tech: MMT: the Controversy Over this Fuel Additive Continues,\" March 10, 2004, &lt;\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05c6733bfac657c15258c9eb2c132b3f", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has reduced the cost of production. In a free trade economy, workers only have the upper hand in bargaining if there is a labor shortage. NAFTA does not deprive workers of something they are entitled to; if a company saves money by relocating production, new workers get hired, goods become cheaper, and consumers benefit. NAFTA may have disadvantaged certain workers, but it benefits other workers and consumers.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6230e4ec5e3b4e8c1eb0e9e0bac328b9", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all The US has benefitted from NAFTA through lower prices and increased trade\n\nThe increase in low-cost Mexican goods has benefitted US consumers1, thereby improving the standard of living for working Americans. US exports have increased by $104 billion2, thereby bolstering manufacturing. While some jobs have been lost due to NAFTA, these have been primarily low-skill jobs; reducing the number of low-skill jobs in the economy allows the US to concentrate on more profitable, white-collar jobs. And even these low skilled workers benefit from having to pay less for their goods.\n\n1 Marla Dickerson, \"NAFTA has had its Tradeoffs for the U.S.: Consumers and Global Companies Benefitted, but Critics See Pitfalls,\" Los Angeles Times, March 3, 2008.\n\n2 Robert Scott, Carlos Salas, Bruce Campbell, \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers,\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006, 5.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca9776d53968dc4cf83ae765cb088b16", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has improved democracy in Mexico.\n\nTrade liberalization has caused social upheaval that created greater demand for genuine democracy within Mexico1. The election of 1994 is considered to be the first free election in the modern history of Mexico2. In 2000, the first opposition president (not a member of the Institutional Revolution Party) since 1929 was elected3. Many scholars credit the liberalized economic environment fostered by NAFTA for this political development towards a genuine democracy4.\n\n1Kevin Kelley, \"Good NAFTA?,\" Utne: The Best of the Alternative Press, 2011, 2.\n\n2Renee G. Scherlen, \"Lessons to Build on: the 1994 Mexican Presidential Election,\" Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 1998, 21.\n\n3Sam Dillon, \"Mexico's Ousted Party Tries to Regroup After Stunning Defeat,\" New York Times, July 13, 2000.\n\n4 Geri Smith and Cristina Lindblad, \"Mexico: Was NAFTA Worth it: A Tale of What Free Trade Can and Cannot Do,\" Business Week, December 22, 2003.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5cd37690fba1033838d92adacd719a1c", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has benefitted Canada.\n\nCanada already benefited from having the world's biggest market next door and under NAFTA this benefit is expanded immensely. Under NAFTA, Between 1994 and 2003, Canada's economy grew at 3.6% annually, and employment has risen1. NAFTA has also help equalize agricultural flows between the US and Canada. NAFTA has given Canada an advantage in the US, the world's biggest market, as well as zero-tariff access to a wide variety of American products2.\n\n1 Lee Hudson Teslik, \"NAFTA's Economic Impact,\" Council on Foreign Relations, July 7, 2009.\n\n2 George Myles and Matthe Cahoon, \"Canada and NAFTA: a 10-Year Measure of Success,\" BNET, January 2004.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c51c38a7a337f974af9a6edde021003f", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has reduced workers' bargaining power.\n\nIn reducing barriers to imports and exports, NAFTA has shifted bargaining power in favor of producers, who can more easily relocate factories if workers in an area are too demanding. This allows more exploitation of workers, something that we should be preventing rather than encouraging. By allowing companies to move production across the US, Canada, and Mexico, NAFTA creates a disadvantage for workers in all three countries1. This essentially helps the rich get richer while making those who are poor, or middle class poorer increasing income inequality.\n\n1 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers.\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee053c2bd575172880493b331b5eaa15", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has interfered with Canadian laws concerning environmental protection.\n\nUnder NAFTA, if foreign investors believe they are being harmed by regulations, they may sue for reparations under special tribunals1. Canada regulates commercial use of its lake and river water2, fearing ecosystem damage, and had previously banned the importation of a gasoline additive MMT3. Due to lawsuits brought by American companies Sun Belt Water Inc. and Ethyl Corporation, the Canadian government was forced to change legislation to allow these companies to conduct business. By compelling Canada to reduce its standards for environmental protection, NAFTA has failed to meet Canada's interests.\n\n1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA,\" New York Times, January 6, 2004.\n\n2 \"The Sun Belt NAFTA Case.\" Sun Belt Water, 2004.\n\n3 Kerr, Jim. \"Auto Tech: MMT: the Controversy Over this Fuel Additive Continues.\" March 10, 2004.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5a5fa87b79d303b84f001b59cca61ec", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has failed to give Mexico a competitive edge in the global economy.\n\nAlthough NAFTA gives Mexico a slight advantage over its competitors, this edge has been insufficient; Chinese labor is still cheaper, and imports more goods to the US than Mexico does1. Real wages in Mexico have actually decreased 0.2% and income disparities between Mexico and the US have grown2. In failing to provide sufficient means for Mexico to compete with other developing nations, NAFTA has failed to serve its parties' interests.\n\n1 Smith, Geri and Cristina Lindblad. \"Mexico: Was NAFTA Worth it: A Tale of What Free Trade Can and Cannot Do.\" Business Week, December 22, 2003.\n\n2 Stiglitz, Joseph E. \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA.\" New York Times, January 6, 2004.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd5d4713a69d9f28c5bca2ecb1247449", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA caused a severe trade imbalance between the US and its neighbors.\n\nAs NAFTA has allowed manufacturing to relocate south of the border and export to the United States the US has turned from having a trade surplus to a trade deficit. In 1993, the US had a trade surplus with Mexico and a stable deficit with Canada1. After NAFTA, the US' deficit with its neighbors increased $107.3 billion, creating a net displacement of over 1 million jobs. NAFTA was supposed to stimulate job growth in the US, not job loss; this failure demonstrates the harms that NAFTA has caused its members.\n\n1 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers.\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "449adc4a83a9cf4d39d3e242cce686a5", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA was severely damaging to independent Mexican farmers.\n\nUS farm subsidies make it impossible for Mexican farmers to compete without tariffs; the so-called free trade act disadvantages Mexican workers because their American counterparts are not working under a free trade system1. While Mexican consumers benefit from lower prices, rural farmers tend to be much poorer than city residents in Mexico. Therefore this agricultural loss benefits the rich at the expense of the poor1.\n\n1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA,\" New York Times, January 6, 2004.\n", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "05c6733bfac657c15258c9eb2c132b3f", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has reduced the cost of production. In a free trade economy, workers only have the upper hand in bargaining if there is a labor shortage. NAFTA does not deprive workers of something they are entitled to; if a company saves money by relocating production, new workers get hired, goods become cheaper, and consumers benefit. NAFTA may have disadvantaged certain workers, but it benefits other workers and consumers.\n", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c8e4b329fa85a2ef4a6cdbda5defb357", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all The loss of US production jobs is part of a greater global trend; NAFTA is not responsible for this change. Mexico and Canada are responsible for only one-fifth of the growth in the US trade deficit. The rapid acceleration of technological communication has made outsourcing and offshore production easier than ever1, and the US is losing jobs to countries that do the work as a fraction of the cost.\n\n1 Thomas L. Friedman, \"The World is Flat: a Brief History of the Twenty-First Century,\" (New York: Picador, 2007), 148.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "142bde9d46213f82c874ad549e1e9fbb", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA gave Mexico an edge; that does not mean Mexico's problems would disappear. Mexico's economic problems are the result of a low tax base and poor education, among other issues1. A trade agreement alone cannot solve a nation's complex socioeconomic issues. Though it is impossible to know what would have happened, it is fair to speculate that Mexico would import even fewer goods to the US if not for NAFTA. Therefore, even if Mexico has yet to become an industrial powerhouse, NAFTA can still be considered advantageous.\n\n1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA,\" New York Times, January 6, 2004\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0cf673d57c20d1a80f39fda854f03909", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all Corn is only one product in a complex trade system. While NAFTA has undoubtedly given US corn farmers an advantage, it has also benefited Mexican avocado famers- and everyone employed in the industry1. Automobile production has shifted away from the US and towards Mexico after NAFTA2. Each country cannot expect to export more of every product- what Mexico has lost in corn production, it has gained in other areas.\n\n1Amy Clark, \"Is NAFTA good for Mexico's Farmers?,\" CBS, February 11, 2009.\n\n2 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers.\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b130565be663d09480bc72cfca16c04e", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA allows companies to shed light on antiquated regulations. The advantages and disadvantages of MMT are contested1, and the Canada's grounds for prohibitions on the water exportation that Sun Belt wanted to do were questionable1. Environmental protection is necessary, but should be reasonable; if regulations are preventing business for no good reason, those regulations should be reconsidered.\n\n1 http://www.autos.ca/auto-tech/environment/auto-tech-mmt-the-controversy-... \"&gt; Jim Kerr, \"Auto Tech: MMT: the Controversy Over this Fuel Additive Continues,\" March 10, 2004, &lt;\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25ca07a4f6fc2d4c3e31a1469f25d378", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA's harmful effects on American industry outweigh its benefits. Americans are not helped by lower prices if they lose their job and have no money. Furthermore, evidence shows the American jobs lost through NAFTA were largely high-wage manufacturing jobs, thereby exacerbating income inequality.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8e82c19298afe65c6fbb0c8cfabbc99", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all If anything, NAFTA has harmed international cooperation by damaging the parties involved. Due to the continental free trade agreement, Mexican farmers have lost their livelihoods, American manufacturers have been laid off, environmental harms have increased, and the agreement has failed to create the job stimulus it promised. We can only hope that NAFTA is not a typical example of international cooperation, for such would not bode well for the international community.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6588777962ce79881ede122551be0748", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all There is little reason to believe that NAFTA was a key agent in Mexican political change. In the time after NAFTA was signed, Mexico also experienced an economic crisis linked to a currency collapse1. Its president fled the country on corruption charges and drug-related corruption continues to plague the country. Mexico has had both good and bad political and economic experiences since the implementation of NAFTA, and it is impossible to say that NAFTA caused the freer elections in 1994 and therefore has been overall beneficial for Mexico.\n\n1Paul Magnusson, \"Did NAFTA Backers Bamboozle America?\" Business Week, May 8, 2000.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b00015aef7a5855a529e6db7e93e5d5", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all While Canada has experienced some economic benefits due to NAFTA, these benefits do not outweigh the harms for North America overall. Furthermore, as the Con discusses below, Canada has struggled to reconcile its environmental regulations with NAFTA, thereby hurting it environmentally, if not economically.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee053c2bd575172880493b331b5eaa15", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has interfered with Canadian laws concerning environmental protection.\n\nUnder NAFTA, if foreign investors believe they are being harmed by regulations, they may sue for reparations under special tribunals1. Canada regulates commercial use of its lake and river water2, fearing ecosystem damage, and had previously banned the importation of a gasoline additive MMT3. Due to lawsuits brought by American companies Sun Belt Water Inc. and Ethyl Corporation, the Canadian government was forced to change legislation to allow these companies to conduct business. By compelling Canada to reduce its standards for environmental protection, NAFTA has failed to meet Canada's interests.\n\n1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA,\" New York Times, January 6, 2004.\n\n2 \"The Sun Belt NAFTA Case.\" Sun Belt Water, 2004.\n\n3 Kerr, Jim. \"Auto Tech: MMT: the Controversy Over this Fuel Additive Continues.\" March 10, 2004.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5a5fa87b79d303b84f001b59cca61ec", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has failed to give Mexico a competitive edge in the global economy.\n\nAlthough NAFTA gives Mexico a slight advantage over its competitors, this edge has been insufficient; Chinese labor is still cheaper, and imports more goods to the US than Mexico does1. Real wages in Mexico have actually decreased 0.2% and income disparities between Mexico and the US have grown2. In failing to provide sufficient means for Mexico to compete with other developing nations, NAFTA has failed to serve its parties' interests.\n\n1 Smith, Geri and Cristina Lindblad. \"Mexico: Was NAFTA Worth it: A Tale of What Free Trade Can and Cannot Do.\" Business Week, December 22, 2003.\n\n2 Stiglitz, Joseph E. \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA.\" New York Times, January 6, 2004.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd5d4713a69d9f28c5bca2ecb1247449", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA caused a severe trade imbalance between the US and its neighbors.\n\nAs NAFTA has allowed manufacturing to relocate south of the border and export to the United States the US has turned from having a trade surplus to a trade deficit. In 1993, the US had a trade surplus with Mexico and a stable deficit with Canada1. After NAFTA, the US' deficit with its neighbors increased $107.3 billion, creating a net displacement of over 1 million jobs. NAFTA was supposed to stimulate job growth in the US, not job loss; this failure demonstrates the harms that NAFTA has caused its members.\n\n1 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers.\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "449adc4a83a9cf4d39d3e242cce686a5", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA was severely damaging to independent Mexican farmers.\n\nUS farm subsidies make it impossible for Mexican farmers to compete without tariffs; the so-called free trade act disadvantages Mexican workers because their American counterparts are not working under a free trade system1. While Mexican consumers benefit from lower prices, rural farmers tend to be much poorer than city residents in Mexico. Therefore this agricultural loss benefits the rich at the expense of the poor1.\n\n1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA,\" New York Times, January 6, 2004.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6230e4ec5e3b4e8c1eb0e9e0bac328b9", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all The US has benefitted from NAFTA through lower prices and increased trade\n\nThe increase in low-cost Mexican goods has benefitted US consumers1, thereby improving the standard of living for working Americans. US exports have increased by $104 billion2, thereby bolstering manufacturing. While some jobs have been lost due to NAFTA, these have been primarily low-skill jobs; reducing the number of low-skill jobs in the economy allows the US to concentrate on more profitable, white-collar jobs. And even these low skilled workers benefit from having to pay less for their goods.\n\n1 Marla Dickerson, \"NAFTA has had its Tradeoffs for the U.S.: Consumers and Global Companies Benefitted, but Critics See Pitfalls,\" Los Angeles Times, March 3, 2008.\n\n2 Robert Scott, Carlos Salas, Bruce Campbell, \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers,\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006, 5.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca9776d53968dc4cf83ae765cb088b16", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has improved democracy in Mexico.\n\nTrade liberalization has caused social upheaval that created greater demand for genuine democracy within Mexico1. The election of 1994 is considered to be the first free election in the modern history of Mexico2. In 2000, the first opposition president (not a member of the Institutional Revolution Party) since 1929 was elected3. Many scholars credit the liberalized economic environment fostered by NAFTA for this political development towards a genuine democracy4.\n\n1Kevin Kelley, \"Good NAFTA?,\" Utne: The Best of the Alternative Press, 2011, 2.\n\n2Renee G. Scherlen, \"Lessons to Build on: the 1994 Mexican Presidential Election,\" Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 1998, 21.\n\n3Sam Dillon, \"Mexico's Ousted Party Tries to Regroup After Stunning Defeat,\" New York Times, July 13, 2000.\n\n4 Geri Smith and Cristina Lindblad, \"Mexico: Was NAFTA Worth it: A Tale of What Free Trade Can and Cannot Do,\" Business Week, December 22, 2003.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5cd37690fba1033838d92adacd719a1c", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has benefitted Canada.\n\nCanada already benefited from having the world's biggest market next door and under NAFTA this benefit is expanded immensely. Under NAFTA, Between 1994 and 2003, Canada's economy grew at 3.6% annually, and employment has risen1. NAFTA has also help equalize agricultural flows between the US and Canada. NAFTA has given Canada an advantage in the US, the world's biggest market, as well as zero-tariff access to a wide variety of American products2.\n\n1 Lee Hudson Teslik, \"NAFTA's Economic Impact,\" Council on Foreign Relations, July 7, 2009.\n\n2 George Myles and Matthe Cahoon, \"Canada and NAFTA: a 10-Year Measure of Success,\" BNET, January 2004.\n", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9471a25c35fd34a0887ce709cf2f96b", "text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has bolstered cross-continental cooperation.\n\nBy expanding their free trade regions to the entire continent, Canada, the US, and Mexico have demonstrated the plausibility of greater international cooperation. Although NAFTA is not on the scale of the EU, it similarly demonstrates the ability of nations to work together for mutual benefit, thereby increasing international cooperation. NAFTA helps create a secure North American continent where none of the states need be worried about the other members in much the same way as the European Union does in Europe. Competition and potentially wars are prevented through greater trade integration as is shown by European integration since the second world war.\n", "title": "" } ]