Change the Guard

Rick Williamson asked:


Thanks to the advent of the internet.The investor today has many avenues which to explore. One is the foreign exchange market. A whole new generation of tools is now available to level the playing field in forex. Although institutional investors and central banks have long traded in foreign currencies, individuals have only recently had access to this medium.

Systems or platforms involving software are developed by those who understand currency exchange.this software has the ability to take into consideration, global markets which are open 24 hours a day. Without this software a trader would find it impossible or to be over whelmed to be able to execute knowledgeable trades.

Using such software a person can custom order their trades to suit what is needed, such as types of orders, limit orders, and stop loss orders. The traders signal reaches the investor’s account almost immediately and second, they take the emotion out of trading. Once an investor finds a program that works, that program can be reproduced to repeatedly achieve profit.

Successful currency trading also depends upon an understanding of the types of events that affect forex markets as well as knowledge of how long-term trends influence these markets. A variety of economic indicators can affect the value of a currency are government economic policies, trade policies, budgetary spending, the changing political landscape within a country or a region and the level of inflation are all factors that can influence the supply and demand for the currencies of various countries.

In summary, look for a forex program that is relatively inexpensive. Trade the program in your free forex demo account. Test it with your free forex charts moving back in time with the charts to see how the trade holds up. Begin with a mini account and watch your forex account grow from there.

Do not be discouraged and discard your forex trading system because you have a bit of time where you don’t profit. Do rethink your forex system if it does not give you profits over the long run.

Yoyo29 asked:


I’ve lived in Greece off/on for many years, and I just don’t think Greeks are objective when it comes to their foreign policy. Whatever issue we see in Greece, they become polarized to one opinion. By contrast you couldn’t get two Americans to agree on anything, let alone something as important as Foreign policy. Can anyone provide an example where Greeks were objective when discussing their foreign policy. Please provide a concrete answer of that–thanks.

kalli w asked:


How will the economic crisis effect the average consumer with little to no debt? How will it effect the dollar in the long run? Will the inflation rate continue to rise with the bailout in place? Just some questions for thought.

Mr. Knowledgeable VI asked:


Out of all the great successes of George W. Bush these last eight years, what would you say is his greatest success?

I would say Bush greatest success is helping America’s Poor. Since he has been president, he has provided tax relief to the poor so they can save money, make sure that schools are instituting the No Child Left Behind Act, getting the poor off welfare and back to work. His policies has really made a difference in my community.

BarackObamadotcom asked:

As a guest on The Ellen Degeneres Show, Barack shows off his dancing skills.

Sam George asked:


Would being cozy with new found friends alienate trusted allies? A tough nut to *****. This is exactly the dilemma which the UPA government at the center faces today. As the PM and the Left remain adamant on their versions of the Indo – U.S. nuke deal this question assumes greater significance. One thing is clearly evident; the U.S. is awed by the double digit (one can say inflated numbers) growth figures, military might and influence of China in South – East Asia and wants to counter it by firing the bullet from India’s shoulder as it recognizes Pakistan as a spent force in the region. In short, a zero sum game, an equation balancing its variables.

 

From our independence we have maintained and nurtured an independent foreign policy which does not undermine India’s sovereignty. Many would argue that India had a leaning towards the Soviet Block till the 80’s and the Indo – Russia – China axis is still relevant. However India as is widely known was a founding member nation of NAM and has always committed itself to resolving thorns through dialogue rather than force. But we live in an imperfect world, where forging and strengthening relationships is an instrument of economic gains and political mileage.

 

Being ditched and being on the opposite side of the spectrum is not new for us. China did it to us in 1962 (we signed Panchseel agreement with them in 1958), incursions inside our territory in Arunachal is an ongoing affair. Pakistan is the habitual offender - 1948, 1965, 1971, 1999….the proxy war is still on. IPKF suffered at the hands of both LTTE and Sri Lanka in 1989 – 1990 while Rajiv Gandhi lost his life fighting for peace in the abode of Ravana. At all these times India was fighting a lone battle against everyone. These tale of events made India realize that either you chose a father figure who doles out billions of dollars in exchange of sovereignty or tread along the path of economic growth which is riddled with challenges. We chose the latter, courtesy our visionary PM’s 1991 budget, and now we command a dominant place in international politics (we are chucking a sizeable amount of Uncle Sam’s role), which is a reason for us being hounded.

 

As we enter into another 8 percent growth year, fulfilling the mounting energy needs of our population is an area of concern. With crude oil shooting upto $142 per barrel, and our coal not being of the highest quality compounds the problem. Nuclear power is a cheaper and a viable option. France meets almost 45% of its energy needs through Nuclear energy. This deal gives us the technology and fuel for our starving nuclear reactors along with IAEA safeguards thereby in a way circumventing the U.S. sanctions. It has the potential to propel India as a major player in international affairs (read U.N. Security Council membership) and develop us as a regional power in face of our hostile neighbors. We would have an umbrella to protect ourselves from heavy rain. The question is whether the deal typecasts India as a strategic partner of U.S. and do we compromise our freedom and liberty in garb of this deal. Would we be compelled to toe the U.S. line on Iraq and Iran with whom we have cordial relations? Wouldn’t this deal revive the beleaguered U.S. nuclear industry and oil the U.S. economy?

 

The alternative which the Left advocates is to aggressively push the Iran – Pakistan – India gas pipeline and work towards similar deals with France and Russia, not with U.S. The gas pipeline is fraught with difficulties given the fluid state of Pakistan and the high price demanded by Iran. Deals with France and Russia are wedged because IAEA safeguards agreement has not been signed. The Left is not in a mood to let the government go to IAEA as it believes then the Indo – U.S. deal would be on auto - pilot mode.  An eyeball to eyeball confrontation is definitely on cards at this moment. This Indian news was first reported by newsislife.

 

In an election year with sky rocketing inflation, global food shortage and a bear market this deal could well prove to be the Achilles heel for government’s survival.    

 

To have more of India news and daily national & international updates, take out a minute to visit http://www.newsislife.com

Angie Ryan asked:


The 2008 US presidential race has been a wild one. The anti-opposing candidate ads and campaigns have been getting more and more elaborate and as history shows, it’s not a rare occurrence. Presidents and presidential candidates have been called antichrists for as long as my memory goes so it doesn’t surprise me that this label is not attributed to Senator Barack Obama. There are countless websites dedicated to the Barack Obama the Antichrist phenomenon, many of them quoting verses from bibles that often times perfectly fit the profile Mr. Obama. But how far will this go?

I need to make one thing clear before I continue on – I am not an Obama voter. Democrats are not getting my vote. But guess what – neither are Republicans. This is not because I decided not to exercise my civic right to vote, it is because I’m not a US citizen. I do not live in the US either, but as a citizen of Canada, a country that has so many ties with the US, what goes on south of the border is of an interest to me. Just don’t call me biased. I’m not an Obama blind sheep, nor am I a McCain string puppet. I do not like either of them and don’t envy my American friends one bit for having to choose between those two.

But let’s not dwindle away from Barack Obama and websites that claim he’s an antichrist. Because of massive following of what appears to be blind-folded worshippers, for each Obama Antichrist website there is a website debunking the antichrist claims. Both of them are rather ridiculous, both lacking solid arguments, both can be ultimately debunked.

By taking a closer look at what those who believe that Barack Obama is an antichrist base their assertions upon it is easy to see where they’re coming from. Characteristics of Barack Obama simply fit the profile of an antichrist more than characteristics of any other man alive:

Charismatic – Check

Popular throughout many nations - Check

Leader of people - Check

Muslim descent - Check

Capable of making people follow him blindly – Check

And that’s not the end of the list. If you also consider his real motives for becoming the president and an undying desire to be “the first” you’ll get at best a questionable politician, and at the most extreme an antichrist.

Barack Obama is an opportunist who’s favored by Lady Luck. He’s well aware of it and when the opportunity struck, he grabbed at it firmly and didn’t let go. The picture of him in front of a board with buttons that he controls as well as the picture of his bank account growing by millions every month recalled the desires he was not willing to let go off. He’s ready and willing to say and do anything it takes to get that office. Because with that office he’s gonna get the control and the money he desires. What will happen then matters not. All that matters to him is to satisfy his desire of power and money.

As a Canadian who is active in public life style I have met with many fellow Canucks who share the same belief as our American friends – Barack Obama is an antichrist. When I asked around what made them think so, the most common answer was that Mr. Obama was largely funded and supported by the same bankers and shady organizations that control America and are believed to be behind the New World Order. Considering how much money and public brainwash by the media support he received from these cartels, it is to be expected that they will expect something in return. It is also possible that Barack Obama is their extended hand set to high place in order to execute their orders.

If that happens to be the case, if Barack Obama is hand in hand with the New World Order and if he is in fact an antichrist, then it’ll be his task to finalize The North American Union and introduction of Amero as the official currency of Canada, the United States and Mexico. When all this falls in place, this person, this possible antichrist, this Barack Obama will be ruling my home country of Canada too. And that’s what Canadians I have spoken with are afraid of the most.

Antichrist could be real, antichrist could be just across the border and if the antichrist becomes the president and unites our country with his, that antichrist will rule Canada and our own lives as well. And that’s a scary thought. I do not know whether Barack Obama is the antichrist or not, but even a slight chance of having an antichrist as my ruler makes me feel uneasy. I can only hope that good will eventually prevail, cause I’m not willing to join the army of antichrist’s minions.

fiwireggae asked:

Coco Tea - Barack Obama …. Coco Tea - Barack Obama music video

C. Read asked:


There are consequences to debasing a currency and none of them are positive. US monetary policy is a conscious attempt to devalue its currency; increase exports and inflate the US economy out of the financial crisis precipitated by a fall in house prices. It is both an unnecessary and quite dangerous policy.

The reasons for the U$ decline are varied but at the core are 3 issues. First the US is printing too much money and interest rates are too low [3% in the US vs 5.25 % in the UK, and 4% in the EU]. Second, fiscal improvidence, entitlement programs and subsidies are leading to budget deficits. Third, higher returns are being realised outside the US and these returns are not U$ denominated.

The Americans can address all three issues – and they should. First the money supply is growing by more than 10% a year – far in excess of economic growth [about 3% in 2007 overall]; inflation [4.2%] and population growth. In fact is almost double. Second, non-essential and non-military spending is out of control increasing by at least 10% per year. Third, the Americans need to cut taxes and regulation to stimulate their economy, returns and foreign investment.

Over the past 30 years the dollar weighted index has fallen from 100 in 1974, to 60 in 2008. This is a dramatic 40 % drop in one generation. In 2001 the dollar index was at 110. In the past 5 years the dollar has dropped close to 40% and has fallen by 5% in the past month alone. This is simply an unsustainable dollar devaluation crisis. If not arrested it will herald the end of American hegemony and presages a huge inflationary run up.

The greatest threat to wealth is inflation. Inflation is a tax on consumers and wealth. As purchasing power declines wealth in all dollar denominated assets also decline. Incomes typically can’t keep up with 4% plus inflation – at least not in the short term – so real wages fall. As wages fall in the short term the consumer part of the economy contracts.

Similar problems exist for business. As inflation increases raw material costs go up. Industrial commodity prices on every item are near or above historical records. Oil is now forecasted to rise to $150 as the US$ keeps falling. Any commodity or material priced in U$ must increase in value as the dollar is debased, leading to inflation and for many firms using the commodity as an input, lower profits.

The main beneficiaries of a declining dollar are exporters with a large based of buisness outside the US. They benefit from translating stronger currencies into the US$ and inflating revenues and profits. As well they can purchase in overseas markets commodities and raw materials with stronger currencies. Other beneficiaries of a declining US$ would be those holding assets in stronger currencies including the Euro, many of which were in marked decline against the US dollar a few short years ago.

So what does the declining U$ mean?

None of the consequences of a debased US currency are positive. At some point the international financial and reserve system will move out of U$ to the Euro. This will give the Europeans more financial, political and even economic importance, since the world reserve currency generates profits for the holder of that currency. The world currency owner can for example borrow at lower rates to finance deficits and increased consumption over investment.

Such a shift from the U$ to the Euro would have a profound impact on the US economy and on foreign affairs. Simply put the US would be far weaker, even militarily, if this were to occur. It would also occasion governments in the US to deal with out of control spending by either raising taxes; cutting spending; or borrowing at above market average rates. None of these would be beneficial to the US economy.

There is of course the matter of prestige and power. A weak currency reflects intellectually and superficially, a weak country. The richest empires in history have proven that a robust and reliable currency unit is mandatory in running, and managing a far-flung empire. The Roman denarii, the British pound, even the Franc and Ruble, all have demonstrated the benefits of imperial monetary domination.

Maintaining a strong currency and reassuring the empire’s citizens of its reliability, is a must for the imperial power. Allies and satrapies don’t take kindly to devaluating assets or using a weak imperial currency. In times past debased currencies and economic chaos has led to many a war and rebellion against a weak imperial power.

The dollar’s decline is a symptom of imperial weakness. A dollar decline might benefit multi-national firms and exports; and decrease temporarily the trade deficit, but those benefits come at a huge cost. Inflation, rising oil and gold prices which are denominated in the U$, and most vitally, a decrease in hegemonic power, are the results of bad fiscal and monetary policy.

The U$ dollar’s 30 year decline once again proves the folly of governmental and political posturing. Once the US dollar loses its status as the world’s reserve currency, it will soon relinquish its imperial dominance. This is not a positive for anyone inside the US imperial system. Empires bring peace, prosperity and wealth creation. International economic chaos does not.

Nancy billa asked:


This 2008 democratic presidential nominee race is turning out to be one of the closest races in a long time. Many of the state primaries were decided by a small margin and there were not many blowouts in large states. As it stands now, Hillary Clinton has a slight lead in delegates over Barack Obama with each hovering around 1100 each. The democrats award delegates on a proportional basis to the percentage of votes they get in each state and it takes 2025 delegates to secure the nomination. In addition to the delegates awarded by the states, there also exists superdelegates or around 796 important figures in the democratic party. These superdelegates are free to endorse any candidate and vote for any candidate. In essence, they are not bound to pledge their support and can change their mind and vote at any time. As it stands now, I believe Barack Obama will secure the nomination and would ultimately be a better choice for the Presidency. Hillary Clinton is a junior senator from New York and former First Lady from 1993-2001. She, like many politicians, has an extensive background in law. Before the 2008 primaries started, she was thought to be the frontrunner for the democratic nomination and thought to be the only woman who had a chance to become president at this time. During her time as first lady because of her political prowess and involvement, she was often likened to Eleanor Roosevelt. Barack Obama is a junior senator from Illinois and also worked in law before deciding to run for public office. He first made an impression at the 2004 keynote address at the democratic convention where his bold, and inspirational speech received nationwide recognition and praise. Since then, he announced his attention to run for the Presidency and has surprised many by winning numerous states by a large margin and hanging tough in those he lost to Hillary Clinton. His message is a message of change and I believe he will follow through with his dream for America. While both candidates are democrats, and agree on many issues, there are some key differences in their positions. The first and foremost is the issue of the Iraq War. Hillary Clinton initially voted for the Iraq War but has since opposed the decision made by the Bush Administration. She has been heavily criticized for this “flip-flop” while Barack Obama was an opponent of the war since its very inception. I think that this shows that Barack Obama is not afraid to dissent from the popular position, he stands strong in his beliefs even when they are unpopular. He does not seem to rush into anything without thinking it through and is not afraid of confrontation as he said “Im not opposed to wars, Im opposed to dumb wars.” The next important issue on which they differ is in their ideas for health care reform. While both understand the need for a change in the current system to help the many uninsured Americans, there is an important difference in their plans. While Hillary wishes for every American to have mandatory universal health care, Obama believes that only children should have mandatory health care. I believe that his version is superior because it makes sense that children should always be entitled to the medical care they need. However, adults should have the right to participate in private health care or a universal plan. I think that Obama’s plan is much more efficient and also will meet much less resistance. One issue that I do not completely support Obama on but more so than Hillary Clinton is the issue of same-sex marriages. He believes that same-sex couples should be able to be a part of civil unions which grant them the same rights as a marriage. While Hillary believes that some form of civil union should be allowed. I personally think that if two people, regardless of their gender, wish to be together for life, I think they should be allowed to be married. I do not see the reasoning of those who want to ban same-sex marriages. They are entitled to life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness, no one should be able to stop that. While I wish Barack Obama fully supported same-sex marriages, he would take the first steps to correct finally realizing same-sex marriages. Both of these candidates are strong choices for the Democratic party. Each has their own different strengths and weaknesses and appeal to different demographics. Barack Obama seems more suited for rallying large crowds of people, while Hillary sometimes falters under the pressure of so many eyes. Ultimately, I think Barack Obama’s message of change will inspire Americans to believe in change and believe in his ability to become the next President of The United States.

The 2008 Democratic presidential candidate race turns to be one of the closest races in a long time. Many of the state primary have been decided by a small margin and there were not many blowouts in major states. As it stands now, Hillary Clinton has a slight lead over Barack Obama delegates with each hover around 1100 each. The Democrats prices delegates on a proportional basis the percentage of votes they receive in each state and it takes 2025 delegates to secure the nomination. In addition to delegates, issued by the States, there are also superdelegates or around 796 people in the Democratic Party. These superdelegates are free to endorse a candidate and vote for any candidate. In essence, they are not bound to announce their support and may change their minds and vote at any time. As it is now, I think Barack Obama will get the nomination and, ultimately, be a better choice for the presidency.

Hillary Clinton is a young New York Senator and former first lady from 1993-2001. She, like many politicians, has extensive experience in law. Before the 2008 primary began, it was thought to be headed for the Democratic nomination and thought to be the only woman who had a chance to become chairman at that time. During his time as the first woman because of her prowess and political participation, it is often equated with Eleanor Roosevelt.

Barack Obama is a young senator from Illinois and has also worked in law before deciding to run for public service. He first made an impression in 2004, will deliver a speech at the Democratic Convention where his bold, inspirational speech and the country has received recognition and praise. Since then, he announced his attention to run for the presidency and surprised many by winning many states by a wide margin of the hanging and difficult to those whom he lost to Hillary Clinton. His message is a message of change and I think he will follow his dream for America.

Although both candidates are Democrats, and agreement on many issues, there are some key differences in their positions. The first is the question of war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton originally voted for the war in Iraq but has since opposed the decision by the Bush administration. It has been strongly criticized for this “flip-flop” while Barack Obama was an opponent of the war since its inception. I think it shows that Barack Obama is not afraid to dissent from the popular position, it is strong in his convictions even if they are unpopular. It does not seem to launch into something without thinking it through and is not afraid of confrontation as he said “I am not opposed to war, I am opposed to the war stupid. “

The next important issue on which they differ is in their ideas for reform of health care. Although both understand the need for a change in the current system to help many non-Americans, there is a significant difference in their plans. If Hillary wishes of all Americans to have mandatory universal health care, Obama believes that only children should have mandatory health care. I believe that his version is superior because it is logical that children should always be entitled to medical care they need. However, adults should have the right to participate in private health care or a universal plan. I think the plan Obama is much more efficient and will also meet much less resistance.

A question that I am not completely support Obama, but more than Hillary Clinton is the issue of same-sex marriages. He believes that same-sex couples should be able to be part of civil unions that grant them the same rights as marriage. If Hillary believes that some form of civil union should be permitted. Personally, I think that if two persons, regardless of their sex, desire to be together for life, I think they should be allowed to marry. I do not see the reasoning of those who want to ban same-sex marriages. They have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, nobody should be able to end this situation. Although I would like Barack Obama has fully supported same-sex marriages should correct the first steps to finally achieve the same-sex marriages.

Both candidates are strong choices for the Democratic Party. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses and appeal to different demographics. Barack Obama seems best suited rallying for large crowds of people, while Hillary falters sometimes under pressure from many eyes. Ultimately, I think Barack Obama’s message change will encourage Americans to believe in change and believe in his ability to become the next Prsidenet of the USA.