Consistent FX Profits Unlimited Download - ForexShop24

H1 Backtest of ParallaxFX's BBStoch system

Disclaimer: None of this is financial advice. I have no idea what I'm doing. Please do your own research or you will certainly lose money. I'm not a statistician, data scientist, well-seasoned trader, or anything else that would qualify me to make statements such as the below with any weight behind them. Take them for the incoherent ramblings that they are.
TL;DR at the bottom for those not interested in the details.
This is a bit of a novel, sorry about that. It was mostly for getting my own thoughts organized, but if even one person reads the whole thing I will feel incredibly accomplished.

Background

For those of you not familiar, please see the various threads on this trading system here. I can't take credit for this system, all glory goes to ParallaxFX!
I wanted to see how effective this system was at H1 for a couple of reasons: 1) My current broker is TD Ameritrade - their Forex minimum is a mini lot, and I don't feel comfortable enough yet with the risk to trade mini lots on the higher timeframes(i.e. wider pip swings) that ParallaxFX's system uses, so I wanted to see if I could scale it down. 2) I'm fairly impatient, so I don't like to wait days and days with my capital tied up just to see if a trade is going to win or lose.
This does mean it requires more active attention since you are checking for setups once an hour instead of once a day or every 4-6 hours, but the upside is that you trade more often this way so you end up winning or losing faster and moving onto the next trade. Spread does eat more of the trade this way, but I'll cover this in my data below - it ends up not being a problem.
I looked at data from 6/11 to 7/3 on all pairs with a reasonable spread(pairs listed at bottom above the TL;DR). So this represents about 3-4 weeks' worth of trading. I used mark(mid) price charts. Spreadsheet link is below for anyone that's interested.

System Details

I'm pretty much using ParallaxFX's system textbook, but since there are a few options in his writeups, I'll include all the discretionary points here:

And now for the fun. Results!

As you can see, a higher target ended up with higher profit despite a much lower winrate. This is partially just how things work out with profit targets in general, but there's an additional point to consider in our case: the spread. Since we are trading on a lower timeframe, there is less overall price movement and thus the spread takes up a much larger percentage of the trade than it would if you were trading H4, Daily or Weekly charts. You can see exactly how much it accounts for each trade in my spreadsheet if you're interested. TDA does not have the best spreads, so you could probably improve these results with another broker.
EDIT: I grabbed typical spreads from other brokers, and turns out while TDA is pretty competitive on majors, their minors/crosses are awful! IG beats them by 20-40% and Oanda beats them 30-60%! Using IG spreads for calculations increased profits considerably (another 5% on top) and Oanda spreads increased profits massively (another 15%!). Definitely going to be considering another broker than TDA for this strategy. Plus that'll allow me to trade micro-lots, so I can be more granular(and thus accurate) with my position sizing and compounding.

A Note on Spread

As you can see in the data, there were scenarios where the spread was 80% of the overall size of the trade(the size of the confirmation candle that you draw your fibonacci retracements over), which would obviously cut heavily into your profits.
Removing any trades where the spread is more than 50% of the trade width improved profits slightly without removing many trades, but this is almost certainly just coincidence on a small sample size. Going below 40% and even down to 30% starts to cut out a lot of trades for the less-common pairs, but doesn't actually change overall profits at all(~1% either way).
However, digging all the way down to 25% starts to really make some movement. Profit at the -161.8% TP level jumps up to 37.94% if you filter out anything with a spread that is more than 25% of the trade width! And this even keeps the sample size fairly large at 187 total trades.
You can get your profits all the way up to 48.43% at the -161.8% TP level if you filter all the way down to only trades where spread is less than 15% of the trade width, however your sample size gets much smaller at that point(108 trades) so I'm not sure I would trust that as being accurate in the long term.
Overall based on this data, I'm going to only take trades where the spread is less than 25% of the trade width. This may bias my trades more towards the majors, which would mean a lot more correlated trades as well(more on correlation below), but I think it is a reasonable precaution regardless.

Time of Day

Time of day had an interesting effect on trades. In a totally predictable fashion, a vast majority of setups occurred during the London and New York sessions: 5am-12pm Eastern. However, there was one outlier where there were many setups on the 11PM bar - and the winrate was about the same as the big hours in the London session. No idea why this hour in particular - anyone have any insight? That's smack in the middle of the Tokyo/Sydney overlap, not at the open or close of either.
On many of the hour slices I have a feeling I'm just dealing with small number statistics here since I didn't have a lot of data when breaking it down by individual hours. But here it is anyway - for all TP levels, these three things showed up(all in Eastern time):
I don't have any reason to think these timeframes would maintain this behavior over the long term. They're almost certainly meaningless. EDIT: When you de-dup highly correlated trades, the number of trades in these timeframes really drops, so from this data there is no reason to think these timeframes would be any different than any others in terms of winrate.
That being said, these time frames work out for me pretty well because I typically sleep 12am-7am Eastern time. So I automatically avoid the 5am-6am timeframe, and I'm awake for the majority of this system's setups.

Moving stops up to breakeven

This section goes against everything I know and have ever heard about trade management. Please someone find something wrong with my data. I'd love for someone to check my formulas, but I realize that's a pretty insane time commitment to ask of a bunch of strangers.
Anyways. What I found was that for these trades moving stops up...basically at all...actually reduced the overall profitability.
One of the data points I collected while charting was where the price retraced back to after hitting a certain milestone. i.e. once the price hit the -61.8% profit level, how far back did it retrace before hitting the -100% profit level(if at all)? And same goes for the -100% profit level - how far back did it retrace before hitting the -161.8% profit level(if at all)?
Well, some complex excel formulas later and here's what the results appear to be. Emphasis on appears because I honestly don't believe it. I must have done something wrong here, but I've gone over it a hundred times and I can't find anything out of place.
Now, you might think exactly what I did when looking at these numbers: oof, the spread killed us there right? Because even when you move your SL to 0%, you still end up paying the spread, so it's not truly "breakeven". And because we are trading on a lower timeframe, the spread can be pretty hefty right?
Well even when I manually modified the data so that the spread wasn't subtracted(i.e. "Breakeven" was truly +/- 0), things don't look a whole lot better, and still way worse than the passive trade management method of leaving your stops in place and letting it run. And that isn't even a realistic scenario because to adjust out the spread you'd have to move your stoploss inside the candle edge by at least the spread amount, meaning it would almost certainly be triggered more often than in the data I collected(which was purely based on the fib levels and mark price). Regardless, here are the numbers for that scenario:
From a literal standpoint, what I see behind this behavior is that 44 of the 69 breakeven trades(65%!) ended up being profitable to -100% after retracing deeply(but not to the original SL level), which greatly helped offset the purely losing trades better than the partial profit taken at -61.8%. And 36 went all the way back to -161.8% after a deep retracement without hitting the original SL. Anyone have any insight into this? Is this a problem with just not enough data? It seems like enough trades that a pattern should emerge, but again I'm no expert.
I also briefly looked at moving stops to other lower levels (78.6%, 61.8%, 50%, 38.2%, 23.6%), but that didn't improve things any. No hard data to share as I only took a quick look - and I still might have done something wrong overall.
The data is there to infer other strategies if anyone would like to dig in deep(more explanation on the spreadsheet below). I didn't do other combinations because the formulas got pretty complicated and I had already answered all the questions I was looking to answer.

2-Candle vs Confirmation Candle Stops

Another interesting point is that the original system has the SL level(for stop entries) just at the outer edge of the 2-candle pattern that makes up the system. Out of pure laziness, I set up my stops just based on the confirmation candle. And as it turns out, that is much a much better way to go about it.
Of the 60 purely losing trades, only 9 of them(15%) would go on to be winners with stops on the 2-candle formation. Certainly not enough to justify the extra loss and/or reduced profits you are exposing yourself to in every single other trade by setting a wider SL.
Oddly, in every single scenario where the wider stop did save the trade, it ended up going all the way to the -161.8% profit level. Still, not nearly worth it.

Correlated Trades

As I've said many times now, I'm really not qualified to be doing an analysis like this. This section in particular.
Looking at shared currency among the pairs traded, 74 of the trades are correlated. Quite a large group, but it makes sense considering the sort of moves we're looking for with this system.
This means you are opening yourself up to more risk if you were to trade on every signal since you are technically trading with the same underlying sentiment on each different pair. For example, GBP/USD and AUD/USD moving together almost certainly means it's due to USD moving both pairs, rather than GBP and AUD both moving the same size and direction coincidentally at the same time. So if you were to trade both signals, you would very likely win or lose both trades - meaning you are actually risking double what you'd normally risk(unless you halve both positions which can be a good option, and is discussed in ParallaxFX's posts and in various other places that go over pair correlation. I won't go into detail about those strategies here).
Interestingly though, 17 of those apparently correlated trades ended up with different wins/losses.
Also, looking only at trades that were correlated, winrate is 83%/70%/55% (for the three TP levels).
Does this give some indication that the same signal on multiple pairs means the signal is stronger? That there's some strong underlying sentiment driving it? Or is it just a matter of too small a sample size? The winrate isn't really much higher than the overall winrates, so that makes me doubt it is statistically significant.
One more funny tidbit: EUCAD netted the lowest overall winrate: 30% to even the -61.8% TP level on 10 trades. Seems like that is just a coincidence and not enough data, but dang that's a sucky losing streak.
EDIT: WOW I spent some time removing correlated trades manually and it changed the results quite a bit. Some thoughts on this below the results. These numbers also include the other "What I will trade" filters. I added a new worksheet to my data to show what I ended up picking.
To do this, I removed correlated trades - typically by choosing those whose spread had a lower % of the trade width since that's objective and something I can see ahead of time. Obviously I'd like to only keep the winning trades, but I won't know that during the trade. This did reduce the overall sample size down to a level that I wouldn't otherwise consider to be big enough, but since the results are generally consistent with the overall dataset, I'm not going to worry about it too much.
I may also use more discretionary methods(support/resistance, quality of indecision/confirmation candles, news/sentiment for the pairs involved, etc) to filter out correlated trades in the future. But as I've said before I'm going for a pretty mechanical system.
This brought the 3 TP levels and even the breakeven strategies much closer together in overall profit. It muted the profit from the high R:R strategies and boosted the profit from the low R:R strategies. This tells me pair correlation was skewing my data quite a bit, so I'm glad I dug in a little deeper. Fortunately my original conclusion to use the -161.8 TP level with static stops is still the winner by a good bit, so it doesn't end up changing my actions.
There were a few times where MANY (6-8) correlated pairs all came up at the same time, so it'd be a crapshoot to an extent. And the data showed this - often then won/lost together, but sometimes they did not. As an arbitrary rule, the more correlations, the more trades I did end up taking(and thus risking). For example if there were 3-5 correlations, I might take the 2 "best" trades given my criteria above. 5+ setups and I might take the best 3 trades, even if the pairs are somewhat correlated.
I have no true data to back this up, but to illustrate using one example: if AUD/JPY, AUD/USD, CAD/JPY, USD/CAD all set up at the same time (as they did, along with a few other pairs on 6/19/20 9:00 AM), can you really say that those are all the same underlying movement? There are correlations between the different correlations, and trying to filter for that seems rough. Although maybe this is a known thing, I'm still pretty green to Forex - someone please enlighten me if so! I might have to look into this more statistically, but it would be pretty complex to analyze quantitatively, so for now I'm going with my gut and just taking a few of the "best" trades out of the handful.
Overall, I'm really glad I went further on this. The boosting of the B/E strategies makes me trust my calculations on those more since they aren't so far from the passive management like they were with the raw data, and that really had me wondering what I did wrong.

What I will trade

Putting all this together, I am going to attempt to trade the following(demo for a bit to make sure I have the hang of it, then for keeps):
Looking at the data for these rules, test results are:
I'll be sure to let everyone know how it goes!

Other Technical Details

Raw Data

Here's the spreadsheet for anyone that'd like it. (EDIT: Updated some of the setups from the last few days that have fully played out now. I also noticed a few typos, but nothing major that would change the overall outcomes. Regardless, I am currently reviewing every trade to ensure they are accurate.UPDATE: Finally all done. Very few corrections, no change to results.)
I have some explanatory notes below to help everyone else understand the spiraled labyrinth of a mind that put the spreadsheet together.

Insanely detailed spreadsheet notes

For you real nerds out there. Here's an explanation of what each column means:

Pairs

  1. AUD/CAD
  2. AUD/CHF
  3. AUD/JPY
  4. AUD/NZD
  5. AUD/USD
  6. CAD/CHF
  7. CAD/JPY
  8. CHF/JPY
  9. EUAUD
  10. EUCAD
  11. EUCHF
  12. EUGBP
  13. EUJPY
  14. EUNZD
  15. EUUSD
  16. GBP/AUD
  17. GBP/CAD
  18. GBP/CHF
  19. GBP/JPY
  20. GBP/NZD
  21. GBP/USD
  22. NZD/CAD
  23. NZD/CHF
  24. NZD/JPY
  25. NZD/USD
  26. USD/CAD
  27. USD/CHF
  28. USD/JPY

TL;DR

Based on the reasonable rules I discovered in this backtest:

Demo Trading Results

Since this post, I started demo trading this system assuming a 5k capital base and risking ~1% per trade. I've added the details to my spreadsheet for anyone interested. The results are pretty similar to the backtest when you consider real-life conditions/timing are a bit different. I missed some trades due to life(work, out of the house, etc), so that brought my total # of trades and thus overall profit down, but the winrate is nearly identical. I also closed a few trades early due to various reasons(not liking the price action, seeing support/resistance emerge, etc).
A quick note is that TD's paper trade system fills at the mid price for both stop and limit orders, so I had to subtract the spread from the raw trade values to get the true profit/loss amount for each trade.
I'm heading out of town next week, then after that it'll be time to take this sucker live!

Live Trading Results

I started live-trading this system on 8/10, and almost immediately had a string of losses much longer than either my backtest or demo period. Murphy's law huh? Anyways, that has me spooked so I'm doing a longer backtest before I start risking more real money. It's going to take me a little while due to the volume of trades, but I'll likely make a new post once I feel comfortable with that and start live trading again.
submitted by ForexBorex to Forex [link] [comments]

No, the British did not steal $45 trillion from India

This is an updated copy of the version on BadHistory. I plan to update it in accordance with the feedback I got.
I'd like to thank two people who will remain anonymous for helping me greatly with this post (you know who you are)
Three years ago a festschrift for Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri was published by Shubhra Chakrabarti, a history teacher at the University of Delhi and Utsa Patnaik, a Marxist economist who taught at JNU until 2010.
One of the essays in the festschirt by Utsa Patnaik was an attempt to quantify the "drain" undergone by India during British Rule. Her conclusion? Britain robbed India of $45 trillion (or £9.2 trillion) during their 200 or so years of rule. This figure was immensely popular, and got republished in several major news outlets (here, here, here, here (they get the number wrong) and more recently here), got a mention from the Minister of External Affairs & returns 29,100 results on Google. There's also plenty of references to it here on Reddit.
Patnaik is not the first to calculate such a figure. Angus Maddison thought it was £100 million, Simon Digby said £1 billion, Javier Estaban said £40 million see Roy (2019). The huge range of figures should set off some alarm bells.
So how did Patnaik calculate this (shockingly large) figure? Well, even though I don't have access to the festschrift, she conveniently has written an article detailing her methodology here. Let's have a look.
How exactly did the British manage to diddle us and drain our wealth’ ? was the question that Basudev Chatterjee (later editor of a volume in the Towards Freedom project) had posed to me 50 years ago when we were fellow-students abroad.
This is begging the question.
After decades of research I find that using India’s commodity export surplus as the measure and applying an interest rate of 5%, the total drain from 1765 to 1938, compounded up to 2016, comes to £9.2 trillion; since $4.86 exchanged for £1 those days, this sum equals about $45 trillion.
This is completely meaningless. To understand why it's meaningless consider India's annual coconut exports. These are almost certainly a surplus but the surplus in trade is countered by the other country buying the product (indeed, by definition, trade surpluses contribute to the GDP of a nation which hardly plays into intuitive conceptualisations of drain).
Furthermore, Dewey (2019) critiques the 5% interest rate.
She [Patnaik] consistently adopts statistical assumptions (such as compound interest at a rate of 5% per annum over centuries) that exaggerate the magnitude of the drain
Moving on:
The exact mechanism of drain, or transfers from India to Britain was quite simple.
Convenient.
Drain theory possessed the political merit of being easily grasped by a nation of peasants. [...] No other idea could arouse people than the thought that they were being taxed so that others in far off lands might live in comfort. [...] It was, therefore, inevitable that the drain theory became the main staple of nationalist political agitation during the Gandhian era.
- Chandra et al. (1989)
The key factor was Britain’s control over our taxation revenues combined with control over India’s financial gold and forex earnings from its booming commodity export surplus with the world. Simply put, Britain used locally raised rupee tax revenues to pay for its net import of goods, a highly abnormal use of budgetary funds not seen in any sovereign country.
The issue with figures like these is they all make certain methodological assumptions that are impossible to prove. From Roy in Frankema et al. (2019):
the "drain theory" of Indian poverty cannot be tested with evidence, for several reasons. First, it rests on the counterfactual that any money saved on account of factor payments abroad would translate into domestic investment, which can never be proved. Second, it rests on "the primitive notion that all payments to foreigners are "drain"", that is, on the assumption that these payments did not contribute to domestic national income to the equivalent extent (Kumar 1985, 384; see also Chaudhuri 1968). Again, this cannot be tested. [...] Fourth, while British officers serving India did receive salaries that were many times that of the average income in India, a paper using cross-country data shows that colonies with better paid officers were governed better (Jones 2013).
Indeed, drain theory rests on some very weak foundations. This, in of itself, should be enough to dismiss any of the other figures that get thrown out. Nonetheless, I felt it would be a useful exercise to continue exploring Patnaik's take on drain theory.
The East India Company from 1765 onwards allocated every year up to one-third of Indian budgetary revenues net of collection costs, to buy a large volume of goods for direct import into Britain, far in excess of that country’s own needs.
So what's going on here? Well Roy (2019) explains it better:
Colonial India ran an export surplus, which, together with foreign investment, was used to pay for services purchased from Britain. These payments included interest on public debt, salaries, and pensions paid to government offcers who had come from Britain, salaries of managers and engineers, guaranteed profts paid to railway companies, and repatriated business profts. How do we know that any of these payments involved paying too much? The answer is we do not.
So what was really happening is the government was paying its workers for services (as well as guaranteeing profits - to promote investment - something the GoI does today Dalal (2019), and promoting business in India), and those workers were remitting some of that money to Britain. This is hardly a drain (unless, of course, Indian diaspora around the world today are "draining" it). In some cases, the remittances would take the form of goods (as described) see Chaudhuri (1983):
It is obvious that these debit items were financed through the export surplus on merchandise account, and later, when railway construction started on a large scale in India, through capital import. Until 1833 the East India Company followed a cumbersome method in remitting the annual home charges. This was to purchase export commodities in India out of revenue, which were then shipped to London and the proceeds from their sale handed over to the home treasury.
While Roy's earlier point argues better paid officers governed better, it is honestly impossible to say what part of the repatriated export surplus was a drain, and what was not. However calling all of it a drain is definitely misguided.
It's worth noting that Patnaik seems to make no attempt to quantify the benefits of the Raj either, Dewey (2019)'s 2nd criticism:
she [Patnaik] consistently ignores research that would tend to cut the economic impact of the drain down to size, such as the work on the sources of investment during the industrial revolution (which shows that industrialisation was financed by the ploughed-back profits of industrialists) or the costs of empire school (which stresses the high price of imperial defence)

Since tropical goods were highly prized in other cold temperate countries which could never produce them, in effect these free goods represented international purchasing power for Britain which kept a part for its own use and re-exported the balance to other countries in Europe and North America against import of food grains, iron and other goods in which it was deficient.
Re-exports necessarily adds value to goods when the goods are processed and when the goods are transported. The country with the largest navy at the time would presumably be in very good stead to do the latter.
The British historians Phyllis Deane and WA Cole presented an incorrect estimate of Britain’s 18th-19th century trade volume, by leaving out re-exports completely. I found that by 1800 Britain’s total trade was 62% higher than their estimate, on applying the correct definition of trade including re-exports, that is used by the United Nations and by all other international organisations.
While interesting, and certainly expected for such an old book, re-exporting necessarily adds value to goods.
When the Crown took over from the Company, from 1861 a clever system was developed under which all of India’s financial gold and forex earnings from its fast-rising commodity export surplus with the world, was intercepted and appropriated by Britain. As before up to a third of India’s rising budgetary revenues was not spent domestically but was set aside as ‘expenditure abroad’.
So, what does this mean? Britain appropriated all of India's earnings, and then spent a third of it aboard? Not exactly. She is describing home charges see Roy (2019) again:
Some of the expenditures on defense and administration were made in sterling and went out of the country. This payment by the government was known as the Home Charges. For example, interest payment on loans raised to finance construction of railways and irrigation works, pensions paid to retired officers, and purchase of stores, were payments in sterling. [...] almost all money that the government paid abroad corresponded to the purchase of a service from abroad. [...] The balance of payments system that emerged after 1800 was based on standard business principles. India bought something and paid for it. State revenues were used to pay for wages of people hired abroad, pay for interest on loans raised abroad, and repatriation of profits on foreign investments coming into India. These were legitimate market transactions.
Indeed, if paying for what you buy is drain, then several billions of us are drained every day.
The Secretary of State for India in Council, based in London, invited foreign importers to deposit with him the payment (in gold, sterling and their own currencies) for their net imports from India, and these gold and forex payments disappeared into the yawning maw of the SoS’s account in the Bank of England.
It should be noted that India having two heads was beneficial, and encouraged investment per Roy (2019):
The fact that the India Office in London managed a part of the monetary system made India creditworthy, stabilized its currency, and encouraged foreign savers to put money into railways and private enterprise in India. Current research on the history of public debt shows that stable and large colonies found it easier to borrow abroad than independent economies because the investors trusted the guarantee of the colonist powers.

Against India’s net foreign earnings he issued bills, termed Council bills (CBs), to an equivalent rupee value. The rate (between gold-linked sterling and silver rupee) at which the bills were issued, was carefully adjusted to the last farthing, so that foreigners would never find it more profitable to ship financial gold as payment directly to Indians, compared to using the CB route. Foreign importers then sent the CBs by post or by telegraph to the export houses in India, that via the exchange banks were paid out of the budgeted provision of sums under ‘expenditure abroad’, and the exporters in turn paid the producers (peasants and artisans) from whom they sourced the goods.
Sunderland (2013) argues CBs had two main roles (and neither were part of a grand plot to keep gold out of India):
Council bills had two roles. They firstly promoted trade by handing the IO some control of the rate of exchange and allowing the exchange banks to remit funds to India and to hedge currency transaction risks. They also enabled the Indian government to transfer cash to England for the payment of its UK commitments.

The United Nations (1962) historical data for 1900 to 1960, show that for three decades up to 1928 (and very likely earlier too) India posted the second highest merchandise export surplus in the world, with USA in the first position. Not only were Indians deprived of every bit of the enormous international purchasing power they had earned over 175 years, even its rupee equivalent was not issued to them since not even the colonial government was credited with any part of India’s net gold and forex earnings against which it could issue rupees. The sleight-of-hand employed, namely ‘paying’ producers out of their own taxes, made India’s export surplus unrequited and constituted a tax-financed drain to the metropolis, as had been correctly pointed out by those highly insightful classical writers, Dadabhai Naoroji and RCDutt.
It doesn't appear that others appreciate their insight Roy (2019):
K. N. Chaudhuri rightly calls such practice ‘confused’ economics ‘coloured by political feelings’.

Surplus budgets to effect such heavy tax-financed transfers had a severe employment–reducing and income-deflating effect: mass consumption was squeezed in order to release export goods. Per capita annual foodgrains absorption in British India declined from 210 kg. during the period 1904-09, to 157 kg. during 1937-41, and to only 137 kg by 1946.
Dewey (1978) points out reliability issues with Indian agriculutural statistics, however this calorie decline persists to this day. Some of it is attributed to less food being consumed at home Smith (2015), a lower infectious disease burden Duh & Spears (2016) and diversified diets Vankatesh et al. (2016).
If even a part of its enormous foreign earnings had been credited to it and not entirely siphoned off, India could have imported modern technology to build up an industrial structure as Japan was doing.
This is, unfortunately, impossible to prove. Had the British not arrived in India, there is no clear indication that India would've united (this is arguably more plausible than the given counterfactual1). Had the British not arrived in India, there is no clear indication India would not have been nuked in WW2, much like Japan. Had the British not arrived in India, there is no clear indication India would not have been invaded by lizard people, much like Japan. The list continues eternally.
Nevertheless, I will charitably examine the given counterfactual anyway. Did pre-colonial India have industrial potential? The answer is a resounding no.
From Gupta (1980):
This article starts from the premise that while economic categories - the extent of commodity production, wage labour, monetarisation of the economy, etc - should be the basis for any analysis of the production relations of pre-British India, it is the nature of class struggles arising out of particular class alignments that finally gives the decisive twist to social change. Arguing on this premise, and analysing the available evidence, this article concludes that there was little potential for industrial revolution before the British arrived in India because, whatever might have been the character of economic categories of that period, the class relations had not sufficiently matured to develop productive forces and the required class struggle for a 'revolution' to take place.
A view echoed in Raychaudhuri (1983):
Yet all of this did not amount to an economic situation comparable to that of western Europe on the eve of the industrial revolution. Her technology - in agriculture as well as manufacturers - had by and large been stagnant for centuries. [...] The weakness of the Indian economy in the mid-eighteenth century, as compared to pre-industrial Europe was not simply a matter of technology and commercial and industrial organization. No scientific or geographical revolution formed part of the eighteenth-century Indian's historical experience. [...] Spontaneous movement towards industrialisation is unlikely in such a situation.
So now we've established India did not have industrial potential, was India similar to Japan just before the Meiji era? The answer, yet again, unsurprisingly, is no. Japan's economic situation was not comparable to India's, which allowed for Japan to finance its revolution. From Yasuba (1986):
All in all, the Japanese standard of living may not have been much below the English standard of living before industrialization, and both of them may have been considerably higher than the Indian standard of living. We can no longer say that Japan started from a pathetically low economic level and achieved a rapid or even "miraculous" economic growth. Japan's per capita income was almost as high as in Western Europe before industrialization, and it was possible for Japan to produce surplus in the Meiji Period to finance private and public capital formation.
The circumstances that led to Meiji Japan were extremely unique. See Tomlinson (1985):
Most modern comparisons between India and Japan, written by either Indianists or Japanese specialists, stress instead that industrial growth in Meiji Japan was the product of unique features that were not reproducible elsewhere. [...] it is undoubtably true that Japan's progress to industrialization has been unique and unrepeatable
So there you have it. Unsubstantiated statistical assumptions, calling any number you can a drain & assuming a counterfactual for no good reason gets you this $45 trillion number. Hopefully that's enough to bury it in the ground.
1. Several authors have affirmed that Indian identity is a colonial artefact. For example see Rajan 1969:
Perhaps the single greatest and most enduring impact of British rule over India is that it created an Indian nation, in the modern political sense. After centuries of rule by different dynasties overparts of the Indian sub-continent, and after about 100 years of British rule, Indians ceased to be merely Bengalis, Maharashtrians,or Tamils, linguistically and culturally.
or see Bryant 2000:
But then, it would be anachronistic to condemn eighteenth-century Indians, who served the British, as collaborators, when the notion of 'democratic' nationalism or of an Indian 'nation' did not then exist. [...] Indians who fought for them, differed from the Europeans in having a primary attachment to a non-belligerent religion, family and local chief, which was stronger than any identity they might have with a more remote prince or 'nation'.

Bibliography

Chakrabarti, Shubra & Patnaik, Utsa (2018). Agrarian and other histories: Essays for Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri. Colombia University Press
Hickel, Jason (2018). How the British stole $45 trillion from India. The Guardian
Bhuyan, Aroonim & Sharma, Krishan (2019). The Great Loot: How the British stole $45 trillion from India. Indiapost
Monbiot, George (2020). English Landowners have stolen our rights. It is time to reclaim them. The Guardian
Tsjeng, Zing (2020). How Britain Stole $45 trillion from India with trains | Empires of Dirt. Vice
Chaudhury, Dipanjan (2019). British looted $45 trillion from India in today’s value: Jaishankar. The Economic Times
Roy, Tirthankar (2019). How British rule changed India's economy: The Paradox of the Raj. Palgrave Macmillan
Patnaik, Utsa (2018). How the British impoverished India. Hindustan Times
Tuovila, Alicia (2019). Expenditure method. Investopedia
Dewey, Clive (2019). Changing the guard: The dissolution of the nationalist–Marxist orthodoxy in the agrarian and agricultural history of India. The Indian Economic & Social History Review
Chandra, Bipan et al. (1989). India's Struggle for Independence, 1857-1947. Penguin Books
Frankema, Ewout & Booth, Anne (2019). Fiscal Capacity and the Colonial State in Asia and Africa, c. 1850-1960. Cambridge University Press
Dalal, Sucheta (2019). IL&FS Controversy: Centre is Paying Up on Sovereign Guarantees to ADB, KfW for Group's Loan. TheWire
Chaudhuri, K.N. (1983). X - Foreign Trade and Balance of Payments (1757–1947). Cambridge University Press
Sunderland, David (2013). Financing the Raj: The City of London and Colonial India, 1858-1940. Boydell Press
Dewey, Clive (1978). Patwari and Chaukidar: Subordinate officials and the reliability of India’s agricultural statistics. Athlone Press
Smith, Lisa (2015). The great Indian calorie debate: Explaining rising undernourishment during India’s rapid economic growth. Food Policy
Duh, Josephine & Spears, Dean (2016). Health and Hunger: Disease, Energy Needs, and the Indian Calorie Consumption Puzzle. The Economic Journal
Vankatesh, P. et al. (2016). Relationship between Food Production and Consumption Diversity in India – Empirical Evidences from Cross Section Analysis. Agricultural Economics Research Review
Gupta, Shaibal (1980). Potential of Industrial Revolution in Pre-British India. Economic and Political Weekly
Raychaudhuri, Tapan (1983). I - The mid-eighteenth-century background. Cambridge University Press
Yasuba, Yasukichi (1986). Standard of Living in Japan Before Industrialization: From what Level did Japan Begin? A Comment. The Journal of Economic History
Tomblinson, B.R. (1985). Writing History Sideways: Lessons for Indian Economic Historians from Meiji Japan. Cambridge University Press
Rajan, M.S. (1969). The Impact of British Rule in India. Journal of Contemporary History
Bryant, G.J. (2000). Indigenous Mercenaries in the Service of European Imperialists: The Case of the Sepoys in the Early British Indian Army, 1750-1800. War in History
submitted by GaslightEveryone to u/GaslightEveryone [link] [comments]

Don’t give up!

I’m proud to say that I am finally consistent! And by consistent, I mean 6 months of good sleep with a steady growth of my account. This journey began back in March 2016 when my friend introduced me into forex. I’ve lost an average of 1k per year until the start of 2020.
For those feeling horrible because you been stopped out or in a sea of reds don’t be demoralised, think of it as you are paying your school fees. Forex can be a very expensive education...
Things that I have learnt since the start. (May vary person to person)
In my personal opinion! Demo is for new traders like me to learn the basics of forex and once i was familiar with the market, I went live with money that I was okay to lose. I only went back demo to test my strategy when I could trade without emotions. It was a ton of trial and error until this day 😆
If you are like me, a student... My greatest tip for you is to not trade during exams / project submissions...
Trade safe, trade well!
[Edit] I should probably give an idea why I would specifically point out the list of things.
submitted by TeePii97 to Forex [link] [comments]

Should I alter my career path for FX?

I am a premed student that just finished college and is on course to start medical school next fall (2021). I've always been pretty good at school and absolutely love science. My mom is a doctor, and 2 of my siblings are also docs. I'm the youngest. I also have a few cousins that are docs. As you can probably guess, I've been kind of groomed to be a doctor. There's always quite a bit of pressure from my family to become a doctor. However, my parents put me through school with no loans and gave me pocket money so they do have a lot invested in my career choice. Also, nuclear and extended family members have always told me that out of all the kids (siblings + cousins), I specifically am the one that needs to be a doctor (due to academic ability and the way my brain processes things). So the pressure is for sure there lol.
My issue is that I discovered the forex market a little over a year ago and absolutely fell in love with trading. I've been pretty consistent in learning about the market and practicing for the whole year. I found a good strategy that *actually* works, learned to manage my emotions, and I'm now starting to see overall profits. Obviously I still have a long way to go until I could returns significant enough to provide for a family doing this, but it seems very very lucrative.
If I become a doctor, I'd finish residency about a decade from now. By then, if I had consistently been getting better at trading for a decade, I would be making much more than my salary as a physician. So, I wonder: why would I continue to waste my time practicing medicine? I think I would enjoy practicing medicine, but why would I do it while I could do something I like just as much, and make more money. On top of that, wouldn't that mean the decade in school/residency was a giant waste of time? On the other side of the argument, 95% of retail traders don't make any money, so I assume that thinking I'll be making those significant returns in 10 years may be a long shot.
It's not all about the money though. I genuinely have always seen myself as a doctor. It's almost like a personality trait. I always want to be the one to figure or what's wrong with someone, or be responsible for treating a wound. When the Covid-19 pandemic started getting bad, I felt a very strong urge to be on the front lines helping, regardless of the risk.
I've always thought it would be exciting to actually use the knowledge I learned to diagnose and treat patients. I really really like human science. To the point that I've already made some the connections that'll be taught in medical school, just because of additional research I've done to cure my curiosity. Human science is for sure my thing, so I'd think medicine should be as well.
On top of all this, I am way more inclined to study trading than to study medicine. I've studied forex information for 10-12hrs straight before and not even noticed it was already 4am. In contrast, I have to force myself to open up MCAT books (even though I love science), and detest traditional school/tests. Although, I'm the type of person that can push through and do what needs to be done, whether I like it or not.
(TLDR) In a nutshell, I love both trading and medicine. However, I'm not sure if I could balance the two together through medical school/residency, and then while actually practicing. I also doubt that I will actually continue practicing medicine if I'm making a lot of money trading. Am I being unrealistic?
Sorry this was so long, but I really need some advice/perspective on how I should move forward. Thanks for reading!!!!

FYI: I understand that FX is not at all a get rich quick kind of thing. I'm more than willing to put in the work and I have been for the past year.


Edit: probably should have mentioned that I trade for a prop firm with a scaling plan. So no I don't intend on using my own money to trade for a while lol
submitted by VictoryLane7 to Forex [link] [comments]

Should I alter my career path?

I am a premed student that just finished college and is on course to start medical school next fall (2021). I've always been pretty good at school and absolutely love science. My mom is a doctor, and 2 of my siblings are also docs. I'm the youngest. I also have a few cousins that are docs. As you can probably guess, I've been kind of groomed to be a doctor. There's always quite a bit of pressure from my family to become a doctor. However, my parents put me through school with no loans and gave me pocket money so they do have a lot invested in my career choice. Also, nuclear and extended family members have always told me that out of all the kids (siblings + cousins), I specifically am the one that needs to be a doctor (due to academic ability and the way my brain processes things). So the pressure is for sure there lol.
My issue is that I discovered the forex market a little over a year ago and absolutely fell in love with trading. I've been pretty consistent in learning about the market and practicing for the whole year. I found a good strategy that *actually* works, learned to manage my emotions, and I'm now starting to see overall profits. Obviously I still have a long way to go until I could returns significant enough to provide for a family doing this, but it seems very very lucrative.
If I become a doctor, I'd finish residency about a decade from now. By then, if I had consistently been getting better at trading for a decade, I would be making much more than my salary as a physician. So, I wonder: why would I continue to waste my time practicing medicine? I think I would enjoy practicing medicine, but why would I do it while I could do something I like just as much, and make more money. On top of that, wouldn't that mean the decade in school/residency was a giant waste of time? On the other side of the argument, 95% of retail traders don't make any money, so I assume that thinking I'll be making those significant returns in 10 years may be a long shot.
It's not all about the money though. I genuinely have always seen myself as a doctor. It's almost like a personality trait. I always want to be the one to figure or what's wrong with someone, or be responsible for treating a wound. When the Covid-19 pandemic started getting bad, I felt a very strong urge to be on the front lines helping, regardless of the risk.
I've always thought it would be exciting to actually use the knowledge I learned to diagnose and treat patients. I really really like human science. To the point that I've already made some the connections that'll be taught in medical school, just because of additional research I've done to cure my curiosity. Human science is for sure my thing, so I'd think medicine should be as well.
On top of all this, I am way more inclined to study trading than to study medicine. I've studied forex information for 10-12hrs straight before and not even noticed it was already 4am. In contrast, I have to force myself to open up MCAT books (even though I love science), and detest traditional school/tests. Although, I'm the type of person that can push through and do what needs to be done, whether I like it or not.
(TLDR) In a nutshell, I love both trading and medicine. However, I'm not sure if I could balance the two together through medical school/residency, and then while actually practicing. I also doubt that I will actually continue practicing medicine if I'm making a lot of money trading. Am I being unrealistic?
Sorry this was so long, but I really need some advice/perspective on how I should move forward. Thanks for reading!!!!
FYI: I understand that FX is not at all a get rich quick kind of thing. I'm more than willing to put in the work and I have been for the past year. also I trade for a prop firm with a scaling plan. I trader money and get some of the profits. So I wouldn't be using my own money for a while
submitted by VictoryLane7 to careerguidance [link] [comments]

Should I alter my career path?

I am a premed student that just finished college and is on course to start medical school next fall (2021). I've always been pretty good at school and absolutely love science. My mom is a doctor, and 2 of my siblings are also docs. I'm the youngest. I also have a few cousins that are docs. As you can probably guess, I've been kind of groomed to be a doctor. There's always quite a bit of pressure from my family to become a doctor. However, my parents put me through school with no loans and gave me pocket money so they do have a lot invested in my career choice. Also, nuclear and extended family members have always told me that out of all the kids (siblings + cousins), I specifically am the one that needs to be a doctor (due to academic ability and the way my brain processes things). So the pressure is for sure there lol.
My issue is that I discovered the forex market a little over a year ago and absolutely fell in love with trading. I've been pretty consistent in learning about the market and practicing for the whole year. I found a good strategy that *actually* works, learned to manage my emotions, and I'm now starting to see overall profits. Obviously I still have a long way to go until I could returns significant enough to provide for a family doing this, but it seems very very lucrative.
If I become a doctor, I'd finish residency about a decade from now. By then, if I had consistently been getting better at trading for a decade, I would be making much more than my salary as a physician. So, I wonder: why would I continue to waste my time practicing medicine? I think I would enjoy practicing medicine, but why would I do it while I could do something I like just as much, and make more money. On top of that, wouldn't that mean the decade in school/residency was a giant waste of time? On the other side of the argument, 95% of retail traders don't make any money, so I assume that thinking I'll be making those significant returns in 10 years may be a long shot.
It's not all about the money though. I genuinely have always seen myself as a doctor. It's almost like a personality trait. I always want to be the one to figure or what's wrong with someone, or be responsible for treating a wound. When the Covid-19 pandemic started getting bad, I felt a very strong urge to be on the front lines helping, regardless of the risk.
I've always thought it would be exciting to actually use the knowledge I learned to diagnose and treat patients. I really really like human science. To the point that I've already made some the connections that'll be taught in medical school, just because of additional research I've done to cure my curiosity. Human science is for sure my thing, so I'd think medicine should be as well.
On top of all this, I am way more inclined to study trading than to study medicine. I've studied forex information for 10-12hrs straight before and not even noticed it was already 4am. In contrast, I have to force myself to open up MCAT books (even though I love science), and detest traditional school/tests. Although, I'm the type of person that can push through and do what needs to be done, whether I like it or not.
(TLDR) In a nutshell, I love both trading and medicine. However, I'm not sure if I could balance the two together through medical school/residency, and then while actually practicing. I also doubt that I will actually continue practicing medicine if I'm making a lot of money trading. Am I being unrealistic?
Sorry this was so long, but I really need some advice/perspective on how I should move forward. Thanks for reading!!!!
FYI: I understand that FX is not at all a get rich quick kind of thing. I'm more than willing to put in the work and I have been for the past year. also I trade for a prop firm with a scaling plan. I trader money and get some of the profits. So I wouldn't be using my own money for a while
submitted by VictoryLane7 to careerguidance [link] [comments]

Should I alter my career path?

I am a premed student that just finished college and is on course to start medical school next fall (2021). I've always been pretty good at school and absolutely love science. My mom is a doctor, and 2 of my siblings are also docs. I'm the youngest. I also have a few cousins that are docs. As you can probably guess, I've been kind of groomed to be a doctor. There's always quite a bit of pressure from my family to become a doctor. However, my parents put me through school with no loans and gave me pocket money so they do have a lot invested in my career choice. Also, nuclear and extended family members have always told me that out of all the kids (siblings + cousins), I specifically am the one that needs to be a doctor (due to academic ability and the way my brain processes things). So the pressure is for sure there lol.
My issue is that I discovered the forex market a little over a year ago and absolutely fell in love with trading. I've been pretty consistent in learning about the market and practicing for the whole year. I found a good strategy that *actually* works, learned to manage my emotions, and I'm now starting to see overall profits. Obviously I still have a long way to go until I could returns significant enough to provide for a family doing this, but it seems very very lucrative.
If I become a doctor, I'd finish residency about a decade from now. By then, if I had consistently been getting better at trading for a decade, I would be making much more than my salary as a physician. So, I wonder: why would I continue to waste my time practicing medicine? I think I would enjoy practicing medicine, but why would I do it while I could do something I like just as much, and make more money. On top of that, wouldn't that mean the decade in school/residency was a giant waste of time? On the other side of the argument, 95% of retail traders don't make any money, so I assume that thinking I'll be making those significant returns in 10 years may be a long shot.
It's not all about the money though. I genuinely have always seen myself as a doctor. It's almost like a personality trait. I always want to be the one to figure or what's wrong with someone, or be responsible for treating a wound. When the Covid-19 pandemic started getting bad, I felt a very strong urge to be on the front lines helping, regardless of the risk.
I've always thought it would be exciting to actually use the knowledge I learned to diagnose and treat patients. I really really like human science. To the point that I've already made some the connections that'll be taught in medical school, just because of additional research I've done to cure my curiosity. Human science is for sure my thing, so I'd think medicine should be as well.
On top of all this, I am way more inclined to study trading than to study medicine. I've studied forex information for 10-12hrs straight before and not even noticed it was already 4am. In contrast, I have to force myself to open up MCAT books (even though I love science), and detest traditional school/tests. Although, I'm the type of person that can push through and do what needs to be done, whether I like it or not.
(TLDR) In a nutshell, I love both trading and medicine. However, I'm not sure if I could balance the two together through medical school/residency, and then while actually practicing. I also doubt that I will actually continue practicing medicine if I'm making a lot of money trading. Am I being unrealistic?
Sorry this was so long, but I really need some advice/perspective on how I should move forward. Thanks for reading!!!!
FYI: I understand that FX is not at all a get rich quick kind of thing. I'm more than willing to put in the work and I have been for the past year. also I trade for a prop firm with a scaling plan. I trader money and get some of the profits. So I wouldn't be using my own money for a while
submitted by VictoryLane7 to careerguidance [link] [comments]

Profitable traders where do you invest earnings

TL:DR Where do people who make consistent profits invest your money or do you just keep scaling

I've been trading for about a year now, and I've had awesome success (about 19%) at least to me anyway. My account is currently about $6300 USD. I have a good paying full time job that I really enjoy and have zero thoughts on leaving it to ever become a full time trader (well who knows, maybe someday). My question is this. I plan to take my account to around $10k over the next couple years and then start withdrawing any earning out at the end of each year. I effectively want forex trading to be a boost to my retirement income over the next 25 years until retirement. Perhaps if my success continues I will scale up my trading, but the mental aspect of the draw-downs with accounts 10x mine seem just brutal. I currently max my 401k and the wife and my Roth for the year, but that's where i meet my income limitation currently for investing.
To the point where do you successful trader invest your income from trading, or do you just keep scaling because you're able to return consistent profits much higher than market averages?
submitted by Adam_1775 to Forex [link] [comments]

Overwhelmed with probablilities

So I've been trading forex for roughly a year and a half now and have had a varing degrees of succsess. Over this time, one thing that became increasingly apparent was that I had no conclusive evidence I actually had an edge -- sure, support / resitence *seemed* to work and gave periods of success but these were often followed by equally large periods of failure leading me to loose confidence in various approaches and strategies.
So at this point the logical thing to do was to take a step back and backtest. Sure, this would probably have been better to do before any trading what so ever but sometimes you need to fail first to see why you need to do something. Anyway, queue some limitied manual backtesting...
Doing this I realised several things:
  1. there are so many variables. Entries, exits, pyramiding, stop placement, profit targets and changing any one of these can have huge effects on your results, let alone all the various combinations of these factors.
  2. A sample set of 50 - 100 trades on one pair is nothing. I quickly realised that a strategy that works for EUUSD over the last year, doesn't necessarily mean that it would have worked the previous year... or next year... or on another pair... or 20 pairs.
Next, queue some automated backtesting...
So after realising the butterfly effect of changing you entry strategy or approach to take profits I decided to automate the process to speed things up and open up the possibility of trying more variable combinations. This is kind of where I'm at now - I'm using pinescript to test strategies (I get that this isn't exactly the gold standard for backtesting but it seems like a reasonable way to get started) - and am having generally mixed to poor results. The general issue being consistency, what works on one pair doesn't work on another, large periods of drawdown etc. Coupled with this is just the overwhelming sense that most strategies are just temporary runs of consistency in an otherwise chaotic system. The same as getting 5 heads in a row in a series of coin flips.

So I guess my question(s) is this:
Has anyone else been through this process of discovery and come out the other end -- and to those who are professional traders ( or at least have numerous years of consistent profitablitly ) how did you come to trust your system and know for sure that (for argument sake) closing a whole trade at 3R works better statistically than scaling out or using an exit indicator?
Additionally, my most consistent results seem to come when aiming for a a low r:r, even as low as 1:1 -- does any body trade a system that focusses on small consistent profits over the 'homerun' type approaches?

*Edit* Maybe a slightly more succinct summary of my point / question would be:
Having seen how the smallest variable can wildly change the results of an automated backtest over a data set of numerous years, coupled with the fact that strategies can fluctuate between profitable and unprofitable, in essense, at random: Is forex, esspecially if trading based on intuition or a system that you change based on your 'gut', no better than betting on roulette unless routed in hard, extensive statistical evidence?
submitted by wizzzzzyyyyy to Forex [link] [comments]

What stops people from multiplying their accounts at a bigger scale?

So I am still relatively a beginner at trading the Forex markets. I have been demo trading since October 2019 and have had taken time trying to perfect a strategy and become consistently profitable before I switch over to a live account in which I think is best. But I see all these videos about really really good traders of YouTube that turn a $1,000 account into a $5,000 in 2 weeks. What is stopping them from multiplying their lot size on all their trades by 10 and turning a $10,000 account into a $50,000 account, and then adjusting their lot sizes by 5 again, and turning that $50,000 account into a $250,000 account. If their strategy is a consistently profitable one and they can multiply their account size by 5 every 2-3 weeks, whats stopping people from doing it at a bigger scale, with lot sizes just scaled to the account size, and making the same trades?? Sorry if this is a stupid question but i'm just trying to understand the markets better.
submitted by Bootyhed to Forex [link] [comments]

Just 2 more Conspiracy Theories that turned out to be True

(i couldn't post in the previous one , word limit )

1.Big Brother or the Shadow Government

It is also called the “Deep State” by Peter Dale Scott, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
A shadow government is a "government-in-waiting" that remains in waiting with the intention of taking control of a government in response to some event. It turned out this was true on 9/11, when it was told to us by our mainstream media. For years, this was ridiculed as a silly, crazy conspiracy theory and, like the others listed here, turned out to be 100% true. It is also called the Continuity of Government.
The Continuity of Government (COG) is the principle of establishing defined procedures that allow a government to continue its essential operations in case of nuclear war or other catastrophic event. Since the end of the cold war, the policies and procedures for the COG have been altered according to realistic threats of that time.
These include but are not limited to a possible coup or overthrow by right wing terrorist groups, a terrorist attack in general, an assassination, and so on. Believe it or not the COG has been in effect since 2001.After 9/11, it went into action.
Now here is the kicker, many of the figures in Iran Contra, the Watergate Scandal, the alleged conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy, and many others listed here are indeed members of the COG. This is its own conspiracy as well.
The Secret Team:
The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World is a book written by Air Force Col. L Fletcher Prouty, published in 1973.
From 1955 to 1963 Prouty was the "Focal Point Officer" for contacts between the CIA and the Pentagon on matters relating to military support for "black operations" but he was not assigned to the CIA and was not bound by any oath of secrecy. (From the first page of the 1974 Printing)
It was one of the first tell-all books about the inner workings of the CIA and was an important influence on the Oliver Stone movie JFK. But the main thrust of the book is how the CIA started as a think tank to analyze intelligence gathered from military sources but has grown to the monster it has become. The CIA had no authority to run their own agents or to carry out covert operations but they quickly did both and much more. This book tells about things they actually did and a lot about how the operate. In Prouty's own words, from the 1997 edition of The Secret Team: This is the fundamental game of the Secret Team. They have this power because they control secrecy and secret intelligence and because they have the ability to take advantage of the most modern communications system in the world, of global transportation systems, of quantities of weapons of all kinds, and when needed, the full support of a world-wide U.S. military supporting base structure.
They can use the finest intelligence system in the world, and most importantly, they have been able to operate under the canopy of an assumed, ever-present enemy called "Communism." It will be interesting to see what "enemy" develops in the years ahead. It appears that "UFO's and Aliens" are being primed to fulfill that role for the future.
To top all of this, there is the fact that the CIA, itself, has assumed the right to generate and direct secret operations. "He is not the first to allege that UFOs and Aliens are going to be used as a threat against the world to globalize the planet under One government."
The Report from Iron Mountain
The Report from Iron Mountain is a book, published in 1967 (during the Johnson Administration) by Dial Press, that states that it is the report of a government panel.
According to the report, a 15-member panel, called the Special Study Group, was set up in 1963 to examine what problems would occur if the U.S. entered a state of lasting peace.
They met at an underground nuclear bunker called Iron Mountain (as well as other, worldwide locations) and worked over the next two years. Iron Mountain is where the government has stored the flight 93 evidence from 9/11.A member of the panel, one "John Doe", a professor at a college in the Midwest, decided to release the report to the public. The heavily footnoted report concluded that peace was not in the interest of a stable society, that even if lasting peace, "could be achieved, it would almost certainly not be in the best interests of society to achieve it." War was a part of the economy.
Therefore, it was necessary to conceive a state of war for a stable economy. The government, the group theorized, would not exist without war, and nation states existed in order to wage war. War also served a vital function of diverting collective aggression. They recommended that bodies be created to emulate the economic functions of war.
They also recommended "blood games" and that the government create alternative foes that would scare the people with reports of alien life-forms and out of control pollution.
Another proposal was the reinstitution of slavery.
U.S. News and World Report claimed in its November 20, 1967 issue to have confirmation of the reality of the report from an unnamed government official, who added that when President Johnson read the report, he 'hit the roof' and ordered it to be suppressed for all time.
Additionally, sources were said to have revealed that orders were sent to U.S. embassies, instructing them to emphasize that the book had no relation to U.S. Government policy.
Project Blue Beam is also a common conspiracy theory that alleges that a faked alien landing would be used as a means of scaring the public into whatever global system is suggested. Some researchers suggest the Report from Iron Mountain might be fabricated, others swear it is real.
Bill Moyers, the American journalist and public commentator, has served as White House Press Secretary in the United States President Lyndon B. Johnson Administration from 1965 to 1967. He worked as a news commentator on television for ten years. Moyers has had an extensive involvement with public television, producing documentaries and news journal programs.
He has won numerous awards and honorary degrees. He has become well known as a trenchant critic of the U.S. media. Since 1990, Moyers has been President of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy. He is considered by many to be a very credible outlet for the truth. He released a documentary titled, The Secret Government, which exposed the inner workings of a secret government much more vast that most people would ever imagine.
Though originally broadcast in 1987, it is even more relevant today. Interviews with respected top military, intelligence, and government insiders reveal both the history and secret objectives of powerful groups in the hidden shadows of our government.
Here is that documentary:
vid
For another powerful, highly revealing documentary on the manipulations of the secret government produced by BBC, click here.
The intrepid BBC team clearly shows how the War on Terror is largely a fabrication.
For those interested in very detailed information on the composition of the shadow or secret government from a less well-known source, take a look at the summary available here.

2. The Federal Reserve Bank

The fundamental promise of a central bank like the Federal Reserve is economic stability.
The theory is that manipulating the value of the currency allows financial booms to go higher, and crashes to be more mild. If growth becomes speculative and unsustainable, the central bank can make the price of money go up and force some deleveraging of risky investments - again, promising to make the crashes more mild.
The period leading up to the American revolution was characterized by increasingly authoritarian legislation from England. Acts passed in 1764 had a particularly harsh effect on the previously robust colonial economy.
The Sugar Act was in effect a tax cut on easily smuggled molasses, and a new tax on commodities that England more directly controlled trade over. The navy would be used in increased capacity to enforce trade laws and collect duties.
Perhaps even more significant than the militarization and expansion of taxes was the Currency Act passed later in the year 1764.
"The colonies suffered a constant shortage of currency with which to conduct trade. There were no gold or silver mines and currency could only be obtained through trade as regulated by Great Britain. Many of the colonies felt no alternative to printing their own paper money in the form of Bills of Credit."
The result was a true free market of currency - each bank competed, exchange rates fluctuated wildly, and merchants were hesitant to accept these notes as payment.
Of course, they didn't have 24-hour digital Forex markets, but I'll hold off opinions on the viability of unregulated currency for another time.
England's response was to seize control of the colonial money supply - forbidding banks, cities, and colony governments from printing their own. This law, passed so soon after the Sugar Act, started to really bring revolutionary tension inside the colonies to a higher level.
American bankers had learned early on that debasing a currency through inflation is a helpful way to pay off perpetual trade deficits - but Britain proved that the buyer of the currency would only take the deal for so long...
Following the (first) American Revolution, the "First Bank of the United States" was chartered to pay off collective war debts, and effectively distribute the cost of the revolution proportionately throughout all of the states. Although the bank had vocal and harsh skeptics, it only controlled about 20% of the nation's money supply.
Compared to today's central bank, it was nothing.
Thomas Jefferson argued vocally against the institution of the bank, mostly citing constitutional concerns and the limitations of government found in the 10th amendment.
There was one additional quote that hints at the deeper structural flaw of a central bank in a supposedly free capitalist economy.
"The existing banks will, without a doubt, enter into arrangements for lending their agency, and the more favorable, as there will be a competition among them for it; whereas the bill delivers us up bound to the national bank, who are free to refuse all arrangement, but on their own terms, and the public not free, on such refusal, to employ any other bank" –Thomas Jefferson.Basically, the existing banks will fight over gaining favor with the central bank - rather than improving their performance relative to a free market.
The profit margins associated with collusion would obviously outweigh the potential profits gained from legitimate business.
The Second Bank of the United States was passed five years after the first bank's charter expired. An early enemy of central banking, President James Madison, was looking for a way to stabilize the currency in 1816. This bank was also quite temporary - it would only stay in operation until 1833 when President Andrew Jackson would end federal deposits at the institution.
The charter expired in 1836 and the private corporation was bankrupt and liquidated by 1841.While the South had been the major opponent of central banking systems, the end of the Civil War allowed for (and also made necessary) the system of national banks that would dominate the next fifty years.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) says that this post-war period of a unified national currency and system of national banks "worked well." [3] Taxes on state banks were imposed to encourage people to use the national banks - but liquidity problems persisted as the money supply did not match the economic cycles.
Overall, the American economy continued to grow faster than Europe, but the period did not bring economic stability by any stretch of the imagination. Several panics and runs on the bank - and it became a fact of life under this system of competing nationalized banks. In 1873, 1893, 1901, and 1907 significant panics caused a series of bank failures.
The new system wasn't stable at all, in fact, many suspected it was wrought with fraud and manipulation.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis is not shy about attributing the causes of the Panic of 1907 to financial manipulation from the existing banking establishment.
"If Knickerbocker Trust would falter, then Congress and the public would lose faith in all trust companies and banks would stand to gain, the bankers reasoned."
In timing with natural economic cycles, major banks including J.P. Morgan and Chase launched an all-out assault on Heinze's Knickerbocker Trust.
Financial institutions on the inside started silently selling off assets in the competitor, and headlines about a few bad loans started making top spots in the newspapers.
The run on Knickerbocker turned into a general panic - and the Federal Government would come to the rescue of its privately owned "National Banks.
"During the Panic of 1907, "Depositors 'run' on the Knickerbocker Bank. J.P. Morgan and James Stillman of First National City Bank (Citibank) act as a "central bank," providing liquidity ... [to stop the bank run] President Theodore Roosevelt provides Morgan with $25 million in government funds ... to control the panic. Morgan, acting as a one-man central bank, decides which firms will fail and which firms will survive."
How did JP Morgan get so powerful that the government would provide them with funding to increase their power? They had key influence with positions inside the Administrations.
They had senators, congressmen, lobbyists, media moguls all working for them.
In 1886, a group of millionaires purchased Jekyll Island and converted it into a winter retreat and hunting ground, the USA's most exclusive club. By 1900, the club's roster represented 1/6th of the world's wealth. Names like Astor, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Pulitzer and Gould filled the club's register. Non- members, regardless of stature, were not allowed. Dignitaries like Winston Churchill and President McKinley were refused admission.
In 1908, the year after a national money panic purportedly created by J. P. Morgan, Congress established, in 1908, a National Monetary Authority. In 1910 another, more secretive, group was formed consisting of the chiefs of major corporations and banks in this country. The group left secretly by rail from Hoboken, New Jersey, and traveled anonymously to the hunting lodge on Jekyll Island.
In fact, the Clubhouse/hotel on the island has two conference rooms named for the "Federal Reserve." The meeting was so secret that none referred to the other by his last name. Why the need for secrecy?
Frank Vanderlip wrote later in the Saturday Evening Post,
"...it would have been fatal to Senator Aldrich's plan to have it known that he was calling on anybody from Wall Street to help him in preparing his bill...I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System."
At Jekyll Island, the true draftsman for the Federal Reserve was Paul Warburg. The plan was simple.
The new central bank could not be called a central bank because America did not want one, so it had to be given a deceptive name. Ostensibly, the bank was to be controlled by Congress, but a majority of its members were to be selected by the private banks that would own its stock.
To keep the public from thinking that the Federal Reserve would be controlled from New York, a system of twelve regional banks was designed. Given the concentration of money and credit in New York, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York controlled the system, making the regional concept initially nothing but a ruse.
The board and chairman were to be selected by the President, but in the words of Colonel Edward House, the board would serve such a term as to "put them out of the power of the President."
The power over the creation of money was to be taken from the people and placed in the hands of private bankers who could expand or contract credit as they felt best suited their needs. Why the opposition to a central bank? Americans at the time knew of the destruction to the economy the European central banks had caused to their respective countries and to countries who became their debtors.
They saw the large- scale government deficit spending and debt creation that occurred in Europe. But European financial moguls didn't rest until the New World was within their orbit. In 1902, Paul Warburg, a friend and associate of the Rothschilds and an expert on European central banking, came to this country as a partner in Kuhn, Loeb and Company.
He married the daughter of Solomon Loeb, one of the founders of the firm. The head of Kuhn, Loeb was Jacob Schiff, whose gift of $20 million in gold to the struggling Russian communists in 1917 no doubt saved their revolution. The Fed controls the banking system in the USA, not the Congress nor the people indirectly (as the Constitution dictates). The U.S. central bank strategy is a product of European banking interests.
Government interventionists got their wish in 1913 with the Federal Reserve (and income tax amendment). Just in time, too, because the nation needed a new source of unlimited cash to finance both sides of WW1 and eventually our own entry to the war.
After the war, with both sides owing us debt through the federal reserve backed banks, the center of finance moved from London to New York. But did the Federal Reserve reign in the money trusts and interlocking directorates? Not by a long shot. If anything, the Federal Reserve granted new powers to the National Banks by permitting overseas branches and new types of banking services.
The greatest gift to the bankers, was a virtually unlimited supply of loans when they experience liquidity problems.
From the early 1920s to 1929, the monetary supply expanded at a rapid pace and the nation experienced wild economic growth. Curiously, however, the number of banks started to decline for the first time in American history. Toward the end of the period, speculation and loose money had propelled asset and equity prices to unreal levels.
The stock market crashed, and as the banks struggled with liquidity problems, the Federal Reserve actually cut the money supply. Without a doubt, this is the greatest financial panic and economic collapse in American history - and it never could have happened on this scale without the Fed's intervention.
The number of banks crashed and a few of the old robber barons' banks managed to swoop in and grab up thousands of competitors for pennies on the dollar.
See:
America - From Freedom to Fascism The Money Masters Monopoly Men (below video):
VID
submitted by CuteBananaMuffin to conspiracy [link] [comments]

Preparing for the Impulse: The Japanese Yen Surge

Preparing for the Impulse: The Japanese Yen Surge
See first: https://www.reddit.com/Forex/comments/clx0v9/profiting_in_trends_planning_for_the_impulsive/

Against it's major counterparts, the JPY has been showing a lot of strength. It's now getting into areas where it is threatening breakouts of decade long support and resistance levels.

Opportunity for us as traders if this happens is abundant. We've not seen trading conditions like this for over 10 years on this currency, and back then it was a hell of a show! In this post I'll discuss this, and my plans to trade it.

I'm going to focus on one currency pair, although I do think this same sort of move will be reflected across most of the XXXJPY pairs. The pair I will be using is GBPJPY. I like the volatility in this pair, and along with the JPY looking continually strong and there being uncertainty in the GBP with possible Brexit related issues, this seems like an ideal target for planning to trade a strong move up in the JPY.

The Big Overview

I'll start by drawing your attention to something a lot of you will have probably not been aware of. GBPJPY has always been in a downtrend. All this stuff happening day to day, week to week and month to month has always fitted into an overall larger downtrend. In the context of that downtrend, there have been no surprises in the price moves GBPJPY has made. This is not true of the real world events that drove these moves. Things like market crashes, bubbles and Brexit.

https://preview.redd.it/5gfhwxcy6wj31.png?width=663&format=png&auto=webp&s=4d4806dee84a7bbe073e08d153da946222893eeb

Source: https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/historical-spot-exchange-rates/gbp/GBP-to-JPY

I know this has been largely sideways for a long time, but it is valid to say this is a downtrend. The highs are getting lower, and the lows have been getting lower (last low after the Brexit fall and following 'flash crash' some weeks later).
This is important to understand, because it's going to help a lot when we look at what has happened over the last 5 - 10 years in this pair, and what it tells us might be about to happen in the coming few months and year to come. If the same pattern continues, a well designed and executed trade plan can make life changing money for the person who does that. I hope those of you who take the time to check the things I say here understand that is very feasible.

The last Decade


In the same way I've shown you how we can understand when a trend has corrective weeks and see certain sorts of price structure in that, from 2012 to 2015 GBPJPY had a corrective half decade. In the context of large price moves over decades, this was a sharp correction. I've discussed at length in my posts how sharp corrections can then lead into impulse legs.

https://preview.redd.it/kvnrqau07wj31.png?width=675&format=png&auto=webp&s=8e96f02a189a811d511ef7946037fd670d106b1b
I've explained though my posts and real time analysis and trades in the short term how in an impulse leg we would expect to see a strong move in line with the trend, then it stalling for a while. Choppy range. Then there being a big spike out move of that range. Making dramatic new lows. Then we'd enter into another corrective cycle (I've been showing you weeks, it's more practical. We'll be looking at the same thing scaled out over longer, that's all).

At this point, we can say the following things which are all non-subjective.
  • GBPJPY has always been in a downtrend.
  • A clear high after a strong rally was made in 2016
  • Since then, GBPJPY has downtrended
5 year chart confirms the latter two points.

https://preview.redd.it/a44rzzs47wj31.png?width=686&format=png&auto=webp&s=43fbebe933fa80d1c24a1f8fde2c08653d125d18

These are interesting facts. We can do a lot of with this information to understand where we may really be in the overall context of what this pair is doing.

The Clear Trend Cycle of the Last 5 Years


If we were to use the Elliot Wave theory, based on the above data we have we'd expect to see down trending formations on the weekly chart over the last 5 years. These would form is three distinct trend legs, each having a corrective pattern after. We would expect to see after that a strong correction (corrective year in down trending 5 year cycle), it stop at the 61.8% fib and then resume a down trend. The down trend would form similarly in three main moves.

https://preview.redd.it/ghvgzr577wj31.png?width=663&format=png&auto=webp&s=caeedc4f48ab3b4d1ed921ef519a33200db62868

Whether or not you believe Elliot Wave theory is any good or not, this is what it would predict. If you gave someone who knew about Elliot trading the facts we've established - they'd make this prediction. So let's see how that would look on the GBPJPY chart. I'm having problems with my cTrader platform today, so will have to use MT4 charting.


These are three distinct swings from a high to a low. It also fits all the other Elliot rules about swing formation (which I won't cover, but you can Google and learn if you'd like to). We then go into a period of correction. GBPJPY rallies for a year.
This corrective year does not look very different from a corrective week. Which I've shown how we can understand and trade though various different posts.

https://preview.redd.it/m9ga8pp97wj31.png?width=590&format=png&auto=webp&s=6ed069207b8297c0ab67d6608206b57a1b354fef
Source: https://www.reddit.com/Forex/comments/cwwe34/common_trading_mistakes_how_trend_strategies_lose/

Compare the charts, there is nothing different. It's not because I've copied this chart, it is just what a trend and correction looks like. I've shown this is not curve fitting by forecasting these corrective weeks and telling you all my trades in them (very high success rate).

What about the retrace level?
When we draw fibs from the shoulders high (which is where the resistance was, there was a false breakout of it giving an ever so slightly higher high), it's uncanny how price reacted to this level.

https://preview.redd.it/68pa0bgc7wj31.png?width=667&format=png&auto=webp&s=8f78ce2c11f267f32dacd17c8717dcfa1f8bcb6a
This is exactly what the theory would predict. I hope even those sceptical about Elliot theory can agree this looks like three trend moves with corrections, a big correction and then a top at 61.8%. Which is everything the starting data would predict if the theory was valid and in action.

Assumptions and Planning


To this point, I've made no assumptions. This is a reporting/highlighting of facts on historical data of this pair. Now I am going to make some assumptions to use them to prepare a trade plan. These will be;

  • This is an Elliot formation, and will continue to be.
  • Since it is, this leg will have symmetry to the previous leg.

I'll use the latter to confirm the former. I'll use a projection of what it'd look like if it was similar to the previous move. I'll put in my markers, and look for things to confirm or deny it. There'll be ways to both suggest I am right, and suggest I am wrong. For as long as nothing that obviously invalidates these assumptions happens in the future price action, I'll continue to assume them to be accurate.

Charting Up for Forecasts

The first thing I have do here is get some markers. What I want to do is see if there is a consistency in price interactions on certain fib levels (this is using different methods from what I've previously discussed in my posts, to avoid confusion for those who follow my stuff). I am going to draw extension swings and these will give level forecasts. I have strategies based upon this, and I'm looking for action to be consistent with these, and also duplicated in the big swings down.
I need to be very careful with how I draw my fibs. Since I can see what happened in the chart, it obviously gives me some bias to curve fit to that. This does not suit my objective. Making it fit will not help give foresight. So I need to look for ways to draw the fib on the exact same part of the swing in both of the moves.

https://preview.redd.it/d5qwm8vg7wj31.png?width=662&format=png&auto=webp&s=ad2deba557f9f6d8a0fe06d34cbe3307e7cccc24

These two parts of price moves look like very similar expressions of each other to me. There is the consolidation at the low, and then a big breakout. Looking closer at the top, both of them make false breakouts low before making a top. So I am going to use these swings to draw my fibs on, from the low to the high. What I will be looking for as specific markers is the price reaction to the 1.61% level (highly important fib).
A strategy I have designed around this would look for price to stall at this level, bounce a bit and then make a big breakout and strong trend. This would continue into the 2.20 and 2.61 extension levels. So I'm interested to see if that matches in.

https://preview.redd.it/mpoqz4aj7wj31.png?width=663&format=png&auto=webp&s=710d72120085c1e137c800f57a36f910f78eebcb
Very similar price moves are seen in the area where price traded through the 1.61 level. The breakout strategy here predicts a retracement and then another sell to new lows.
On the left swing, we made a retracement and now test lows. On the right swing, we've got to the point of testing the lows here. This is making this level very important. The breakout strategy here would predict a swing to 61 is price breaks these lows. This might sound unlikely, but this signal would have been flagged as possible back in 2008. It would require the certain criteria I've explained here, and all of this has appeared on the chart since then. This gives me many reasons to suspect a big sell is coming.

On to the next assumption. For this fall to happen in a strong style like all of these are suggesting, it'd have to be one hell of a move. Elliot wave theory would predict this, if it was wave 3 move, these are the strongest. From these I'm going to form a hypothesis and then see if I can find evidence for or against it. I am going to take the hypothesis that where we are in this current GBPJPY chart is going to late come to been seen in a larger context as this.

https://preview.redd.it/tkfzja5n7wj31.png?width=661&format=png&auto=webp&s=47fc014619a61728f16e1527e729b82edad6b94e

This hypothesis would have the Brexit lows and correction from this being the same as the small bounce up before this market capitulated. This would forecast there being a break in this pair to the downside, and that then being followed by multiple sustained strong falls. I know this looks insanely big ... but this is not much in the context of the theme of the last 50 years. This sort of thing has always been what happened when we made this breakout.

Since I have my breakout strategy forecasting 61, I check for confluence of anything that may also give that area as a forecast. I'm looking for symmetry, so I take the ratio of the size of the first big fall on the left to the ratio of when it all out crashed. These legs are close to 50% more (bit more, this is easy math). The low to high of the recent swing would be 7,500 pips. So this would forecast 11,000.
When you take that away from the high of 156, it comes in very close to 61. Certainly close enough to be considered within the margin of error this strategy has for forecasting.

I will be posting a lot more detailed trade plans that this. Dealing specific levels to plan to engage the market, stop trailing and taking profit. I'll also quite actively track my trades I am making to enter into the market for this move. This post is to get the broad strokes of why I'm looking for this trade in place, and to help you to have proper context by what I mean when you hear me talking about big sells on this pair and other XXXJPY pairs.
submitted by whatthefx to Forex [link] [comments]

How to get started in Forex - A comprehensive guide for newbies

Almost every day people come to this subreddit asking the same basic questions over and over again. I've put this guide together to point you in the right direction and help you get started on your forex journey.

A quick background on me before you ask: My name is Bob, I'm based out of western Canada. I started my forex journey back in January 2018 and am still learning. However I am trading live, not on demo accounts. I also code my own EA's. I not certified, licensed, insured, or even remotely qualified as a professional in the finance industry. Nothing I say constitutes financial advice. Take what I'm saying with a grain of salt, but everything I've outlined below is a synopsis of some tough lessons I've learned over the last year of being in this business.

LET'S GET SOME UNPLEASANTNESS OUT OF THE WAY

I'm going to call you stupid. I'm also going to call you dumb. I'm going to call you many other things. I do this because odds are, you are stupid, foolish,and just asking to have your money taken away. Welcome to the 95% of retail traders. Perhaps uneducated or uninformed are better phrases, but I've never been a big proponent of being politically correct.

Want to get out of the 95% and join the 5% of us who actually make money doing this? Put your grown up pants on, buck up, and don't give me any of this pc "This is hurting my feelings so I'm not going to listen to you" bullshit that the world has been moving towards.

Let's rip the bandage off quickly on this point - the world does not give a fuck about you. At one point maybe it did, it was this amazing vision nicknamed the American Dream. It died an agonizing, horrible death at the hand of capitalists and entrepreneurs. The world today revolves around money. Your money, my money, everybody's money. People want to take your money to add it to theirs. They don't give a fuck if it forces you out on the street and your family has to live in cardboard box. The world just stopped caring in general. It sucks, but it's the way the world works now. Welcome to the new world order. It's called Capitalism.

And here comes the next hard truth that you will need to accept - Forex is a cruel bitch of a mistress. She will hurt you. She will torment you. She will give you nightmares. She will keep you awake at night. And then she will tease you with a glimmer of hope to lure you into a false sense of security before she then guts you like a fish and shows you what your insides look like. This statement applies to all trading markets - they are cruel, ruthless, and not for the weak minded.

The sooner you accept these truths, the sooner you will become profitable. Don't accept it? That's fine. Don't bother reading any further. If I've offended you I don't give a fuck. You can run back home and hide under your bed. The world doesn't care and neither do I.

For what it's worth - I am not normally an major condescending asshole like the above paragraphs would suggest. In fact, if you look through my posts on this subreddit you will see I am actually quite helpful most of the time to many people who come here. But I need you to really understand that Forex is not for most people. It will make you cry. And if the markets themselves don't do it, the people in the markets will.

LESSON 1 - LEARN THE BASICS

Save yourself and everybody here a bunch of time - learn the basics of forex. You can learn the basics for free - BabyPips has one of the best free courses online which explains what exactly forex is, how it works, different strategies and methods of how to approach trading, and many other amazing topics.

You can access the BabyPips course by clicking this link: https://www.babypips.com/learn/forex

Do EVERY course in the School of Pipsology. It's free, it's comprehensive, and it will save you from a lot of trouble. It also has the added benefit of preventing you from looking foolish and uneducated when you come here asking for help if you already know this stuff.

If you still have questions about how forex works, please see the FREE RESOURCES links on the /Forex FAQ which can be found here: https://www.reddit.com/Forex/wiki/index

Quiz Time
Answer these questions truthfully to yourself:

-What is the difference between a market order, a stop order, and a limit order?
-How do you draw a support/resistance line? (Demonstrate it to yourself)
-What is the difference between MACD, RSI, and Stochastic indicators?
-What is fundamental analysis and how does it differ from technical analysis and price action trading?
-True or False: It's better to have a broker who gives you 500:1 margin instead of 50:1 margin. Be able to justify your reasoning.

If you don't know to answer to any of these questions, then you aren't ready to move on. Go back to the School of Pipsology linked above and do it all again.

If you can answer these questions without having to refer to any kind of reference then congratulations, you are ready to move past being a forex newbie and are ready to dive into the wonderful world of currency trading! Move onto Lesson 2 below.

LESSON 2 - RANDOM STRANGERS ARE NOT GOING TO HELP YOU GET RICH IN FOREX

This may come as a bit of a shock to you, but that random stranger on instagram who is posting about how he is killing it on forex is not trying to insprire you to greatness. He's also not trying to help you. He's also not trying to teach you how to attain financial freedom.

99.99999% of people posting about wanting to help you become rich in forex are LYING TO YOU.

Why would such nice, polite people do such a thing? Because THEY ARE TRYING TO PROFIT FROM YOUR STUPIDITY.

Plain and simple. Here's just a few ways these "experts" and "gurus" profit from you:


These are just a few examples. The reality is that very few people make it big in forex or any kind of trading. If somebody is trying to sell you the dream, they are essentially a magician - making you look the other way while they snatch your wallet and clean you out.

Additionally, on the topic of fund managers - legitimate fund managers will be certified, licensed, and insured. Ask them for proof of those 3 things. What they typically look like are:

If you are talking to a fund manager and they are insisting they have all of these, get a copy of their verification documents and lookup their licenses on the directories of the issuers to verify they are valid. If they are, then at least you are talking to somebody who seems to have their shit together and is doing investment management and trading as a professional and you are at least partially protected when the shit hits the fan.


LESSON 3 - UNDERSTAND YOUR RISK

Many people jump into Forex, drop $2000 into a broker account and start trading 1 lot orders because they signed up with a broker thinking they will get rich because they were given 500:1 margin and can risk it all on each trade. Worst-case scenario you lose your account, best case scenario you become a millionaire very quickly. Seems like a pretty good gamble right? You are dead wrong.

As a new trader, you should never risk more than 1% of your account balance on a trade. If you have some experience and are confident and doing well, then it's perfectly natural to risk 2-3% of your account per trade. Anybody who risks more than 4-5% of their account on a single trade deserves to blow their account. At that point you aren't trading, you are gambling. Don't pretend you are a trader when really you are just putting everything on red and hoping the roulette ball lands in the right spot. It's stupid and reckless and going to screw you very quickly.

Let's do some math here:

You put $2,000 into your trading account.
Risking 1% means you are willing to lose $20 per trade. That means you are going to be trading micro lots, or 0.01 lots most likely ($0.10/pip). At that level you can have a trade stop loss at -200 pips and only lose $20. It's the best starting point for anybody. Additionally, if you SL 20 trades in a row you are only down $200 (or 10% of your account) which isn't that difficult to recover from.
Risking 3% means you are willing to lose $60 per trade. You could do mini lots at this point, which is 0.1 lots (or $1/pip). Let's say you SL on 20 trades in a row. You've just lost $1,200 or 60% of your account. Even veteran traders will go through periods of repeat SL'ing, you are not a special snowflake and are not immune to periods of major drawdown.
Risking 5% means you are willing to lose $100 per trade. SL 20 trades in a row, your account is blown. As Red Foreman would call it - Good job dumbass.

Never risk more than 1% of your account on any trade until you can show that you are either consistently breaking even or making a profit. By consistently, I mean 200 trades minimum. You do 200 trades over a period of time and either break-even or make a profit, then you should be alright to increase your risk.

Unfortunately, this is where many retail traders get greedy and blow it. They will do 10 trades and hit their profit target on 9 of them. They will start seeing huge piles of money in their future and get greedy. They will start taking more risk on their trades than their account can handle.

200 trades of break-even or profitable performance risking 1% per trade. Don't even think about increasing your risk tolerance until you do it. When you get to this point, increase you risk to 2%. Do 1,000 trades at this level and show break-even or profit. If you blow your account, go back down to 1% until you can figure out what the hell you did differently or wrong, fix your strategy, and try again.

Once you clear 1,000 trades at 2%, it's really up to you if you want to increase your risk. I don't recommend it. Even 2% is bordering on gambling to be honest.


LESSON 4 - THE 500 PIP DRAWDOWN RULE

This is a rule I created for myself and it's a great way to help protect your account from blowing.

Sometimes the market goes insane. Like really insane. Insane to the point that your broker can't keep up and they can't hold your orders to the SL and TP levels you specified. They will try, but during a flash crash like we had at the start of January 2019 the rules can sometimes go flying out the window on account of the trading servers being unable to keep up with all the shit that's hitting the fan.

Because of this I live by a rule I call the 500 Pip Drawdown Rule and it's really quite simple - Have enough funds in your account to cover a 500 pip drawdown on your largest open trade. I don't care if you set a SL of -50 pips. During a flash crash that shit sometimes just breaks.

So let's use an example - you open a 0.1 lot short order on USDCAD and set the SL to 50 pips (so you'd only lose $50 if you hit stoploss). An hour later Trump makes some absurd announcement which causes a massive fundamental event on the market. A flash crash happens and over the course of the next few minutes USDCAD spikes up 500 pips, your broker is struggling to keep shit under control and your order slips through the cracks. By the time your broker is able to clear the backlog of orders and activity, your order closes out at 500 pips in the red. You just lost $500 when you intended initially to only risk $50.

It gets kinda scary if you are dealing with whole lot orders. A single order with a 500 pip drawdown is $5,000 gone in an instant. That will decimate many trader accounts.

Remember my statements above about Forex being a cruel bitch of a mistress? I wasn't kidding.

Granted - the above scenario is very rare to actually happen. But glitches to happen from time to time. Broker servers go offline. Weird shit happens which sets off a fundamental shift. Lots of stuff can break your account very quickly if you aren't using proper risk management.


LESSON 5 - UNDERSTAND DIFFERENT TRADING METHODOLOGIES

Generally speaking, there are 3 trading methodologies that traders employ. It's important to figure out what method you intend to use before asking for help. Each has their pros and cons, and you can combine them in a somewhat hybrid methodology but that introduces challenges as well.

In a nutshell:

Now you may be thinking that you want to be a a price action trader - you should still learn the principles and concepts behind TA and FA. Same if you are planning to be a technical trader - you should learn about price action and fundamental analysis. More knowledge is better, always.

With regards to technical analysis, you need to really understand what the different indicators are tell you. It's very easy to misinterpret what an indicator is telling you, which causes you to make a bad trade and lose money. It's also important to understand that every indicator can be tuned to your personal preferences.

You might find, for example, that using Bollinger Bands with the normal 20 period SMA close, 2 standard deviation is not effective for how you look at the chart, but changing that to say a 20 period EMA average price, 1 standard deviation bollinger band indicator could give you significantly more insight.


LESSON 6 - TIMEFRAMES MATTER

Understanding the differences in which timeframes you trade on will make or break your chosen strategy. Some strategies work really well on Daily timeframes (i.e. Ichimoku) but they fall flat on their face if you use them on 1H timeframes, for example.

There is no right or wrong answer on what timeframe is best to trade on. Generally speaking however, there are 2 things to consider:


If you are a total newbie to forex, I suggest you don't trade on anything shorter than the 1H timeframe when you are first learning. Trading on higher timeframes tends to be much more forgiving and profitable per trade. Scalping is a delicate art and requires finesse and can be very challenging when you are first starting out.


LESSON 7 - AUTOBOTS...ROLL OUT!

Yeah...I'm a geek and grew up with the Transformers franchise decades before Michael Bay came along. Deal with it.

Forex bots are called EA's (Expert Advisors). They can be wonderous and devastating at the same time. /Forex is not really the best place to get help with them. That is what /algotrading is useful for. However some of us that lurk on /Forex code EA's and will try to assist when we can.

Anybody can learn to code an EA. But just like how 95% of retail traders fail, I would estimate the same is true for forex bots. Either the strategy doesn't work, the code is buggy, or many other reasons can cause EA's to fail. Because EA's can often times run up hundreds of orders in a very quick period of time, it's critical that you test them repeatedly before letting them lose on a live trading account so they don't blow your account to pieces. You have been warned.

If you want to learn how to code an EA, I suggest you start with MQL. It's a programming language which can be directly interpretted by Meta Trader. The Meta Trader terminal client even gives you a built in IDE for coding EA's in MQL. The downside is it can be buggy and glitchy and caused many frustrating hours of work to figure out what is wrong.

If you don't want to learn MQL, you can code an EA up in just about any programming language. Python is really popular for forex bots for some reason. But that doesn't mean you couldn't do it in something like C++ or Java or hell even something more unusual like JQuery if you really wanted.

I'm not going to get into the finer details of how to code EA's, there are some amazing guides out there. Just be careful with them. They can be your best friend and at the same time also your worst enemy when it comes to forex.

One final note on EA's - don't buy them. Ever. Let me put this into perspective - I create an EA which is literally producing money for me automatically 24/5. If it really is a good EA which is profitable, there is no way in hell I'm selling it. I'm keeping it to myself to make a fortune off of. EA's that are for sale will not work, will blow your account, and the developer who coded it will tell you that's too darn bad but no refunds. Don't ever buy an EA from anybody.

LESSON 8 - BRING ON THE HATERS

You are going to find that this subreddit is frequented by trolls. Some of them will get really nasty. Some of them will threaten you. Some of them will just make you miserable. It's the price you pay for admission to the /Forex club.

If you can't handle it, then I suggest you don't post here. Find a more newbie-friendly site. It sucks, but it's reality.

We often refer to trolls on this subreddit as shitcunts. That's your word of the day. Learn it, love it. Shitcunts.


YOU MADE IT, WELCOME TO FOREX!

If you've made it through all of the above and aren't cringing or getting scared, then welcome aboard the forex train! You will fit in nicely here. Ask your questions and the non-shitcunts of our little corner of reddit will try to help you.

Assuming this post doesn't get nuked and I don't get banned for it, I'll add more lessons to this post over time. Lessons I intend to add in the future:
If there is something else you feel should be included please drop a comment and I'll add it to the above list of pending topics.

Cheers,

Bob



submitted by wafflestation to Forex [link] [comments]

Preparing for the Impulse: The Japanese Yen Surge

Preparing for the Impulse: The Japanese Yen Surge
Against it's major counterparts, the JPY has been showing a lot of strength. It's now getting into areas where it is threatening breakouts of decade long support and resistance levels.

Opportunity for us as traders if this happens is abundant. We've not seen trading conditions like this for over 10 years on this currency, and back then it was a hell of a show! In this post I'll discuss this, and my plans to trade it.

I'm going to focus on one currency pair, although I do think this same sort of move will be reflected across most of the XXXJPY pairs. The pair I will be using is GBPJPY. I like the volatility in this pair, and along with the JPY looking continually strong and there being uncertainty in the GBP with possible Brexit related issues, this seems like an ideal target for planning to trade a strong move up in the JPY.

The Big Overview

I'll start by drawing your attention to something a lot of you will have probably not been aware of. GBPJPY has always been in a downtrend. All this stuff happening day to day, week to week and month to month has always fitted into an overall larger downtrend. In the context of that downtrend, there have been no surprises in the price moves GBPJPY has made. This is not true of the real world events that drove these moves. Things like market crashes, bubbles and Brexit.

https://preview.redd.it/9r6rnqo4rvj31.png?width=1258&format=png&auto=webp&s=738602a2157e08c3f9ec6c588ae603edb5b71a36
Source: https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/historical-spot-exchange-rates/gbp/GBP-to-JPY

I know this has been largely sideways for a long time, but it is valid to say this is a downtrend. The highs are getting lower, and the lows have been getting lower (last low after the Brexit fall and following 'flash crash' some weeks later).
This is important to understand, because it's going to help a lot when we look at what has happened over the last 5 - 10 years in this pair, and what it tells us might be about to happen in the coming few months and year to come. If the same pattern continues, a well designed and executed trade plan can make life changing money for the person who does that. I hope those of you who take the time to check the things I say here understand that is very feasible.

The last Decade


In the same way I've shown you how we can understand when a trend has corrective weeks and see certain sorts of price structure in that, from 2012 to 2015 GBPJPY had a corrective half decade. In the context of large price moves over decades, this was a sharp correction. I've discussed at length in my posts how sharp corrections can then lead into impulse legs.
https://preview.redd.it/j5q3jrtvsvj31.png?width=1269&format=png&auto=webp&s=a76fdb3de6e943234352f4b9832483c35e082a4b
I've explained though my posts and real time analysis and trades in the short term how in an impulse leg we would expect to see a strong move in line with the trend, then it stalling for a while. Choppy range. Then there being a big spike out move of that range. Making dramatic new lows. Then we'd enter into another corrective cycle (I've been showing you weeks, it's more practical. We'll be looking at the same thing scaled out over longer, that's all).

At this point, we can say the following things which are all non-subjective.
  • GBPJPY has always been in a downtrend.
  • A clear high after a strong rally was made in 2016
  • Since then, GBPJPY has downtrended
5 year chart confirms the latter two points.

https://preview.redd.it/ac1kjwr1uvj31.png?width=1249&format=png&auto=webp&s=f94861cab758119231fff168233bebac832cf456

These are interesting facts. We can do a lot of with this information to understand where we may really be in the overall context of what this pair is doing.

The Clear Trend Cycle of the Last 5 Years


If we were to use the Elliot Wave theory, based on the above data we have we'd expect to see down trending formations on the weekly chart over the last 5 years. These would form is three distinct trend legs, each having a corrective pattern after. We would expect to see after that a strong correction (corrective year in down trending 5 year cycle), it stop at the 61.8% fib and then resume a down trend. The down trend would form similarly in three main moves.

Whether or not you believe Elliot Wave theory is any good or not, this is what it would predict. If you gave someone who knew about Elliot trading the facts we've established - they'd make this prediction. So let's see how that would look on the GBPJPY chart. I'm having problems with my cTrader platform today, so will have to use MT4 charting.


https://preview.redd.it/s8vguiimvvj31.png?width=823&format=png&auto=webp&s=96d023db99041c9ba91f61ab87d3bd48de8da514
These are three distinct swings from a high to a low. It also fits all the other Elliot rules about swing formation (which I won't cover, but you can Google and learn if you'd like to). We then go into a period of correction. GBPJPY rallies for a year.
This corrective year does not look very different from a corrective week. Which I've shown how we can understand and trade though various different posts.
https://preview.redd.it/yowdmil6wvj31.png?width=733&format=png&auto=webp&s=bad142803823e6a7f8af56ef63ebebc574210c4b
Source: https://www.reddit.com/Forex/comments/cwwe34/common_trading_mistakes_how_trend_strategies_lose/

Compare the charts, there is nothing different. It's not because I've copied this chart, it is just what a trend and correction looks like. I've shown this is not curve fitting by forecasting these corrective weeks and telling you all my trades in them (very high success rate).

What about the retrace level?
When we draw fibs from the shoulders high (which is where the resistance was, there was a false breakout of it giving an ever so slightly higher high), it's uncanny how price reacted to this level.
https://preview.redd.it/axvtd22wwvj31.png?width=822&format=png&auto=webp&s=518f309232552ea33921e939b08d2bf28ba76f0b
This is exactly what the theory would predict. I hope even those sceptical about Elliot theory can agree this looks like three trend moves with corrections, a big correction and then a top at 61.8%. Which is everything the starting data would predict if the theory was valid and in action.

Assumptions and Planning


To this point, I've made no assumptions. This is a reporting/highlighting of facts on historical data of this pair. Now I am going to make some assumptions to use them to prepare a trade plan. These will be;

  • This is an Elliot formation, and will continue to be.
  • Since it is, this leg will have symmetry to the previous leg.

I'll use the latter to confirm the former. I'll use a projection of what it'd look like if it was similar to the previous move. I'll put in my markers, and look for things to confirm or deny it. There'll be ways to both suggest I am right, and suggest I am wrong. For as long as nothing that obviously invalidates these assumptions happens in the future price action, I'll continue to assume them to be accurate.

Charting Up for Forecasts

The first thing I have do here is get some markers. What I want to do is see if there is a consistency in price interactions on certain fib levels (this is using different methods from what I've previously discussed in my posts, to avoid confusion for those who follow my stuff). I am going to draw extension swings and these will give level forecasts. I have strategies based upon this, and I'm looking for action to be consistent with these, and also duplicated in the big swings down.
I need to be very careful with how I draw my fibs. Since I can see what happened in the chart, it obviously gives me some bias to curve fit to that. This does not suit my objective. Making it fit will not help give foresight. So I need to look for ways to draw the fib on the exact same part of the swing in both of the moves.

https://preview.redd.it/xgvofjcl0wj31.png?width=823&format=png&auto=webp&s=6d2564bbe2ece9506c425397c672c16cd75a2766
These two parts of price moves look like very similar expressions of each other to me. There is the consolidation at the low, and then a big breakout. Looking closer at the top, both of them make false breakouts low before making a top. So I am going to use these swings to draw my fibs on, from the low to the high. What I will be looking for as specific markers is the price reaction to the 1.61% level (highly important fib).
A strategy I have designed around this would look for price to stall at this level, bounce a bit and then make a big breakout and strong trend. This would continue into the 2.20 and 2.61 extension levels. So I'm interested to see if that matches in.

https://preview.redd.it/4tl024da2wj31.png?width=810&format=png&auto=webp&s=09a813fcdf67a0fac41ff1d9a44b540fd1298106
Very similar price moves are seen in the area where price traded through the 1.61 level. The breakout strategy here predicts a retracement and then another sell to new lows.
On the left swing, we made a retracement and now test lows. On the right swing, we've got to the point of testing the lows here. This is making this level very important. The breakout strategy here would predict a swing to 61 is price breaks these lows. This might sound unlikely, but this signal would have been flagged as possible back in 2008. It would require the certain criteria I've explained here, and all of this has appeared on the chart since then. This gives me many reasons to suspect a big sell is coming.

On to the next assumption. For this fall to happen in a strong style like all of these are suggesting, it'd have to be one hell of a move. Elliot wave theory would predict this, if it was wave 3 move, these are the strongest. From these I'm going to form a hypothesis and then see if I can find evidence for or against it. I am going to take the hypothesis that where we are in this current GBPJPY chart is going to late come to been seen in a larger content as this.

https://preview.redd.it/ctcill674wj31.png?width=814&format=png&auto=webp&s=538847fce98009b8177e079aa6a3ecba0684e73f
This hypothesis would have the Brexit lows and correction from this being the same as the small bounce up before this market capitulated. This would forecast there being a break in this pair to the downside, and that then being followed by multiple sustained strong falls.
Since I have my breakout strategy forecasting 61, I check for confluence of anything that may also give that area as a forecast. I'm looking for symmetry, so I take the ratio of the size of the first big fall on the left to the ratio of when it all out crashed. These legs are close to 50% more (bit more, this is easy math). The low to high of the recent swing would be 7,500 pips. So this would forecast 11,000.
When you take that away from the high of 156, it comes in very close to 61. Certainly close enough to be considered within the margin of error this strategy has for forecasting.

I will be posting a lot more detailed trade plans that this. Dealing specific levels to plan to engage the market, stop trailing and taking profit. I'll also quite actively track my trades I am making to enter into the market for this move. This post is to get the broad strokes of why I'm looking for this trade in place, and to help you to have proper content by what I mean when you hear me talking about big sells on this pair and other XXXJPY pairs.
submitted by whatthefx to u/whatthefx [link] [comments]

7 Secrets of Consistent Forex Profits  Improve Your ... Best Forex Strategy for Consistent Profits  Indicator ... Forex Profits, Maximizing By Scaling Out Lots FOREX NAS100 30 MINUTES OF CONSISTENT PROFITS  BEST FOREX ... How to have Consistent Profits Trading Nas100/Forex ... Secret to Consistent Profits !! - YouTube Trade Forex Like a Casino for Consistent Profits - YouTube Most Consistent Forex Trading Strategy (Profits & Pips) Making smart entries to make consistent profits in the ... Best Forex Strategy For Consistent Profits

I help struggling Forex traders achieve consistent results by deploying my Optimized Forex Formula. ... and scaling your trading account so you can make that life-changing income? It's one thing to trade with a small account, but it's a whole different ballgame when you've got big money on the line. A trader's mindset plays a bigger role than most care to admit when it comes to enabling them ... Consistent FX Profits Online “CFXP Online” is a revolutionary, new Forex-success system designed to help any Forex trader become consistently profitable. This A-Z program will show you step-by-step how to win over 70% of your trades, regardless of your experience or current market conditions. It includes: Forex Profits, Maximizing By Scaling Out Lots . In this lesson we will discuss how traders can take profits on any forex trade. We will discuss various techniques how to take profits from your forex trades after the trade entry goes into profitability and positive pips. This means many Forex scalpers do not tend to follow the common 2% risk management rule, but are instead trading much higher volumes during their trading sessions. By being consistent with this process, they can stand to benefit from stable, consistent profits. There are two different methods of scalping - manual and automated. In the manual ... Many forex traders are familiar with how to trade through Fibonacci retracement tool but many of them don’t know how to use the Fibonacci pivot strategy tool. Fibonacci pivot strategy help traders to recognize potential entry points and also helps in recognizing profits entry points. It also helps traders to forecast future price action. Scalping Wisdom: 10 Powerful Tips for Consistent Profits. Share; Tweet; Pin; An essential way to become a successful forex trader is looking for a trading technique that suits your needs. There are several ways to trade Forex effectively. Scalping is one of the most commonly used trading styles that seek steady and consistent profit from several small winning trades for a short time. Basically ... This Forex Pyramid Strategy helps you in increasing the chances of making consistent returns as a Forex trader. Using this strategy, we can scale our winning position and make the most of the trend. This strategy cannot be used in every market situation. If you do that, it will be the most destructive thing you do to your trading account.

[index] [9132] [28969] [18053] [23870] [11687] [21069] [28109] [15069] [14957] [14752]

7 Secrets of Consistent Forex Profits Improve Your ...

This video shows how I made a smart entry to gain great profits using lesser indicators...Will be dropping the strategies I use soon so subscribe and hit the... I WILL SHOW YOU Best Forex Strategy For Consistent Profits - Learn trading in the correct way to make cosistent profits. Beginner guide for very profitable f... Join our FB Group through our page: https://www.facebook.com/FXGOAT/ FX GOAT FOREX TRADING ACADEMY Instagram: fxgoat_ https://instagram.com/fxgoat_?igshid=jd... How to have Consistent Profits Trading Nas100/Forex - Prophetic Forex In this video I give advice from my 4 fours of experience Trading the Forex market. Ple... Most Consistent Forex Trading Strategy. Consistent Forex Profits. Consistent Forex Pips. Based on our Forex Secrets video: https://youtu.be/EoXdiBmlY2A SUBSC... Watch this Forex webinar to learn the 7 secrets of consistent profits including how to draw key levels, analyze trends, utilize Forex trading strategies, and... In the Forex market, there are 'gamblers' and there are 'professionals'. Gamblers depend on luck to make money and would eventually lose it all, because the ... Forex Trade With Us http://bit.ly/2EYIbgI Email: [email protected] Brokers I use https://bit.ly/35kgYkc P.S MY INSTAGRAM IS GONE NOW SO IF SOMEBODY W... Join best Forex broker Link - https://bit.ly/31W2Cos You have opened an account in Word Best Forex Broker with my Join link. That I told you that if you join... In this video we show forex traders several techniques for taking profit on a trade, which incorporate scaling out lots as you move into profitability. We will also show traders how to adjust ...

http://arab-binary-option.svetababpres.cf