submitted by MattPetroski to ItalicoIntegralism [link] [comments]
What Is Capitalism?Capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals or businesses own capital goods. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market—known as a market economy—rather than through central planning—known as a planned economy or command economy.
The purest form of capitalism is free market or laissez-faire capitalism. Here, private individuals are unrestrained. They may determine where to invest, what to produce or sell, and at which prices to exchange goods and services. The laissez-faire marketplace operates without checks or controls.
Today, most countries practice a mixed capitalist system that includes some degree of government regulation of business and ownership of select industries.
Volume 75% 2:05
Understanding CapitalismFunctionally speaking, capitalism is one process by which the problems of economic production and resource distribution might be resolved. Instead of planning economic decisions through centralized political methods, as with socialism or feudalism, economic planning under capitalism occurs via decentralized and voluntary decisions.
Capitalism and Private PropertyPrivate property rights are fundamental to capitalism. Most modern concepts of private property stem from John Locke's theory of homesteading, in which human beings claim ownership through mixing their labor with unclaimed resources. Once owned, the only legitimate means of transferring property are through voluntary exchange, gifts, inheritance, or re-homesteading of abandoned property.
Private property promotes efficiency by giving the owner of resources an incentive to maximize the value of their property. So, the more valuable the resource is, the more trading power it provides the owner. In a capitalist system, the person who owns the property is entitled to any value associated with that property.
For individuals or businesses to deploy their capital goods confidently, a system must exist that protects their legal right to own or transfer private property. A capitalist society will rely on the use of contracts, fair dealing, and tort law to facilitate and enforce these private property rights.
When a property is not privately owned but shared by the public, a problem known as the tragedy of the commons can emerge. With a common pool resource, which all people can use, and none can limit access to, all individuals have an incentive to extract as much use value as they can and no incentive to conserve or reinvest in the resource. Privatizing the resource is one possible solution to this problem, along with various voluntary or involuntary collective action approaches.
Capitalism, Profits, and LossesProfits are closely associated with the concept of private property. By definition, an individual only enters into a voluntary exchange of private property when they believe the exchange benefits them in some psychic or material way. In such trades, each party gains extra subjective value, or profit, from the transaction.
Voluntary trade is the mechanism that drives activity in a capitalist system. The owners of resources compete with one another over consumers, who in turn, compete with other consumers over goods and services. All of this activity is built into the price system, which balances supply and demand to coordinate the distribution of resources.
A capitalist earns the highest profit by using capital goods most efficiently while producing the highest-value good or service. In this system, information about what is highest-valued is transmitted through those prices at which another individual voluntarily purchases the capitalist's good or service. Profits are an indication that less valuable inputs have been transformed into more valuable outputs. By contrast, the capitalist suffers losses when capital resources are not used efficiently and instead create less valuable outputs.
Free Enterprise or Capitalism?Capitalism and free enterprise are often seen as synonymous. In truth, they are closely related yet distinct terms with overlapping features. It is possible to have a capitalist economy without complete free enterprise, and possible to have a free market without capitalism.
Any economy is capitalist as long as private individuals control the factors of production. However, a capitalist system can still be regulated by government laws, and the profits of capitalist endeavors can still be taxed heavily.
"Free enterprise" can roughly be understood to mean economic exchanges free of coercive government influence. Although unlikely, it is possible to conceive of a system where individuals choose to hold all property rights in common. Private property rights still exist in a free enterprise system, although the private property may be voluntarily treated as communal without a government mandate.
Many Native American tribes existed with elements of these arrangements, and within a broader capitalist economic family, clubs, co-ops, and joint-stock business firms like partnerships or corporations are all examples of common property institutions.
If accumulation, ownership, and profiting from capital is the central principle of capitalism, then freedom from state coercion is the central principle of free enterprise.
Feudalism the Root of CapitalismCapitalism grew out of European feudalism. Up until the 12th century, less than 5% of the population of Europe lived in towns. Skilled workers lived in the city but received their keep from feudal lords rather than a real wage, and most workers were serfs for landed nobles. However, by the late Middle Ages rising urbanism, with cities as centers of industry and trade, become more and more economically important.
The advent of true wages offered by the trades encouraged more people to move into towns where they could get money rather than subsistence in exchange for labor. Families’ extra sons and daughters who needed to be put to work, could find new sources of income in the trade towns. Child labor was as much a part of the town's economic development as serfdom was part of the rural life.
Mercantilism Replaces FeudalismMercantilism gradually replaced the feudal economic system in Western Europe and became the primary economic system of commerce during the 16th to 18th centuries. Mercantilism started as trade between towns, but it was not necessarily competitive trade. Initially, each town had vastly different products and services that were slowly homogenized by demand over time.
After the homogenization of goods, trade was carried out in broader and broader circles: town to town, county to county, province to province, and, finally, nation to nation. When too many nations were offering similar goods for trade, the trade took on a competitive edge that was sharpened by strong feelings of nationalism in a continent that was constantly embroiled in wars.
Colonialism flourished alongside mercantilism, but the nations seeding the world with settlements were not trying to increase trade. Most colonies were set up with an economic system that smacked of feudalism, with their raw goods going back to the motherland and, in the case of the British colonies in North America, being forced to repurchase the finished product with a pseudo-currency that prevented them from trading with other nations.
It was Adam Smith who noticed that mercantilism was not a force of development and change, but a regressive system that was creating trade imbalances between nations and keeping them from advancing. His ideas for a free market opened the world to capitalism.
Growth of Industrial CapitalismSmith's ideas were well-timed, as the Industrial Revolution was starting to cause tremors that would soon shake the Western world. The (often literal) gold mine of colonialism had brought new wealth and new demand for the products of domestic industries, which drove the expansion and mechanization of production. As technology leaped ahead and factories no longer had to be built near waterways or windmills to function, industrialists began building in the cities where there were now thousands of people to supply ready labor.
Industrial tycoons were the first people to amass their wealth in their lifetimes, often outstripping both the landed nobles and many of the money lending/banking families. For the first time in history, common people could have hopes of becoming wealthy. The new money crowd built more factories that required more labor, while also producing more goods for people to purchase.
During this period, the term "capitalism"—originating from the Latin word "capitalis," which means "head of cattle"—was first used by French socialist Louis Blanc in 1850, to signify a system of exclusive ownership of industrial means of production by private individuals rather than shared ownership.
Contrary to popular belief, Karl Marx did not coin the word "capitalism," although he certainly contributed to the rise of its use.
Industrial Capitalism's EffectsIndustrial capitalism tended to benefit more levels of society rather than just the aristocratic class. Wages increased, helped greatly by the formation of unions. The standard of living also increased with the glut of affordable products being mass-produced. This growth led to the formation of a middle class and began to lift more and more people from the lower classes to swell its ranks.
The economic freedoms of capitalism matured alongside democratic political freedoms, liberal individualism, and the theory of natural rights. This unified maturity is not to say, however, that all capitalist systems are politically free or encourage individual liberty. Economist Milton Friedman, an advocate of capitalism and individual liberty, wrote in Capitalism and Freedom (1962) that "capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. It is not a sufficient condition."
A dramatic expansion of the financial sector accompanied the rise of industrial capitalism. Banks had previously served as warehouses for valuables, clearinghouses for long-distance trade, or lenders to nobles and governments. Now they came to serve the needs of everyday commerce and the intermediation of credit for large, long-term investment projects. By the 20th century, as stock exchanges became increasingly public and investment vehicles opened up to more individuals, some economists identified a variation on the system: financial capitalism.
Capitalism and Economic GrowthBy creating incentives for entrepreneurs to reallocate away resources from unprofitable channels and into areas where consumers value them more highly, capitalism has proven a highly effective vehicle for economic growth.
Before the rise of capitalism in the 18th and 19th centuries, rapid economic growth occurred primarily through conquest and extraction of resources from conquered peoples. In general, this was a localized, zero-sum process. Research suggests average global per-capita income was unchanged between the rise of agricultural societies through approximately 1750 when the roots of the first Industrial Revolution took hold.
In subsequent centuries, capitalist production processes have greatly enhanced productive capacity. More and better goods became cheaply accessible to wide populations, raising standards of living in previously unthinkable ways. As a result, most political theorists and nearly all economists argue that capitalism is the most efficient and productive system of exchange.
Capitalism vs. SocialismIn terms of political economy, capitalism is often pitted against socialism. The fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism is the ownership and control of the means of production. In a capitalist economy, property and businesses are owned and controlled by individuals. In a socialist economy, the state owns and manages the vital means of production. However, other differences also exist in the form of equity, efficiency, and employment.
EquityThe capitalist economy is unconcerned about equitable arrangements. The argument is that inequality is the driving force that encourages innovation, which then pushes economic development. The primary concern of the socialist model is the redistribution of wealth and resources from the rich to the poor, out of fairness, and to ensure equality in opportunity and equality of outcome. Equality is valued above high achievement, and the collective good is viewed above the opportunity for individuals to advance.
EfficiencyThe capitalist argument is that the profit incentive drives corporations to develop innovative new products that are desired by the consumer and have demand in the marketplace. It is argued that the state ownership of the means of production leads to inefficiency because, without the motivation to earn more money, management, workers, and developers are less likely to put forth the extra effort to push new ideas or products.
EmploymentIn a capitalist economy, the state does not directly employ the workforce. This lack of government-run employment can lead to unemployment during economic recessions and depressions. In a socialist economy, the state is the primary employer. During times of economic hardship, the socialist state can order hiring, so there is full employment. Also, there tends to be a stronger "safety net" in socialist systems for workers who are injured or permanently disabled. Those who can no longer work have fewer options available to help them in capitalist societies.
Mixed System vs. Pure CapitalismWhen the government owns some but not all of the means of production, but government interests may legally circumvent, replace, limit, or otherwise regulate private economic interests, that is said to be a mixed economy or mixed economic system. A mixed economy respects property rights, but places limits on them.
Property owners are restricted with regards to how they exchange with one another. These restrictions come in many forms, such as minimum wage laws, tariffs, quotas, windfall taxes, license restrictions, prohibited products or contracts, direct public expropriation, anti-trust legislation, legal tender laws, subsidies, and eminent domain. Governments in mixed economies also fully or partly own and operate certain industries, especially those considered public goods, often enforcing legally binding monopolies in those industries to prohibit competition by private entities.
In contrast, pure capitalism, also known as laissez-faire capitalism or anarcho-capitalism, (such as professed by Murray N. Rothbard) all industries are left up to private ownership and operation, including public goods, and no central government authority provides regulation or supervision of economic activity in general.
The standard spectrum of economic systems places laissez-faire capitalism at one extreme and a complete planned economy—such as communism—at the other. Everything in the middle could be said to be a mixed economy. The mixed economy has elements of both central planning and unplanned private business.
By this definition, nearly every country in the world has a mixed economy, but contemporary mixed economies range in their levels of government intervention. The U.S. and the U.K. have a relatively pure type of capitalism with a minimum of federal regulation in financial and labor markets—sometimes known as Anglo-Saxon capitalism—while Canada and the Nordic countries have created a balance between socialism and capitalism.
Many European nations practice welfare capitalism, a system that is concerned with the social welfare of the worker, and includes such policies as state pensions, universal healthcare, collective bargaining, and industrial safety codes.
Crony CapitalismCrony capitalism refers to a capitalist society that is based on the close relationships between business people and the state. Instead of success being determined by a free market and the rule of law, the success of a business is dependent on the favoritism that is shown to it by the government in the form of tax breaks, government grants, and other incentives.
In practice, this is the dominant form of capitalism worldwide due to the powerful incentives both faced by governments to extract resources by taxing, regulating, and fostering rent-seeking activity, and those faced by capitalist businesses to increase profits by obtaining subsidies, limiting competition, and erecting barriers to entry. In effect, these forces represent a kind of supply and demand for government intervention in the economy, which arises from the economic system itself.
Crony capitalism is widely blamed for a range of social and economic woes. Both socialists and capitalists blame each other for the rise of crony capitalism. Socialists believe that crony capitalism is the inevitable result of pure capitalism. On the other hand, capitalists believe that crony capitalism arises from the need of socialist governments to control the economy.
Start with $30 trading bonusTrade forex and CFDs on stock indices, commodities, stocks, metals and energies with a licensed and regulated broker. For all clients who open their first real account, XM offers a $30 trading bonus to test the XM products and services without any initial deposit needed. Learn more about how you can trade over 1000 instruments on the XM MT4 and MT5 platforms from your PC and Mac, or from a variety of mobile devices.Compare Investment Accounts
submitted by turtlecane to Bitcoin [link] [comments]
Space exploration and colonization is an inevitable reality in the future. NASA and private corporations like SpaceX and Blue Origin already have the technology to launch missions to other planets, but they are taking their time to raise funds and ensure 100 percent success.
SpaceX says it will land people on Mars by 2024.
The richest man in the world and Founder of Blue Origin, Jeff Bezos, says he will create a large moon colony with or without NASA’s help.
Bitcoin with its instant, decentralized, and secure transactions that travel at the speed of light is obviously the perfect currency for space, but there are some downsides.
Here, we’ll explore the benefits of using Bitcoin in space as well as the caveats.
The cost of “launching” Bitcoin into space is simply the transaction fee, usually less than $1, plus however much it costs for the high powered antennas to communicate with the internet across long distances in space.
Compare this to fiat cash money, which would be impractical to launch into space due to the costs of rocket fuel. Launching a $20 bill into space costs $22. Perhaps launching $100 bills into space will work, but the fee would still be hard to stomach, and residents of the moon or other planets will not have any small bills or coins.
Perhaps a fiat system could be set up with all the $100 bills stored in a central repository and then people use digital ledgers to keep track, but why go through all that trouble if Bitcoin already solves this problem.
Decentralized currency will be important in space. For example, if Jeff Bezos decides to leave the Earth and become the emperor of the moon, there could be backlash from Earth governments.
This may sound outlandish, but it is inevitable that once colonization of other planets begins new countries will eventually form that have no territory on Earth. In the moon colony example, if they have USD bank accounts, they could find that all their cash becomes instantly frozen at the first sign of political trouble.
It will be just about impossible for a country on the moon or another planet to get their money back in the event of an account seizure. Just like Donald Trump says make America great again, whoever is President in the future could say make Earth great again, and seize all of the bank accounts of interplanetary nations in order to subsidize Earth’s economy. Space nations will need Bitcoin in order to conduct interplanetary commerce without the threat of account seizures.
The problem with centralized currency becomes even more severe for the space cowboys, people who go off into space and decide to do whatever they want to do. If they break a law in any jurisdiction, which could be as simple as taking their ship off-planet without permission, they would have their bank accounts frozen.
The only option for rogue space adventurers is to carry currency with them onboard, since if their bank is frozen, and they are depending on the bank, they will either die in space or have to go back to their planet and get arrested.
Due to the scarcity of cash in space, the only good option for space cowboys would be gold or Bitcoin. Gold is heavy, and would cost tremendous fees in the form of rocket fuel everytime they liftoff from a planet. Also, holding a large amount of gold on a spaceship would make them easy targets for space pirates. Bitcoin would never cost anything during liftoff, since it is on the internet, and it cannot be stolen unless the private key is given over.
Further, imagine if someone gets a job from an employer on another planet, which will be quite common in the interplanetary economy. Workers would likely never even meet their bosses, and the workers perhaps would not want the native currency on their employer’s planet, since they would never be able to physically own it.
Bitcoin can be personally owned no matter where people are in space, since Bitcoin is cryptographically secure, and possession of the private key provides full ownership, in the same way, holding cash in your wallet is full ownership.
As is already being witnessed on Earth, Bitcoin is a universal currency. Instead of making a complicated FOREX system in space wrought with account seizures and third parties, it makes much more sense to just use Bitcoin. A space economy fueled by Bitcoin would be far more liquid and efficient than a fiat currency economy.
There are caveats to using Bitcoin in space due to the speed of light. Bitcoin transactions would only be able to travel across space at the speed of light. This means it takes 1.28 seconds for Bitcoin to reach the moon from the Earth, three minutes to reach Mars, 33 minutes to reach Jupiter, and 67 minutes to reach Saturn. Double these times and add 10 minutes for the average Bitcoin transaction confirmation time on other planets.
We mention Jupiter and Saturn because they have numerous moons that are ripe for colonization and could be a hotspot for human civilization in the future.
The transaction times to other planets, even for Saturn which is over an hour, is not a major issue. Even if transactions take a long time to propagate to Earth and confirm, they would still be confirmed. Perhaps people on other planets should put the maximum sensible transaction fees to ensure that transactions confirm as quickly as possible once received.
Clearly, Bitcoin will no longer be instantaneous in space, since transactions would not even show up on the block explorer until the transaction propagates to Earth and back, but it will work.
Mining Bitcoin on other planets is a major dilemma. On the moon, mining Bitcoin will still be quite doable, since the few seconds delay is not going to prevent miners from striking blocks on the moon, it will just put them at a slight disadvantage.
Mining on Mars is where problems will begin. If a miner on Mars strikes a block, and someone on Earth finds the block in the 3 minutes it takes the Martian block to reach Earth, the Martian miner will not get paid. Some truly stubborn miners may mine Bitcoin on Mars, but they will be at an extreme disadvantage, and they will not profit nearly as much as Earth miners.
On the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, mining Bitcoin becomes intractable. In the 33 minutes and 67 minutes respectively it takes Bitcoin transactions to reach Earth, the Jupiter and Saturn miners will be disenfranchised 100 percent of the time. This actually makes Bitcoin centralized, at least on a planetary scale since whichever planet has the most hash rate will get all the block rewards.
This is just an Earth-centric view, however. Since Bitcoin is decentralized, another planet could generate 50 percent or more of the hash rate and disenfranchise all of the miners on Earth. To prevent this sort of thing from happening, perhaps it would be best to have Bitcoin Jupiter, Bitcoin Saturn, Bitcoin Earth, and so forth.
Versions of Bitcoin for different planets is especially important, considering that a planet that achieves a significant hash rate, but not a majority hash rate, would be dealing with constant forks.
For example, miners on the moons of Saturn may verify transactions and put them into blocks, only to have their chain orphaned whenever a transmission is received from Earth. If every planet is using the same version of Bitcoin, it would be much less confusing and more secure to only have miners on one of the planets.
Since it will be many years before colonization of other moons and planets becomes a reality, perhaps the Bitcoin developers will have time to optimize Bitcoin for use in space, to remove these caveats and ensure Bitcoin functions perfectly in space.
Beneficiary Bank Information Silvergate Bank ABA routing number: 322286803 Attn: Treasury Department 4275 Executive Square, Suite 300 La Jolla, CA 92037 United States of AmericaBut don't take my word for it, ask Gemini for clarification before linking accounts. It might be different for your bank. It went through very quickly, maybe it would've been even quicker if I'd initiated the transfer earlier in the day.
For Further Credit to Account number: 1000808012 Gemini Trust Company LLC 600 Third Avenue, 2nd Fl New York, NY 10016 United States Of America
if less marketable, items that eventually grew to become the staple of Baker adhesive case solution products. While Baker’s father had upon the market some time ago, he'd attracted numerous capable new employees, and the organization was still being an acknowledged leader within the niche markets. The development facilities, though old, were readily adaptable coupled with been well-maintained. Until only a couple of years earlier, Baker Glues tried well financially. While development in sales had not been a powerful point, margins were generally high and purchasers levels steady. The organization had not employed lengthy-term debt but still didn't achieve this. The firm were built with a credit line from the local bank, which in fact had always provided sufficient funds to pay for short-term needs. Baker Glues Situation pdf owed about USD180,000 around the line of credit. Baker had a great relationship using the bank, this was with the organization right from the start.submitted by yadimose to u/yadimose [link] [comments]
Novo Orders The initial order from Novo was to have an adhesive Novo was using in producing a brand new type of toys because of its Brazilian market. The toys must be waterproof and also the adhesive, therefore, needed very specific qualities. Via a mutual friend, Moreno have been brought to Novo’s purchasing agent. Dealing with Doug Baker, she'd then negotiated the initial order in Feb (the foundation for the prices of this original order is proven in Exhibit 1). Novo had decided to pay shipping costs, so Casementors.com Baker adhesive case solution stand out simply needed to provide the adhesive in 55-gallon drums to some nearby shipping facility. The suggested new order looked like the final one. As before, Novo decided to make payment thirty days after delivery of the glues in the shipping facility. Baker anticipated a fiveweek manufacturing cycle once all of the recycleables were in position. All materials could be guaranteed within two days. Permitting some versatility, Moreno believed payment could be received around three several weeks from order placement which was about how exactly lengthy the initial order required.
Because of this, Moreno expected receipt of payment around the new order, presuming it had been decided immediately, around September 5, 2006. Exchange Risks Together with her newly found understanding of exchange-rate risks, Moreno had collected more information on exchange-rate markets prior to the ending up in Doug Baker. A brief history from the dollar-to-real exchange rates are proven in Exhibit 2. In addition, the information for the reason that exhibit provided the newest info on money markets and approximately the expected future (September 5, 2006) place rates from the forecasting service. Moreno had discussed her concerns about exchange-rate changes using the bank when she'd arranged for conversion from the original Novo payment.2 The financial institution, useful of course, had described two ways that Baker could mitigate the exchange risk from the new order: hedge within the forward market or hedge within the money markets. Hedge within the forward market Banks would frequently provide their customers with guaranteed forex rates for future years exchange of currencies (forward rates). These contracts specified to start dating ?, a sum to become exchanged, along with a rate.
Any bank fee could be included in the speed. By securing a forward rate for that date of the foreign-currency-denominated income, a strong could eliminate any risk because of currency fluctuations. Within this situation, the anticipated future inflow of reais in the purchase to Novo might be converted for a price that might be known today. Hedge within the money markets Instead of eliminate exchange risk via a contracted future exchange rate, a strong might make any currency exchanges in the known current place rate. To get this done, obviously, the firm required to convert future expected cash flows into current cash flows. It was done around the money market by borrowing “today” inside a forex against an anticipated future inflow or creating a deposit “today” inside a foreign account in order so that you can meet the next output. The quantity to become lent or deposited depends around the rates of interest within the forex just because a firm wouldn't desire to transfer more or under what can be needed. Within this situation, Baker adhesive analysis would borrow in reais from the future inflow from Novo. The quantity the organization would borrow could be a sum so that the Novo receipt would exactly cover both principal and interest around the borrowing.
Though Baker Glues were built with a capable accountant, Doug Baker had made the decision to allow Alissa Moreno handle the exchange-rate issues as a result of the Novo order until they better understood the choices and tradeoffs that must be made.
After a little discussion and settlement using the bank and bank affiliates, Moreno could secure the next contracts: Baker adhesive case solution ppt bank had agreed to provide a forward agreement for September 5, 2006, in an exchange rate of .4227 USD/BRL. A joint venture partner from the bank, situated in South america and acquainted with Novo, was prepared to provide Baker having a short-term real loan, guaranteed through the Novo receivable, at 26%.3 Moreno was shocked only at that rate, that was greater than three occasions the 8.52% rate on Baker’s domestic credit line however, the financial institution described Brazil’s in the past high inflation and also the recent attempts through the government to manage inflation with high rates of interest. The speed they'd guaranteed was usual for the marketplace at that time.
The Meeting It required Doug Baker serious amounts of overcome his disappointment. If worldwide sales were the important thing to the way forward for Baker Glues, however, Baker recognized he'd already learned some important training. He vowed to place individuals training to get affordable use because he and Moreno switched their focus on the brand new Novo order.
Observe that the borrowed funds in the bank affiliate would be a 26% apr for any three-month loan (the financial institution would charge exactly 6.5% on the three-month loan, to become compensated once the principal was paid back). The effective rate over three several weeks was, therefore, 6.5%. The 8.52% rate for Baker’s credit line was an apr according to monthly compounding. The effective rate per month was, therefore, 8.52% ÷ 12 = .71%, which means a (1.0071)3 - 1 = 2.1452% effective rate over three several weeks.
NEW YORK - A group of large institutional investors including BlackRock Inc and Allianz SE's Pacific Investment Management Co has sued 16 major banks, accusing them of rigging prices in the roughly $5.1 trillion-a-day foreign exchange market.
The lawsuit was filed on Wednesday in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan by plaintiffs that decided to "Opt out" of similar nationwide litigation that has resulted in $2.31 billion of settlements with 15 of the banks.
The banks being sued are: Bank of America, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Japan's MUFG Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Scotland, Societe Generale, Standard Chartered and UBS. Investors typically opt out of litigation when they hope to recover more by suing on their own.
The plaintiffs in Wednesday's lawsuit accused the banks of violating U.S. antitrust law by conspiring from 2003 to 2013 to rig currency benchmarks including the WM/Reuters Closing Rates for their own benefit by sharing confidential orders and trading positions.
Norway's central bank Norges Bank and the big public pension fund California State Teachers' Retirement System are among the several other named plaintiffs.
Many of the plaintiffs plan to pursue similar litigation in London against many of the bank defendants with respect to trades in Europe, a footnote in the complaint said.
Authorities in the United States and Britain accused traders at Citigroup, JP Morgan, Barclays, UBS and Royal Bank of Scotland of brazenly cheating their clients to boost their own profits using invitation-only chatrooms and coded language to coordinate their trades.
The misconduct occurred up until 2013, after regulators had started punishing banks for rigging the London interbank offered rate, an interest rate benchmark, and banks had pledged to overhaul their corporate culture and bolster compliance.
Wednesday's settlement stands out because Citigroup, JP Morgan, Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland pleaded guilty and for the size of the penalties, including a $2.5 billion fine by the Department of Justice, the largest set of antitrust fines ever obtained in its history.
Lawyers said the guilty pleas would make it much easier for pension funds and investment managers who have regular currency dealings with banks to sue the banks for losses on those trades.
Barclays' sales staff would offer clients a different price to the one offered by the bank's traders, known as a "Mark-up" to boost profits.
The U.S. central bank fined six banks for unsafe and unsound practices in the foreign exchange markets, including a $205 million fine for Bank of America, which, like UBS, avoided a guilty plea.
Four major banks pleaded guilty on Wednesday to trying to manipulate foreign exchange rates and six banks were fined a total of nearly $6-billion in a settlement that substantially ends a global probe into misconduct in the $5-trillion-a-day market.
In total, authorities in the United States and Europe have fined seven banks over $10-billion for failing to stop their forex traders from sharing confidential information about client orders and co-ordinating trades to boost their own profits.
The four banks pleaded guilty to conspiring to manipulate the foreign exchange market.
Barclays fired 8 employees as part of its settlement and New York's Superintendent of Financial Services warned that it was still probing the bank's use of electronic systems for foreign exchange trading, which make up the vast majority of transactions in the market.
Swiss bank UBS, which avoided a guilty plea over the forex debacle, pleaded guilty instead to one count of wire fraud and will pay a $203-million fine for its role in rigging Libor after its involvement in the forex scandal breached an earlier DOJ agreement.
The U.S. central bank fined six banks for unsafe and unsound practices in the foreign exchange markets, including a $205-million fine for Bank of America, which, like UBS, avoided a guilty plea.
1 Exchange rates fluctuate, at times significantly, and you acknowledge and accept all risks that may result from such fluctuations. If we assign an exchange rate to your foreign exchange transaction, that exchange rate will be determined by us in our sole discretion based upon such factors as we determine relevant, including without limitation, market conditions, exchange rates charged by Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) has agreed to pay a total sum of $12.8 million, following a string of claims made by hundreds of former employees regarding the bank’s failure to provide adequate compensation, according to a Reuters report. Take the lead from today’s leaders. FM London Summit, 14-15 November, 2016. Register here! Sign in to your Online Banking account by entering your Online ID. 1 Exchange rates fluctuate, at times significantly, and you acknowledge and accept all risks that may result from such fluctuations. If we assign an exchange rate to your foreign exchange transaction, that exchange rate will be determined by us in our sole discretion based upon such factors as we determine relevant, including without limitation, market conditions, exchange rates charged by Bank of America Corp has settled its portion of a U.S. antitrust lawsuit in which investors accused 12 major banks of rigging prices in the foreign exchange market.
[index]          
Objectors appeal the district court's approval of a settlement and award of attorneys' fees in a class action under the National Bank Act. Bank of America has agreed to pay $772 million (557 million euros) in fines and refunds to customers. US regulators ordered a settlement over allegations of deceptive marketing and unfair billing ... The bank will pay $772 million in a settlement with bank regulators over allegations that it engaged in illegal credit card practices. For more: lat.ms/1sC3J57 SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE VIDEOS AND NEWS ... Credit scores are determined by your credit history and not controlled directly by Bank of America, N.A. beyond our commitment to accurately report the status of all our customers. Bank of America (BAC) will pay $16.65 billion to settle a federal probe into its mortgage practices in the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. The...