$0.00 commission applies to online U.S. equity trades, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and options (+ $0.65 per contract fee) in a Fidelity retail account only for Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC retail clients. Sell orders are subject to an activity assessment fee (from $0.01 to $0.03 per $1,000 of principal). There is an Options Regulatory Fee that applies to both option buy and sell transactions. The fee is subject to change. Other exclusions and conditions may apply. See Fidelity.com/commissions for details. Employee equity compensation transactions and accounts managed by advisors or intermediaries through Fidelity Institutional are subject to different commission schedules.
News, commentary, and research reports are from third-party sources unaffiliated with Fidelity. Fidelity does not endorse or adopt their content. Fidelity makes no guarantees that the information supplied is accurate, complete, or timely, and does not provide any warranties regarding results obtained from its use.
Traders That Started From Scratch
The two sides declared a truce in the trade war at an ornate signing ceremony at the White House involving President Trump and Chinese Vice Premier Liú Hè 刘鹤, the 11th ranked member in the Chinese leadership. Although the full text of the agreement has not been made public, reports say the agreement commits China to purchasing an extra $200 billion in American products over two years above 2017 levels. The text of the agreement that has been made public shows China committing to protect American intellectual property, halt coercive technology transfers, and refrain from using currency devaluation as a trade weapon. It also included an enforcement mechanism that would allow for the imposition of import tariffs if disputes are not resolved.
The trans-Atlantic slave trade occurred within a broader system of trade between West and Central Africa, Western Europe, and North and South America. In African ports, European traders exchanged metals, cloth, beads, guns, and ammunition for captive Africans brought to the coast from the African interior, primarily by African traders. Many captives died just during the long overland journeys from the interior to the coast. European traders then held the enslaved Africans who survived in fortified slave castles such as Elmina in the central region (now Ghana), Goree Island (now in present day Senegal), and Bunce Island (now in present day Sierra Leone), before forcing them into ships for the Middle Passage across the Atlantic Ocean.
Scholars estimate that from ten to nineteen percent of the millions of Africans forced into the Middle Passage across the Atlantic died due to rough conditions on slave ships. Those who arrived at various ports in the Americas were then sold in public auctions or smaller trading venues to plantation owners, merchants, small farmers, prosperous tradesmen, and other slave traders. These traders could then transport slaves many miles further to sell on other Caribbean islands or into the North or South American interior. Predominantly European slaveholders purchased enslaved Africans to provide labor that included domestic service and artisanal trades. The majority, however, provided agricultural labor and skills to produce plantation cash crops for national and international markets. Slaveholders used profits from these exports to expand their landholdings and purchase more enslaved Africans, perpetuating the trans-Atlantic slave trade cycle for centuries, until various European countries and new American nations officially ceased their participation in the trade in the nineteenth century (though illegal trans-Atlantic slave trading continued even after national and colonial governments issued legal bans).
For example, in 1444, Portuguese marauders arrived in Senegal ready to assault and capture Africans using armor, swords, and deep-sea vessels. But the Portuguese discovered that the Senegalese out-maneuvered their ships using light, shallow water vessels better suited to the estuaries of the Senegalese coast. In addition, the Senegalese fought with poison arrows that slipped through their armor and decimated the Portuguese soldiers. Subsequently, Portuguese traders generally abandoned direct combat and established commercial relations with West and Central African leaders, who agreed to sell slaves taken from various African wars or domestic trading, as well as gold and other commodities, in exchange for European and North African goods.
When Portuguese, and later their European competitors, found that peaceful commercial relations alone did not generate enough enslaved Africans to fill the growing demands of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, they formed military alliances with certain African groups against their enemies. This encouraged more extensive warfare to produce captives for trading. While European-backed Africans had their own political or economic reasons for fighting with other African enemies, the end result for Europeans traders in these military alliances was greater access to enslaved war captives. To a lesser extent, Europeans also pursued African colonization to secure access to slaves and other goods. For example, the Portuguese colonized portions of Angola in 1571 with the help of military alliances from Kongo, but were pushed out in 1591 by their former allies. Throughout this early period, African leaders and European competitors ultimately prevented these attempts at African colonization from becoming as extensive as in the Americas.
The earliest traces of Fair Trade in Europe date from the late 1950s when Oxfam UK started to sell crafts made by Chinese refugees in Oxfam shops. In 1964, it created the first Fair Trade Organisation. Parallel initiatives were taking place in the Netherlands and in 1967 the importing organisation, Fair Trade Original, was established.
The growth of Fair Trade (or alternative trade as it was called in the early days) from the late 60s onwards has been associated primarily with development trade. It grew as a response to poverty and sometimes disaster in the South and focused on the marketing of craft products. Its founders were often the large development and sometimes religious agencies in European countries. These NGOs, working with their counterparts in countries in the South, assisted to establish Southern Fair Trade Organisations that organize producers and production, provide social services to producers, and export to the North. Alongside the development trade there was also a branch of solidarity trade. Organisations were set up to import goods from progressive countries in the South that were both politically and economically marginalised.
In 1973, Fair Trade Original in the Netherlands, imported the first fairly traded coffee from cooperatives of small farmers in Guatemala. Now, more than 30 years later, Fair coffee has become a concept. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of coffee farmers have benefited from Fair Trade in coffee. In Europe, Fair Trade coffee became a popular choice for many consumers. Presently, between 25 to 50 % of turnover of Northern Fair Trade Organisations comes from this product. After the success of coffee, many fair trading organisations expanded their food range and started selling commodity products like tea, cocoa, sugar, wine, fruit juices, nuts, rice and spices. Consumers welcomed these products like coffee.
The Fair Trade movement came to being to raise awareness on trade injustices and imbalances of power in the conventional trade structures, and to advocate changes in policies to favour equitable trade. Sale points of Fair Trade products became one of the effective methods of campaigning. It was the Fair Trade shops that started including producer stories in product packaging to raise awareness on Fair Trade. World / Fair Trade Shops mobilised consumers to participate in campaigning activities for more global justice.
Two years later at the 2013 Rio AGM, members of WFTO approved the new Guarantee System (GS) after it was presented by the working group together with reports and feedback from pilot organisations that were part of the system testing. The GS has five components: improved membership application procedure, self assessment, peer visit, monitoring audit and the Fair Trade Accountability Watch. The GS uses the WFTO Fair Trade Standard for organisations, which comprises a set of compliance criteria based on the 10 Principles of Fair Trade and International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions.
U.S. courts can protect a trade secret by (a) ordering that the misappropriation stop, (b) that the secret be protected from public exposure, and (c) in extraordinary circumstances, ordering the seizure of the misappropriated trade secret. At the conclusion of a trade secret case, courts can award damages, court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and a permanent injunction, if warranted.
Trade secret protection is a complement to patent protection. Patents require the inventor to provide a detailed and enabling disclosure about the invention in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for a limited period of time. Patents expire, and when that happens the information contained within is no longer protected. However, unlike trade secrets, patents may protect against independent discovery. Patent protection also eliminates the need to maintain secrecy.
On December 6, 2016, in Salman v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously resolved a circuit split between the Courts of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits over the meaning of the "personal benefit" element of insider trading law. In doing so, the Court put to rest confusion on this aspect of insider trading jurisprudence. But the murky nature of other aspects of insider trading was left untouched, leaving market participants, courts, and lawyers generally "right back where we started from" before Newman.
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 have been interpreted to prohibit individuals with material, nonpublic information who are bound by a duty of confidentiality from sharing that information with others for the purpose of trading. In Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983), the Supreme Court explained that an individual who receives such information from an insider (the "tippee") may be liable for securities fraud where the insider who provided the information (the "tipper") breached a fiduciary duty in providing it. The Dirks Court held that such a fiduciary breach occurs where the tipper receives a personal benefit in exchange for the information, a requirement known as the "personal benefit" test. 2ff7e9595c
Komentáře