Visitors

Flag Counter

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Red

Apr. 17th, 2019 07:14 pm
paserbyp: (Default)

paserbyp: (Default)
The world’s largest cryptocurrency by market cap broke above the $5,000 mark for the first time since November and has so far sustained its rally, prompting some analysts to declare an end to the so-called “crypto winter.”

The renewed run has emboldened some analysts to make new calls, including one from a technical trader who correctly predicted bitcoin’s collapse in 2018, founder of Factor Research and Trading Peter Brandt. After bitcoin’s (BTC-USD) latest rally he’s now calling for a run up to $50,000 within the next two years.

“I believe that charts reflect underlying supply and demand fundamentals and that’s how we have to look at it. What’s happened from December of 2017 to 2018 is really an analog to what happened in the 2013 to 2015 bear market, where we saw sequential 10 up-and-down moves in the bear market and we’ve almost identically formed that same sort of pattern.”

Brandt, a 71-year-old trading veteran, pointed back to bitcoin’s parabolic advance following a 2015 low as a reason to suspect the rally.

“I think the analogs are holding remarkably well and based on those analog studies, I think cryptos now will go back into a parabolic bull market,” he said. “The only question I have is do we rally here some and then sometime in late summer check the late 2018 lows or not? There is a chance that it does, there’s a chance that it doesn’t.”

Looking at bitcoin’s relative risk-reward in the shorter term, Fundstrat Global Advisors issued a new note for clients this week highlighting underlying fundamental improvements, aside from the positive technical signals Brandt pointed out.

“We see fewer reasons to question the recent recovery [in] Bitcoin prices—the best quarter since 2017,” Fundstrat analysts wrote. “While the key technical price hurdle is BTC closing above its 200D (currently ~$4,600 and falling by $15 per day), we see 2019 as positive risk/reward.”
paserbyp: (Default)
It’s the days of the dot-com boom, and my old friend Rudolf has gotten accustomed to receiving five or six calls a day from headhunters, and just as accustomed to responding, “Thank you very much, but no thank you.” And he keeps on saying it, even when the headhunters get creative, and more than a little desperate, offering things like tickets to baseball games and signing bonuses that will come out of their own commissions.

Desperate though they may be, most of the headhunters seem to realize that when even inducements like the use of a very expensive sports car can’t entice the techie on the line, it’s time to graciously thank him for his time and make yet another call.

One of these calls is progressing pretty much as all of them do. Rudolf asks what, where and how much, and interspersed with the answers is the comment that fish speaks excellent English. Rudolf finds that a bit odd, but he moves right along, concluding with a “no, thank you; the money you’re offering is considerably less than I currently make.”

And then things turn ugly.

Headhunter: If you know what’s good for you, you’ll take the position. We have friends in immigration who will see that you’re deported immediately.

Rudolf: You mean that I’ll be sent back to where I was born?

Headhunter: Yes.

Rudolf: Oh, God! They’re going to send me back to New Jersey!

Headhunter: Yes … uh, wait, what?

The headhunter apparently jumped to a wrong conclusion upon seeing Rudolf’s name, which Rudlf himself calls “a bit of a mutt,” with a German first name and a Slavic last name.

Rudolf is less polite than before when he informs the headhunter that he’s a second-generation American — and one who knows how to get in touch with his state’s attorney general.

And that’s the last he hears from that particular headhunter.
paserbyp: (Default)
The following list of the 2019 Best Colleges for Engineering comes from Niche (Details: https://www.niche.com/about/methodology/best-colleges-for-engineering). Niche ranked engineering schools based on an analysis of academic, admissions, financial, and student life data from the U.S. Department of Education along with millions of reviews from students and alumni. Factors that were considered included: student ACT/SAT scores, percent of students majoring in engineering, percentage of US engineering graduates, engineering test scores, and other factors.

1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2. Stanford University

3. California Institute of Technology

4. Yale University

5. Rice University

6. Harvard University

7. Princeton University

8. Duke University

9. Columbia University

10. Vanderbilt University

11. University of Pennsylvania

12. Cornell University

13. Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering

14. Georgia Institute of Technology

15. Johns Hopkins University

16. Washington University at St. Louis

17. Northwestern University

18. University of Notre Dame

19. University of Michigan – Ann Arbor

20. University of California – Berkeley
paserbyp: (Default)
For the first time in history, the Earth has more people over the age of 65 than under the age of five. In another two decades the ratio will be two-to-one, according to a recent analysis by Torsten Sløk of Deutsche Bank. The trend has economists worried about everything from soaring pension costs to “secular stagnation”—the chronically weak growth that comes from having too few investment opportunities to absorb available savings. The world’s greying is inevitable. But its negative effects on growth are not. If older societies grow more slowly, that may be because they prefer familiarity to dynamism.

Ageing slows growth in several ways. One is that there are fewer new workers to boost output. Workforces in some 40 countries are already shrinking because of demographic change. As the number of elderly people increases, governments may neglect growth-boosting public investment in education and infrastructure in favour of spending on pensions and health care. People in work, required to support ever more pensioners, must pay higher taxes. But the biggest hit to growth comes from weakening productivity. A study published in 2016, for example, examined economic performance across American states. It found that a rise of 10% in the share of a state’s population that is over 60 cuts the growth rate of output per person by roughly half a percentage point, with two-thirds of that decline due to weaker growth in productivity.

Why are older economies less productive? The answer is not, as one might suppose, that older workers are. Though some capabilities, notably physical ones, deteriorate with age, the overall effect is not dramatic. A study of Germany’s manufacturing sector published in 2016 failed to detect a drop-off in productivity in workers up to the age of 60. Companies can tweak employees’ roles as they get older in order to make best use of their comparative advantages, such as extensive experience and professional connections.

Furthermore, if weak productivity growth was caused by older workers producing less, pay patterns should reflect that. Wages would tend to rise at the beginning of a career and fall towards its end. But that is not what usually happens. Rather, according to a recent paper by economists at Moody’s Analytics, a consultancy, wages are lower for everyone in companies with lots of older workers. It is not older workers’ falling productivity that seems to hold back the economy, but their influence on those around them. That influence is potent: the authors reckon that as much as a percentage point of America’s recent decline in annual productivity growth could be associated with ageing.

How this influence makes itself felt is unclear. But the authors suggest that companies with more older workers might be less eager to embrace new technologies. That might be because they are reluctant to make investments that would require employees to be retrained, given the shorter period over which they could hope to make a return on that training for those near the end of their careers. Or older bosses might be to blame. Research indicates that younger managers are more likely to adopt new technologies than are older ones. This may seem obvious: older people’s greater aversion to new technology is a cliché. And at least anecdotally, greying industries do seem more averse to change.

If the evidence suggested that ageing economies struggled primarily because of slow-growing labour forces and fast-growing pension costs, it would make sense to focus policy efforts on keeping people in work longer—by raising retirement ages, for example. But if, as seems to be the case, reticence to embrace new technologies is a bigger issue, other goals should take priority—in particular, boosting competition. In America, increasing industrial concentration and persistently high profits are spurring renewed interest in antitrust rules. The benefits of breaking up powerful firms and increasing competition might be even bigger than thought, if conservative old firms are thereby spurred to make better use of newer technologies.

There are other measures that could help. Removing barriers to job-switching, for example by making benefits more portable, could shorten average tenures and help stop companies’ cultures becoming ossified. Best of all would be more immigration. An influx of young foreign workers would address nearly all the ways in which population ageing depresses growth. It would not only expand the labour force and create new taxpayers, but would mean more and younger companies, and greater openness to new technologies. And there would be plenty of willing takers in poorer countries with younger populations.

Societies with lots of older workers are also societies with lots of older voters, however. Those voters are, on average, more politically conservative than younger people, and less likely to support increased immigration. People of all ages would gain from policies that boosted growth and productivity. But given the choice between a dynamic but unfamiliar society and a static but familiar one, older countries tend to opt for the second. In hindsight, the demographic boom that coincided with industrialisation in rich countries may have had an underappreciated benefit: it created a big constituency in favour of embracing new technologies and the opportunities they provided.

Technology may at some point overcome the stifling effect of ageing. In a new paper Daron Acemoglu of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Pascual Restrepo of Boston University find that when young workers are sufficiently scarce, manufacturers invest in more automation, and experience faster productivity growth as a result. Robots have yet to make a big impact in the service sector and beyond, but as their capabilities improve and jobs for younger people go begging that may change. The world could use more flexibility and productivity now. But stagnation may end eventually, once the robots are promoted to management.
paserbyp: (Default)






Девочку 4-х лет наказала ее бабушка. Вот она стоит в углу и плачет. Подходит дедушка, который в ней души не чает, и нарочно строго ей:
- Что, бабушка обидела? Сейчас пойду и ей уши-то оторву!
Внучка(успокаиваясь):
- А сережки мне отдашь?

Profile

paserbyp: (Default)
paserbyp

April 2019

S M T W T F S
 1 2 3 4 56
7 89 1011 1213
141516 17181920
21222324252627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Page generated Apr. 26th, 2019 01:41 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios