I think the point is that “falling 1 percent” has no real information content since it’s consistent with daily volatility. You can take such random volatility and try to form a narrative around it but it’s intellectually dishonest.
We communicate every day, with a lot of different people. So the common lowest denominator is the base assumption. Assume nobody you talk too knows anything, that way basics explanation becomes part of every "chat-handshake" but the maximum number of participants can be created.
The term carry trade, without further modification, refers to currency carry trade: investors borrow low-yielding currencies and lend (invest in) high-yielding currencies. It is thought to correlate with global financial and exchange rate stability and retracts in use during global liquidity shortages,[3] but the carry trade is often blamed for rapid currency value collapse and appreciation.
The world recently went through a recession largely because of the mortgage crisis in the US. And with the world's Banks exposed to each other everyone is wary of it repeating so any kind of news about is read and shared.
I frankly don't understand all this fuss about it. It was a well known issue. Even I knew that, and I don't tend to follow such news. Now it's Trump's fault. Or the other conspiracies. Incredible how little accountability everyone has nowadays.
I think many crisises are predicted by many right as we speak. I think many are even correct. However, these might be professors or "random" people not working for or as a shotcalling instance.
From all the people in positions of power, how many are professors with 20+ years (technical) experience. With so many (smart) people, I think worst case scenarios in any field are already documented, but who will listen. Likewise, if it's < 1% chance to fail, should that be enough reason to say no?
This would set the world back quite a bit, if we only give a "go" on 100% succes chance.
12 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 46.1 ms ] threadUgh, the article wants to do actual journalism but then it spews out bullshit cruft like this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
But in 2012 a well respected stock picking horse stomped its hoof twice signaling the lira was strong so I was torn.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/152-turkey-financial...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carry_(investment)
The term carry trade, without further modification, refers to currency carry trade: investors borrow low-yielding currencies and lend (invest in) high-yielding currencies. It is thought to correlate with global financial and exchange rate stability and retracts in use during global liquidity shortages,[3] but the carry trade is often blamed for rapid currency value collapse and appreciation.
From all the people in positions of power, how many are professors with 20+ years (technical) experience. With so many (smart) people, I think worst case scenarios in any field are already documented, but who will listen. Likewise, if it's < 1% chance to fail, should that be enough reason to say no?
This would set the world back quite a bit, if we only give a "go" on 100% succes chance.