NIFTY / Crude Oil (MCX) at a crucial support level.
A case for either NIFTY to rise or Crude Oil to fall, or both simultaneously.
More from Piyush Chaudhry
Copper breaching the rising Trendline.
Weekly Candles, so we still need to wait.
Earlier two tweets on Copper:
1. Copper - EM:
https://t.co/WogWRMIMHH
and,
2. Copper - Gold
https://t.co/Cq2zcn4bi3
Weekly Candles, so we still need to wait.
Earlier two tweets on Copper:
1. Copper - EM:
https://t.co/WogWRMIMHH
and,
2. Copper - Gold
https://t.co/Cq2zcn4bi3
Amazingly super positive correlation between Emerging Markets and Copper.
— Piyush Chaudhry (@piyushchaudhry) June 2, 2021
*MSCI Emerging Markets ETF #EEM
*Copper Futures #Comex pic.twitter.com/rVAwfqvqD4
More from Commodities
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?