BC ECONOMY

$Ryuzaki \U0001f4b9$

Ryuzaki 💹
@FinTwitRyuzaki 5 years, 10 months ago 643 views

Save to PDF Share See On Twitter

Liquor talks @iramneek

https://t.co/4ews929jae

https://t.co/rTZr9SroIU

https://t.co/ffR14lRCc5

https://t.co/sehPGS0AlQ

https://t.co/0lQXGDVTDx

https://t.co/KeLcexU5Bz

Leader insights

Diageo

https://t.co/3FeOa4cYE1

Deal timeline

https://t.co/D2TqNiyX8e

https://t.co/HBwT818cKY

https://t.co/F5GU1Gxfhw

https://t.co/a5EXwT8P8a

https://t.co/8bORHnl1MJ

https://t.co/PyOXToDCdb

https://t.co/jNZCTLrSuJ

More from Economy

$Shravan Venkataraman \U0001f3a1$

Shravan Venkataraman 🎡...
@theBuoyantMan

Interpretation of Financial Statements - preliminary filters.

1. Looking for sustainable competitive advantage:

When looking for sustainable moat, you wanna see consistency - in earnings, in having low debt, in having growing earnings, low spending in capital expenditures, etc.

The longer the company has existed, and if it sells you the same product for years (like Coca Cola), it reduces production costs and other costs (R&D, Training, marketing) slowly as the company ages.

When costs are reduced, margins and profits increase.

2. What to look for in an income statement:

Let's take a look at Apple:

i) You want to see earnings grow at a steady pace. Take a look at the net income below.

ii) Another thing that's important is a consistent and high gross margin.

As a thumb rule, Warren Buffett wants to see a gross margin of around 40% or above.

Although not quite 40%, it's around that range with respect to Apple.

Compare this to Apple's competitors.

Samsung's gross margins are around similar range, highest being 45.7% in 2018, and Huawei had a gross margin of 38.6%.

Katya
@ThatKatyaGirl

I have read through the grooming report from the Home Office.

Here, in this thread, I will take you through the mathematical hoops they have jumped through in this deeply flawed analysis.

Thread 👇

It is, quite literally, a whitewash. It uses all the standard statistical tricks to avoid concluding a stark and glaring conclusion, which is otherwise plain to see. That there was a sustained, targeted and focussed attack by Pakistani men on white working class and Sikh girls.

**Choose limited data points**

One way to force a conclusion is to only range over a small and carefully chosen set of data points. In this case, the report used a limited number of use cases which largely ignored the high profile grooming gangs of Pakistani origin.

Only Rotherham was considered in earnest, as it could hardly be ignored as the start of it all.

A typical data trick is to only use one troublesome dataset - generally the most high profile one. This gives plausible denial on accusations of manipulation of source data.

_This is what we call “the domain trick”_

Eric Basmajian
@EPBResearch

Diminishing Marginal Returns

The productivity of our debt is collapsing and that is creating a major problem.

The problem is here now, and not in the future.

Here is why:

1)

Charted below is the increase in total debt and the increase in nominal GDP in the 8 quarters before each of the last six recessions.

In other words, how much did debt increase, and how much did GDP increase in the final two years of each economic expansion?

2)

As the chart shows, it is taking a larger amount of debt to increase GDP.

3)

Graphed another way, leading up to the 1980 recession it took about 1.94 dollars of debt to boost GDP by 1 dollar.

Leading up to the COVID recession saw debt increase nearly 6 dollars for each 1 dollar of GDP growth.

4)

Flipping the ratio shows the decline in the utility of debt.

We are only generating about 15-20 cents of growth for each dollar of debt.

This becomes a larger problem when we think about "growth rates" instead of nominal dollars.

5)

artisanal fun-ruiner
@makokaazo

"if you demand more pay, we will replace you with robots" is not a reason to pay people less than it costs them to work for you, it is a reason to have your corporation taken over by the state, or dismantle an unwilling state and rebuild one that does.

corporations and governments are out here accelerating your deaths so they can monetize your remains while some of you assholes go "well $15 is too much"

$15 was insufficient 20 years ago, and it's insufficient now. pay people enough to feed their babies or they will kill you.

if people have nothing left to lose they will act like people with nothing left to lose

i cannot make it clearer than this

capitalism only "works" if you have enough police per so many thousand desperately poor individuals.

capitalism only "works" if you employ enough human beings to be the face of your blatant exploitation.

go ahead and automate and watch how fast people sabotage your shit.

if your government does not keep you fed, healthy, and safe, it has no reason to exist.

government - leadership of any kind, tbh - only exists to centralise the management of common needs, so we don't all have to individually scrabble to survive every day, on our own.

Nils Steiner
@NilsSteiner

In this paper, we study vote choices of voters who are left-wing on economic issues and authoritarian/nationalist on cultural issues, especially immigration. For these voters, there is no often party combining positions in this way.

Vol 70 Apr | '#Vote choices of left-#authoritarians: Misperceived congruence and issue #salience' by @NilsSteiner and Sven Hillen is now available @ches_data @german_gles #Germany https://t.co/pmCoP5t7CL pic.twitter.com/Vl8rCahcZL
— Electoral Studies (@ElectoralStdies) January 30, 2021

In the data from the Campaign Panel of the German Election Study 2017, many voters prefer higher social benefits and taxes and want to restrict immigration. @ches_data show that no party bundles issue positions in this way.

In the article, we show that many such “left-authoritarians” perceive the party they voted for to also hold a left-authoritarian position. Interestingly, this includes many AfD voters who report a perceived left-wing economic position of the party.

Our statistical models study the interplay between this (mis-)perceived congruence and issue importance, using an open-ended question on the most important political problem in Germany.

We find that (mis-)perceived congruence and issue importance interactively shape the left-authoritarian vote. Simply, perceived congruence matters more on an important issue—and issue salience matters most if voters accurately perceive incongruent party supply.