Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (64816)	7/22/2010 12:29:09 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217745

Pole shifting my friend. Pole shifting.

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (64816)	7/22/2010 12:50:56 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 217745

Apr. 09, Bank of Canada cut its key rate to a record 0.25 percent and vowed to keep it there until the second quarter of this year, “conditional on the outlook for inflation.” It raised borrowing costs in June. The first rate increase by the Fed could occur as soon as the second quarter of next year, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey in early July. A more specific time commitment from the Fed might reduce yields on Treasury notes, cheapening financing costs for millions of businesses and consumers. The move also wouldn’t require the Fed to expand its $2.34 trillion balance sheet or allocate more credit to industries such as housing, a move some policy makers oppose. The Fed has already purchased about $1.25 trillion of agency mortgage-backed securities to lower home-loan costs. Another possible step, Bernanke said, is restarting securities purchases after the Fed bought $1.7 trillion of housing debt and Treasuries through March 2010. Fed officials have been debating this year the timing and pace of selling the mortgage securities.

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (64816)	7/22/2010 9:12:36 AM
From: TobagoJack	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217745

just in in-tray player 1: Remarkable commencement address by some insufferable self-proclaimed supermom who works for Goldman. She boasts of working 70-80 hours/week yet balancing kids,husband and 3 board NFP memberships along with exercising 3-4x/week. Let's do the math: 168 hours/week (less) 75 avg workweek @ GS 42 sleep,personal hygiene Mon-Sat 24 Sun. off to recharge 12 Min. commute to/from work unless she lives downtown (very unlikely) 6 Min. exercise time/week inc. commute This leaves precisely 9 hours/wk for our Supermom to spend with her children,reconnect with hubby,personal time,and attend to her 3 charities Mon-Sat.And she has the moxie to boast that she has a 'balanced life'. Bitch is fuckin' delusional.Yet another reason to hate Goldman. player tj: I have always hate the supermom from gs, independently from my distaste for gs. It is good to have a specific reason to despise, pity supermom, but not necessary, for the specific reason might dissolve one day. player 1: "For a Type A person like me….it's hard to even consider not being outstanding at everything I do every day." Pity her kids. What a horrendous bitch. player 2: Don't hate GS so much, the share price has come back since I bought it. Perhaps the personal hygiene assumption of 42 was too generous. Put everything on the sunday 24, 3 charities on sunday possible, if charities mon to sat then perhaps all personal hygiene saved to sunday from weekdays. good smell. something's got to give, conservation of xyz in physics. player 1: Forgot she was in your baby group.OK,assume zero time for hygiene,she still sleeps only 7 hrs/night.Adult avg. is 8.Assuming she needs avg rest to support her hectic life,she now has half an hour 6 days/week for family and the rest. It's extremely rare for non-religious charities to meet (or even be open) on Sunday.

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (64816)	7/22/2010 10:21:13 AM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Respond to of 217745

Glimmer of hope in China's 'brain drain' battle by Staff Writers Beijing (AFP) July 20, 2010 Two years ago, molecular biologist Shi Yigong was a prize-winning Princeton University professor with annual research funding of more than two million dollars and a seemingly limitless US academic career. But Shi did exactly what China's leadership hopes to see more of -- he turned his back on all that to return to his homeland after two decades abroad. The recent return of people like Shi, who now heads the life sciences department at Tsinghua University in Beijing, has provided a ray of hope for China in its uphill battle to reverse a long-term "brain drain" of top experts. "China has contributed disproportionately to the advancement of science and technology in the United States, for example," Shi said of the steady stream of China's best and brightest who left for greener pastures in decades past. "Behind China's shiny glass skyscrapers, it has an extreme shortage of top talents and that is really regrettable." With aspirations of becoming a science and technology power, China has tried for years to halt an exodus of top minds, a lingering legacy of the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution when campus upheavals closed universities for years. terradaily.com