document.write('

\x0a $Once inflation started creeping into the economy, interest rates soared and earnings multiples took a tumble. However, once Paul “Big Paul” Volcker squeezed inflation from the economy, multiples slowly resumed their climb back to JFK levels. The problem with that analysis, of course, is that you’re adjusting for a heck of a lot of data. So has the normal level for P/E Ratios been around 18 or so for the past 50 years with the inflation era as an aberration? Or are there natural 15 to 20 year periods of multiple expansion and compression? I lean toward the first, but I’m far from certain.\x0aCrossingWallStreet.com: Happy Birthday Mr. Bull!\x0aI like reading places where experts can’t decide what perspective to take and wrestle with their instinctive findings. I also like reading economic/market-factors posts where I think I’ve learned something rare but in fact I barely understand it beyond the fact it is in English and uses proper grammar (mostly). S-M-R-T, smart.$ \x0a \x0a \x0a
\x0a
Once inflation started creeping into the economy, interest rates soared and earnings multiples took a tumble. However, once Paul “Big Paul” Volcker squeezed inflation from the economy, multiples slowly resumed their climb back to JFK levels. The problem with that analysis, of course, is that you’re adjusting for a heck of a lot of data. So has the normal level for P/E Ratios been around 18 or so for the past 50 years with the inflation era as an aberration? Or are there natural 15 to 20 year periods of multiple expansion and compression? I lean toward the first, but I’m far from certain.
\x0a
CrossingWallStreet.com: Happy Birthday Mr. Bull!
\x0a
I like reading places where experts can’t decide what perspective to take and wrestle with their instinctive findings. I also like reading economic/market-factors posts where I think I’ve learned something rare but in fact I barely understand it beyond the fact it is in English and uses proper grammar (mostly). S-M-R-T, smart.
\x0a
\x0a \x0a
\x0a Ugly, But Not Irrelevant\x0a \x0a \x0a
\x0a
Willie’s review of “Coriolanus”:
\x0a
And yet, is this the Shakespeare play most emblematic of the 2000s? A tragic protagonist, eager for war, sure of the propriety of his ideals and the might of his military, unwilling (or unable?) to examine his own motives, scornful of a populace he’s forced to grovel to if he wants to gain power; a populace, in turn, which gives us very little cause to doubt the protagonist’s assessment of them as a dangerous, disinterested, gullible rabble; a bunch of middle-managing representatives of people and moneyed interests, less interested in the good of the republic than the power to be grabbed and clung to at all costs. No one to root for, really. No one rising above their own desires. Ugly, yes. Irrelevant, no. (Just for fun, and so as not to end on such a down beat, my votes for other representative plays of the last 50 years: 1960s, A Midsummer Night’s Dream; 1970s, Troilus and Cressida; 1980s, The Tempest; 1990s, Romeo and Juliet.)
\x0a
My review of “Coriolanus”, circa 1994:
\x0a
We were supposed to read that for tomorrow’s quiz? Anyone got a movie or cliff’s notes? I promise to read it later.
\x0a
\x0a \x0a
\x0a $Gendercide: Killed, aborted or neglected, at least 100m girls have disappeared—and the number is rising on Economist.com.\x0aIn China and northern India more than 120 boys are being born for every 100 girls. Nature dictates that slightly more males are born than females to offset boys’ greater susceptibility to infant disease. But nothing on this scale.\x0aVia givemesomethingtoread.$ \x0a \x0a \x0a
\x0a
Gendercide: Killed, aborted or neglected, at least 100m girls have disappeared—and the number is rising on Economist.com.
\x0a
In China and northern India more than 120 boys are being born for every 100 girls. Nature dictates that slightly more males are born than females to offset boys’ greater susceptibility to infant disease. But nothing on this scale.
\x0a
Via givemesomethingtoread.
\x0a
\x0a \x0a
\x0a Women & Technology 1999 – 2009 – GirlyGeekdom\x0a \x0a \x0a
\x0a
\x0a
When you start looking through the time line you can see there is a more general positive trend towards women in the technology industry, however despite role models being identified in national and international news papers as well as lots of groups and organizations trying to make a difference there are still comments about the declining numbers entering the profession in 2008. There are many yearly awards given out to those in top senior management slots who are women in the technology industry, however this too doesn’t lead to additional people. Many are arguing that these sort of awards are hindering rather than helping the industry.
\x0a
Meanwhile there are efforts by large corporates to invest money in their own centres for women in technology which to date haven’t seen any hard and fast results. In the meantime groups like Girl Geek Dinners, Women in Technology and Girls in Tech have been built up by the technology community for the community as a result of members of the community feeling a need for it.
\x0a
\x0a
\x0a \x0a
\x0a Gender, Interaction and Leadership [pdf on jstor]\x0a \x0a \x0a
\x0a
by Walker, Henry A., Ilardi, Barbara C., McMahon, Anne M. and Fennel, Mary L., “Social Psychology Quarterly”, Vol. 59, No. 3 (Sep., 1996), pp. 255-272
\x0a
\x0aI like any interesting blog post and comments that send me off into academic journal reading.
\x0a
\x0a \x0a
\x0a
\x0a \x0a
\x0a \x0a \x0a
\x0a
elclon:
\x0a\x0a
Coolest and probably one of the loneliest.
\x0a\x0a
Not sure I’d like to be this guy’s downstairs neighbor.
\x0a
\x0a \x0a
\x0a Ascending Coherence: Brooke, WTF?\x0a \x0a \x0a
\x0a
\x0a
OK, when I was watching Community last night, and a commercial for the upcoming show Who Do You Think You Are? came on, I almost fell off the couch. No, it wasn’t because learning more about other people’s genealogy is one of the most boring things in the world so WHY would you make a show of it…
\x0a
\x0a
\x0a \x0a
\x0a Seattle's Mighty-O Donuts makes nation's best donuts list - Seattle- msnbc.com\x0a \x0a \x0a
\x0a
For ascendingcoherence. Will send a care-package soon.
\x0a
\x0a \x0a
\x0a \x0a \x0a \x0a
\x0a
Types of Bitches 1-14 (via chinese_fashion) and via lisasho. I think 11. is supposed to be hootchy? I prefer a fake spanish pronunciation.
\x0a
\x0a \x0a
\x0a $PALAEOBLOG: Asteroid Impact Did Kill Dinos\x0aHowever, the reviewers find that what appears to be a series of layers neatly laid down over 300,000 years near the impact site were actually violently churned and then dumped in a thick pile in a very short time. Models suggest the impact at Chicxulub was a million times more energetic than the largest nuclear bomb ever tested. An impact of this size would eject material at high velocity around the world, cause earthquakes of magnitude >10, continental shelf collapse, landslides, gravity flows, mass wasting and tsunamis and produce a relatively thick and complex sequence of deposits close to Chicxulub.\x0aIncidentally, the rest of the post has probably the most amazing bullet-point talking point “Quick Facts” ever.$ \x0a \x0a \x0a
\x0a PALAEOBLOG: Asteroid Impact Did Kill Dinos\x0a
However, the reviewers find that what appears to be a series of layers neatly laid down over 300,000 years near the impact site were actually violently churned and then dumped in a thick pile in a very short time. Models suggest the impact at Chicxulub was a million times more energetic than the largest nuclear bomb ever tested. An impact of this size would eject material at high velocity around the world, cause earthquakes of magnitude >10, continental shelf collapse, landslides, gravity flows, mass wasting and tsunamis and produce a relatively thick and complex sequence of deposits close to Chicxulub.
\x0a
Incidentally, the rest of the post has probably the most amazing bullet-point talking point “Quick Facts” ever.
\x0a
\x0a \x0a

');