By the time the #Fed finally admits that higher #inflation is not transitory it will be much too high for the Fed to actually do anything to prevent it from getting even worse. When investors finally figure this out the U.S. dollar and Treasuries will crash and #gold will soar.
More from Gold
What my simple analysis showed was the decadal breakout in making in #Gold along with the outperformance over S&P500 #SPX
Result?
1850$ to 2070$
Updated chart https://t.co/l6pEGD7r6D
Result?
1850$ to 2070$
Updated chart https://t.co/l6pEGD7r6D
Most interesting chart:
— The_Chartist \U0001f4c8 (@charts_zone) February 12, 2022
Orange line = Gold
Blue Curve = Gold/S&P 500
Previously the ratio crossed 50 days MA in Feb' 20 with Gold giving a breakout on the charts. The previous cross of 50 days MA didn't result in gold breaking out. pic.twitter.com/HRG1fvsILp
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?