#employment philosphy

[engagement-challenge-casebook]

Employment Philosophies: Initial Response/Thoughts

As part of my engagement challenge, I was tasked with reading through a pDF on employment philosophies. going thorugh each point and giving my own inittial response and thoughts.

A culture of making

I have come from a culture of making, I know how to finish a project. I don’t go around in cycles for weeks. A can deliver. I am a finisher. We have spent the last 3 years making product and I love it. ‘You have an understanding that nothing is ever perfect, and you have reached a point where you can deliver to a professional standard, you understand what warrants a professional standard.

I understand what warrants a professional standard; I usually set myself to high standards anyway. However, I’m afraid about my ability to complete certain pieces of the project on time. While I have been able to complete every project I’ve done so far to the deadline and I work hard, I have needed extra time, and I can be rather slow. I am Proud of the work I produce, but it often takes me a while to get into focus with my projects.

Engaged in industry standard practice and methods

During the last 3 years we have engaged in standard industry practice. Engaged creative methodologies using industry standard planning, communication and pipeline tools. I have a good understanding of what is expected of me in my chosen role and I can fit into your process and way of working. I stopped just watching animation and started making them and I love the process, seeing things come together, it’s amazing. I’m addicted, give me more.

I agree that I have learned industry standard practices from these past few years and am good at them, such as planning, communication, experimentation, etc. I do not like the tone of this paragraph, though. While admirable, I think the enthusiasm displayed for the creative project process is rather exaggerated and, frankly, unnecessary. It comes off as forced and somewhat fake like whoever is writing is trying too hard to impress a potential employer. This goes for many instances of overenthusiasm in the EP letter. The last sentence made me deeply uncomfortable.

Seamless integration into industry

We didn’t do 9 hr’s a week teaching at University and the rest of the week on the couch and sleeping in bed. We adopted a 9-5 working culture in a fully equipped studio environment. Our projects were seen as commercial and there was commercial work around me. It was designed to make my step into the industry as seamless as possible. I can get up for work in the morning.

While I wouldn't say my university schedule is as demanding as that of a 9-5 job, the curriculum and workflow of my course have given me discipline and a better idea of what my typical work week in a creative industry job might be like. I didn’t find the opening joke all that funny.

A broad understanding of the digitial industry I’m not simply obsessed with working in a major studio, it would be great but I know there are multitudes of other opportunities out there that can draw on my broad skill set. ‘You want to communicate that in your mind this opportunity is not second best, you are very interested in the full spread of digital disciplines, you are happy to turn your hand to anything and you are hungry to learn.

This part deeply resonated with me as a creator. Though I am more comfortable working in traditional mediums such as stop-motion, I am open to working in various mediums and fields such as digital 2d, animatic, character design, digital drawing on Photoshop, etc. I do not want to be pigeonholed into one medium. So, I can get behind the sentiment of a broad skill set being a valuable asset as an artist and to a company.

Team working has taught me to be a professional

I have worked in teams, experienced the ups and downs, the politics and the egos. I have a professional persona that will work with anybody to deliver on a project. I am a team player; I enjoy working with like-minded people. I’m diplomatic, I defuse tension, and I deal well with stress and support others under pressure.

I have so far only worked with one team on my own project, and it was a somewhat difficult experience for me at first. I wasn’t used to working with others on a project and we clashed somewhat when it came to our styles of writing, art, and storytelling. But we eventually learned to communicate well and produced a good final product. It was a good learning experience for me to prepare me for a similar work environment where I'll likely have to work with others collaboratively.

I take pride in my work and I have Honour, Integrity

If I start a job I finish it, I always work to the highest standard. I do a job first and foremost for myself, to satisfy my own high standards, I have integrity, and I don’t let myself down and in turn, don’t let other people down. I take pride in my work.

For me Personally, I have trouble registering when I’ve done well on my projects. I know I have completed the brief and produced a high quality product, yet I never seem to feel the sense of overwhelming pride others seem to do when they complete a project. Maybe its my burn out from the work itself, or the fact I can see more of the imperfections in the final product than most can. But I am working on my self-esteem and allowing myself to take pride in my accomplishments.

I’m not a dreamer, I am aware of what it means to be a professional.

I am here to work, I am grounded, I want a career as a digital creative, and I left the dream and the glamour of the animation industry behind many years ago. I want to progress myself, I know I have a lot to learn, that I will never stop learning. I understand that this is not a nine to five job, this is vocational, this is my life, and I want a chapter of that journey and that development to be within your company.

While I wouldn't describe setting my expectations realistically as leaving my dream, I do have a grounded sense of the industry and a great desire to learn in a more hands-on way. Especially if it's from my peers or a potential client.

[absolxguardian]

LETS FUCKING GO!!!!

[femsolid]

TW: Trans activists

For more than a decade now, trans activists have been harassing those who belong to a feminist philosphy we call radical feminism or the women’s liberation movement.

Radical feminists, like most feminists, believe that men use sex to oppress women. Meaning they oppress women through sexual exploitation and by perpetuating sexist discrimination towards those who belong to the female sex. They were the first to research and expose violence against women as endemic and traumatizing, and to create shelters for rape and domestic violence victims. Those shelters are now being vandalized and defunded by trans activists.

Because radical feminists don’t believe in gender identities, gendered souls, gender roles or any form of innate personality based on sexist stereotypes, they have been receiving rape and death threats on a daily basis. The acronym “terf” was soon invented and is now used to describe any person who doesn’t support the trans movement, even if they’re not feminists, just as long as they're women, though lesbians and feminists tend to be the primary targets.

As a whole, the trans movement claims that its biggest enemy and threat, its most pressing matter, its most dangerous opponent is the women’s liberation movement or what they call “radfems” or “terfs”. This is where their energy and anger is directed, typically in the form of sexist and sexual harassment, intimidation techniques, violence, censorship and social isolation. So let’s talk about that.

From the book Hate Crimes in Cyberspace:

Cyber harassment involves threats of violence, privacy invasions, reputation-harming lies, calls for strangers to physically harm victims, and technological attacks.

Victims’ in-boxes are inundated with threatening e-mails. Their employers receive anonymous e-mails accusing them of misdeeds. Even if some abuse is taken down from a site, it quickly reappears on others. Victims’ sites are forced offline with distributed-denial-of-service attacks.

While some attackers confine abuse to networked technologies, others use all available tools to harass victims, including real-space contact. Offline harassment or stalking often includes abusive phone calls, vandalism, threatening mail, and physical assault.

The Internet extends the life of destructive posts. Harassing letters are eventually thrown away, and memories fade in time. The web, however, can make it impossible to forget about malicious posts. And posts that go viral attract hundreds of thousands of readers.

Online harassment can quickly become a team sport, with posters trying to outdo each other. Posters compete to be the most offensive, the most abusive. An accurate name for such online groups is cyber mobs. The term captures both the destructive potential of online groups and the shaming dynamic at the heart of the abuse.

Cyber harassment disproportionately impacts women. The U.S. National Violence Against Women Survey reports that 60 percent of cyber stalking victims are women, and the National Center for Victims of Crimes estimates that the rate is 70 percent. Of the 3,393 individuals reporting cyber harass-ment to WHOA from 2000 to 2011, 72.5 percent were female. The most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics report found that 74 percent of individuals who were stalked on or offline were female, and 26 percent were male.

Researchers found that users with female names received on average one hundred “malicious private messages,” which the study defined as “sexually explicit or threatening language,” for every four received by male users.

According to the study, “Male human users specifically targeted female users.” By contrast, men are more often attacked for their ideas and actions. John Scalzi, a science fiction author and popular blogger, has found online invective typically situational. When he writes something that annoys people, they tell him so. People do not make a “hobby” out of attacking his appearance and existence as they do female bloggers.

The nature of the attacks similarly attests to bigotry’s presence. Hate expresses something uniquely damaging. It labels members of a group as inhuman “others” who do not possess equal worth. It says that group members are inferior and damaged. Bigotry conveys the message that group members are objects that can be destroyed because they have no shared humanity to consider.

Cyber harassment exploits these features by exposing victims’ sexuality in humiliating ways. Victims are equated with their sexual organs, often described as diseased.

Once cyber harassment victims are sexually exposed, posters penetrate them virtually with messages that say “I will fuck your ass to death you filthy fucking whore, your only worth on this planet is as a warm hole to stick my cock in.” 

Rape threats profoundly impact women: over 86 percent of rape victims are female. Virtual elimination may follow the imagined penetration: “First I’ll rape you, then I’ll kill you.”

One woman who faced online abuse noted, “Someone who writes ‘You’re just a cunt’ is not trying to convince me of anything but my own worthlessness.” Despite the gravity of their predicaments, cyber harassment victims are often told that nothing can or should be done about online abuse. Journalists, bloggers, lay observers, and law enforcement officials urge them to ignore it. Victims are called “whiny baby girl[s]” who are overreacting to “a few text messages.” Often victims are blamed for the abuse. They are scolded for sharing their nude images with loved ones or for blogging about controversial topics. They are told that they could have avoided the abuse had they been more careful.

A related message sent to victims is that the benefits of online opportunities are available only to those who are willing to face the Internet’s risks. They are advised not to expect anything different if they want to make a name for themselves online. The choice is theirs: they can toughen up or go offline.

The Internet is governed by society’s rules. Life online bleeds into life offline and vice versa. The notion that more aggression should be tolerated in cyberspace than in real space presumes that virtual spaces are cordoned off from physical ones.

Most victims do not report cyber harassment to the police because they assume that nothing will be done about it. Sadly, they are right. Law enforcement frequently fails to act on victims’ complaints even though criminal law would punish some of the behavior. Victims are told to turn off their computers because “boys will be boys.” Online harassment victims are told that nothing can be done; they are advised to ignore rape and death threats. During the summer of 2013, high-profile women were subjected to a torrent of online threats. The feminist activist Caroline Criado Perez received hundreds of graphic rape threats via Twitter after her successful campaign to feature more female images on British banknotes.

Members of Parliament and female writers who publicly supported Criado-Perez faced the same, including bomb threats. One tweet featured a picture of a masked man holding a knife with the message, “I’m gonna be the first thing u see when u wake up.”

Because the Internet serves as people’s workspaces, professional networks, résumés, social clubs, and zones of public conversation, it deserves the same protection as offline speech. No more, no less.

Without doubt, the free speech interests at stake are weighty. Free expression is crucial to our ability to govern ourselves, to express our thoughts, and to discover truths. For that reason, government cannot censor ideas because society finds them offensive. Truthful speech must not be banned just because it makes people uncomfortable.

But credible threats, certain defamatory falsehoods, social security numbers, and nude images posted without consent contribute little to discourse essential for citizens to govern themselves and discover truths. Their net effect is the silencing of victims. Victims could blog, post videos, and engage on social networks without fear of destructive cyber harassment. They could raise money using networked tools unencumbered by rape threats, reputation-harming lies, and distributed- denial- of- service attacks. They could take advantage of all of the expressive opportunities available online. Protecting against online harassment would secure the necessary preconditions for victims’ free expression.

With the help of law and the voluntary efforts of Internet intermediaries, parents, and teachers, we might someday achieve a free and equal Internet. We need to take action before cyber harassment becomes a normal feature of online interactions. A hostile online environment is neither inevitable nor desirable. We should not squander this chance to combat discriminatory online abuse; it is early enough in our use of networked tools to introduce equality of opportunity as a baseline norm of interaction.

[veganagenda]

veganism: a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose.

veganism... a collective act of boycotting products that are produced unethically in order to defund and deplatform a massive industry that fundamentally profits off of the exploitation, abuse and violent slaughter of 23 million captive animals every single day in the US alone, and keeps itself alive through rigorous marketing campaigns and societally normalized propaganda... is consumerism? sorry. you're going to have to run that by me again.

only benefits the capitalist class? who do you think owns the animal farms? we're trying to disestablish the capitalist class. take one quick look at vegan history - look at the lengths the ALF have gone to against police and law alike to tear down and sabotage capitalist animal product industries. some of the biggest vegan groups and activist movements are dedicated to liberating suffering beings, rewilding the land, restoring natural habitats, challenging unfair lobbying, standing against unethical industries, designing more efficient food systems, keeping people fed by reforming agriculture! is this not the very definition of leftist, anarchist, communal aid?

the vegan philosphy is not that "what you consume determines your morality." that is a misphrasal that does a severe injustice to the vegan philosophy, because it is much more specific than that. the vegan philosophy is, to quote another post of mine, as far as it is practicable and safe for you to do so, "you should not offer your money to an industry that will exploit their bodies and physically and psychologically torture animals until their violent deaths, at which point they will be turned into profitable products for consumers, all while polluting, deforesting and ravaging wild animals' natural habitats to make room for even more of this."

I'm not quite sure what you're referencing about labour exploitation - perhaps the worker exploitation involved in the farming of vegetable produce? produce of which a statistical majority goes towards feeding livestock rather than humans? you are aware that workers are exploited within the meat and dairy industries as well, yes? severely, in fact - physical injury and PTSD are extremely well documented in factory farm and slaughterhouse workers, and a significant amount of these people are either literal child workers or immigrants manipulated by employers into this line of work.

this is where the morality question comes in. morality can be a loaded topic that requires a lot of nuance, but this is the moral question we pose to others for their consideration: if you are someone who cares about the liberation from widescale, unnecessary, industrialized suffering for animals and humans alike, if you care about protecting wild habitats and threatened land, preventing deforestation and using our farmland resourcefully to feed the world - if you care about even one of these things, are you truly living by your moral values, if you have the option to make as many changes that are possible and practicable to your lifestyle, that would ultimately lessen the amount of harm you fund and contribute to with your purchases, but don't?

I don't think it gets any less consumeristic than that.

It is ok to be “that annoying vegan.” Veganism isn’t just a lifestyle choice, it is a moral imperative. When you make an ethical decision you aren’t just deciding that this is wrong for you; it isn’t like saying apples are nicer than oranges. People don’t believe prejudice is wrong just for them, or adultery, or abusive behavior. Ethical statements are truth claims; you are professing the belief that this thing is wrong. For everyone. It is every bit of ok to be “that annoying vegan” because that stereotype only exists to silence us.

[wisdomrays]

THE QURANIC CONCEPT OF HISTORY AND WESTERN PHILOSPHIES OF HISTORY: Part 3

A possible question; If civilisations are not, essentially, subject to an inevitable end, why, then, was none of the past civilisations able to resist decadence and the ‘corrosive power of time’?

The core of the matter lies in the answer to this important question. What, indeed, caused the philosophers of history such as Ibn Khaldun, Toynbee, Spengler and the like to form a wrong conception of history is that they, rather than trying to discover the real dynamics of historical movements, attempted to explain the apparent causes of the establishment, flourishing, and decay of civilisations. Whoever looks back to the past couldn’t help arriving at the same conclusions. But that no community has so far been able to remain at the peak it climbed does not mean that this is an inevitable end, a determinist grip on the fate of nations. The past civilisations collapsed because they did not heed the warnings of what had happened to peoples preceding them. To accept a historical determinism means to nullify human free will and to regard as useless, even an absurdity, all the warnings and advices made to living people by both Divine scriptures and social sciences.

As stated before, man is tested in the world. He has a carnal soul which is the source of all desires and animal appetites. In addition, man has a natural inclination towards living together with his fellow human beings, and also he is in a complex relationship with his natural environment. This requires that man’s carnal desires should be limited and his relations with both his human and natural environment be based on ‘justice’ so that he may be at peace with himself, his environment and nature. Nevertheless, as history witnesses, some people may, under the instigation of his carnal desires, not be pleased with his share in the society and attempt to dominate others. If such people realise their ambitions, they, this time, in order to justify their actions, make a constitution to govern the people. It is indeed, easy to have the people to ‘vote’ for their constitution.

This is what has always been where and when the Divine laws are abrogated. Where the people sincerely believe in one God as the Lord, Sovereign and Master of human kind, without concession to any intermediate role of some classes such as Clergy as in Christianity and Shi‘a Islam, and where they are really conscious of the meaning of Divine Unity, which, by delivering man from the humiliating slavery of carnal desires, worldly positions, or of other beings, and eradication of the false and artificial contradictions of the black and the white, clergy and laity, the ruler and the ruled, the employer and employed etc., elevates him so high to be the servant of only One God, no one does attempt to dominate others through the force of money, colour, race or weapons.

According to the Qur’an, all men are, on account of being the creatures of one God, essentially equal in the sight of God. Furthermore, man lacks the enough knowledge and power to establish the rules according to which at least the majority of people could live at peace with themselves, with each other and with the natural environment. Above all, man has to be at peace with his Creator and Sustainer. Because of these, only God’s exclusively is sovereignty both in heavens and on the earth.

What God asks of man-it is what we can conclude we must do through the exercise of our reasoning-is that man should build his wordly existence on three foundations: justice, religious-moral values and Divine laws of life and nature.

The Qur’an invites man, first of all, to believe in and worship One God, by which he may lead a balanced life: He may attain true inward happiness and peace and co-exist with his fellow human beings in accordance with the rules of justice, without being led astray by his carnal, evil-commanding soul. Second, the Qur’an lays some moral, also legal, principles-for example, it says:

Give to the kindred his due and the poor and to the wayfarer. But spend not wastefully in the manner of a spend thrift. Kill not your children for fear of poverty. We provide for them and for you. Come not near to unlawful sexual intercourse. Do not kill anyone which God has forbidden, except for just cause. Come not near the orphan’s property except to improve it. And fulfil covenant. Give full measure when you measure and weigh with balance that is right.

Also, the Qur’an prohibits usury, black marketing, hoarding, theft, gambling, and cheating etc. Besides, it is also a Qur’anic injunction to study nature, discover its laws and make progress in sciences. Moreover, there are some other vital principles, obedience to, or neglect of, which has a definite part in man’s ‘fate’. For example, patience and forbearance usually bring success and victory, and while working produces wealth, inertia and laziness are the causes of poverty.

Thus, man, according to the Qur’an, by neglecting or living in accordance with justice, religious-moral values and divine laws of nature, determines his own future. There is principally nothing, other than his free choice, to dictate his fate. If, then, a community, at least by majority, obey God and perform both His ‘religious’ and ‘natural’ laws, there can be nothing to prevent them from realizing peace, happiness and harmony in both individual and social life. Otherwise, no matter how glittering a community may appear, it is inevitable for them to fall into decay.

There is another point to be emphasized concerning the Qur’anic concept of history. The Qur’an does not accept ‘inevitable end’ for civilisations. Any civilisation, as long as it follows its ‘right’ way, it could remain at the peak, although no civilisation has so far been able to. And, any civilisation which is due and, on the threshold of, collapse because it has deviated from its course, could be saved from destruction and even realise a new rise if it reforms its way. Finally, history does not follow a straight and always forward course, rather, it advances by cycles.

[wordsandimagesbycynthiastaples]

good works: in boise idaho ...

good works: in boise idaho …

an unlit candle waiting for its spark … there’s a company called Usful Glassworks. Recycled glass is transformed into lovely, useful items. What’s really special about this company, in addition to its merchandise, is its founding philosphy of providing manufacturing and production experience to those who face the greatest employment barriers including at-risk youth, male and female offenders,…

[terrancedkennedy]

Trump's Fed

Quick exposé on the Trump Fed. What we already know: Trump is tapping the following for the Board of Governors:

Marvin Goodfriend

- PhD from Brown in economics back in '78. Currently is an economics professor at Tepper (Carnegie Mellon's Business School) - The guy doesn't teach the IS-LM model (Video Here). From my understanding, the model describes the relationship between real interest rates and asset prices (specifically real GDP) curve in relation to the liquidity preference and money supply curve. The idea here is that in the short term, prices are sticky. If the central bank expands the supply of real money, the price of real money increases while prices remain unchanged, thus lowering the equilibrium interest rates and expands real GDP. It's kind of interesting as this guy doesn't seem to believe this model. - Has been an advocate of negative rates in the past having its merits if the zero bound is completely unencumbered (thinking going negative 3%). - Really likes Tom Keane? (shameless plug for Surveillance Midday on which he frequently guest speaks)

Moving on:

Randal Quarles

- Law degree from Yale in '84. Philosphy and Economic undergrad background from Columbia. - Senior official to W's Treasury Secretary. Also worked in the Treasury Department for H. W.

- A guy with private sector experience as an MD at Carlyle. Currently, runs his own investment bank in Salt Lake City.

- Will be vice chair of supervision, helping with financial sector regulatory efforts.

- Described as a "mainstream" Republican. - Has been an advocate for better coordination with Europe in regards to regulation.

What I think:

The overall changes to the Fed will skew to a more hawkish one. Goodfriend seems pretty hawkish. (Video Here) He's a Taylor Rule type of guy - that means equilibrium Fed Funds should be much higher - about 3.10% to be specific.

Sizable gap to be closed

In addition, Goodfriend has been recorded a number of times speaking regarding the Fed falling behind inflation. For example:

GOODFRIEND: There is no way that this recovery can proceed with any degree of confidence unless the Fed makes sure that inflation does not move up. So I think the risks are exactly reversed from the way the Fed chairman discusses this. He has to make the public understand that any whiff of doubt about the Fed’s ability and willingness to stabilize inflation is going to put a crimp into the public’s willingness to take positions and commitments over the next two or three years that would produce genuine growth.

Additionally, Goodfriend's staunch advocation of abolishing the zero lower bound should not be confused as a conveyance of any desire for easy monetary policy. His thought is that only when the zero lower bound is abolished before low-interest rate policy (whether zero or slightly negative) can have meaning impact - in layman terms, Goodfriend is saying that only the threat and the potential action of the Fed going extremely negative in rates (hypothetical extreme of, say, negative 5%) would translate to the regular banks providing negative loans to the greater public which would actually stimulate the economy. In turn, that would eliminate the current squeeze on bank profitability vis-à-vis a squeeze in net interest margins. Goodfriend is also a big advocate in regards to the ineffectiveness of quantitative easing. He believes QE is "credit policy", closer related to the fiscal realm rather than the monetary realm. It is reasonable to believe that he will want the Fed to quickly sheet its mammoth balance sheet. Moving onto Quarles. Private sector guy. Banker. Seems like somebody Steve Munchin and Gary Cohn would like a lot. Hard to imagine a banker agreeing with policy that hampers banks. What's been hampering banks? Squeeze on net interest margin. We just talked about it a couple of paragraphs ago. So let's put our thinking caps on. What type of policy were we just talking about that can alleviate bank profitability? Either higher rates or a lower rate policy that completely disregards the zero lower bound. At these economic levels, should we go super negative or should we have higher rates? The Fed has a dual mandate of full employment and low and stable inflation. Put yourself in the mindset of this banker - inflation is somewhat low. Okay. Check.  Let's keep full employment going by stimulating banks and thus economic growth - let's have higher rates/a steeper yield curve. Should we keep rates low or raise them? These factors have me leaning heavily towards a more hawkish Fed.

What can be projected with some imagination: Letting our imagination run, we can project the following: Trump is not exactly one for moderation. When he likes something, he likes it yuge - think famous rapper Wiz Khalifa - everything he does, he does it big. The bigger implication here is that if these are the two he's nominating for the Federal Reserve Board now, we can project what other types of candidate he could nominate when Janet Yellen's (dove) and Stanley Fisher's (contradictorily (vs Janet Yellen) moderate) terms are up. Hint 1: conservative monetarists. Hint 2: More Taylor Rule and higher equilibrium Fed Fund rates. The upcoming Fed meeting is a consensus raise. However, looking at things like the dollar and long end rates, it seems to me that the consensus of a dovish Fed multiple meetings forward is pervasive.

Dollar at 2016 levels shows the market disbelieves potential Fed action vs other central banks

It seems to me that the market is still operating under the same assumptions of the current Fed when there are beginnings of tectonic shifts happening beneath our feet this very second. 

2018 hike odds seem too low and presents good risk/reward

All this occurring in a market that already consistently underprices what the Fed's explicit intent.

Imagine a couple of those lower dots moving higher. With poor Neel Kashkari alone, championing for rates under 1%

In terms of actionable trading:

With everything regarding the markets, timing is paramount (forget all those academics saying it's impossible to time the markets). 

Everything I've talked about can take a little while to materialize. There are of course things that can derail the thesis. If oil keeps sliding, which I think it can, and lead to lower breakeven inflation and turmoil in the high yield market, we can keep push back the eventual rates take off a bit longer. 

Tomorrow's hike is pretty much 100% priced in. Fellow contributor Shawn cited an article arguing that the Fed should stay put tomorrow. I can only imagine the price action in treausries if that happened. I would look to eventually fade that move if the Fed indeed shocks the world. 

Also, there are a few keep assets and spreads that can be keen to offer clues. The breakeven curve has been steepening slightly - if it continues, it can be the harbinger for a general lift off in breakeven inflation.  

Additionally, I'm looking for the curve to stop flattening. I would like to see signs of the curve establishing a bottoming.

Name of the speculation game: anticipate the anticipation of other market participants. 

Ultimately, it's just too damn hard for me to not expect some rhetoric or action from the Fed till January 2019 that doesn't raise the probability of one more hike to be over 30%.

Should we be flatter than before the election? Seems like the market is too skewed in regards to how flat the curve should be. 

Thanks guys. Fed meeting tomorrow. Good luck out there.