Is that interventionist policy any different to the Fed and ECB propping up of the US and European stock markets since the depths of the crash with QE? If not then when is the long term viability of that solution going to be called into play?
The Fed and ECB's goal is not to prop up stock market valuations, but to help the economy by encouraging spending and investment through moderate inflation. The banks are tightly bound by inflation targets. Arguably, the ECB has done too little QE since nominal GDP has barely (or hasn't) recovered in most of Europe since 2007, and inflation has been way under target since the crisis.
It seems like China's reaction is more panic-driven, and doesn't have a framework such as inflation targeting to constrain it. In addition, this intervention is just to prop up stock asset prices; encouraging spending and growth in the whole economy is not the primary goal.
With respect to "China's reaction is more panic-driven", check out the following three charts of US Fed policy which I would argue were "panic-driven" based upon magnitude of the intervention when compared historically.
It remains to be seen to what affect recent US Fed policy will do long term, however, I would argue that it was definitely a panic driven reaction.
I provide this not in support of China's policy but for context.
I think the better statement would be that it was a panic, but one with very different and more practical goals.
The US government was primarily trying to keep some big companies and banks that were caught in a liquidity crunch from going bankrupt, because them all going under would likely be a spiraling problem. The crisis solution was also rather simple in aggregate...loan them a bunch of money temporarily until they could free up the assets to repay it.
China is currently trying to prop up a stock market that is STILL (even with today's decline), up 50% in a year for no reason. And most trading in the market is done by very jittery small investors (who are also overleveraged and now desperate to get out) rather than big firms and funds. Said small investors are unlikely to be reassured by anything the Chinese government can possibly do. I don't see great chances for the government to be able to stop this from returning to a more realistic valuation.
Not to mention that I can't imagine how illegalizing trading and other knee-jerk reactions could possibly instill confidence in the market. Even if they can slow the decline, it seems like they'd just enlongate the decline until it reached a similar reality (if their actions don't actually increase the sell-off out of fear).
I rarely post now on StackOverFlow and each time I do I wonder if it's my last time as I'm told I'm in danger of being barred because of my inability to post a question correctly. Also some serious trolling happens if one asks anything deemed obvious - just insecure bullies.
there are many excellent points made on this question but the standout one explaining the problem is
>>When you're in a situation where mistakes can cost you millions, hiring an attorney for tailored advice is cheap insurance.
when you hire a corporate law firm you're paying for their liability insurance. Only products and services that can remove the fear if something goes wrong (i.e insurance) or what is the outcome does not stand up in law will really disrupt things. For the latter the government needs to be involved and this proposal in the UK will really shake things up for access to justice, costs etc if it goes ahead
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/feb/16/online-court-prop...
If software development was not a creative process then such algorithmic/IQ test interviews would be very relevant. Unfortunately for those wasting their time with such interviews it is a creative process. A recent Nobel prize in economics was given to Daniel Kahneman for his work proving such gut instinct interviews are a failure. When I first left college and was bad at software development I passed those tests, got into software firms and got my experience. Now even though I write software everyday for my clients I wouldn't pass any of those interviews. Zuckerberg is right - younger people are smarter (at passing those tests).
Where is he located? If it's the USA, especially Silicon Valley, then it's too late as he's too old. From what I read and comments from likes of Mark Zuckerberg the illegal practice of age discrimination is rampant.
If he's willing to learn .NET and move to Ireland then all is well as once he gets good experience older developers with technical ability are in big demand. As a 43 yr old .NET programmer said to me the other day (as we watched Ireland beat France in the Rugby) "We are the most employable people in this pub and I've never been in more demand in my life".
I don't have the power to downvote, but I sure hope you're joking. To the OP, no, your friend is not too old. I would ask him to focus on learning the fundamentals (e.g. how to use a hash table, sorting, and so on.), and also write a couple of projects and put them on GitHub to gain hands-on experience.
Ageism in the Valley is real, but you're vastly overstating the case. A person in their late 20s is, by a very wide margin, not considered too old - in the Valley or beyond.
Given that several start-ups have come out of PhD projects, in the US at least that puts you into late twenties territory. In the UK most PhDs are ~25 if they started as early as possible.
I'm not buying it - I transitioned to full-time developer older than he is. Maybe he won't get a job at the hippest companies in Silicon Valley, but by my experience (currently doing .NET in Houston) there is a tremendous demand for programming skill in all of the un-sexy industries out there. I get like 3-4 Linkedin inquiries for positions here every time I update my profile, and I'm set as not looking. If you can get stuff done, and articulate your ability to get stuff done, then you'll be able to find jobs easily.
My pal has great tech experience and domain knowledge (major global gambling firm based in Dublin) built up over the years. He's contracting and on 800 euro a day at least - naturally I didn't ask him exactly what he's earning.
Colluding to keep down wages, which would attract more people into programming, and then always complaining that there are not enough software developers while, also illegally, discriminating against expensive older programmers.
Shows money is the main factor with respect to programmers ability.
