Search
課程說明
統計資料是你想進入的行業的驅動力嗎？ 你想成為一名市場分析師、商業智慧分析師、資料分析師還是資料科學家？
那你來對地方了！
你將從這門課學到統計資料科學和商業分析並獲得相關的 Excel 樣板！
從這 5 小時的課程，你會學到
✅瞭解統計學的基本原理
✅學習如何處理不同類型的資料
✅如何繪製不同型別的資料
✅計算中心趨勢、不對稱性和可變性的度量
✅計算相關性( correlation )和共變異數( covariance )
✅區分並處理不同類型的發行版
✅估計信賴區間( confidence intervals )
✅進行假設檢驗
✅做出資料驅動的決定
✅瞭解迴歸分析的機制
✅執行迴歸分析
✅使用和理解虛擬變數( dummy variables )
✅理解資料科學所需的概念，即使使用 Python 和 R
https://softnshare.com/statistics-for-data-science-and-business-analysis/
Is a U.S.-China hot war imminent?｜Lee Yee
In July, Pompeo claimed the American policy towards China is harsher than the one towards the Soviet Union in the Cold War era. The approach has been shifted from “listening to its words and watching its deeds” to “ignoring its words and only watching its deeds”. Recent developments show that the U.S. is striding closer and closer to a complete de-linkage with China. The recall of the ambassador from China was just a prelude. What followed was the U.S. official interpretation that “one China policy” is not equivalent to “one China principle”, plus the emphasis that “the U.S. holds no specific standpoint towards the sovereignty of Taiwan”. Furthermore, during the visit of Krach, U.S. Under Secretary of State, Tsai Ing-wen stated that “Taiwan has the determination to take the critical step”. Adding fuel to this, Hsiao Bi Khim, Taiwan’s delegate at the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the U.S., introduced herself as the “Taiwan Ambassador to the U.S.” on Twitter. In view of all these, is the U.S. going to establish diplomatic relation with Taiwan? Will it turn out to be the “October surprise” before the U.S. presidential election? In response, China dispatched fighter jets to violate the airspace of Taiwan, and as “Global Times” put it, “this was not a gesture of warning, but an actual combat exercise of attacking Taiwan”. In return, Taiwan authority urged China “not to underestimate its armed forces' resolve in safeguarding Taiwan”. As tension keeps building up across the Strait, will the U.S. intervene and finally trigger a U.S.-China hot war?
For the last few months, while analyzing the situation, quite a few observers have drawn upon the “Thucydides trap” originated from an ancient Greek historian. According to this theory, when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing great power as an international hegemony, there will be an unavoidable tendency towards war.
To be frank, these observers may have well overestimated the strength of China. Thanks to its huge population, China has become the second largest economic entity in the world. But we are now living in an era that national strength is rather defined by technological advancement. In reality, China is militarily inferior to Russia and technologically lagging far behind major western countries. To put it simply, China is yet to be capable of challenging the American dominance.
Back in the 1980s, in the heyday of its economic development, Japan has significantly outperformed the U.S. in the capital market, and some American scholars have come to the “Japan No.1” conclusion. Despite this, there was never a sign of military confrontation between U.S. and Japan. A decade later, the formation of the European Union posed new challenge to the American supremacy. But again, the two did not come anywhere close to a war. So why has the emergence of China, which in fact lacks the capabilities to overwhelm the U.S., aroused much anticipation of war?
Rudolph Rummel, an American professor of political studies, have made a thorough analysis on the correlation between wars and democracy in human history. After humans surviving a thousand years of darkness, it was not until the independence of the U.S. in 1776 that unveiled a democratic institution with public elections, separation of powers, multi-party system as well as freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly. After more than a hundred years, in 1900 there were only 13 democratic countries in the world. And after another decade, in 2015 the rose to 130, and dictatorial states without meaningful elections have become the minority.
According to Rummel’s statistics, there were 371 wars between 1816 and 2005. Among them, 205 were fought between two dictatorial countries and 166 between democratic and dictatorial ones. Interestingly, there had not been a single war between democratic countries. The conclusion is all too obvious: if there were only democratic states on earth, wars would not happen.
And here lies the fundamental reason why the “Thucydides Trap” has been more valid in the old days when dictatorial systems prevailed, but has failed to apply in contemporary cases between two democratic countries. And it also explains why the competitions between the U.S. and Japan or the EU have not led to any war, while the challenge from China will probably end up differently.
In a democratic system, to wage a war requires a consensus among the government, legislature, media and public opinion. It is rather a matter of the people’s collective will than the ruler’s subjective decision. Whereas within a dictatorial structure, no approval from the legislature is needed, media and public opinion are never respected and judicial challenge simply does not exist. A dictator or oligarch can just go to war at will.
From a dictator’s point of view, whether to enter a war or not is not subject to external circumstance, but the domestic status of his ruling. When a dictator’s position gets shaken by severe economic downturn and widespread public discontent, he will try to divert domestic dissatisfaction by means of foreign maneuvers. The dictator tends to single out those “non-conforming groups”, as so identified by the “little pink” Chinese patriots, and tries bullying them, as what the CCP is doing in India, Hong Kong and Inner Mongolia. The objective is to distract attention with extreme nationalism. More often than not, stirring up external instability has become a tactic to secure domestic stability of the dictator’s rule.
Perhaps a shrewd dictator will weigh up the strength of his counterpart before taking action. Nevertheless, the intrinsically defective system may hinder the dictator from understanding the reality and accessing different views. And personal intellectual and intelligent inadequacies may also breed unrealistic self-inflating belief. The resulted stupidity can make a tragedy more imminent than everyone may expect.
本來都有諗過循呢個角度寫，但 君子馬蘭頭 - Ivan Li 李聲揚 寫得好睇。
#誠意推介
#長文互聯
［搶M巾！搶紙巾！搶腦筋！］三GUN一起出擊！三GUN的經濟學！要搶糧又搶娘！既打波又打人！coffee，tea or me？why not all？（即係，叫空姐斟杯鴛鴦畀你咁咯。我冇試過，坐商務都冇，我唔飲鴛鴦，一杯都冇飲過）
1. 畀咗結論你先：搶M巾好理性！信神好理性！擠提去排埋一份都好理性！
2. 呢兩日嘅全城焦點，就唔係林鄭，亦唔係肺炎，甚至唔係口罩。而係廁紙！仲有M巾！仲有避孕套！同我掃！
3. 學我網友講句，啲阿嬸掃埋咁多M巾，真係停經都未用得完呀。但我不同意，你點知佢買嚟用？畀屋企人得？買嚟炒唔得？送畀人都仲得。有啲賴皮，但成日都話，炒家同用家，有時唔係咁key丫咳
4. 又其實有冇諗過三者之間有natural hedge？「要用大量廁紙嗰啲就未必有另一半畀佢用套」（我知做愛都要用紙巾，但明啦）「而做愛唔用套自然第時就M巾都唔使用」 ，三者明顯有啲negative correlation，擺埋落個投資組合就可以分散風險，唔會齊升齊跌。相反如果你又買岡本又買杜蕾斯又買富力士（其實仲有冇呢個牌子？）就唔會有分散，齊升齊跌。拿，CFA都係教你呢啲嘢架咋！（是真的，整個covariance matrix 出嚟添）
5. 但講返，我見一般人都係恥笑花生多。之前搶／排口罩冇人笑，甚至去到搶／排米都冇人笑，但去到紙巾M巾大家都覺得going to far了。當然我都有—我指有份笑，唔係有份搶
6. 但，正所謂專家食屎。我地換個角度睇，行動代表一切，呢啲係佢地嘅revealed preference，係好赤裸裸的。佢地就係要呢啲嘢，知行合一。唔似有時啲金融撚咁表面唱淡其實好倉，或者一邊唱好某國一邊搞移民。親身落場嘅戰士，我幾時都欽敬，真的。炒鬼會輸錢，都好過得個講字嘅人。
7. 所以，有人話「唔理性」，我就真係唔知邊忽「唔理性」。
8. 首先做李天命，語理分析，「理性」呢個字，係極之含混嘅。根本唔同人唔同語境，分別可以好大。同一種行為，唔同人睇，唔同時間睇，已經可以由理性變不理性。我甚至懷疑，「理性」呢個詞，近乎係廢的。實務上嘅用途，只係一種感情標簽—我「理性」我就巴撚閉，我唔同意嘅咪「唔理性」。
9. 好啦，咩叫「理性」？好空廢地講，人嘅決定，應該必然係「理性」架喎。每個人嘅價值觀不同，你話人幾百萬搵明星「唔理性」，「咪又係女一條」，但食家一樣覺得你「唔理性」，食幾百餐垃圾，點解唔慳埋食餐好？。撐侵侵嘅覺得投民主黨「唔理性」，左膠八婆玩死美國呀。反侵侵嘅一樣覺得侵侵呢啲小丑，投嗰啲都係啲「唔理性」嘅鄉下佬。
10. 另一種語境下，「理性」變咗係versus感情。例如條女寧願同條毒撚一齊都唔跟富二代，好唔理性。例如條仔明明十幾廿萬樣嘢做條女都要佢陪，就會同條女講「你可唔可以理性啲」。
11. 我理解，好多人嘅「理性」，特別係啲中產知識份子嘅「理性」，就係佢覺得「你掌握嘅資料唔夠」，你個scenario analysis 完全錯嘅．大灣區買樓？輸死你呀，下年支爆架啦。25000撈底？輸死你呀，下年2500架啦。
12. 真的，我舉啲例有啲極端，但操作差不多。大家恥笑人盲搶巾，背後無非就係假設嗰啲友羊群心態，無腦嘅謠言都信，仲買埋咁多。點會真係冇貨？
13. 但，你點知個謠言係假？「萬一係真呢？」你冇炒過車？
14. 係啦，記住呢句，「萬一係真呢？」FOMO，Fear of Missing Out．其實人類一直都係咁，但近十年更加明顯，其中之一因為社交網
15. 真係唔好睇少呢種FOMO，包裝得靚啲，就係全球首富（佢講嘢你要聽啦掛）光頭佬嘅Regret Minimization Framework。真係只要有錢，又改個好啲嘅名，就好似商管咁—即係 唔怕一萬 至怕萬一
16. 我畀兩個好經典嘅例子你。
17. 第一個係，瑞士數學神學哲學物理學家，Blaise Pascal 講嘅，「你一定要信神」。即使神好可能不存在都好，都係信咗先。點解？「萬一係真呢？」。你睇下個pay off．如果冇神，但你走去信，咁其實都冇乜嘢，最多唔可以講粗口，捐下錢，分分鐘仲食到女搵到生意（嗰個年代應冇），冇乜好大損失—係有，但可接受。但萬一，有神，而你唔信呢？好撚大鑊架喎。就算係好細機會都好，負唔負得起後果先。所以，買個保險。梗係信神。「萬一係真呢？」
18. 第二個，擠提。我對擠提十分之著迷（？）。之前話去提爆中銀嗰啲都唔信，2008年傳東亞不穩，就真係大把人去擠提。最後穩住咗
19. 不過我都有朋友去提埋一份，我公司都有同事去。好啦，你問我信唔信東亞唔掂？唔信咯。但，首先，呢個例子有啲唔同，擠提有「自我實現」 特性，你個個去提就可以唔爆都搞爆（不過而家冇咁易，有機會再解）。第二，又係頭先嘅諗法，計下個pay off．
20. 東亞如果冇事，你走去提款，冇問題架喎，最多係損失少少時間，嗰時提款都唔係真係好長龍，記得同事十五至三十分鐘一定搞得掂。除此以外，係冇成本乜滯。但如果真係爆煲，而你冇提款呢？係好細機會，但你冒唔冒得起？「萬一係真呢？」
21. 更何況，除咗金錢損失外，仲有最大劑係個心理損失。東亞冇事你去提，廁紙冇供應你去排，最多畀人笑幾日—但如果真係有事呢？有事你冇去提，你老婆唔鏟到你飛天？「一早叫咗你架啦」。如果真係冇M巾你冇去買，你有乜感受？
22. 留意呢度呢啲例子，真實生活都係好常見，asymmetric payoff，不對稱回報。人腦處理呢啲嘢，就份外奇怪。買六合彩個個都知係騙局，否則馬會何來咁多錢，學者話係「蠢人稅」，專門抽啲唔識數學嘅人稅。而且買六合彩唔同賭百家樂，我相信冇咗過癮嘅過程，亦冇得搵條女同你吹吹吹—但買六合彩係咪唔理性？又好似唔係喎。我輸一千次，冇乜所謂，一萬幾千蚊—但如果中咗呢？
23. 同樣道理，今朝先有朋友問，「每期買死一堆數字，同買電腦飛，中獎機會係咪一樣」，答案當然係。甚至你轉嚟轉去都好—但實務上，我唔會建議人咁玩。一係你買死一堆數字，一係你期期電腦飛—係機率一樣呀，但你試下買開99期老婆生日，然後第100期買電腦飛，點知開中你原本買開嘅老婆生日？你老婆唔斬撚死你，你都自盡啦。
24. 經濟學會叫呢啲東西做utility，亦都係精算101必讀（明顯我只係上過幾堂）。買保險係蝕錢架喎，「否則保險公司賺乜？」。但，保險嘅精義，同埋risk management, hedging 嘅精要，唔係make loss less severe —係make them more certain！
25. 再講白啲，我寧願厄分畀輸15蚊，訓得舒服—好過去玩一個 999舖我冇事但1舖我會輸10000嘅遊戲—明明後者嘅expected value 係10蚊，你話做乜咁笨柒。但我輸10000我會跳樓架嘛，我不如一早投降畀你輸15蚊（你當有隻魔鬼搵支搶指住你一定要揀一樣啦下）。呢啲就係保險啦
26. 係咯，講到尾，搶乜搶物，真係買個保險，遠比你想像中理性。
27. 你諗下戴口罩其實都係咁，我到而家都係幾懷疑有幾大作用，你見鬼佬都話唔係必要乜物。但，咁我戴唔戴？梗係戴啦。一來求個安心，成本又唔高，最多冇咁舒服。二來，「萬一中咗」，你實後悔莫及。
28. 買口罩，都係一樣。你話咩炒高幾十倍都好，講真，當30蚊個，你買唔買？我估多數人都買。我當你買夠100個，三千蚊，貴但唔係要咗你條命。你梗係會買啦。我唔係要你幾皮嘢做個手術嘛。
29. 同樣地，掃廁紙嗰啲，其實有乜所謂？又唔係要排十鳩幾個鐘。一排廁紙使幾錢？我買夠十幾廿排返屋企，講真，你估會用唔晒？又好似唔會咁快過期嘅。真係用唔晒咪打多幾次飛機，反正work from home。再唔係分畀人又得，仆街啲嘅拎嚟炒都得。就算我最後全部滯銷打到精盡人亡都好，都係幾舊水之嘛。
30. 「唔理性」？我記得咩北京控股招股，我讀大學，當年都未識股票，見啲文化評論都話「唔理性」。我朋友生哥話，有錢唔去賺先唔理性—先唔好講係咪包賺。但嗰啲人覺得係嘛，而嗰時，覺得有得賺，點都係fair judgement -甚至我根本唔使去入飛，嗰時連招股書都有得炒！分分鐘你炒招股書都執到幾舊水—正如淘金熱都係旺咗賣鏟嘅人，同埋，LEVIS
31. 所以，搶廁紙呢啲，最多真係判斷不同，口味不同，但好難話係「唔理性」。你話佢三千蚊一卷都買就「唔理性」啫，而家只係平時價，買多幾十袋，有何成本？又唔係要排十個鐘，又唔係要畀十倍價，有幾「唔理性」？
32. 最後一講，理論上社會富裕咗，人嘅時間值錢咗，排隊成本高咗—但其實唔係。朋友知我其實冇乜耐性，所以好奇怪我會在東京排兩個鐘食拉麵（言下之意覺得你都戇鳩，「唔理性」），仲要次次去都排。但，皇牌FOV啦，乜我冇話你知我嗰兩個鐘可以睇報紙睇email咩？係喎，埃汾一日睇email都睇兩個鐘起碼，唔係邊得嚟咁多嘢寫，邊得嚟咁多堅料，邊得嚟咁多過癮故事。
33. 所以根本有咗智能手機（同埋，尿袋），而家啲友排隊嘅成本，係遠低過十年前。冇智能手機你會有冇咁多人通頂排隊買波鞋買演唱會飛？個個睇書聽歌八粒鐘？
34. 雖則呢篇行文都幾多粗口（興奮就會咁架啦），但我覺得個風格同題目，其實係十分之咁利世民嘅。
35. 唔好意思，其實完全唔係經濟學，呃左標題黨。真經濟學人手下留情。
เทคนิคการสร้าง correlation matrix จากราคาหุ้นหลาย ๆ ตัวพร้อม ๆ กันโดยใช้
1. Analysis TookPak
2. ใช้ฟังก์ชัน =CORREL() ร่วมกับ =INDIRECT()
นอกจากนี้ยังแสดงให้เห็นถึงเทคนิคในการแสดงเฉพาะ lower triangular part ของเมทริกซ์ โดยใช้ =ROW() และ =COLUMN()
เชิญสมัครเป็นสมาชิกของช่องนี้ได้ที่
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=prasertcbs
ดาวน์โหลดไฟล์ตัวอย่างได้ที่ https://goo.gl/W4qh0O
playlist สอนการใช้งาน Excel สำหรับการเงิน
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoTScYm9O0GHcen0YDAIIbXewc-621buW
playlist สอนการใช้งาน PivotTable
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoTScYm9O0GFFdZwK6437TxMXYf7Hrd4I
playlist สอนเทคนิคการสร้างกราฟ แผนภูมิแบบต่าง ๆ ด้วย Excel
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoTScYm9O0GExxZ3nlVmleu0wvlhGfs3j
playlist สอน Excel
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoTScYm9O0GEMj5LpqxaxWWnanc55Epnt
playlist สอนเทคนิคการใช้งาน Word
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSa7e5UkWGU&list=PLoTScYm9O0GG5QrQtl8hmVbg0o8fCCaJT
playlist สอนเทคนิคการใช้งาน PowerPoint
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXWyMULdRvA&list=PLoTScYm9O0GEG5JELOjSGqigFN669d5IK
#prasertcbs_Excel #prasertcbs_ExcelForBusines #prasertcbs
Correlation is used to test relationships between quantitative variables or categorical variables. In other words, it's a measure of how things are related. ... <看更多>
In statistics, correlation or dependence is any statistical relationship, whether causal or not, between two random variables or bivariate data. ... <看更多>
correlation analysis 在 Correlation analysis | Analyze correlation between two variables 的相關結果
Correlation analysis in research is a statistical method used to measure the strength of the linear relationship between two variables and compute their ... ... <看更多>