Household Saving Rate in the United States increased to 4.60 percent in January from 3.50 percent in December of 2024. This dataset provides - United States Personal Savings Rate - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

The benchmark interest rate in Norway was last recorded at 4.50 percent. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - Norway Interest Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

Historical dataset of the daily level of the federal funds rate back to 1954. The fed funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions (banks and credit unions) lend reserve balances to other depository institutions overnight, on an uncollateralized basis. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meets eight times a year to determine the federal funds target rate.

The benchmark interest rate in China was last recorded at 3.10 percent. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - China Interest Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

The benchmark interest rate in Mexico was last recorded at 9.50 percent. This dataset provides - Mexico Interest Rate - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

The benchmark interest rate in Sweden was last recorded at 2.25 percent. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - Sweden Interest Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

Density dependence only affects increase rates in baleen whale populations at high abundance levels

Overview of files hosted on Dryad

Each file contains a time series of catch records by species/population and location, with two columns: 1. year, and 2. catch number.

Models

"StanSimulation0.stan" (Stan code for the logistic model with fixed z =2.39)

"StanSimulation.stan" (Stan code for the logistic model with estimating z value)

Overview of files hosted on Zenodo

Abundance time-series

"Abund.Bowhead.csv" (Abundance data for bowhead whales)

"Abund.GR.csv" (Abundance data for gray whales)

"Abund.Hbk.csv" (Abundance data for USWC humpback whales)

"Abund.HbkAusNoad2019.csv" (Abundance data for EAUS humpback whales)

"Abund.HbkAusSpueBb.csv" (Relative abundance data for EAUS humpback whales)

"Abund.HbkAusSpueppc.csv" (Relative abundance data for EAUS humpback whales)

"Abund.HbkAusSpuesol.csv" (Relative abundance data for EAUS humpback whales)

Descrip...

The benchmark interest rate in Japan was last recorded at 0.50 percent. This dataset provides - Japan Interest Rate - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

This dataset contains daily data trackers for the COVID-19 pandemic, aggregated by month and starting 18.3.20. The first release of COVID-19 data on this platform was on 1.6.20. Updates have been provided on a quarterly basis throughout 2023/24. No updates are currently scheduled for 2024/25 as case rates remain low. The data is accurate as at 8.00 a.m. on 8.4.24. Some narrative for the data covering the latest period is provided here below: Diagnosed cases / episodes • As at 3.4.24 CYC residents have had a total 75,556 covid episodes since the start of the pandemic, a rate of 37,465 per 100,000 of population (using 2021 Mid-Year Population estimates). The cumulative rate in York is similar to the national (37,305) and regional (37,059) averages. • The latest rate of new Covid cases per 100,000 of population for the period 28.3.24 to 3.4.24 in York was 1.49 (3 cases). The national and regional averages at this date were 1.67 and 2.19 respectively (using data published on Gov.uk on 5.4.24).

We examine the behavior of senders and receivers in the context of oligopoly limit pricing experiments in which high prices chosen by two privately informed incumbents may signal to a potential entrant that the industry-wide costs are high and that entry is unprofitable. The results provide strong support for the theoretical prediction that the incumbents can credibly deter unprofitable entry without having to distort their prices away from their full information levels. Yet, in a large number of cases, asymmetric information induces incumbents to raise prices when costs are low. The results also show that the entrants' behavior is by and large “bi-polar:” entrants tend to enter when the incumbents' prices are “low” but tend to stay out when the incumbents' prices are “high.”

The gross domestic product (GDP) of Papua New Guinea (PNG) grew at an annual average rate of nearly 7% between 2007 and 2010, and is expected to perform even better in 2011. Moreover, the economy remained unaffected even at the peak of the global economic crisis, when most other major Southeast Asian and Pacific economies recorded low or negative GDP growth rates. Sound macroeconomic management in the recent past and planned initiatives such as the PNG LNG Project indicate that the economy will continue to perform well in the medium to long run. Nevertheless, the country faces a number of development challenges. Per capita GDP and its growth rate remain low. The economy is heavily dependent on the mining and resource sectors, and hence remains vulnerable to fluctuations in the global markets. A majority of the people in the labor force work in the informal sector, and opportunities for productive employment in the formal sector continue to grow very slowly. Provision of public services, including education, health, and safe drinking water and sanitation, remains inadequate, especially in the rural areas.

Reporting of Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. This dataset will receive a final update on June 1, 2023, to reconcile historical data through May 10, 2023, and will remain publicly available.

This archived public use dataset contains historical case and percent positivity data updated weekly for all available counties and jurisdictions. Each week, the dataset was refreshed to capture any historical updates. Please note, percent positivity data may be incomplete for the most recent time period.

Related data CDC provides the public with two active versions of COVID-19 county-level community transmission level data: this dataset with historical case and percent positivity data for each county from January 22, 2020 (Weekly Historical Changes dataset) and a dataset with the levels as originally posted (Weekly Originally Posted dataset) since October 20, 2022. Please navigate to the Weekly Originally Posted dataset for the Community Transmission Levels published weekly on Thursdays.

Methods for calculating county level of community transmission indicator The County Level of Community Transmission indicator uses two metrics: (1) total new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 persons in the last 7 days and (2) percentage of positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) in the last 7 days. For each of these metrics, CDC classifies transmission values as low, moderate, substantial, or high (below and here). If the values for each of these two metrics differ (e.g., one indicates moderate and the other low), then the higher of the two should be used for decision-making.

CDC core metrics of and thresholds for community transmission levels of SARS-CoV-2 Total New Case Rate Metric: "New cases per 100,000 persons in the past 7 days" is calculated by adding the number of new cases in the county (or other administrative level) in the last 7 days divided by the population in the county (or other administrative level) and multiplying by 100,000. "New cases per 100,000 persons in the past 7 days" is considered to have transmission level of Low (0-9.99); Moderate (10.00-49.99); Substantial (50.00-99.99); and High (greater than or equal to 100.00).

Test Percent Positivity Metric: "Percentage of positive NAAT in the past 7 days" is calculated by dividing the number of positive tests in the county (or other administrative level) during the last 7 days by the total number of tests resulted over the last 7 days. "Percentage of positive NAAT in the past 7 days" is considered to have transmission level of Low (less than 5.00); Moderate (5.00-7.99); Substantial (8.00-9.99); and High (greater than or equal to 10.00).

The data in this dataset are considered provisional by CDC and are subject to change until the data are reconciled and verified with the state and territorial data providers.

This dataset is created using CDC’s Policy on Public Health Research and Nonresearch Data Management and Access.

Archived data CDC has archived two prior versions of these datasets. Both versions contain the same 7 data elements reflecting community transmission levels for all available counties and jurisdictions; however, the datasets updated daily. The archived datasets can be found here:

Archived Originally Posted dataset

Archived Historical Changes dataset

Archived Data Notes:

October 27, 2022: Due to a processing issue this dataset will not be posted this week. CDC is currently working to address the issue and will publish the data when able.

November 10, 2022: As of 11/10/2022, this dataset will continue to incorporate historical updates made to case and percent positivity data; however, community transmission level will only be published in the corresponding Weekly COVID-19 County Level of Community Transmission as Originally Posted dataset (Weekly Originally Posted dataset).

Note:

October 20, 2022: Due to a data reporting error, the case rate for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania is lower than expected in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on October 20, 2022. This could lead to the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level for Philadelphia County being underestimated; therefore, it should be interpreted with caution.

November 3, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence issue, case rates for Missouri counties are calculated based on 11 days’ worth of case count data in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on November 3, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data. This could lead to the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for Missouri counties being overestimated; therefore, they should be interpreted with caution.

November 10, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change, case rates for Alabama counties are calculated based on 13 days’ worth of case count data in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on November 10, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data. This could lead to the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for Alabama counties being overestimated; therefore, they should be interpreted with caution.

November 10, 2022: Per the request of the jurisdiction, cases among non-residents have been removed from all Hawaii county totals throughout the entire time series. Cumulative case counts reported by CDC will no longer match Hawaii’s COVID-19 Dashboard, which still includes non-resident cases. 

November 10, 2022: In the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on November 10, 2022, multiple municipalities in Puerto Rico are reporting higher than expected increases in case counts. CDC is working with territory officials to verify the data submitted. 

December 1, 2022: Due to cadence changes over the Thanksgiving holiday, case rates for all Ohio counties are reported as 0 in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on December 1, 2022. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels may be underestimated and should be interpreted with caution. 

December 22, 2022: Due to an internal revision process, case rates for some Tennessee counties may appear higher than expected in the December 22, 2022, weekly release. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for some Tennessee counties may be overestimated and should be interpreted with caution.

December 22, 2022: Due to reporting of a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases, case rates for some Louisiana counties will appear higher than expected in the December 22, 2022, weekly release. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for some Louisiana counties may be overestimated and should be interpreted with caution.

December 29, 2022: Due to technical difficulties, county data from Alabama could not be incorporated via standard practices. As a result, case and death metrics will be reported as 0 in the December 29, 2022, weekly release. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for Alabama counties will be underestimated and should be interpreted with caution.

January 5, 2023: Due to a reporting cadence issue, case rates for all Alabama counties will be calculated based on 14 days’ worth of case count data in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level information released on January 5, 2023, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of case count data. Therefore, the weekly case rates will be overestimated, which could affect counties’ COVID-19 Community Transmission Level classification and should be interpreted with caution.

January 5, 2023: Due to North Carolina’s holiday reporting cadence, aggregate case data will contain 14 days’ worth of data instead of the customary 7 days. As a result, case metrics will appear higher than expected in the January 5, 2023, weekly release. COVID-19 Community Transmission metrics may be overestimated and should be interpreted with caution.

January 12, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Mississippi’s aggregate case data will be reported as 0. As a result, case metrics will appear lower than expected in the January 12, 2023, weekly release. COVID-19 Community Transmission metrics may be underestimated and should be interpreted with caution. 

January 13, 2023: Aggregate case data released for Los Angeles County, California for the week of December 22nd, 2022, and December 29th, 2022, have been corrected for a data processing error.

January 19, 2023: Due to a reporting cadence issue, Mississippi’s aggregate case data will be calculated based on 14 days’ worth of data instead of the customary 7 days in the January 19, 2023, weekly release. Therefore, COVID-19 Community Transmission metrics may be overestimated and should be interpreted with caution.

January 26, 2023: Due to a reporting backlog of historic COVID-19 cases, case rates for two Michigan counties

The total amount of data created, captured, copied, and consumed globally is forecast to increase rapidly, reaching 149 zettabytes in 2024. Over the next five years up to 2028, global data creation is projected to grow to more than 394 zettabytes. In 2020, the amount of data created and replicated reached a new high. The growth was higher than previously expected, caused by the increased demand due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as more people worked and learned from home and used home entertainment options more often. Storage capacity also growing Only a small percentage of this newly created data is kept though, as just two percent of the data produced and consumed in 2020 was saved and retained into 2021. In line with the strong growth of the data volume, the installed base of storage capacity is forecast to increase, growing at a compound annual growth rate of 19.2 percent over the forecast period from 2020 to 2025. In 2020, the installed base of storage capacity reached 6.7 zettabytes.

View data of the Effective Federal Funds Rate, or the interest rate depository institutions charge each other for overnight loans of funds.

Ghost forests, consisting of dead trees adjacent to marshes, are a striking feature of low-lying coastal and estuarine landscapes, and they represent the migration of coastal ecosystems with relative sea-level rise (RSLR). Although ghost forests have been observed along many coastal margins, rates of ecosystem change and their dependence on RSLR remain poorly constrained. Here, we reconstructed forest retreat rates using sediment coring and historical imagery at five sites along the Mid-Atlantic coast of the United States, a hotspot for accelerated RSLR. We found that the elevation of the marsh-forest boundary generally increased with RSLR over the past 2000 yr, and that retreat accelerated concurrently with the late 19th century acceleration in global sea level. Lateral retreat rates increased through time for most sampling intervals over the past 150 yr, and modern lateral retreat rates are 2 to 14 times faster than pre-industrial rates at all sites. Substantial deviations between RSLR and forest response are consistent with previous observations that episodic disturbance facilitates the mortality of adult trees. Nevertheless, our work suggests that RSLR is the primary determinant of coastal forest extent, and that ghost forests represent a direct and prominent visual indicator of climate change.

The benchmark interest rate in Australia was last recorded at 4.10 percent. This dataset provides - Australia Interest Rate - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

💘 I love user 1k Generated using XeTute/Synthetic-Data-Generation

A tiny dataset with 1024 input-output pairs (Alpaca format) designed to remove allat "Since I'm an AI assistant, I don't feel emotions" slop; really kills the vibe 💔May contain noise or not, it's synthetically generated using TypoRPV2 and a lot of heavy prompting; so keep your learning rate (or alpha if u do LoRA) something low and couple in some other datasets ;)

Graph and download economic data for Delinquency Rate on Credit Card Loans, All Commercial Banks (DRCCLACBS) from Q1 1991 to Q4 2024 about credit cards, delinquencies, commercial, loans, banks, depository institutions, rate, and USA.

Trend-based projections

Four variants of trend-based population projections and corresponding household projections are currently available to download. These are labelled as High, Central and Low and differ in their domestic migration assumptions beyond 2017. The economic crisis has been linked to a fall in migration from London to the rest of the UK and a rise in flows from the UK to London. The variants reflect a range of scenarios relating to possible return to pre-crisis trends in migration.

High: In this scenario, the changes to domestic migration flows are considered to be structural and recent patterns persist regardless of an improving economic outlook.

Low: Changes to domestic migration patterns are assumed to be transient and return to pre-crisis trends beyond 2018. Domestic outflow propensities increase by 10% and inflows decrease by 6% as compared to the High variant.

Central: Assumes recent migration patterns are partially transient and partially structural. Beyond 2018, domestic outlow propensities increase by 5% and inflows by 3% as compared to the High variant.

Central - incorporating 2012-based fertility assumptions: Uses the same migration assumptions as the Central projeciton above, but includes updated age-specific-fertility-rates based on 2011 birth data and future fertility trends taken from ONS's 2012-based National Population Projections. The impact of these changes is to increase fertility by ~10% in the long term.

GLA 2013 round trend-based population projections:
Borough: High
Borough: Low
Borough: Central
Borough: Central - incorporating 2012-based NPP fertility assumptions
Ward: Central

GLA 2013 round trend-based household projections:
Borough: High
Borough: Low
Borough: Central

GLA 2013 round ethnic group population projections:
Borough: Central

Updates:
Update 03-2014: GLA 2013 round of trend-based population projections - Methodology
Update 04-2014: GLA 2013 round of trend-based population projections - Results
Data to accompany Update 04-2014
Update 12-2014: GLA 2013 round ethnic group population projections
Data to accompany Update 12-2014

Housing linked projections

Two variants of housing-linked projections are available based on housing trajectories derived from the 2013 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The two variants are produced using different models to constrain the population to available dwellings. These are referred to as the DCLG-based model and the Capped Household Size model. These models will be explained in greater detail in an upcoming Intelligence Unit Update.

Projection Models:

DCLG-Based Model

This model makes use of Household Representative Rates (HRR) from DCLG’s 2011-based household projections to convert populations by age and gender into households. The models uses iteration to find a population that yields a total number of households that matches the number of available household spaces implied by the development data. This iterative process involves modulating gross migration flows between each London local authority and UK regions outside of London. HRRs beyond 2021 have been extrapolated forward by the GLA. The model also produces a set of household projections consistent with the population outputs.

Capped Household Size Model

This model was introduced to provide an alternative projection based on the SHLAA housing trajectories. While the projections given by the DCLG-Based Model appear realistic for the majority of London, there are concerns that it could lead to under projection for certain local authorities, namely those in Outer London where recent population growth has primarily been driven by rising household sizes. For these boroughs, the Capped Household Size model provides greater freedom for the population to follow the growth patterns shown in the Trend-based projections, but caps average household size at 2012 levels. For boroughs where the DCLG-based SHLAA model gave higher results than the Trend-based model, the projections follow the results of the former.

Household projections are not available from this model.

Development assumptions:

SHLAA housing data

These projections incorporate development data from the 2013 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) database to determine populations for 2012 onwards. Development trajectories are derived from this data for four phases: 2015-20, 2021-25, 2026-30, and 2031-36. For 2012-14, data is taken from the 2009 SHLAA trajectories. No data is included in the database for beyond 2036 and the 2031-36 trajectories are extended forward to 2041. This data was correct as at February 2014 and may be updated in future. Assumed development figures will not necessarily match information in the SHLAA report as some data on estate renewals is not included in the database at this time.

GLA 2013 round SHLAA-based population projections:
Borough: SHLAA-based
Borough: capped SHLAA-based
Ward: SHLAA-based
Ward: capped SHLAA-based

GLA 2013 round SHLAA-based household projections:
Borough: SHLAA-based

GLA 2013 round SHLAA-based ethnic group population projections:
Borough: SHLAA-based

Zero-development projections

The GLA produces so-called zero-development projections for London that assume that future dwelling stocks remain unchanged. These projections can be used in conjunction with the SHLAA-based projections to give an indication of the modelled impact of the assumed development. Variants are produced consistent with the DCLG-based and Capped Household Size projections. Due to the way the models operate, the former assumes no development beyond 2011 and the latter no development after 2012.

GLA 2013 round zero development population projections:
Borough: DCLG zero development
Borough: capped zero development
Ward: DCLG zero development
Ward: capped zero development

Frequently asked question: which projection should I use?

The GLA Demography Team recommends using the Capped Household Size SHLAA projection for most purposes. The main exception to this is for work estimating future housing need, where it is more appropriate to use the trend-based projections.

The custom-age population tool is here.

To access the GLA's full range of demographic projections please click here.

About This Dataset: Copper Prices and Market Trends

    This dataset provides **insights into copper prices**, including current rates, historical trends, and key factors affecting price fluctuations. Copper is essential in **construction**, **electronics**, and **transportation** industries. Investors, traders, and analysts use accurate copper price data to guide decisions related to **trading**, **futures**, and **commodity investments**.

    ### **Key Features of the Dataset**

    #### **Live Market Data and Updates**
    Stay updated with the latest **copper price per pound** in USD. This data is sourced from exchanges like the **London Metal Exchange (LME)** and **COMEX**. Price fluctuations result from **global supply-demand shifts**, currency changes, and geopolitical factors.

    #### **Interactive Copper Price Charts**
    Explore **dynamic charts** showcasing real-time and historical price movements. These compare copper with **gold**, **silver**, and **aluminium**, offering insights into **market trends** and inter-metal correlations.

    ### **Factors Driving Copper Prices**

    #### **1. Supply and Demand Dynamics**
    Global copper supply is driven by mining activities in regions like **Peru**, **China**, and the **United States**. Disruptions in production or policy changes can cause **supply shocks**. On the demand side, **industrial growth** in countries like **India** and **China** sustains demand for copper.

    #### **2. Economic and Industry Trends**
    Copper prices often reflect **economic trends**. The push for **renewable energy** and **electric vehicles** has boosted long-term demand. Conversely, economic downturns and **inflation** can reduce demand, lowering prices.

    #### **3. Impact of Currency and Trade Policies**
    As a globally traded commodity, copper prices are influenced by **currency fluctuations** and **tariff policies**. A strong **US dollar** typically suppresses copper prices by increasing costs for international buyers. Trade tensions can also disrupt **commodity markets**.

    ### **Applications and Benefits**

    This dataset supports **commodity investors**, **traders**, and **industry professionals**:

    - **Investors** forecast price trends and manage **investment risks**. 
    - **Analysts** perform **market research** using price data to assess **copper futures**. 
    - **Manufacturers** optimize supply chains and **cost forecasts**.

    Explore more about copper investments on **Money Metals**:

    - [**Buy Copper Products**](https://www.moneymetals.com/buy/copper) 
    - [**95% Copper Pennies (Pre-1983)**](https://www.moneymetals.com/pre-1983-95-percent-copper-pennies/4) 
    - [**Copper Buffalo Rounds**](https://www.moneymetals.com/copper-buffalo-round-1-avdp-oz-999-pure-copper/297)

    ### **Copper Price Comparisons with Other Metals**

    Copper prices often correlate with those of **industrial** and **precious metals**:

    - **Gold** and **silver** are sensitive to **inflation** and currency shifts. 
    - **Iron ore** and **aluminium** reflect changes in **global demand** within construction and manufacturing sectors.

    These correlations help traders develop **hedging strategies** and **investment models**.

    ### **Data Variables and Availability**

    Key metrics include:

    - **Copper Price Per Pound:** The current market price in USD. 
    - **Copper Futures Price:** Data from **COMEX** futures contracts. 
    - **Historical Price Trends:** Long-term movements, updated regularly. 

    Data is available in **CSV** and **JSON** formats, enabling integration with analytical tools and platforms.

    ### **Conclusion**

    Copper price data is crucial for **monitoring global commodity markets**. From **mining** to **investment strategies**, copper impacts industries worldwide. Reliable data supports **risk management**, **planning**, and **economic forecasting**.

    For more tools and data, visit the **Money Metals** [Copper Prices Page](https://www.moneymetals.com/copper-prices).