vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Chicken or Egg? -----  Demand alone is not enough.   Else famines would never happen, food would just magically appear in response to people's (overwhelming) desire to consume same.  Likewise, Supply alone is insufficient as well: there are plenty of products and services that are produced, but which are unwanted and go unused.  An ECONOMY is just a conceptual aggregate of countless thousands, millions and billions of individual (and often distinct) acts of matching up Supply WITH Demand.  The fundamental error of aggregate-level ""economics"" is imagining that all of those interactions can be controlled as if they were somehow homogenous when they are everything but."
The idea is great but US securities laws impose a huge burden on these businesses.  Specifically [Rule 502(c)](http://taft.law.uc.edu/CCL/33ActRls/rule502.html) of Reg D prohibits 'general solicitation and advertising' - such as using the internet.  There is currently pending legislation to amend the [US Securities act of 1933 sec. 4(2)](http://taft.law.uc.edu/CCL/33Act/sec4.html) regarding public offerings to help reduce such barriers, but as it stands there are significant barriers to entry in the market.  SEC filing and reporting requirements, especially after Dodd-Frank, are onerous to say the least, and running direct lending services are at the moment largely cost prohibitive due to these requirements.
The link does not work - try [this link](https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/08/21/how-target-plans-to-replace-10-billion-in-sales.aspx) instead.  Ad for the idea to have your own brands, it may work, or not. It's all about makin good product and people want to buy. So, a lot of competition.
Non-electronic stock exchanges still exist because they used to exist. There are a lot of people in trading firms who grew up with floor trading and don't want to give it up, either because they feel more comfortable with it or because they might lose their job if they went away from it.
My assumption was given the amount of supply from Russia to Europe limited, the price would rise, as it mostly happens when there is a disruption in any of the producing countries in the world. As you also mentioned we don't know his 10 O&amp;G stocks and I'd expect mixed reaction instead of one direction mov't. But I still agree with your point.
SecondMarket attempts to add liquidity to privately held companies. You may be able to find a buyer there, but this is still incredibly illiquid due to accredited investor regulations constricting businesses from catering to the 99%. As around 1% of the United States population qualifies as an accredited investor.
I am aware of that. I assume that the company's weigh the risk of moving losing team merchandise ( at a marked down price by virtue of selling to a company which distributes in third world ) vs the reward of semi-exclusive or perhaps timed exclusive distribution of the winning team's merchandise (which should be in high demand).  Edit: I shouldnt specify those markets as third world because that may be a misnomer.
This *actually* shows the power ***of being a first-mover in a niche market***.  This has nothing to do with how the firm was run.  When you are the first one in, you have, in effect, a monopoly (as there's now a humongous barrier-to-entry for everyone else)...  They could run the firm into the ground, and they'll still be around in 10 generations...
Most of the gold prices at international markets are USD denominated. Hence the prices would be same in international markets where large players are buying and selling. However this does not mean that the prices to the individuals in local markets is same. The difference is due to multiple things like cost of physical delivery, warehousing, local taxation, conversion of Local currency to USD etc. So in essence the price of Gold is similar to price of Crude Oil. The price of Oil is more or less same on all the markets exchanges, though there is small difference this is because of the cost of delivery/shipment which is borne by the buyer. However the cost of Oil to retail individual varies from country to country.
OK, at least there is still an answer that doesn't seek to troll or be sarcastic.  I was thinking that it has to do with the fact that wealthy consumers in non-Western countries often desire to emulate Western lifestyles and consumer trends.
The GlobalTradeConnect contains a Maximum number of wholesale product categories and you can choose from thousands of wholesale companies on our Business 2 Business directory. The expression business to business industry is used for an E-Commerce, which basically enhancement the businesses.From buying an item, then getting it all the way to ending the scope, everything occurs online without any actual connections.Hence, B2B market segments can principally be described as websites, which are made and used for business to business.
Did you read the part where the economists said the economic growth from unskilled workers was offset by the need for social services? Economists said globalization would be good for American workers. Then, whoops, sorry. Trade agreements lift those countries with high rates of poverty and depresses the wages of the middle classes in better off countries.   Economists love to crow about free markets. Then, whoops, sorry. Banking and insurance needs regulations to prevent abuses leading to worldwide recession.   Economists look at everything from the basic Econ 101 model they learned in school which described the ideal market. Theoretically, this is how markets work.   I don't know why we still put so much faith in their words.
I don't think this is always true, it really depends on the quantities you're looking for and the markets you're in. Sounds like this guy is dabbling in many markets trying to find out the good niches, therefore he's not going all in on anything. In the article he addresses the fact that some of these shops will sometimes have more orders/connections and therefore more leverage than you might if going directly to the manufacturer. I also wouldn't be surprised at all if many manufacturers, especially the uber-cheap ones, don't feel comfortable talking directly to westerners... their expertise is making stuff cheap, not in communications.
I don't get the big deal. Someone has to buy it. And with Europe scaring people there's not much choice out there.   Unless Americans start buying more or they restrict sales to citizens, this is going to keep going. At least someone wants them
Who offered who what?  You're pretending industries are fungible. They aren't. Apple and Microsoft are not related to the MIC or big oil. Energy is a demonstrated input in every other sector in the world. Why not include (for example) agriculture in your math? It's 100% dependent on energy costs. You're isolating individual industries as if they exist outside of the greater supply/manufacturing chain and pretending that they can be swapped for one another based on the single metric of market size. Apples and oranges. Except in this case the world runs on oranges.
Monopolization occurs when a single organization is able to garner enough resources to make market entry cost prohibitive, government or not. A monopoly would be able to shut down competition even in the event of new market entry by locking down consumers and manipulating prices
More relevant than comments here are giving it credit for - this is a direct impediment to Uber's plan for domination of global rideshare transportation networks.   Southeast Asia may see a repeat of Uber's defeat in China. SEA isn't as difficult of a market, but also consider Uber's current predicament without a CEO and with drops in valuation/investor cash.
Somewhat bad example there, those monopolies have a high cost of entry. You can open an online store for next to nothing, if you need more eyeballs then pay for advertising or setup a store on an existing platform like Amazon/eBay/Facebook/Etsy.
Because we need energy in the form of oil.  If more of our money is spent on oil, there is less money to spend on other items especially luxuries like dining out and new cars (ironically) Since there is less money available, the price of other things shift with it and the whole economy moves.  Since less money is available, the value of a single dollar goes up. Basically, it is because we as a species (let alone nations) are unbelievably dependent on having oil at this point in our existence. How do currency markets work? What factors are behind why currencies go up or down?
America is a big place, you have areas that purchase certain things heavily and other areas that will not. Living in the north eastern and south eastern part of the US, I can not say they are dominant at all in the market, as dominant would imply their brand is available at a majority of stores at various price points (I.e. Farm fresh, food lion, Harris teeter, Kroger, wegmans, piggly wiggly, Trader Joe's) sorry if this didn't help.
However, if there is a surge of buyers that flood the market, then there could be a perception that the security is overbought in the sense that there may be few buyers left for the security and thus the price may fall in the near term. If the price is coming down, this attracts more buyers to achieve the other side. The potential part is what you don't see and I wonder if you can imagine this part of the market. The airline example I give as an example as you don't seem to think either side of buying or selling can be overloaded. In the case of an oversold flight, there were more seats sold than available so yes it is possible. Stocks exist in finite quantities as there are only X shares of a company trading at any one time if you look into the concept of a float."
Yes, and ..  how that _prevents_, abolishes, negates or in any way opposes what I've claimed? Markets are dynamic systems (they are after all multi-player non-cooperative non-zero-sum games), and as such they can have attractors (stable closed loops toward which the trajectory of (the state of the) system progresses, and if enters into, formally can't escape, since they are closed loops). Thus intervention is usually needed to *maintain* competition, which is called regulation.  Regulatory capture, abuse of regulations, abuse of regulatory power, and so on are problems in the greater model (in politics), where constant input sort of guarantees that it has no (stable) attractors, because as long people exist, at least some of them will have a habit of revolting.  The question is, is there a more efficient way to ensure existence of markets and ensure competition on them? And maybe some sort of anarchism is the answer, but sadly we're not doing enough experiments and research into that.
Although Amazon and Whole Foods encompass less than 2% of the US grocery market, I'd be curious as to whether antitrust regulation could be relevant here or to any part of Amazon's business.  As Amazon monopolizes, it actually benefits customers via lower prices and more free Prime perks - so the basic definition of a monopoly would have to be adjusted to apply.
I definitely see the advantages of globalism. And from an economical point of view the takeovers make sense.  But from a political strategic point of view, I think we Europeans should be careful. They are state-owned, we'd literally be selling to the Chinese government.  I'm Belgian, and one of our distribution system operators almost got taken over by a Chinese state owned company. That's a bit too strategic to my liking.
*All* modern economies are service-based.  It's what makes up the rest that matters, namely manufacturing or natural resources.  Neither Aus nor Can have terribly huge manufacturing sectors by world standards, but the natural resources potential of both nations is enormous.
"It's probably only due to a bunch of ""well can't we just over design it, market it slick, and sell the same crap our competitor does with a higher price and margin? I mean it works for Apple, right?"""
Lobbyists wrote it. Its all the things that they want but could never get in an election. Plus, once they are in a trade deal, they can't ever be reversed, even by future administrations, even political upheavals cant change them. Because they give corporations ownership rights to the countries markets that can't be taken away or changed by governments or they have to pay. The taxpayers have to compensate MULTINATIONAL corporations for things like regulations.The trade deals are a new supranational system which elevates multinational corporations to a place where they can sue nations if they change the rules after a corporation has invested some money in the situation. Politicians can do whatever they want *as long as it doesn't effect any multinational corporations business interests adversely.*   For example, they can do things which make them *more* profitable, just not less. that leaves them as always having to impact people because people dont exist in this system except as a passive buyer in the marketplace which cannot be devalued by - for example, public services which devalue markets. The country would have to reimburse the owners for the lost profits.
I heard a very smart business guy (prof from UPenn) tell us that GE's lack of focus (what does GE do?) probably hurt the stock price.  He said that splitting the company up into multiple more focused companies would probably help overall value.  They'd be more susceptible to variations in the businesses though, so risk to the individual parts would go up.  So I don't know how right that guy was.  GE definitely can't seem to excite the market no matter how many times it tries to reinvent itself.
"Yeah ok buddy, call me when every single country passes a law at the same time outlawing the same thing. Even if it was declared illegal in the US, its not going anywhere - it's far too useful.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/benzingainsights/2011/11/07/rise-of-the-shadow-economy-second-largest-economy-in-the-world/#1655a5354a0e  &gt; Robert Neuwirth argues that ""the $10 trillion global black market is the world's fastest growing economy -- and its future""."
They have ETFs for most of what you listed above.  Except the deep-fried candy bars.  You know that's just a distributed candy bar that is THEN fried right?  They have a few religious ETFs as well as some socially responsible ones.   There is no reason to make one based on a single person's preference though - ETFs make their money on fees.  For that they need VOLUME.   Move Volume = More Money  Also, there are over 1,411 ETF's in the US as of 2014.  That means there are a lot of options already. You could always create your own if you are a great salesperson though. Source
Thanks to the lack of the KeystoneXL pipeline, the WTI price has been artificially depressed. However world prices of refined product haven't - they are set relative to the global price of oil. Thus someone can make a tidy profit by refining, then shipping product.  It's no surprise that there have been shortages of distillate in places like North Dakota - the product goes where the money is.  BTW, in essence it means if US customers won't pay world prices, they won't get the product - putting a floor under the prices you'll pay.
"Everything post 2009 (actually late 2007 through 2008 since that's when the financial crisis occurred) has also been a ""unique once-in-a-lifetime circumstance"". QE on this scale is unprecedented. The only time it's been done before is by the Bank of Japan in the early 2000s and that has been proven to be ineffective. Now you've got the US, the UK, and the EU all doing it."
Well a huge difference in drugs compared to all those other industries is health regulation. Standards for new medicines are typically extremely higher compared to other industries. For example, when proposing a new drug, only 10% of them actually make it to market.
"It sounds good, but perhaps they've overlooked several things that would need to be addressed before anything like this could work well.  1) If there is a leak in the overall flow, such as a HFT hedge fund sucking money out of the markets at an enormous rate into a tax haven, such a system would just perpetuate the existing rise of the superwealthy entities. They still get richer without spending much in return.  2) As described they have only talked about one government, one nation, one monetary recycling system, as if nations are closed boxes. They are not. Money flows across borders with ease. Nations **compete** to maximise the amount of assets they hold within their borders at any given time. These can be fixed capital assets too. So nothing prevents the ""global equity investment"" they mention from starting to resemble all the powerful corporations concentrated in a single favoured nation over time. That would represent a lot of political power concentrated in ways that are not necessarily favourable to individual sovereign national legal systems elsewhere.  It is possible that this could mean that nations would compete to lower taxes to zero to attract corporations, thereby risking bankrupting governments unless the income from the global equity index compensated enough. At 6% it won't match current tax rates.  The second point also means that nations cannot unilaterally decide to implement this unless they have a guaranteed additional inflowing income from transnational activities that could compensate for excessive outflow."
Regulation is necessary for preserving competition. Regulatory capture is the problem.  Capitalism is all about efficiency, costs are very similar for all participants, so if you're more efficient than your competitors you gain market share (even if that means marketing or lobbying efficiency). Monopolies, cartels are always natural attractors for markets, and with serious barriers to entry (infrastructure by its nature is very much about network effects overcharged by economies of scale gains) it's not much of a surprise that we're in the current situation even after Ma' Bell got split up.  Or, you can go for the maximum property rights libertarianism, but then you are very much in the danger of getting eaten by marketing-fanaticized big-estate zombies. (Since people are not to be trusted even basic acceptance and coordination of property rights is/would be difficult, and with increasing craziness in the wilderness your security insurance premium would go up until you just can't afford it anymore. That's why I'm a bit afraid of all out anarchy as touted on AnCap subreddits.)
The market is competitive and almost every single brand that is trying to scale up in this evolving marketing ecosystem is trying to leverage on new age communication methodologies in order to gain attention from its target audience. In order to get increased limelight and keep on becoming competitive; it is important that they take the help from an expert service provider such as an advertising agency.  For more - http://tradesi.com.au/subcategory/Advertising.htm
These big companies are the cause of the worlds angsts at the moment. When growth stops in your domestic market where do you look and who do you lobby to get them to open up borders and create trade deals.  The governments are vaguely held hostage by these megacorps and are killing off smaller startups. Its not a good situation at all.
This is exactly how monopolies are made.  Allowing a business to use one extremely profitable business to undercut competitors in other areas (at below cost mind you).  This should be illegal practice.  Google should be hit hard.  While I understand your stance, I don't believe it is creating an equal playing field in the economy and it is hurting it badly.   For example, no startup out there is going to create an online maps startup (even if they have an awesome idea that would make maps better) because they don't have the ability to monetize and survive.  Google gives their's away free using their near-monopoly on online advertising to subsidize it.  You talk about the only exit for a startup being acquired by a larger company.  That is EXACTLY the problem.  You're creating unbeatable ecosystems.  Google/MSFT/Apple/FB will only grow...startups will only have 10-20 companies to exit to.  They should be able to survive and grow and compete on their own.   Groupon was a company that tried to do that and you can see how they're doing.  The tech world is turning into that very oligopoly that you try to caveat.   People just don't realize it.    We should break the stranglehold.  If people paid for services, then their would be more entrants into the market as they could monetize quicker and the best ideas would win vs. the best connections to VCs and having an entrepreneurial track history which is how the bay area works.  Startups wouldn't be SO DEPENDENT on financiers...they could monetize their actual client base.
"When we say ""stock market,"" we are usually thinking of the publicly traded stocks, such as the New York Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ. Shares of individual products do not go on these exchanges, only large corporations.  You won't see a stock ticker symbol for The Force Awakens or for the iPhone 6s Plus.  The reason for this is that when investors buy a stock, they are looking for something that will grow in value theoretically forever. Individual products usually have a limited lifespan. Your movie will (hopefully) generate revenue when it comes out, but after a while sales will slow down after people have seen it. If someone bought a share of stock in a movie on the stock market, they have to realize that eventually the movie will stop making money, and their share of stock won't be worth anything anymore. Instead, people invest in companies that have the potential to make new products, such as Disney or Apple.  So if you were envisioning seeing the ticker symbol of your movie going across the screen on CNBC, sorry, that's not going to happen.  However, you could theoretically sell shares to individual investors for a percentage of the profit. You figure out how much money you need to create the movie, and estimate how much profit you think the movie will earn. Then you find an investor (or group of investors) that is willing to give you the money you need in exchange for a percentage of the profit. Unlike a stock market investor, these investors won't be looking for the long-term growth potential of the resale value of the stock, but simply a share of the profit."