vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The comparison to Zimbabwe is the similarity in recent monetary policy.  The quote is within that context.  The reason the US/Europe have enjoyed better outcomes than Zimbabwe is that they have the support/friendship of banking and global elites.  That support could include a hint of racial/ethnic favoritism.
&gt; “Any time you split a portfolio up — whether it be a credit portfolio or a trading book portfolio — you lose the benefits of diversification that allow you to reduce the capital you hold against it,” said Mr Austen. &gt;   Just to amplify this a little. Banks like diversification but you can only diversify within a reporting entity. At the moment, most banks have a single EU wide reporting entity so thay are free to combine trade and credit exposures. With a mandated split, they will be forced to split the pot between the UK and the EU entities as each must look healthy.
The government bailed out the financial system because it was in its best interest to. Letting the system all crash on top of yourself is definitely not smart. So we loan financial institutions money, shore up any short term issues, and we get most of the money back, if not all of it. If I'm not mistaken, all the bail out money was paid back.  But beyond the point, there may be merit in basic income ideas, but this is definitely not the kind of rhetoric, thinking, analysis, or insight that it needs.
$USD, electronic or otherwise, are not created/destroyed during international transactions. If India wants to buy an F-16s, at cost $34M USD, they'll have to actually acquire $34M USD, or else convince the seller to agree to a different currency. They would acquire that $34M USD in a few possible ways. One of which is to exchange INR (India Rupees) at whatever the current exchange rate is, to whomever will agree to the opposite - i.e., someone who has USD and wants INR, or at least is willing to be the middleman. Another would be to sell some goods or services in the US (for USD), or to someone else for USD.  Indian companies undoubtedly do this all the time. Think of all of those H1B workers that are in the news right now; they're all earning USD and then converting those to INRs.  So the Indian government can just buy their USD for INR, directly or more likely indirectly (through a currency exchange market). A third method would be to use some of their currency stores. Most countries have significant reserves of various foreign currencies on hand, for two reasons: one to simplify transactions like this one, and also to stabilize the value of their own currency. A less stable currency can be stabilized simply by the central bank of that country owning USD, EUR, Pounds Sterling, or similar stable-value currencies. The process for an individual would be essentially the same, though the third method would be less likely available (most individuals don't have millions in cash on hand from different currencies - although certainly some would).  No government gets involved (except for taxes or whatnot), it's just a matter of buying USD in exchange for INRs or for goods or services.
"This doesn't answer your question, but as an aside, it's important to understand that your second and third bullet points are completely incorrect; while it used to be true that Swiss bank accounts often came with ""guarantees"" of neutrality and privacy, in recent years even the Swiss banks have been caving to political pressure from many sides (especially US/Obama), with regards to the most extreme cases of criminals. That is to say, if you're a terrorist or a child molester or in possession of Nazi warcrime assets, Swiss banks won't provide the protection you're interested in. You might say ""But I'm not a terrorist or a pervert or profiteering of war crimes!"" but if you're trying so hard to hide your personal assets, it's worth wondering how much longer until Swiss banks make further concessions to start providing information on PEOPLE_DOING_WHAT_YOU_ARE_DOING. Not to discourage you, this is just food for thought. The ""bulletproof"" protection these accounts used to provide has been compromised. I work with online advertising companies, and a number of people I know in the industry get sued on a regular basis for copyright or trademark infringement or spamming; most of these people still trust Swiss bank accounts, because it's still the best protection available for their assets, and because Swiss banks haven't given up details on someone for spamming... yet."
To be to ally fair, the audit that is done on the Fed every year does not include foreign bailouts, foreign swaps, gold reserves and their leasing or sales, it does not include loans to Primary Dealer Banks. In fact it doesn't include anything that would let us see the extent or type of transactions that are taking place.
[Japan] had been for some time, but during the recession, China went strongly for US debt as a hedge against a depression occurring. Now that the world economy is rebounding, China can get a bit more aggressive and will probably back off on treasuries.
OK, my fault for not doing more research. Wikipedia explains this well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_style#Difference_in_value Basically, there are some cases where it's advantageous to exercise an American option early.  For non-gold currency options, this is only when the carrying cost (interest rate differential aka swap rate or rollover rate) is high. The slight probability that this may occur makes an American option worth slightly more.
Here's another idea I've explored with it, that's similar but may make the environment slightly different, so let me know what you think what I call the Revolving Tax Window, where the government accepts different bondnotes, both in quantity and specific assortments of notes, in intervals of every business quarter, so that the demand for specific notes changes four times a year. From January until the end of March they could accept Taxes in notes from Firms A,F,H, and T, and for April into June it could be just B and S, and so on. The options for note issuing could be set on a list of firms registered with the SEC or whoever. The combination for the quarter could be picked at random by a randomizing algorithm, so no firm could make a plan to be a market dictator, and a sense of dynamism is maintained in the economy. Obviously, the more firms are properly registered on this list, the more combinations of monetary combinations you have, and the more power is distributed from too much control by anybody. What you can do is choose whether or not you want there to be less or more notes in the next quarter, because just like fiscal policy and conventional monetary policy, the extremes have trade offs, but different ones; to few currencies, the economy may be stimulated, but you get market dictators via monetary oligopoly, even if temporary. Too many, you avoid market dictators who will be more focused on getting a real return by investing in competing ventures based on what will actually return investment, but the economy may not be as stimulated. What do you think of this structural alternative? (One of the focal sources I've been building my economic policy on has been *Debt: The First 5,000 Years* by David Graeber, if anyone's familiar.)
You're right, the issue of inversion is not going to go away as long as there are countries willing to go to 2% on their tax rate.  But the goal isn't really to eliminate them it's to have a tax system and regulatory system which encourages healthy business growth and financial support to the government.  The path the US has chosen is high corporate tax, cherry pick activities they want to encourage through breaks, then rely on taxing overseas profits on money returned to the US (since so many major companies are US based).  This was a great system but its an anachronism since globalization became a real thing.  Now what it has left us with is a tax incentive system where ONLY the business activities with breaks (RD tax credit) are considered worthwhile ventures while profit centers are offshored.  Then no one can reinvest their profits in the US because they can't repatriate cash without paying tax.  The corporate tax structure now hinders employment and investment.  We don't need to lower our taxes to 0 to be competitive.  The most popular countries for offshoring are Puerto Rico (pharma) Ireland and Switzerland their tax rates are effectively 0.  However due to other costs (employment transportation of goods) on a total cost basis the US can be more than competitive with a corp tax rate of 20%.
"If I understand right, you're asking whether it's better to withdraw a currency that is more valuable or less valuable, in currency units, than your home country's currency. That is, using your examples, you're asking whether it's better to withdraw euros when the euro is worth more than the Pakistani rupee, or when the euro is worth less. The answer is that it doesn't matter. What matters is whether the euro is worth more Pakistani rupees than it will be worth later. For instance, suppose that the exchange rate today is such that you can buy 115 PKR for 1 EUR, or equivalently, you can buy 1 EUR for 115 PKR. (Realistically the rates would be different due to conversion fees, but I'll keep it this way for simplicitly.) If tomorrow the exchange rate changes so that you need 120 PKR to buy 1 EUR, then you have to spend more rupees to buy a euro, so this is bad for you; it would have been better to buy earlier (when it was only 115 PKR for a euro). If on the other hand the exchange rate shfits the other way, so that you only need 110 PKR to buy a euro, then this benefits you. because you are spending less than you would have if you had bought earlier. So, in these terms, you want to change rupees into euros when one euro is worth fewer rupees (and you want to change euros into rupees when one euro is worth more rupees). It doesn't matter how many PKR you spend for a Euro in raw numbers. All that matters is, are you spending more for that one Euro than you would have spent had you bought earlier or later? Indeed, for your specific example, it is unlikely that one Pakistanee rupee will be worth more than one Euro in the foreseeable future; as far as I can see, the Euro has never been worth less than about 50 rupees. In practice, of course, it's hard to know whether the current rate is ""good"". You can't easily know how currency rates will change in the future.
"So let's say, as a counterfactual, that Obama did not bail out the banks: what would happen? The world economy would have collapsed. Every creditor and their funds to endless bankruptcy stays. All credit would have been frozen. No businesses would have been able to pay off their loans or pay their employees' salaries. The banks, sadly, were too big to fail because everyone and everything depended on them for funding. The issue is not the bailout, but the activites of the banks that forced the bailout. This is why all of the current legislative schemes being put into operation are looking at way to limit systemic risk to both prevent future catastophic bankruptcies and limit their impact on the credit markets.   As a last note: notice how inflation did not significantly increase since the bailout, despite Bernanke printing trillions of dollars. Cleary, ""printing money"" has not caused harm in and of itself. Its only harm is reinforcing the too big to fail mentality. This can be cured, but by not bailing out the banks, we would have seen a catastophic collapse."
Some countries in European Union are starting to implement credit history sharing, for example now history from polish bureau BIK and German Schufa are mutually available. Similar agreements are planned between polish BIK and bureaus in the Netherlands and United Kingdom.
Currencies are a zero-sum game. If you make money, someone else will lose it. Because bank notes sitting in a pile don't create anything useful. But shares in companies are different, because companies actually do useful things and make money, so it's possible for all investors to make money. The best way to benefit is generally to put your money into a low-cost index fund and then forget about it for at least five years.
"Possibly the best answer to why America became globally dominant after WW2 was written by a FRENCHMAN, Jean-Jacque Sergen-Schreiber, Le Defi American (The American Challenge). Probably the only legendary investor of the proper age to benefit from WW2 was John Templeton, who borrowed $10,000 before the war, and ended up with $40,000 afterward (both worth about ten times more in today's money). His story, and that of others, can be found in John Train's, ""The Money Masters."""
Let me ask you another question: if that person stayed at home and made a widget instead, would exporting that widget benefit his home country? There is no difference, economically, between the two situations. A foreign worker sending home remittances is no different from a local manufacturer exporting their products. Both are earning export dollars for themselves and their home countries. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Clearly, the answer is yes - this is a good thing or a bad thing but we cannot know which in isolation. However, in general, foreign worker remittances are overwhelmingly beneficial for the host (which gets work done that otherwise would not be done) and the source (which gets export income. With reference to your particular question about local inflation, a rise in exports causes appreciation in the exchange rate i.e. local currency becomes more expensive with respect to (in this case) the Euro. Appreciation in the exchange rate actually puts downward pressure on inflation. However, the absence of our worker from the local economy puts upward pressure on local wages and and hence inflation. Both of these effects are small and other factors will dominate them.
One way of looking at this (just expanding on my comment on Dheer's answer): If the funds were in EUR in Germany already and not in the UK, would you be choosing to move them to the UK (or a GBP denominated bank account) and engage in currency speculation, betting that the pound will improve?   If you would... great, that's effectively exactly what you're doing: leave the money in GBP and hope the gamble pays off.   But if you wouldn't do that, well you probably shouldn't be leaving the funds in GBP just because they originated there; bring them back to Germany and do whatever you'd do with them there.
Think about India's government, and then think about Spain's.   Credit rating is a measure of risk of default. What government is more likely to default:  A developed, relatively transparent European government with mature industries and an educated populous.  Or a developing, relatively opaque SouthEast Asian government with a large amount of its populous uneducated, living in poverty.  Ask yourself, would you rather make a loan to Spain or India? Which is more likely to pay you back?  edit: Despite the fact that Spain needs a bailout, it already has a very mature, very advanced infrastructure/economy in place. With a little cash, the government can get that industrial machine working at efficiency again.
How is relying on the benevolence of one rich guy a better system than a strong reliable central bank? What if J.P. Morgan decided not not to intervene in 1907, or bail out the gold standard in 1893. Banks will make stupid decisions whether there is a central bank or not. I would argue an organization dedicated to mitigating a crisis is a better option than some guys who may or may not help.
There is [another take on this.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-jasinowski/ex-im-bank_b_5543235.html).  Saying that the Ex-Im bank is somehow an entitlement of the rich is the kind of ignorance that one would expect of the far right. Just because large companies use it does not mean that it is not used by smaller ones that support local economies in the country.
"&gt;If we lose our reserve currency status, we would have to pay it off with a different currency.   No, a debt that comes into being as dollar-denominated remains dollar-denominated. Reserve currency status doesn't change this.  The advantage of having the reserve currency is that other countries have a strong motive to accumulate dollars. Because of this we can pay for our imports in dollars. If we no longer had the reserve currency we would lose the ability to run a persistent trade deficit without borrowing foreign currency to do so.  To some extent this would self-correct. If foreigners no longer desired to hoard dollars, the flow of dollars back in to the US would bring down the trade deficit. Going forward, we'd have to ""live within our means"" with respect to foreign trade, funding imports with exports.  Domestically every country that has its own currency, not just the US, can use that currency to fully fund its own domestic productive capacity. Printing money doesn't make a poor country rich but it does allow any country to fully realize its own potential.  &gt;Other countries don't have the luxury of just printing out massive amounts of money to pay off their debts.  This is only true when a country borrows in a currency it doesn't issue. When a country spends in its own currency its policy space is constrained by inflation. To the extent any country uses, pegs to or borrows in someone else's currency that policy space is narrowed by the need to first borrow or earn that currency.  &gt;if the UN followed through with its suggestion to create a global reserve currency or reverted back to the gold standard  The euro shows us where that road leads. Countries that give up monetary authority give up sovereignty and when they find themselves in a situation where the monetary policy they no longer control is at odds with their needs, their economies get torn apart.  That's why one country, one currency is good policy. Stability and maximum policy space is achieved when fiscal authority, political legitimacy and monetary authority are consolidated at the same level. It's a three-legged stool that becomes a fragile balancing act when one leg is taken away.  Also, there's a whole side discussion to be had on what the alternatives are to the dollar as a reserve currency. The dollar is in that position for a reason."
The gold standard didn't work because of the following process:  * Start with 10oz of Gold. * Deposit in Bank A * Bank lends out 9 oz of Gold Certificates * Gold certificates deposited in Bank B * Bank B lends out 8oz of Gold Certificates * etc.  Now at the end of all this we have a lot of gold certificates.  This is called the [Money Multiplier](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_multiplier) effect.  What if someone wants to take their gold certificates and buy a boat made in Europe?  Well.  If they spend 5 gold certificates on that boat then the certificates land in the European bank who requests gold to be shipped from America to pay for it.    Suddenly America's bank reserves collapse and there is a very sharp credit contraction as all the banks stop lending because they are out of reserves that back their gold certificates.  If the person had actual coins he was using to buy the boat, only his consumption would be reduced and it wouldn't cause damage throughout the whole financial system.  So basically wherever you have fractional reserve banking, gold backed monetary systems will fail.  Anywhere you criticize fractional reserve banking your theory will be basically ignored because criticizing banking gets you nowhere in economics career-wise.  Praising derivatives and all sorts of hair-brained financial innovations will win you awards and prizes and guest appearances on CNBC though.
In addition to what George said, there are other things that probably benefit Switzerland:
If it's true then right now we're in 1937-1938 and you know what happened in the decade after that... not good.   Edit: the central bank in Japan is quietly bailing out the central government by buying up the Treasuries and controlling the yield curve.  If that succeeds without a major uprising or violence, maybe there's hope America and Europe can do it too.
I lived in canberra. How did you end up in china ?  So if the chinese were to revolt today, what would happen ? I would assume the government would try to stop them, its just hard for me to know how successful it would be or how many people would actually join in.
What typically happens to brokerage accounts during similar situations? This depends on country, time and situation. Nothing is predictable in such situations. In Greece during the said period the stock exchanges were closed for 5 weeks. There was no trading.  Edits: Every situation is different and it would be unfair to compare one against another or use it to predict something else. Right now in India due to demonitization, cash withdrawal is limited. One can trade in stocks, unlimited bank transfers, transfer money out of India ...etc. Everything same except for cash withdrawal. In 1990, the ASEAN countries survived a financial collapse, everything was allowed except moving money out of country.
The US is giving up on Russia and forfeiting the place to China.  Obama's trying to make it sound like no big deal.  Good businessmen won't let politics get in the way.  Various European nations, like Switzerland and the Czech Republic are not going along with the herd and others will predictably drop out.
"I don't usually play ""what if...""  but here is my guess:  * He would have bankrupt the United States (sooner than it is going to happen) after hiding all assets.  * Rename the new Government something with ""Trump"" in it (Trumpmerica?)  * As part of his ""Get Trumpmerica Back to Work""  initiative he would add his profile to Mt Rushmore and erect statues of himself in all city parks.  * And reissue currency with his face on all the different denominations.  *edit to add - I lied.. I play ""what if's.."" all the time"
The libertarian in me says, good.  It's been eighty years. Why shouldn't Europe pay for their own defense? Why should the US be continued to be expected to be the policeman?  It's a totally different place now, geopolitically, in Europe. Individual States aren't going to be marching over borders anymore. The only real concern would be Russia.... But they also know Putin has a longer leash than Hitler had. (Georgia and Crimea as examples).   I'm sure someone has a counter option...
They're not going to do anything about it. Washington needs the debt wheel to keep spinning, or the Dollar will lose its position as the Reserve Currency. Then all hell would break loose. Powerful countries like Japan are going to have to take the initiative. And apparently they are starting to. It has to be countries like Japan because if a weak country tries this, they'll get invaded.
I still don't get what exactly would change.  UK already has a different currency than the EU.  Would British people be able to still easily live &amp; work in other EU countries?  or would they need Visas after the divorce?
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-banks-deposits-idUSKBN1AD1RS) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; BRUSSELS - European Union states are considering measures which would allow them to temporarily stop people withdrawing money from their accounts to prevent bank runs, an EU document reviewed by Reuters revealed.  &gt; &amp;quot;The desire is to prevent a bank run, so that when a bank is in a critical situation it is not pushed over the edge,&amp;quot; a person familiar with German government&amp;#039;s thinking said.  &gt; Existing EU rules allow a two-day suspension of some payouts by failing banks, but the moratorium does not include deposits.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6qliud/surely_the_banks_need_even_more_programs_in_their/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~179489 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **bank**^#1 **moratorium**^#2 **run**^#3 **lender**^#4 **fail**^#5"