vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
You assume that you'll be working at a bulge bracket, who have structured programs and are used to hiring globally.  If you go work at a hedge fund, it could end up being a small shop who would rather not deal with any additional issues.  On my campus - many companies don't hire international just because there are so many qualified domestic applicants.  This is probably the most competitive and lucrative field out of any profession.
I think what the person meant to say is that Gold is not a one stop solution. There's nothing wrong with having Gold in an otherwise diversified portfolio but you need to be aware about the potential downsides: The problem with gold is that its value nowadays depends mainly on investor confidence, or the lack of it (actual demand for gold cannot explain the rise in value gold had after the crisis). If people are afraid the world and currencies with it will go to hell, the gold price will go up. Why? Because if currencies seize to exist, Gold will still be accepted. It can replace currencies. What many people tend to forget: let's consider the extreme example and currencies really cease to exist and all hell breaks lose. What good are gold bars at the bank, or even at home, for that matter? You'll be better off with gold coins to use in barter and to pay off marauders. But that's not about investing anymore, that's survivalism.
Yes, it would be incorrect to refer to BATS Chi-X Europe as a market maker. Market makers make markets on BATS Chi-X Europe, which is a stock exchange.
Capitalism finances an expansive state; see: Military-Industrial Complex, Prisons-for-Profit, etc. Capitalists bribe whatever state exists to profit themselves. If the state is small, they argue that part of it that would benefit them should be expanded. If the state is large, they will simply co-opt what exists, through bribery or plush post-government jobs.  In the unlikely event you were able to keep the state small in the face of billions of dollars of bribery to elected officials and marketing to rubes, the *global* corporations would have it that much easier, wouldn't they?
Women have to be represented in the global economy or it'll cost the world a shit ton of $ later on. There's a bunch of underbanked women around the world due to laws and Everex allows them to get microloans and/or execute deals in a micro finance fashion.
"This is such alarmist bullshit, although I shouldn't be surprised to see this kind of clickbait on a reddit economic/financial/business subreddit.  Aggregate (which obviously includes sand) is and always has been a primary input for the global construction market. Therefore, there always has and will be demand for it.  Land that's able to mine aggregate is practically unlimited relative to other natural resources. As a result of the large supply, it's incredibly cheap. As an example: a Google search for ""aggregate cost ton"" returns a company selling the stuff at less than $25/ton (http://www.bryanrock.com/commercial/price-list). The cost of delivering that aggregate to a work site is significantly more than the cost of the actual material!   There is no shortage of aggregate. If all of the statements made in the article are true (which I think we have reason to doubt given the overall quality of the piece), the only thing they provide evidence for is that A) demand has grown significantly year over year since 2010 (aka the end of the financial crisis and most recent market low point), B) Its sometimes difficult to create aggregate in some local markets because neighboring property owners don't want aggregate mines next door (ie, zoning laws are a challenge when trying to develop new mines), and C) organized crime controls the aggregate production in India (note: underdeveloped countries often have certain industries that are effectively controlled by organized criminal gangs).  There's nothing here that even remotely suggests that the world is running out of aggregate. This article is a prime example of the clickbait bullshit that absolutely floods reddit (especially the economic/financial/business communities). Reddit has some really amazing communities, but unfortunately I've yet to find a good one that deals with these subjects.  PS - I never write responses this long but I'm intoxicated and felt like sharing. Also - I'd like to exclude /r/personalfinance from my rant. Those guys actually do have a pretty good handle on the basic theory / knowledge / best practices."
It's always been that way.  You are trying to bend the world around your own circumstances. That's not how it works.    Everything is consolidating to be more efficient. With digital, robots, and globalization, markets have reduced the need for U.S. manufacturing ...and that's what a lot of small towns had going for them.  It's gone. Sitting around and wishing for the past to come back with something like the government to legislate it is wishful thinking.  I highlighted the solution: It's to move where the money is or is going.    People get cranky when they have to give up a skill or trade (or hometown) they've spent 10, 20, 30 years in. I get it. I'm looking for ways to diversify my experience, even having a job in tech, because someday maybe it won't be here... or it'll be in India, China, Russia, the Philippines, Latin America, Bulgaria or any of the numerous countries where the labor is cheaper and the supply is higher.   It sucks, but it's also reality.  If your hope is in voting for some sort of legislative change, godspeed but it won't help.  Regulations will be issued and companies will push money to safe havens in Ireland, Liechtenstein, the Caymans, etc.. to avoid them.  They'll outsource more and layoff to compensate for the new expenses and generally find workarounds.     Add that to the rise of countries already benefiting from outsourcing and globalization... maybe the US market isn't so important in 20-30 years.  Gives the government even less leverage on corporations.
"First of all, metals are commodities. So if you're phrasing that as metals and/or commodities, then that's poorly worded. If you're phrasing that as ""metal commodity reports"" then say as such.   Second, and more importantly: what commodities? Power is very different than coffee. Different places specialize in different things, all banks are good in some and weak in others. There's no generic ""commodity"" market but rather a huge range of specifically different products traded in the future.You learn more than a small fraction of this universe so pick one or two specific products from the macro buckets (i.e. energy, grains, metals) and focus on those."
I work in marketing - there's always spillover. We love hypertargeting people but it's still effective to target a broad audience so overall awareness of your brand is higher than your competitors.  Seems like a waste to serve a 20 year old a Rocket Mortage ad. But 20 year olds become 30 year olds eventually.
All the manufacturers exporting things from China.  When they mention a supposed lack of consumer demand in the USA they fail to account for the heavy balance of payments deficit, [$124 billion in the last quarter of 2011](http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/glance.htm).  If there's no demand, as the Keynesians claim, how come the US is buying so much stuff from other countries? There seems to be plenty of demand, the US is just unable to manufacture the products its citizens want.   The real problem is lack of production capability. The industrial base of the US has too many obsolete plants. And the companies cannot modernize with the current tax regulations, they are unable to depreciate those obsolete plants fast enough to build new ones that could compete with the foreign corporations.
This is true Giant and Specialized do have their own stores, however, not all of them are self owned. They still sell some of their bikes to independent bike dealers.   What if we take this idea a step further for component manufacturers like FSA, ENVE, Reynolds, Ritchey, or 3T. If any of these brands were to go direct to consumer how could they do it without upsetting their distributors?
Yeah, I instinctively knew that the Middle East probably wouldn't be it, even without knowing jack about finance. So, Europe-wise, we're looking at Frankfurt and London, then?   As for Asia, what about Hong Kong? Given that it is already becoming a center for instrumentation between different financial systems and its close proximity to Southeast Asia (also, it is part of the PRC allowing for direct access to China, yet doesn't operate according to the same restrictions that Shanghai would under the Two Countries, One System deal), do you see that as a future major hub for Islamic finance? Or will it all be crowded into Singapore?
I am on my cellphone so it's a bit hard to flesh out, but the thought of these cities is that drawing Amazon will naturally draw other companies in, as opposed to being appealing to many companies but not appealing enough for a headquarter move (assuming favorable conditions are not infinite).    So for example, If there is an Amazon HQ, there can soon be a Google or FB base nearby as well (think Bank of America and Wells Fargo in Charlotte) and the natural attraction these pose for peripheral/symbiotic firms.  But if there is just a small Google and FB and Amazon office, you may not expect there to be as large of an appeal to other companies to move in (Starbucks, Car2Go, Lyft).
How would they lose a bunch of business for doing the exact same thing their only competitor does? Is that a joke? And, as you said, it would have totally prevented this (and others from doing the same). What are you are saying makes little sense.
You need growth in your retirement fund. Sad to say but the broad U.S. marks still has better growth perspective than the emerging markets. Look at China they are only at 6.7% growth for next year the same as this year.  Russia's economy is shrinking. These are the other two super powers of 2015. The USA is still the best market to invest in historically and in the present. That's why the USA market tends to be overweight in most retirement portfolios. Now by only investing in the USA market do you miss out on trends internationally? Well you do a bit but not entirely. Many USA companies are highly international in regards to their growth. Here are some:  So in short the USA market still seems to be the best growth market and you still get some international exposure.  Also by investing in USA companies they sometimes are more ethical in their book keeping as opposed to some other markets. I don't think I'm the only one that is skeptical of the numbers China's government reports.
What official actions has Trump taken to push the market?    It seems to me the market is responding to a belief that regulations won't be enforced or pared back and that maybe tax reform (e.g., tax cuts for the wealthy) may be enacted.    Meanwhile with the Muslim travel ban, states are losing billions of dollars of locally generated income because foreigners of all types are slowing travel.
"why do markets sometimes appear in sync, but during other times, not so much By ""markets"" I'm assuming you mean equity indices such as the HSI. Financial products fluctuate with respect to the supply/demand of the traders. There's been a large increase in the number of hedge funds, prop desks who trade relative values between financial products, that partially explains why these products seem to pick up ""sync"" when they get out of line for a while."
"To add on to the other answers, in asking why funds have different price points one might be asking why stocks aren't normalized so a unit price of $196 in one stock can be directly compared to the same price in another stock.  While this might not make sense with AAPL vs. GOOG (it would be like comparing apples to oranges, pun intended, not to mention how would two different companies ever come to such an agreement) it does seem like it would make more sense when tracking an index.  And in fact less agreement between different funds would be required as some ""natural"" price points exist such as dividing by 100 (like some S&P funds do). However, there are a couple of reasons why two different funds might price their shares of the same underlying index differently. Demand - If there are a lot of people wanting the issue, more shares might be issued at a lower price.  Or, there might be a lot of demand centered on a certain price range. Pricing - shares that are priced higher will find fewer buyers, because it makes it harder to buy round lots (100 shares at $100/share is $10,000 while at $10/share it's only $1000).  While not everyone buys stock in lots, it's important if you do anything with (standardized) options on the stock because they are always acting on lots.  In addition, even if you don't buy round lots a higher price makes it harder to buy in for a specific amount because each unit share has a greater chance to be further away from your target amount. Conversely, shares that are priced too low will also find fewer buyers, because some holders have minimum price requirements due to low price (e.g. penny) stocks tending to be more speculative and volatile. So, different funds tracking the same index might pick different price points to satisfy demand that is not being filled by other funds selling at a different price point."
Well, that's the whole point of this issue, and why there's a debate.   And concerning the Cotsco analogy, whether retail and manufacturing can be the same entity or not, and whether as a retailer you can push only your own brands, is also up for debate.  It's called regulation, it's meant to prevent monopolies and cartels from forming, among other things. We've seen this happen elsewhere too (transportation, electricity, water, healthcare, etc...). Businesses *do not* have the right to do whatever they want.   I also think what has not been mentionend is that internet provision is effectively a cartel in the US, with different ISPs holding monopolies in different parts of the country, which has been allowed to continue.   Anyways, I'm not in the US, so I'm not affected by this (where I live has confirmed net neutrality and anti-monopoly legislation is important, and anyways there's ISP competition so this bullshit cannot be applied unless they work together) but I think if this goes through the US internet will end up even more like the US cable industry, to the detriment of users. I'm also worried about the knock on effects this will have with the rest of the World.
First and foremost you need to be aware of what you are comparing. In this case, HSBC as traded on the NYSE exchange is not common shares, but an ADR (American Depository Receipt) with a 5:1 ratio from the actual shares. So for most intents and purposes owning one ADR is like owning five common shares. But for special events like dividends, there may be other considerations, such as the depository bank (the institution that created the ADR) may take a percentage. Further, given that some people, accounts or institutions may be required to invest in a given country or not, there may be some permanent price dislocation between the shares and the ADR, which can further lead to discrepancies which are then highlighted by the seeming difference in dividends.
Meh, that's good for pain if that works, but that's a relatively small market compared to pharmaceuticals from a business perspective, much lower profit margins because anyone can grow it. It's a highly competitive field, and as soon as it becomes legal federally you know that Altria and other huge corporations are going to be able to sell it and put the small producers out of business.  Many great minds also never did drugs. Again, I'm just going by my experiences, and none of the smart/successful people at my company or in my group of friends smoke pot.
"&gt;Because people trade currency in exchange for goods and services.   Right, and they are *utterly dependent* on continuing to receive money in exchange for goods and services or they will *very quickly* go out of business. Most businesses only have cash reserves to continue operations for a few quarters if they are unprofitable. We are going to assume that businesses wish to maximize profits, and continue operations.  Now, consider if they try to ""prevent competition by violent means"", people will stop doing business with them, they will stop getting revenue, and they will go out of business.. So we can assume that most businesses are not dumb enough to be violent, because they want to continue to exist. Basically, you make more money through peace.  So we're left with ""having control of the market through market share"". If people are satisfied with the business, it doesn't matter if the business controls a lot of the market - it's that way because the businesses' customers want it to be that way.  If their customers aren't satisfied with the business, they will stop buying from that business, which will reduce the market share. Also, other competitors that better meet the customers' needs will arise, which will further impact the market share of the business that is misbehaving. Without government, there's no mechanism to stop new competition from arising if the business isn't meeting the customer's needs.  So your proposed mechanisms either won't happen, or will fix themselves if they do happen.  &gt;Price can be controlled by the threat of super low prices in order to drive out competing businesses  And this can only happen for so long before the company no longer has the ability to subsidize their goods. But why would the business do this, if their intent is to maximize profit and continue operating? This behavior puts both at risk.   So, now that we have demonstrated that your proposed mechanisms of monopolization either won't happen, will solve themselves, or contradict the purpose of a business, what other mechanisms do you propose a corporation is going to use which will create a monopoly without a government to help them?"
There would be a catastrophic collapse in the financial industry.   Not exaggerating. Every bank is a company that's technically held by another company, a bank holding company. Every investment firm typically has anywhere from dozens to thousands of separate little companies (depending on the size of the overall firm) that it uses to manage money and risk.  There's ways to try and solve agency problems and moral hazard problems in corporate governance, but disallowing corporations from creating wholly owned subsidiaries is not the way to do it.
"I assume you are referring to Multi-Level Marketing, which have organizational structures that look like pyramids.  As others have pointed out Ponzi schemes (often referred to as pyramid) are illegal.    The key to multi-level marketing is understanding the true objective.  It is not to sell soap, vitamins, cell phone plans or whatever.  The key is to understand that you are building a marketing organization.  You must motivate and train others to do the same.  You cannot rely on others to do it for you, you must do it yourself. If you just are there to sell product, you won't make any money.  If you have a lot of friends that you can convince to sign up, you won't make any money.  If you can build a marketing organization, you can make a lot of money. While the marketing for MLMs often say ""anyone can do it"", such things waste people's time.  There are certain personality types that are not suited for such skills.  Also if one posses those types of skills, there may be better opportunities in traditional companies.  Maybe."
Could have placed a man on the moon, or built himself a 60"" 1080p TV, or an iPod, or a nuclear bomb, or a Ferrari, or sent a satellite past the solar-system, anything at all. We don't have anything that he didn't have: just ingenuity, and whatever we dig up out of the ground. But more realistically, the difference between us and cavemen is twofold: - We have a historical record, and the accumulated ingenuity of millions of individual insights; and, - We have an economy, based on credibility and promises, that allows things to be invented, tested, and made, before they are paid for. I suggest that it is axiomatic that, for example, iPads would not exist if physical gold had to change hands at every step of development and manufacturing before it could occur, or at the instance of occurance. There is just no sane scenario where a product like that comes into existence without promises and speculative investment and loan-guarantees. Same with fresh lettuce in winter, or plumbing or electricity or cable-TV. You can't just trade a grain of gold for every gallon of water that comes out of your shower in real-time to a wet bill-collector, or stick some gold in the cable-jack for every minute of internet. Someone is promising something, without having produced it yet. Whether you paid in advance, or they bill your the service later, value has changed hands on credit and promises. It's not a sane proposition that every transaction be a closed-loop, pay-as-you-go thing. Especially when you get into commercial transactions. The modern world would not exist without credit markets, and credit markets cannot exist without something like fractional reserve banking. Demanding that everyone instantly reconcile every value-exchange with a physical transfer of gold or some such is not a sane proposition. Would your cell-phone company pay someone to follow you around and collect grains of gold for every call? If so, would that person in turn be followed by the cell-tower owner, and so on? Offering to ""pay in advance"" doesn't negate the conundrum: they still have to provide service, which may or may not be covered by your gram of gold.
Quite a lot of reasons but mostly supply and demand.   Some areas of Africa are extremely remote and just don't have things there that some of the population now want.   I would guess it won't be like this for much longer but right now it is and i have met plenty of people taking advantage of that fact.
"The argument you are making here is similar to the problem I have with the stronger forms of the efficient market hypothesis.  That is if the market already has incorporated all of the information about the correct prices, then there's no reason to question any prices and then the prices never change.  However, the mechanism through which the market incorporates this information is via the actors buying an selling based on what they see as the market being incorrect. The most basic concept of this problem (I think) starts with the idea that every investor is passive and they simply buy the market as one basket.  So every paycheck, the index fund buys some more stock in the market in a completely static way.  This means the demand for each stock is the same.  No one is paying attention to the actual companies' performance so a poor performer's stock price never moves.  The same for the high performer.  The only thing moving prices is demand but that's always up at a more or less constant rate. This is a topic that has a lot of discussion lately in financial circles.  Here are two articles about this topic but I'm not convinced the author is completely serious hence the ""worst-case scenario"" title. These are interesting reads but again, take this with a grain of salt.  You should follow the links in the articles because they give a more nuanced understanding of each potential issue.  One thing that's important is that the reality is nothing like what I outline above. One of the links in these articles that is interesting is the one that talks about how we now have more indexes than stocks on the US markets.  The writer points to this as a problem in the first article, but think for a moment why that is.  There are many different types of strategies that active managers follow in how they determine what goes in a fund based on different stock metrics.  If a stocks P/E ratio drops below a critical level, for example, a number of indexes are going to sell it.  Some might buy it.  It's up to the investors (you and me) to pick which of these strategies we believe in. Another thing to consider is that active managers are losing their clients to the passive funds.  They have a vested interest in attacking passive management."