vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Trader Joe belongs to Aldi Nord, which covers the northern half of Germany.  Aldi Süd (South) is the master race though, in Germany at least. They tend to have a greatly different level of quality abroad, e.g. I heard in the UK Aldis are considered shit-tier, so your experience may vary.   edit: typo &amp; grammar
Malaysia is a highly competitive country and well known for its prowess in various corporate sectors across the globe. As a result, many international investors have a keen interest to gain market penetration and invest in Malaysia to expand to their business empires.
The politics of being a German leader must be daunting.  It is easy for any opposition party to paint the story about the industrious German subsidizing the lazy Greek.  It is harder to tell a nuanced story about how much the union benefits Germans and that they are taking the brinksmanship too far.
I think if you transfer money from your account in Germany to your account in Canada you don't have to pay any taxes. However if you get any interest on your deposits, you probably have to pay tax (and probably in Canada) regardless where the account is.
"China has undergone an ""economic miracle"" over the past two decades.  Brand-spanking new cities have sprung up all over China during that time, and Hong Kong is no longer the shiny pearl it used to be in comparison with the rest of China.  It doesn't capture as much mind-share of the Chinese people as it used to now that there are alternatives.  Sort of like if the Apple iPhone were ever to fall behind Android phones in fashion and technology."
Stocks in the Weimar hyperinflation are discussed in When Money Dies. I don't own a copy of the book but here is a link to a blog post about it. Speculation on the stock exchange has spread to all ranks of the   population and shares rise like air balloons to limitless heights Basically, the stock market did very well (i.e. the US dollar value of stocks increased quite a lot. Of course, the price of everything increased if measured in marks.) Quote from the article: Bottom line: In marks, stocks had an amazing run. Even in USD they had   a nice runup. It makes sense that the stock market would skyrocket because (a) if  money has no value, then people will want to replace money with tangible things like goods, and since a stock represents a share in the factories and things which a company owns, it makes sense that you would want them and (b) if money has no value anyway, why not gamble with it? I would be interested to hear what happened in other hyperinflations.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.higherrockeducation.org/blog/state-of-the-economy-may-2017) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The core inflation rate remains below the Federal Reserve&amp;#039;s target of 2.0 percent, but most economists do not believe it is enough to deter them from increasing the Federal funds rate when they meet June 13th and 14th. Gross Domestic Product The United States real gross domestic product, the most common measure of economic growth, increased 1.2 percent in the first quarter of 2017, according to the Bureau of Economic Analayis.  &gt; Contributing to the decrease in profits were large legal settlements of Volkswagen AG, Credit Suisse, and Deutche Bank AG. Profits were 11.9 percent higher than the first quarter of 2016.  &gt; During the past year wages have increased 2.5 percent, while the consumer price index has increased 2.2 percent.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ghh0k/the_state_of_the_us_economy_may_2017/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~141209 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*: **percent**^#1 **inflation**^#2 **increased**^#3 **rate**^#4 **quarter**^#5"
The economist is arguing that in the short term nothing will change, but in the long term Britain will be excluded from any future benefits. The treaty signed by the 23 countries is pretty wide ranging in its powers. It could develop to be a new European union not including Britain.  For now it looks like a good outcome for Britain; they stay within then free trade zone and free labour zone, but retain full control of their budget and regulations.
While all that might be true, it still doesn't make GDP-PPP useful as a metric of power (assuming access to technology is power) unless  American companies are purchased with Chinese currency.  In other words, GDP-PPP loses its utility when there is an external purchase.
I'll give you a stark example of China's debt-driven construction growth: Since '09 China has constructed enough physical office space buildings to give every Chinese man, woman, and child their own cubicle - 3 times over! Given that these buildings were largely financed by debt, its hard to see how those creditors get all their money back given that there simply are not enough Chinese people to occupy and pay/rent that space in order for break-even to occur.
I did read a bit of current economics before commenting on the this topic. Name of the countries do not matter - from what I see I have referred to them quite clearly. Maybe I hit the truth chord somewhere there hence your off-bitter mark. It is nothing to do with economics and more politics (read ego and power play) than anything else. Of course, Truth always sucks.
The US did fine VW a *lot* more than anyone in Europe. Couldn't tell you who's the worse offender but frankly, laws are different in both places so different things get punished with different severity. Europe happens to be very keen on making sure competition stays possible.
"You are not wrong. This is called the ""Broken Window"" fallacy in economics. Imagine if 20% of a population was employed to go around breaking windows.  This would stimulate the economy as many people would have to be employed to make new windows, repair the broken windows, etc..  The problem is that everyone would have been better off if they didn't have to spend their valuable resources on repairing a perfectly functioning window. Although many people will be employed to rebuild Japan, this doesn't improve the standard of living for the folks in Japan."
Just 30 years ago China was at a level that is now found in countries of Africa. They have been progressing faster than any country that went from deep poverty to a modern economy.  Of course, they are still a couple of decades away from being at the level of Western Europe and the US, but the gap is closing fast.
Not really.  If Capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, *rather than by the state*, then the South Sea Bill was an example of trade and industry controlled by the State through State sponsored enterprise.  It is more a closely a description of State Socialism, with a large topping of Kleptocracy.
You might want to see this question and its answers.  If it was me, I'd prefer to exchange the currency in Germany.  Why?  When you are in the US you will be on vacation.  It does not seem fun to spend vacation time in a bank.
"Every company with a ""Strong Culture"" Ie Office bars and happy hours, nap rooms, pool tables, zen/mediating rooms, etc,etc seem to be the most successful. Its unfortunate that they people pay for no work/life balance... but at least they get to get drunk in the office..."
Things aren't really bad. 2008 was really bad. You're reading too much sensational shit. Consumer confidence is on the rise and QE is not a bad thing. If we hadn't acted as we did we would still be fighting the recession like the EU and Japan still are.
They aren't all rich on average. And oil and gas is actually now only about 25% of the economy in the UAE (incredibly!). There are good reasons why it felt that way, though: The UAE and a number of other oil-rich nations all realize that they need to diversify away from oil revenues. International investment and tourism are the main ways in which they hope to attract capital (free trade/full foreign ownership/no-tax zones, World Cup, etc.). Business and government are often one and the same or working closely together, and they are extremely savvy about cultivating your experience in their company, and want to make sure they are doing everything in their power to get you to like and spend money in their country. Essentially, you are visiting their version of Las Vegas. Additionally, they have taken on massive debt to create those kinds of cities and experiences. According to the World Bank and the CIA (see here), the per capita GDP of the UAE on a Purchasing Price Parity basis is about 18% higher than in the US. Since much of the oil wealth is controlled by the state, it is not certain how evenly that income is distributed (World Bank and CIA statistics do not provide R/P or Gini data for UAE, while it is provided for most nations).
Switzerland succeeds with low taxes because they have a very efficient (universal) health care system, and they have almost no military to fund. &gt; While i do not own my own company or have anything to do with R&amp;D i can for a fact disprove your theory Again speaking in absolutes. This denotes that you can disprove every situation possible to show that government is worse than commercial. As I said, if you thought that before you entered my industry, you quickly see the flip side of that coin. Your example is a perfect example of that. So you work in construction, an industry in which commercial is notorious for *underbidding* a contract (whether to government or to private), and then running into *unexpected* overages that cause the job to go over schedule, over budget. These companies succeed because there are a very small number of providers that can accomplish certain jobs, so they tend to stick around (just like the big banks) even though they aren't the best. Its not like the government just sits around and takes it. I know of at least [one federal contractor who went to federal prison](https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/id/news/2012/sept/large09192012.html) for fraudulently winning contracts in my part of the country. &gt; The private sector will always have a need to innovate and that need will always be filled with or without the government the only difference is the private sector wont keep throwing money at an unsustainable rate like the government does because if they dont see results its not worth funding. And this is *why* the government can succeed in areas that commercial cannot. This is why government got the first people on the moon, not commercial. This is why we have already sent missions to mars, whereas Musk is going to make those trips more efficient. It is because government has tremendous resources that they can throw at a problem. Even the richest man in the world will run out of money before he can solve the big problems. As I told a poster earlier, JIEDDO spent over $1T working on the IED problem in Iraq / Afghanistan. This was the number one killer of our troops.
"Stocks ""go up 5-7% every year. This has been true for the last 100 years for the S&P500 index...."" This was true in the 20th century in America. It was not true (over the whole century) for other major countries like Germany, Russia, Japan, or China. (It was more or less true for Britain and certain Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada.) A lot of this had to do with which countries were occupied (or not) during the two world wars. In one of his company's annual reports, Warren Buffett pointed out that the U.S. standard of living went up 6-7 times in the 20th century, that this was unprecedented (and might not be repeatable in the 21st century). The performance of the U.S. stock market in the past century is representative of those (and other) past facts. If a different set of facts prevails going forward, the U.S. stock market would be reflective of those ""different"" facts."
Sure. Even Milton Friedman called Hayek's economic work unreadable. Much of the Austrian economic foundation rests without as solid of a philosophical or mathematical foundation as most other schools of thought. I suppose the easiest way to understand this is to look at three foundational works. I recommend reading each of these anyways, but skimming, and paying attention to references, should give you a good idea of the varying levels of rigor introduced into each school of thought. [Leaf through Das Kapital](http://books.google.com/books?id=6TfTS9ITW7UC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=inauthor:%22Karl+Marx%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=NdrYT4yNCdLH6AHThdSoAw&amp;ved=0CE8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&amp;q=inauthor%3A%22Karl%20Marx%22&amp;f=false) This is Marx's primary treatise. It is far older than the following two that I will present. Nevertheless, it, perhaps more than any other book, played a pivotal role in the 20th century. [Leaf through A General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money](http://books.google.com/books?id=xpw-96rynOcC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=inauthor:%22John+Maynard+Keynes%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=LtrYT43YIamJ6QGuoL2cAw&amp;ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=inauthor%3A%22John%20Maynard%20Keynes%22&amp;f=false) This is the foundational work of the Keynesians. There is much more here than simply the advice to increase government spending to stabilize demand during economic downswings. And it has been probably the most widely accepted work by the greatest number of economists over the 20th century.
Which is just one metric for assessing how well a country is going.   A great example of this is if you compare Portugal and Equatorial Guinea. They both have very similar GDP, but most of Guinea lived in third world conditions, with on decent education system, no justice system, poor infrastructure, etc...  How do they have such a high GDP? Oil.  Who does that go to? Ruling family...
Same for Poland: this is part of EU contracts. Besides that, the German tax office nevertheless decided that my ""primary center of life"" stayed in Germany. So everything but the stuff related to the Italian contracts (which would probably have counted as normal work contracts in Germany, though they is no exact equivalent to those contract types) was handled by the German tax office. I think this is the relevant part for your question (or: argumentation with the German tax office) of temporary vs. permanent residence. Here are some points they asked: There is one point you absolutely need to know about the German social insurance law: Scheinselbständigkeit (pretended self-employment). Scheinselbständigkeit means contracts that claim to be service contracts with a self-employed provider who is doing the work in a way that is typical for employees. This law closes a loophole so employer + employee cannot avoid paying income tax and social insurance fees (pension contributions and unemployment insurance on both sides - health insurance would have to be paid in full by the self-employed instead of partially by the employer. Employer also avoids accident insurance, and several regulations from labour law are avoided as well). Legally, this is a form of black labour which means that the employer commits a criminal offense and is liable basically for all those fees. There is a list of criteria that count towards Scheinselbständigkeit. Particularly relevant for you could be"
"You should come to Europe and learn the realities of those countries, not believe the narrative of the USA progressives. The nordic european countries started the XX century quite de-centralize and free market based. Over time they became more social-democrat and ended up suffering a systemic crisis during the 80's. Since then they have been de-regulating and de-centralizing and they have recovered. For example, in Sweden 30% of the roads are private or most of them have a system of voucheurs for education.  Norway is an exception since they have petrol and can get away with stuff ""normal"" economies can not."
Gold is a good investment when central bank money printers can’t take their thumbs off the print button. Over the last 3 years the US Federal Reserve printed a ton of dollars to bail out banks and to purchase US federal debt.  Maybe I should exchange my dollars for euros? The European Central Bank (ECB) is following the FED plan and printing money to buy Greek, Italian, and now Spanish bonds.  This, indirectly, is a bailout of French and German banks. Maybe I should exchange my euros for yen? The Bank Of Japan (Japan’s central bank) is determined not to let the yen rise against other currencies so they too are printing money to keep the yen weak. Maybe I should exchange my yen for swiss francs? The Swiss National Bank (Switzerland’s central bank) is also determined not to let the franc rise against other currencies so they too are printing money. You quickly begin to realize that your options are dwindling for places to put your money where the government central bank isn’t working hard to dilute your savings. Physical gold is also a good investment for several other situations:  What situations would lead to a drop in gold prices? What are the alternatives? Silver has traditionally been used more as money than gold.  Silver is usually used for day-to-day purchases while gold is used for savings.
&gt; Isn't it strange how hard labor fights on the side of capital?  Like the top comment or the geniuses downvoting us?   &gt; Imagine if workers directed even a fraction of that passion toward helping workers instead of companies.  No need to imagine. Plenty of failed backwards socialist countries who've done this like Germany. Strong unions and labour laws, free post-secondary education and 3.9% unemployment. Sounds absolutely horrible, who'd want to live in such a hellhole.
"Who's economy? Just because unemployment is high doesn't mean there aren't quite a few people prospering. If you want to work in a factory, chances are you're not feeling too good about the next 10 years, because you know your job is going somewhere where someone is willing to work for $2 per day. If you work in health care, or IT, or engineering, or any number of other highly skilled fields, then chances are your outlook is nowhere near as bleak. Most companies are making tons of money, the stock market is doing well, sales number in retail last weekend were great, etc. When it comes to jobs and the economy there really are two Americas right now. The real problem is the number of people have joined the ""screwed-up-the-ass"" half and have no way of making it out."
Rather than using the Human Development Index or Ease of Doing Business, if you primary purpose is for investments, you need to consider the Country rating provided by various agencies like  These would tell as to how good the country is for investment in general. Just to highlight a difference, China may not fare very high in Human Development Index, however right now from investment point of view its a pretty good market. once you have decided the countries, you can either invest in funds specalizing in these countries or if legally permitted invest directly into the leading stock index in such countries. If your intention is to start a business in these countries, then you need to look at some other indexes. http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245219962821 http://www.fitchratings.com/jsp/sector/Sector.faces?selectedTab=Overview&Ne=4293330737%2b11&N=0 http://v3.moodys.com/Pages/default.aspx
It is also not helped that governments globally are pressing banks to improve capital ratios; i.e. hold more in reserve. While this will reduce the likelihood of a bailout in the near future, it severely reduces the access to money and damages the economy.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://voxeu.org/article/bail-ins-and-bailouts-incentives-connectivity-and-systemic-stability) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The Financial Stability Board has since included bail-ins as one of its primary components of post-crisis resolution regimes.  &gt; In earlier work without considering intervention, dense connections between financial institutions seemed to enhance financial stability, unless a shock was large enough to cause a systemic default.  &gt; An endogenous network formation model that takes into account banks&amp;#039; anticipation of credible bail-in strategies would lead to the informed design of structural policies aimed at preventing banks from reaching a network structure, in which the government&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;no intervention&amp;#039; threat fails to be credible.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/77esvr/a_bailin_is_possible_when_the_losses_of_a_failing/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~231346 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 **bail-in**^#2 **Financial**^#3 **network**^#4 **structure**^#5"
"I'll take a stab at this question and offer a disclosure: I recently got in RING (5.1), NEM (16.4), ASX:RIO (46.3), and FCX (8.2). While I won't add to my positions at current prices, I may add other positions, or more to them if they fall further. This is called catching a falling dagger and it's a high risk move. Cons (let's scare everyone away) Pros The ECB didn't engage in as much QE as the market hoped and look at how it reacted, especially commodities. Consider that the ECB's actions were ""tighter"" than expected and the Fed plans to raise rates, or claims so. Commodities should be falling off a cliff on that news. While most American/Western attention is on the latest news or entertainment, China has been seizing commodities around the globe like crazy, and the media have failed to mention that even with its market failing, China is still seizing commodities. If China was truly panicked about its market, it would stop investing in other countries and commodities and just bail out its own country. Yet, it's not doing that. The whole ""China crisis"" is completely oversold in the West; China is saying one thing (""oh no""), but doing another (using its money to snap up cheap commodities). Capitalism works because hard times strengthen good companies. You know how many bailouts ExxonMobil has received compared to Goldman Sachs? You know who owns more real wealth? Oil doesn't get bailed out, banks do, and banks can't innovate to save their lives, while oil innovates. Hard times strengthen good companies. This means that this harsh bust in commodities will separate the winners from the losers and history shows the winners do very well in the long run. Related to the above point: how many bailouts from tax payers do you think mining companies will get? Zero. At least you're investing in companies that don't steal your money through government confiscation.
Some of the advantages of Switzerland: Not everything is about money.
There is absolutely no logical reason why each nation does not own and control banking and thus the supply of money.  Any system including the financial system works exactly the same way, regardless of ownership.  Banking depends solely on the confidence of the customers/investors. Therefore when a sovereign nation/state has ownership of the banks, the profits are kept in-house, within the nation, which is actually a bonus, and taxes can be off-set by profits, which is another benefit.  Any improvement or benefit by the private ownership of banking is a total myth.
Switzerland had to found a special Bank in Frankfurt which acts as an interface to SEPA. The major Swiss banks ran trading and back office ops from the UK. This will move. They has to cooperate with both the US and the EU regulations now. Switzerland as banking has most definitely decreased is size.