vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Discipline. If you have to have a hard limit on your account that prevents you from spending - credit cards are not for you. If you can discipline yourself not to make purchases in excess of your budget even if the plastic technically allows it - then you can go on using the credit card. Make sure to stay on top of your spendings by frequently checking your current activity on the card (on line, don't wait for statements), and making sure you're below the limit you have set for your budget. Mint.com visualizes your spendings and shows where you are with regards to your preset budgets on various types of spendings, you should consider using it as an aid.
After digging around a bit on sites like Foxwood's and Harrahs, it looks like you can't purchase casino chips with a credit card. You must use cash, an ATM, or an in-house credit mechanism such as a pre-purchased card with a line-of-credit (featuring hefty fees per transaction).
The answer for this question varies from person to person. However most cards give lousy rewards percentage-wise. Take a look at where your money is being spent each month (say with a tool like mint.com), and seek out a card that rewards you in categories where you already spend a lot of money.  Many people here have suggested cards with high gas rebates, and that's great if you drive more than anything else. However, the important thing is to pick what benefits you most.
I believe it's just to limit the less well-off from acquiring one. If your credit history and income do not support a $15,000 credit limit, then don't even think about applying for an Altitude Black card. If they do, then don't bother with a student card. It's primarily about market segmentation by wealth or income.
I can't think of any specifically, but if you haven't already done so it would be worthwhile reading a textbook on macro-economics to get an idea of how money supply, exchange rates, unemployment and so on are thought to relate.   The other thing which might be interesting in respect of the Euro crisis would be a history of past economic unions. There have been several of these, not least the US dollar (in the 19C, I believe); the union of the English and Scottish pound (early 1600s); and the German mark. They tend to have some characteristic problems, caused partly by different parts of the union being at different stages in an economic cycle. Unfortunately I can't think of a single text which gathers this together.
The Euro will collapse because Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece will have to default on their debt. In order to keep up with current payments they have to take emergency loans at the same time that their economies are in recession and demands on social programs are increasing. There is simply no way that they can cut enough spending and raise enough revenue to balance their budgets. That is not opinion, it is arithmetic.   If they cannot pay their loans they will either voluntarily leave the Euro, or they will be forced out.   Next comes France who also has a large and growing budget deficit and a large public debt. It is unsustainable. That which is unsustainable will end.   The last reason that the Euro will fail and that it will be soon is Germany. Up to now, all the bailouts of Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain have come predominantly from Germany. In order to float the Eurobonds that some idiots think might save Europe, the German people have to authorize their government to participate and thereby take on another mountain of debt. The German people will not vote for that authorization.  Is that enough reasons? Because there are more. Lots more. Read [Mike Shedlock](http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com)
The Euro is a common currency between various countries in Europe.  This means that individual countries give up their traditional sovereign control of their own currency, and cede that control to the EU. Such a system has many advantages, but it also means that individual countries cannot deal with their unique situations as easily.  For instance, if the US were a part of the EU, then the Fed couldn't issue $600B the way they are to bolster the economy. The danger to the Euro is that countries will withdraw their participation in order to micromanage their economies more effectively.  If a major country withdraws its participation, it could start a domino effect where many countries withdraw so that they too can manage their economies more effectively.  As more countries withdraw, a shared currency becomes less and less appealing.
These rumors are here just to help dollar stay alive. Euro have problems, but they are rather solvable, unlike dollar situation. Even if something wrong would happen - countries would return to their national currencies, mainly Germany & France are important here. This does not means that EuroUnion would be destroyed - some countries live in EU without Euro and they are just fine.
It seems possible if the Euro is partially/entirely unwound that policies could be enacted to prohibit exactly this behavior, otherwise what will stop outflow to the stronger countries on a massive scale? (Thus amplifying the resulting decade-long clusterfuck)  We've never had this situation in Europe before, and already for Greece and Spain there are suggestions to instigate withdrawal controls. It doesn't seem far fetched to imagine retroactive controls placed on private deposits in newly-foreign-currency banks.  If I were concerned about the Euro's collapse I'd be more inclined to move assets out of the eurozone entirely
If the Euro went bust then it would be the 12th government currency to go belly up in Europe (according to this website).  Europe holds the record for most failed currencies.  It also holds the record for the worst hyperinflation in history - Yugoslavia 1993.  I'm not sure what would happen if the Euro failed.  It depends on how it fails.  If it fails quickly (which most do) then there will be bank runs, bank holidays, capital controls, massive price increases, price controls, and just general confusion as people race to get rid of their Euros.  Black markets for everything will pop up if the price controls remain in place.  Some countries may switch to a foreign currency (i.e. the US dollar if it is still around) until they can get their own currency in circulation.
Each country would have to go back to its own currency, or the rich countries would just kick the poor ones out of the EU.  It would be bad for the poor countries, and the global economy would suffer, but it really wouldn't be a big deal.
I haven't been following this crisis at all, so I know nothing about this, but I understand why the value of the Euro would shoot up as a result of Greece/Italy/Portugal leaving. But why would the Germans not want this? Is it because Germany is a leading exporter and it would increase the costs of exports from the country? Or could you expand on that for me? thanks
"The Euro is not the reason for the debt crisis. It is only preventing those countries affected from using the easy way out. The fault is entirely that of those countries.  They were given billions and billions in structural aid, to put the ""convergence criteria"" into reality. Instead they chose bubble economies. And no, this is not the same all around Europe. I don't see France or Germany having a giant property bubble."
"This question is different because you are asking for actual advice vs. a more academic, ""what if"" scenario. The answer that I'll give will be different, and similar to another recent question on a similar vein. Basically, if you're living in a European country that's effectively in default and in need of a bailout, the range of things that can happen is difficult to predict... the fate of countries like Ireland and Greece, whatever the scenario, will be economic and social upheaval. But, this isn't the end of the world either... it's happened before and will happen again. As an individual, you need to start investing defensively in a manner appropriate for your level of wealth. Things to think about: I'd suggest reading ""A Free Nation Deep in Debt: The Financial Roots of Democracy"""
Is it possible that the result could be a reduced-size Eurozone, with Germany, France, Austria, BeNeLux and Finland remaining in, while others go back to their former currencies or form a Southern European (and Irish) common currency?
If any Euro countries leave the Euro, they will have to impose capital flow restrictions - it's a given, to avoid a complete implosion of the entire system.    The idea of retroactive controls is very interesting - this may be one of the first times in a currency collapse that such a system would be feasible (i.e., both the country being fled from and the countries being fled to are under common control).   No doubt they would try such a thing if they thought they could get away with it.
So the Euro was doomed from the start because there was no provisions of kicking out and/or halting countries from excessive borrowing?  I think the Euro is stronger in the long run because no single country can put inflationary pressure on the Euro due to irresponsible borrowing by that single state (e.g. United States).  In the end of the day, they have to work their way out of debt with real economic growth thusly making it an attractive currency for the long term.
"The short answer is that you will not be able to go back to whichever discussion you were having and say ""the Euro crisis was caused by bailing out private banks,"" if that is indeed what you were ultimately searching for here."
Icelandish and Irish Economies began to fail in 2008, Ireland was bailed out by the IMF and Britain, Iceland by the Germany and the IMF. Greek economy has essentially failed, and is at risk of being kicked out of the Euro currency by the Eurozone members. Spanish and Italian economies are faltering. Worst case scenario, everybody can't pay back money and keep accumulating debt, which would lead to a complete collapse of the European economy, resulting in a global economic meltdown. Germany currently are in control of al lot of countries debts (especially Ireland) which means that they will become the main players in decisions regarding the proliferation/faltering of the european economy in the future.
"Except the government in this case has decided to limit itself to Euros, a currency it does not control and therefore one it can ""run out of"", making deficit spending a risky proposal indeed.  The correct approach is of course to never join such a regime in the first place, and then deficit spend as needed to keep your labor force highly employed."
Krugman (Nobel prize in Economy) has just said: Greek euro exit, very possibly next month. Huge withdrawals from Spanish and Italian banks, as depositors try to move their money to Germany. 3a. Maybe, just possibly, de facto controls, with banks forbidden to   transfer deposits out of country and limits on cash withdrawals. 3b. Alternatively, or maybe in tandem, huge draws on ECB credit to   keep the banks from collapsing. 4a. Germany has a choice. Accept huge indirect public claims on Italy   and Spain, plus a drastic revision of strategy — basically, to give   Spain in particular any hope you need both guarantees on its debt to   hold borrowing costs down and a higher eurozone inflation target to   make relative price adjustment possible; or: 4b. End of the euro. And we’re talking about months, not years, for this to play out. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/eurodammerung-2/
It's slightly more complicated than that. Usually a country that was in Greece's situation would be able to use inflation to devalue their currency which would have the effect of lowering the value of the government's debts and also of making Greek prices more competitive in the international market. Or they could use quantitative easing to inject cheap cash into the economy to help stimulate it. Because Greece is on the Euro, however, they have no control over their own currency and their options are highly limited. Additionally, when you join the EU, especially the Eurozone, that's supposed to come with additional internal responsibilities, but it's also supposed to come with additional external ones as well. Greece has a responsibility to get its shit together, but the whole point is that more financially stable countries have a responsibility to help them. Right now that means Germany; they're the ones with the greatest control over the Euro and they're shying away from their duties. If the rest of Europe didn't want to risk ending up in this position they shouldn't have let Greece into the Eurozone.
If they default and try to stay in the Euro, they will be shut out of any chance of financing but they will be obliged to conduct business in a currency that they cannot afford. Their businesses will close, unemployment rise until they have no option to stay in the Euro.   Instead of that, they will reissue the Peseta, Lira, Drachma, etc. and then devalue. That will allow their real estate, tourism and manufacturing to be very competitive. If they could stay in the Euro after default they would starve, but I don't think they could stay, even if they wanted to because they'd be expelled by Germany.   Here is [Gonzalo Lira's suggestion as to how Spain should have already left the Euro](http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2012/04/will-there-be-corralito-in-spain.html)
Yea, but that coin would be worth shit ( They'll inflate their way out of debt) and there won't be anyone wanting to buy their bonds for a long time so they'll probably print more money. Also, everybody's savings will be gone.  Going out of the Euro will put them in a worse financial climate than staying in and do austerity.
The EU's situation is nothing like the United States.  The core problem there is a monetary union without a fiscal union.  All the member countries were bound to a currency they had no control over, despite the health and resources of their economies.
"The risk is that greece defaults on it's debts and the rest of the eurozone chose to punish it by kicking it out of the Eurozone and cutting off it's banks from ECB funds. Since the greek government and banks are already in pretty dire straits this would leave greece with little choice but to forciblly convert deposits in those banks to a ""new drachma"". The exchange rate used for the forced conversions would almost certainly be unfavorable compared to market rates soon after the conversion. There would likely be capital controls to prevent people pulling their money out in the runup to the forced conversion. While I guess they could theoretically perform the forced conversion only on Euro deposits this seems politically unlikely to me."
"to answer the question in the title of your post...  + convince your fellow Euro nations to accept austerity,  + convince them to elect responsible governments,  + demand transparency from your leaders, and...  + make sure this never ever happens again.   Alternatively, build a time machine and go back in time to either...  + immigrate to another part of the world,  + sabotage the corruption of the PIGS nations,  + prevent the formation of a shared currency, or finally,  + do something to ensure Germany didn't lose WWII, as letting them be in charge of everybody's money would appear to be a sound financial decision.   That is how you negate the impact of the Euro collapsing.  Now, on to the details of your question...  I believe your initial assessment is correct. If one accountable nation were responsible for the solvency of its currency, it could be trusted indefinitely. As is the case with the Euro, as no one country is directly responsible for it, the less responsible governments are in a race to exploit it as much as possible.  Remember, ""Spain no es Zimbabwe!""  I think Euro zone nations will be lucky if all that comes of this is the fall of the Euro. Wars between nations have been fought over less significant developments than what Greece, Italy and Spain have done to the financial stability of their Euro zone counterparts.  Foreign gold trusts, possession of physical precious metals and precious metal ETFs (GLD is one stock ticker of such a fund, although I would look to a similar fund issued by a company with better physical gold audits) can hedge your currency risk. Check with local laws regarding physical possession of gold. In the USA when we left the gold standard for our currency, the government confiscated all privately owned precious metals and raided customer bank security boxes. Assess your own risk of that sort of thing happening."
The best scenario I've heard is by Tyler Cowen:   Basically, the Greek Government runs out of Euros.  So they print up IOUs to issue to their workers, pensioners, etc promising payment of Euros at some future date.   The first day, some wag holds up the IOUs says 'hey, look at these drachmas'.  By the seventh day, the IOUs are trading at a discount - there's an exchange rate between the IOUS and Euros, and you in essence have a Drachma currency.  What that does in terms of converting external debts, bank accounts, and etc from Drachmas into Euros I'm not sure about.   Obviously this isn't the best way to go about getting out of the Euro, but it's the best 'muddle through' option and given how Europe in general has been dealing with this problem it's highly probable this is the method they'll take.
"Why will they find financing when they leave the Euro? Why would their currencies not simply hyperinflate due to excessive issuance in an attempt to devalue? Which is worse for unemployment, austerity or hyperinflation?  &gt;they'd be expelled by Germany  This is a union correct? Why do you assume Germany holds all the cards? I've read that Gonzalo Lira essay and have read Mish about everyday since 2009, yet still do not think it is so obvious that the Euro will collapse.  I gained quite a bit of skepticism from Barry Eichengreen's paper on the [Breakup of the Euro Area.](http://www.nber.org/papers/c11654.pdf?new_window=1)  What I see right now is that so far the ECB has only acted in such a way as to prevent outright deflation and meet its 2% inflation target, but not to continuously outright fund the profligate governments. They let the bond markets force those governments into contraction or into default whereas the fed, with its dual mandate, will always buy the US bonds and eventually will inflate the currency as opposed to having a sovereign default.  So I think we will see the ECB continue to print as much is needed to meet its mandate but at the same time there will be defaults, bank nationalizations and failures, and a continued lack of growth in the Euro area until eventually the austerity measures bring revenue and spending in line at which point the countries under heavy debt would be stupid not to default because they can self finance.  Whereas in the US we are so dependent on deficit financing that as foreigners move further away from holding treasuries we become more susceptible to bond vigilantes taking the reigns which will force the feds hand into outright monetization. Then I think we will see our own government exacerbate inflation by bidding on the same goods that those dollars which no longer are going into treasuries are bidding on. Then I think we'll finally see bad inflation in the US.  Of course as long as there is hoards of money fleeing Europe for the US ""safe haven,"" the lack of foreign treasury investment is pretty moot.   *spelling"
To be more technical the Eurozone. UK is in the EU, but it's currency is fine. I hope you're not getting downvoted for the technicality.   Greece can't print money, it makes default more likely and that's a result of the Euro. That's the core of the problem. Europe wanted a shared currency without a shared budgetary process, this was going to happen eventually.
One important answer is still missing: governments may not be able to do print money because of international agreements. This is in fact a very important reason: it applies to the entire Eurozone.  (I admit that many Eurozone countries also not allowed to borrow as much as they do now, but somehow that's considered a far lesser sin).
the problem now is A LOT of people dont have confidence in the euro, and they are taking their money out of it , and confidence is the only thing that backs the euro, or any fiat money. It's gonna get worst before it gets better unfortunately...
''just how much of the troubled southern EU nations' debt is due to the rescuing of private banks?  thanks''  My answer rambled onto related topics.  In short, not much. While the actual sums involved in bank bailouts are considerable, relative to sovereign debts run up by having structural/trade deficits for ~10 years, they aren't the problem in Europe at the moment...but they ARE the tip of an Iceberg that could sink parts of the EU and leave the rest struggling to stay above water.   An interesting question to ponder, with deceptively simple answers, is:  If the % of sovereign debt resulting from bank bailouts is so small, why does the media and general public throw a fit every time a major EU bank gets into trouble?  People are worried about losing their savings that they have with that bank. Its a visceral fear that is easy to personally relate to.  But scratch below the surface and there is a whole buffet of terror for you to feast on.  Assuming leverage of ~26* on assets held by banks and that true liabilities aren't completely opaque to average Joe retail investor, the collapse of the right bank could fire the starting gun on a vicious recession, trigger bailouts of other institutions exposed to the original and all sorts of nasty events.  These bank assets include the mess created by rehypothecation, securitization of shitty credit/assets and CDS, commercial paper that relies on never having to be realized as a loss and interference in the money markets and currencys by states.  Its damn hard to work out what assets and liabilities a bank has these days, let alone what any debt they have taken on is worth.   Euro Crisis Best Crisis.   *Pulled from memory, I'm not sure if this is accurate for Europe.
"The result would be catastrophic. The almost-reserve currency would collapse which would produce a medium sized depression, perhaps same with with 2008-now, or even larger, since don't forget, that one was produced from a housing bubble existing in only a part of the american economy; imagine what would happen if almost the full size of the economy (Europe) would collapse, even if Europe isn't as much ""connected"". But reality here is, there's no chance to that. The real reason you hear those rumors is that America (along with minor partners like the British Sterling) want to bring down the Euro for medium-term benefit. e.g. Several economists get on Bloomberg announcing they are short selling the Euro. Irony is, all this is helping the Euro since selling and short-selling and selling and short-selling helps massively its liquidity. It's like several nay sayers actually making a politician famous with their spite."
The thing is Spain really isn't like Greece and their financial crises are fundamentally different but unfortunately interconnected.  Greece's issue is too much sovereign debt and a banking sector that lent far too heavily to their own government. Spain's problems derive from a private banking sector crisis as they over lent particularly to fund an insane property boom that went really really bad really quick. The root cause is far more akin to the US crisis than the Greek one, however being caught up in the Eurozone and having banks exposed to the debt of other nations has really fucked them over in terms of borrowing and debt to gdp ratio.  Spain was one of the few Eurozone nations that stuck to the max 3% og GDP borrowing rule, not even Germany stuck to that, they were fiscally responsible. Then having to provide a huge bailouts to a financial sector, as the economy was tanking from the global recession amd the bubble bursting and a crisis emerging in other EU nations (and a lack of a central bank) has been their ruin.