vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I agree but think it goes a lot deeper towards the issue of trust - something few brands seem to place much value on these days. Demographics, CTRs, ROIs - all the quantifiable numbers and metrics are more important than ever, in the minds of advertisers, with little value given to the trust and relationship between the channels and their respective audiences.   Google is a great example of the commoditization of advertising spaces, making the assumption that all spaces are created equally. While this works for selling commodity widgets, there is an erosion of trust that takes place between a commodity audience and commodity content used to sell commodity advertising. By removing the sense of authority and respectability that brands would once gain from aligning themselves with specific audiences via specific channels, you turn the whole system into a numbers game which further perpetuates the problem.  It’s also likely to only continue to get worse as everything increasingly becomes and advertising, product placement or promotional opportunity - so good on anyone that does not blindly and ignorantly take advertising at face value.
I believe the law was originally introduced to preserve competition in the market - smaller companies with very good products can't compete with someone who can leverage their monopolist position in other markets (= high market share, unrelated to the number of competitors) in promoting possibly inferior products in other markets. Google has hundreds of millions of their search engine users in the EU alone.  It should not affect normal competition since the law only applies across different markets.
"Why do I like not having a planet 100% covered in salt water, with no land or fresh water? Gee, I am glad you had to ask.  Globalization has been happening since before the USA declared independence, it has been happening for the past few decades within the USA, and it has nothing to do with any type of market (free, capitalistic, socialist, communist, command economy). You can't credit ""capitalism,"" with the reason the USA was so fiscally successful, when there was gold, lumber, furs, practically free tobacco and cotton thanks to slave labor, etc. It was a free-for-all in the new world, and has grown exponentially, since.  I can hope to have a voice in whether we're living in the final 100 years of life on earth with dry land and clean air.  I am not going to be able to refute any economic philosopher taught in grad schools across the USA, whether they espouse a command economy, capitalism, socialism, anarchy, or any other option. I am sure you liked Ricardian Theory and your professor very well."
That's only one of an array of factors. If, for example, there was political will to tackle it and a global market capable of supporting it, sure, I could see that getting done... but in our current situation? I'm not convinced.
What most people who dislike globalization don't realize is that by letting companies do what is best to distribute their companies across the globe based on least cost to them, it actually equalizes the economies in the long run and eventually causes jobs to return to US as costs rise along with standard of living in foreign countries. As long as the USA competes well against other countries, especially on taxes to do business, to attract business to the USA there should be no long term fear of companies keeping jobs overseas.
"Did you say with a straight face that manufactoring is the way of the past?  We are being out competed globally in the manufactoring sector, so now it's ""the way of the past"". What makes you think that the service based economy is somehow protected from global markets? That's ridiculous."
Because surprisingly few countries actually do the single payer system (i.e. only the government pays all medical bills). Many of the countries everywhere else have multipayer/multitiered systems that guarantee universal coverage. This is usually a combination of strong protections for preexisting conditions, individual mandates, and subsidies.   The goal is universal coverage, single payer is just a means.
Interestingly, An IAMA going at the moment may prove a very plausible reason behind some of these markets.   &gt;I am the sole exporter (In the way of legalized monopolies) of Apple products into certain parts of the world. This enables me to sell the $650 iphones sold here in apple stores for 200%-500% mark ups as well as all other Apple products.  .  &gt;This had nothing to do with apple. I got in touch with the government agencies that regulate such matter in the countries that I work with. It's funny, Apple can't sell their own product there unless they go through me.   http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/10tyhf/i_am_a_multimillionaire_amaa/c6gnrw0?context=3
If I understand correctly, you're actually asking why there isn't a society whose members generally accept/use any currency for transactions, and just like, Google the exchange rate or something.  The answer is because it's exceptionally inconvenient.  Can you imagine having a wallet with 200 pouches for all the different currencies?  Why would you want to deal with exchange rates all the time?  What if the value of a currency changes?  (A single currency at least has the illusion of being stable).  Et cetera.
Was already priced in. The market is smarter than ratings agencies that are fighting to stay relevant by trying to instill crisis mode on a global economy that is already very fragile. Their only announcements nowadays are on companies/nations that are on the front page of the global newswire. Almost seems like they want the global economy to tank on their information and ratings cuts.  Too bad nobody really cares about the agencies anymore.
When economies are strong, it is particularly alluring to have a single currency as it makes trade and tourism simpler and helps reduce costs. The problem comes when individual member economies get into trouble. Because the Eurozone is a loose grouping of nations, there is no direct equivalent of the US Federal government to coordinate a response, there is instead an odd mixture of National and Central government that makes it harder to get a unified approach to the economy (OK, it's maybe not so different to the US in reality).  This lack of flexibility means that some of the key levers of international finance are compromised, for example a weak economy can't float its currency to improve exports. Similarly individual country's interest rates can't be adjusted to balance spending. I suspect the main reason though is political and based on concepts of sovereignty and national pride. The UK does the majority of its trade with the Eurozone, so the pros would possibly outweigh the cons, but the UK as a whole (and some of our papers in particular) have always regarded Europe with suspicion. Most Brits only speak English and find France and Germany a strange and obtuse place. The (almost) common language makes it easier to relate to the US and Canada than our near neighbours. It seems the perception amongst the political establishment is that any attempt to join the Euro is political suicide, while that is the case it is unlikely to happen. Purely from a personal perspective, I'd welcome the Euro except it means a lot of the products I routinely buy would become a lot more expensive if price is 'harmonised'. For an example compare the price of the iPod Touch in the UK (£209.99) to France(€299). The French pay £262 at the current exchange rate, which is close to 25% more. Ouch. See also my question about Canada adopting the US Dollar
It isn't about the US. Most GM sales are already outside its home country and that will only increase. China is already its second-largest market, and China has already announced that it will soon ban gasoline and diesel cars. Britain and France have said the same, and it appears that India and the Netherlands may be next.
In Japan, there's a competition well-lasting since 2004 or so where you can run your own software agent in a virtual market. Market data is updated from the real world everyday. And if your agent proves good, the organizer puts it into the real market. The language is unfortunately limited to Java only to my knowledge. OS is not limited since your agent is supposed to run on the organizer's environment. English might not be well supported on their web site...
Confused on why everyone seems to think there is going to be like one or two companies controlling it all. There is an insane amount of people in the US and on this planet there is room for many many companies doing essentially the same thing.
"This is known as ""Zone Pricing"" or ""Geographical Pricing"". http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/19/business/fi-calprice19 Such price variations may seem odd, but they are not unique to Anaheim. On any given day, in any major U.S. city, a single brand of gasoline will sell for a wide range of prices even when the cost to make and deliver the fuel is the same. The primary culprit is zone pricing, a secret and pervasive oil company strategy to boost profits by charging dealers different amounts for fuel based on traffic volume, station amenities, nearby household incomes, the strength of competitors and other factors. It's a controversial strategy, but the courts have thus far deemed it legal, and the Federal Trade Commission recently said the effect on consumers was ambiguous because some customers got hurt by higher prices while others benefited from lower ones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_pricing Zone pricing, as practiced in the gasoline industry in the United States, is the pricing of gasoline based on a complex and secret weighting of factors, such as the number of competing stations, number of vehicles, average traffic flow, population density, and geographic characteristics. This can result in two branded gas stations only a few miles apart selling gasoline at a price differential of as much as $0.50 per gallon. But the short answer is ""because they can"". It's legal, provided that some people are paying less while others are paying more. Essentially the larger, richer audience is subsidizing the product for other areas. It's not terribly different than the way most drugs are priced in the world."
We provide subsidies to the rest of the world. We pay more than full price so foreign markets can get their discounts through universal healthcare systems. We do the same other industries, too.   We need caps on drug prices. Let companies raise the prices elsewhere. Europe? China? Why not? We have kept the boat afloat long enough. They can take their turns bailing water.
How exactly would these companies be broken up?   They also don't fit any meaningful definition of monopolies. Facebook has plenty of competition from Snapchat and Twitter and there is always a new upstart that can come along. Google has competition in nearly every venture it's invested in besides search. But the thing is that these companies don't make their money off of any of that: they make it all off of advertising. And in the advertising space, the two companies compete tooth and nail with each other—along with all the other ad companies that they've largely beat out.
"As someone that works in and with the ag and commodity markets, my understanding, is limited but I hope it helps.   Aside from needing an infrastructure built to maintain the vast amounts of data, communication, pricing, banking information, having a closing time for our markets helps to ensure value and fair trade. Capitalism is centralized around creating a fair value for ventures to sell, where prospective buyers opt to purchase or invest. For example, where I attended university, there were many coffee shops close to campus, but only one stayed open all night, and as such had operational cost much higher than other shops, forcing them to charge more for a cup of coffee. While this example is crude, the idea is the same. By maintaining""bank"" hours, product or strategies and developments meant to increase projected value are allowed to occur.   I imagine that if the markets did not close, my coffee prices would skyrocket for an increased demand, that of which the supply chsin, and farmers, would struggle to meet. The same would be said of grain, salt, oils, etcetera."
"As far as I understand, OP seems to be literally asking: ""why, regarding the various contracts on various exchanges (CBE, etc), is it that in some cases they are 'cash settled' and in some 'physically settled' -?"" The answer is only that ""the exchange in question happens to offer it that way."" Note that it's utterly commonplace for contracts to be settled out physically, and happens in the billions as a daily matter.  Conversely zillions in ""cash settled"" contracts play out each day.  Both are totally commonplace. Different businesses or entities or traders would use the two ""varieties"" for sundry reasons. The different exchanges offer the different varieties, ultimately I guess because they happen to think that niche will be profitable.  There's no ""galactic council"" or something that enforces which mode of settlement is available on a given offering - ! Recall that ""a given futures contracts market"" is nothing more than a product offered by a certain exchange company (just like Burger King sells different products). I believe in another aspect of the question, OP is asking basically:  ""Why is there not, a futures contract, of the mini or micro variety for extremely small amounts, of currency futures, which, is 'physically' settled rather than cash settled ..?"" If that's the question the answer is just ""whatever, nobody's done it yet"".  (Or, it may well exist.  But it seems extremely unlikely?  ""physically"" settled currencies futures are for entities operating in the zillions.) Sorry if the question was misunderstood."
From what I'm guessing it would be pretty cheap since they already are build for a very similar industry with very similar competitive options or better options. With plants and organizations that probably have the same structure.  Could also pivot into the new market with a known date to end. Maybe being even able to turn a small profit. Which is a lot better than going bankrupt
We don't have to think these things among ourselves. Academic economists have been thinking these things for  for us.   Have you ever wondered why large corporations exist and why not just have markets to direct resources? The Economist has great series called Six big ideas. First in the series is [Coase’s theory of the firm](https://www.economist.com/news/economics-brief/21725542-if-markets-are-so-good-directing-resources-why-do-companies-exist-first-our) It explains the basic outline of  the  theory of the firm.
Furthermore, this might not be a feasible option for a large exchange. For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange lists thousands of products and manages hundreds of millions of transactions, so closing all open positions could be a significant undertaking. If none of the above options were available, I presume companies listed on the exchange would actively move to other, more financially stable exchanges. These companies wouldn't simply go bankrupt. Contracts can always be listed on other exchanges as well. Considering the high level of mergers and acquisitions, both unsuccessful and successful, in the market for exchanges in recent years, I would assume that option 1 would be the most likely (see the NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse merger talks and the NYSE Euronext/ICE merger that's currently in progress), but for smaller exchanges, there is the recent historical precedent of the HKMex that speaks to #3. Also, the above answer really only applies to publicly traded stock exchanges, and not all stock exchanges are publicly-held entities. For example, the Shanghai Stock Exchange is a quasi-governmental organization, so I presume option 2 would apply because it already receives government backing. Its bankruptcy would mean something occurred for the government to withdraw its backing or that it became public, and a discussion of those events occurring in the future is pure speculation.
Well according to US logic, an individual can be born outside the US to an American parent, never have even stepped foot in the US or even be aware of their American citizenship, but still owe taxes and reporting to the IRS. There are no true international corporations as each country has to have its own subsidiary in order to follow local laws. (well EU being common market can just have one EU) Those subsidiaries are owned by whatever percentage by the headquarters, but are distinct companies.
On the web have a major scale business website, for example, Amazon, eBay, shopclues etc. When your business website additionally connected the web index like yahoo, google, and bing through the internet this is known as the Business to business directory. You can list your business in global trade connect business directory and get a huge buyer from all over the world. Else you are really missing a huge opportunity to find the online searcher.
"While this seems overall a macroeconomics question and not really personal finance, let me give it a shot: The question of why corporations form in a free or efficient market is why Ronald Coase received the 1991 Nobel Prize in Economics, for his work developing the theory of the firm Corporations organize when there are transaction costs in the free market; corporations form when it is in fact more efficient for a corporation to exist than a number of small producers contracting with one another.  To the extent that corporations add efficiency to a total market, they are not ""zero sum"" at all; the net production is increased over what would exist in a market of sole proprietors who would have costs (such as researching the trust levels in counterparts, regulatory compliance, etc) that they cannot bear to engage in the same level of transactions."
I don't agree. Over regulation acts as a natural barrier to entry so that only the richest of companies can afford to be in compliance - effectively shutting off markets from entrants and small business owners. Going to one extreme or the other is harmful. That is why I am a believer in promoting free and open markets with laws and regulations that discourage monopolies.
"I know, that's why there is no such thing as a ""pure, unadulterated free market"". Information flows, and it is often in the interest of those who make the big bucks that can be interrupted long enough, so that more money can be made out of the asymmetry.  As for finance, a lot of what was going on in unregulated markets in the 00's contributed to the spectacular crash later."
"Sure, they'll have internal efficiencies of choice, but they may or may not choose to share them, as you indicated.    Barriers to entry are, in my view a kind of inefficiency, by the way. Or, put another way, diversity is a kind of efficiency in that it provides a ready sources of alternative ways if a new problem with an established way of doing things comes up. So killing off competitors reduces the efficiency of one of those competitors rising as market need shifts. It's one reason we fear cloning, that although we might pick good traits, we can't be sure those traits that are good for something now will be the right things for the future, not least of which when fending off disease.  A monopoly is like a clone-of-one, where the business model and thought process is cloned throughout the company and there isn't legitimate independent thought.  To make that tangible, a thing I worry about is that Climate Change might make travel more difficult. With large storms, we might need a lot more local production and distribution and some of our reliance on just getting things quickly from one part of the world that has a monopoly on things might be dreadfully painful.  Having Amazon declare this a done deal kills off a kind of resilience that can be essential if the world gets carved up.  I don't know that such a future is certain, I just wanted to paint a picture of what it would look like to find these assumptions false and why monopolies might be bad in such cases, even when there's some perception that ""gee, don't a lot of people want this?"" They want it because of circumstance. Circumstance changes.  I wrote a few more thoughts about the megacorp thing in a blog post that went away with its host, but anyone interested can find it [here, via the wayback machine at archive.org](http://web.archive.org/web/20130514064841/http://open.salon.com/blog/kent_pitman/2009/03/15/rethinking_mega-corporations)."
"Very often, the word secondary market is used synonymously with the stock market as we all know it.  In this case, the primary market would be the ""closed"" world of VCs, business angels, etc to which stock market investors do not have access, e.g. the securities are not trading on a public stock market."
it's been a staple for many years now actually.  for larger items, and especially for automotive, it doesn't make sense to produce overseas and ship to the states.  besides the option of mexico and canada, it costs way less to manufacture in the US.  that's why you see all OEM car makes have at least a plant or two in the US.
"Monopolies don't always charge more than a competitive market, this is true, but it's still anti-competitive to have a monopoly, regardless if the consumer ""benefits"" from a lower price.  I think it's important to breed competition, even in the rare cases where consumers might benefit from a lower price (In the long run, innovation would be stifled and consumers could be worse off).  I just wanted to add that comment to the discussion. I don't think it applies to this scenario, because Amazon and Whole Foods make up a whopping 3% of the retail grocery market."
"The case you are looking at is rather special, because the Chinese government for the longest time did not allow foreigners to invest in Chinese stocks. The ADRs explained in @DStanley's answer are a way around that restriction; recently there are some limited official ways,  In general, it is perfectly normal for a stock to appear on different exchanges, in different currencies, and it's all the ""real"" stock. Because remember: a stock exchange is really nothing more than a fancy place for people to buy and sell stocks. There is absolutely no reason why a specific stock should only be traded in one place. Companies that have decided to be publically tradeable generally want to be traded in as many exchanges as possible, because it makes the stock more liquid, which helps their shareholders. Individual exchanges have different requirements for a stock to be listed for trading there, some may even do it without the company's explicit approval."
"Assuming that you accept the premise that technical analysis is legitimate and useful, it makes sense that it might not work for a small market, or at the very least that it wouldn't be the same for a small market as it is for a large market.  The reason for this is that a large stock market like the U.S. stock market is as close to a perfect market as you will find: Compare this to a small market in a small country. Market information is harder to get, because there are not as many media outlets covering the news. There aren't as many participants. And possibly it might be more expensive to participate in, and there might be more regulatory intervention than with the large market.  All of these things can affect the prices. The closer you get to a perfect market, the closer you get to a point where the prices of the stocks reflect the ""true value"" of the companies, without external forces affecting prices."
Protect competition, not protect competitors.  In a lot of cases in the tech world no one knows who the competitors is a few quarters/years down the road.     Also, enforce regulations against regulation-arbitrage companies like Uber/Lyft, AirBnB, or reg-arb tech like ICO, all of which relied on regulatory leeways allowing them to crush existing companies that's been saddled w/ regulations.     In countries where regulatory arbitrage doesnt exist these 'innovators' fail, e.g., Uber in South Korea.