vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
So a company can exploit cheap labour overseas, but their cash cannot help pension funds of people from abroad?  Multinational Corporations have no national identity. Their profits shouldn't be regarded as being gotten in just one country. If Apple's offshore money gives a guy in Bangladesh a better pension, they can buy a nice Japanese scooter, which in turn allows a Japanese girl to buy an iPod.  I'm an idealist, yes.  I wish people would stop dividing this world up with fictitious borders and stop with the whole 'us vs them' thing.
Hmm... I'm sure setting up an entirely new market would be really easy and wouldn't be met by serious backlash from extremely rich enterprises that like the status quo.  /sarcasm  I picture that option even more monumental of a task than a small company trying to set up as a new ISP in a city where a large telecom has a majority.  It's nearly impossible thanks to all of the money that the large telecom can throw at maintaining its current market share.
A lot of good answers, but there’s one more factor: ignorance.  The majority haven’t considered it, or considered it and assumed it’s not an option without investigating.  PLUS, the widespread myth that every other country is primitive, unhealthy, and dangerous.
I do have an agenda. Or at least a question: Is the apparrel industry in the US dying? Is it being sent overseas thanks to 'free trade'/globalization laws?  &gt;A recent study released by IBISWorld identifies ten dying US industries. Among these top industries is apparel manufacturing. http://blog.zintro.com/2011/04/12/is-the-apparel-manufacturing-industry-in-the-us-dying/  I am against globalization. It puts all the eggs in one basket. We are seeing again and again when one country has a crisis it threatens to engulf, first, all of Europe, then the US, then the world. This is the price of globalization, which mainly profits the very wealthy. Aside from my objection to who profits, I think it's stupid to...put all our eggs in one basket. Let different countries do things differently, then evaluate which works best for the greatest number of people. Don't just make every country to everything the same, the neoliberal/neoconservative policy.
Thank you for the comment,  New markets open and close all the time, its interesting seeing the new characters appear here as a certain country demands a supply of a new certain product. You feel a bit ahead of the trends here sometimes in that respect.  Thanks
"I think you're thinking too micro and not macro enough.  The main reason we buy things from foreign countries is not because we don't have the CAPACITY to produce them here, it's because they are waaaaay CHEAPER when produced offshore (mostly due to negligible labor costs).  And don't get all straw man on us: of course there is demand here in the US. No Keynesian would literally suggest that there is ""no demand"". We are still the largest economy in the world. The problem is that there is not ENOUGH demand to employ a sufficient percentage of the workforce."
Now today all small and big business depends on the internet. So businessman should be those business lists in the multiple online directories. In the USA maximum user buy product through the web. If you have a business, then you can list your business globaltradeconnect's Business directory online. Where you can get more customer, product information, business location and direction. It's awesome to list a business on other online website like Google, Facebook, Bing.
Yes, of course there's a fundamental difference between legislation and business practices. But what you just described is the very definition of a globalist:  &gt;a person or organization advocating or practicing operations across national divisions  If you talk a big game about restricting people from coming to one place, while you work a business that makes money from everyone all over the world, you're still a globalist.  A true anti-globalist leader would do all of his business inside of his chosen country, and would go out of his way to not rely on external markets.
Obviously there are more than two firms. It's probably a valid assumption that the market is an oligopoly with significant economies of scale, but I haven't researched this extensively. There is more than one time period, so some form of the iterated prisoner's dilemma is needed. The market for donor-advised funds is also complicated by the fact that these are philanthropic funds. This may introduce tax implications or the problem of goodwill and institutional opinion of these funds. Although both funds increasing their fees may increase their profits in theory, institutional investors may look on this as a pure profit-seeking and take their funds elsewhere. For example, they may choose to invest in smaller funds with higher fees but better reputations. While reputation is important for any company, it might make more of a difference when the fund/investment vehicle is philanthropic in nature. I am by no means an expert on game theory, so I'm sure there are other nuances to the situation that I'm unaware of.
As other have said though, the population of the EU is greater than that of the US market and so it is more profitable to take the fine, then pull out. The other issue also relates to capital invested in EU countries. By pulling out a full liquidation would be required, which is again a bad move for your (google's) businesses.   Any corporation on a global level such as google have to operate within the legal structure of each jurisdiction they wish to provide products or sales. EU based compiles get fined in the US regularly and don't pull out. It's the nature of global business.  I.e. 320/500 million potential consumers is fair superior than principles.   I should also add that the EU institutions place a heavy emphasis on consumer protection, unlike the US, which I believe is the basis of the Anti Trust Regulations.
Have you ever considered how much faith and confidence play a role in the financial sector?  The calling in of swaps could cause issues similar to a Bank Run, which may or may not involve others coming into play.  While this is cleaning up the mess from a few years ago, there is something to be said for how complicated are various financial instruments in this situation. If you want something similar to ponder, what would make any institution be considered major and would this be agreed by various countries given how connected things are within the world?  What makes an institution major in the United States may not be quite the same standards in Brazil and this where one has to consider how to maintain faith in the system that could unravel rather badly if everyone tries to cash out at the same time.  The Bank Run link above is something to consider that could cause a bank that appears fine to suddenly have speculators cause more disruptions which isn't likely to help.  The global credit markets aren't likely to freeze overnight and thus there can be the question how does this get handled if another mess could arise. The idea here is to set up the framework to prevent the panic that could lead to a global depression.  The idea is to create for derivatives something similar to the stock market's trading curbs that exist to contain panic on a macro level.  The psychology is quite important in figuring out how to handle the obligations of a company that was perceived to be infallible as well as making sure what is agreed works across various cultures and currencies.
&gt; Wouldn't a competitor just offer a similar cream at a cheaper price?  In addition to patents, the FDA is a barrier to entry because of [its long approval process which can take several years](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm).  This can give a drug manufacturer years of an artificial monopoly and disincentive other companies to make a competing product since the market could look very different in a couple of years.  So if you want the free market to provide cheaper drugs you are required to eliminate the FDA from the process and accept that it is okay to sell untested drugs to people.
So you're saying there can never be a truly free market then? Because it strikes me that companies trading without regulatory oversight (as the British, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish etc.) did is pretty much as close as we can get. They made huge, huge profits of course, but at the cost of a lot of human misery. In fact you can look at a lot of what the British did in the 19th century as semi-case studies for this as they had a proper hard on for the 'free market'. No government bailout for the famine in Ireland because they didn't want to 'Foster dependency on the state', let private charities do it instead (look it up, people donated but not anywhere near enough to alleviate the human misery - it also got all caught up in religious bullshit which didn't help matters). You had little kids getting their arms ripped off by textile looms for fucks sake, people working 14 hour days. But it made more money than working in the fields, so #worth, right? &gt;In what way? People don't suddenly cease to have resources to deal with these things just because their resources are not forcibly centralized. That doesn't follow. Because the pooling of vast resources for disaster relief is something that states do? Because there are efficiencies of scale to be had with the Military? The US Military was a huge player in the disaster response to disasters like the boxing day tsunami and hurricane katrina. You have NGOs like MERLIN and the Red Cross doing great work- and very quickly, but they just [can't provide the same resources a modern navy can in the same time frame](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unified_Assistance). It turns out you face a lot of the same problems in a modern battlefield as you do in a humanitarian crisis. Again, charities just don't get the funding to do this sort of thing on the same scale. There was a huge amount of funding dropped on the 2004 tsunami from many countries, but you can't build a hospital ship in two weeks, or a nuclear reactor to provide monumental amounts of fresh water, or the helicopters and operational procedures to tie everything together. Many thousands more would have died without their presence.
How can you have a competition  against facebook. Isn't it a natural monopoly. Why have two social accounts. Also amazon shouldn't be compete with other internet retailers but natural ones which could be prevented with internet tax. These internet companies are the biggest companies in the world and US because they find a empty spot where they capitalize on advantages of internet. If there is a scaling tax for these companies it would only hurt their profit since their workers aren't paid a lot anyway.  So in natural cases competition would be healthiest way but i don't believe other firms can emerge in this markets and amazon could kill real life retailers in 10-20 years time. 8 years ago biggest firms were banks and investment firms while now market is dominated by internet/tech companies because internet is a very effective tool for shopping.
Well regardless, they're operating as a separate entity at the moment. Even so, there's other companies that compete with Amazon price-wise with whatever products are in their niche category, there's just not many that do it where you can buy all of the things that one place.
There are markets in which there isn't a lot of choice to enable downward price pressure, like drugs and healthcare.    Also, consolidation always results in reduced consumer choice and, sooner or later, increased prices.  That's a big part of why they do it.   In healthcare in the US, there is huge consolidation among specialty practices in order to force insurance companies to pay more.  E.g, every pulmonologist and allergist in a 30 mile radius from here was bought by the same practice, so now the HMOs are forced to pay the rate this practice dictates.  No small practices have started here in the past 20 years; all the new MDs just join the big existing practice in order to fill any increased demand.  These practices often pick and choose which insurers they will work with, and they don't take medicare.  But this is one example of how markets get demented and harmful (lethal) if not regulated; there are many others.
I'm not splitting hairs at all, I'm pointing out that it's impossible to be a globalist in terms of business, and an anti-globalist in terms of government.  A truly anti-globalist government would draw inward, and discourage (or stop) international trade/business, to focus on the domestic economy. That is not what is happening, and in fact, our president and his businesses clearly want to keep reaping the rewards of their international interests. Thus, our president is a globalist.
There are still human brokers on the floor primarily due to tradition. Their numbers have certainly dwindled, however, and it's reasonable to expect the number of floor traders to decrease even more as electronic trading continues to grow. A key reason for human brokers, however, is due to privacy. Certain private exchanges such as dark pools maintain privacy for high profile clients and institutional investors, and human brokers are needed to execute anonymous deals in these venues. Even in this region, however, technology is supplanting the need for brokers. I don't believe there is any human-broker-free stock exchange, but Nasdaq and other traditionally OTC (over the counter) exchanges are as close as it gets since they never even had trading floors.
Regarding Asia, I think that it's a matter of relative specialization. HK has primarily developed as the gateway for China financial services, HK will certainly offer Islamic finance, but I don't think that there is a compelling reason why HK would become a hub for such services relative to Singapore.  Singapore is at the center of major Islamic populations and is socially and culturally much more capable than HK of serving Islamic finance investors.  One possible counterpoint in favor of HK would be the One Belt, One Road initiative - perhaps a lot of the capital accumulation in the OBOR countries (many of which are Muslim) would end up in HK, but whether it has a major impact is more of a possibility than a certainty.
Serious answer: If 7 banks owned the vast majority of houses for sale -- that is, on their balance sheet, at the peak of the housing bubble -- there would be. These 7 LCD companies produced the majority of LCDs globally. Real estate is far more decentralized, and in many times the bank merely provided financing for a third-party sale (from the builder, from any one of a hundred or so real estate companies, etc).  (But I am assuming you probably weren't looking for a factual answer, anyway.)
"I guess there are accepted channels for this sort of thing, but I don't really understand why. Couldn't anyone sell them to anyone else at any time in any kind of market? I mean, if I had a friend who was talking the the IPO up, couldn't I have just said, ""Hey Fred, I'll sell you a Facebook share in two weeks time for thirty five bucks"" and be done with it?  Do exchanges provide legal services? Is there a law that says you have to go through them? And even if you *did* have to go through them, why wouldn't multiple exchanges list them instead of just one, and why wouldn't an exchange start listing them from the minute the gun fired (or before)?"
"This is common practice I would suprised that there was multinationals not doing this.  What is funny though is when auto companies in Australia get government grants to be viable but then send the same amount of money back to the US for ""branding licence"".    Looking at you General Motors"
Multiple instances of the same item probably aren't counted, so you're thinking too specifically while I am referring to general trends. I would quite comfortably bet that the average person has not purchased more than 1500 unique brands or visited more than 1500 unique domains.
Maybe it didn't gain critical mass but it still seems to me like a solid product to offer. It takes the variance out of a volatile currency for businesses who want to court that segment of the market without affecting those who would prefer to just keep assets in Bitcoin. Sounds like a way to lower the barrier the accepting bitcoin which is good for the ecosystem.
Reg. tripling subscriber base. Foreign markets: we here in Israel got Netflix last year with very limited content. All the content that was already marketed by our existing cable companies was blocked. I believe there is lots of room to grow here. Of course, we are  a small country but we also represent lots of other countries....
well which is why healthy markets have regulations because it turns out that the free market dream that people only spend in their own self interest belies that fact that our own self interests are often not so damn short term.  It isnt a failure of community, it is a failure of government.   It is naivety to think even good people would change the world through their shopping habits. Look at all the companies using slave labor and people decry it all the time and still shop there. Look at how damn dirty oil is(not just  environmentally).. and yet we still put it in our car every day. Because people think short term, they think of themselves and not society, and well all of us have trouble with externalities, costs like war protecting the oil fields isnt paid for at the pump.
No, what I'm saying is that the extant regulations have created such massive overheads to compliance that *only* big businesses can operate in that market because of the expenses required to be compliant. Eliminating that overhead would reduce expenses and make it possible for a greater diversity of firms to exist, reducing the *average size of any individual firm*, and increasing stability through diversity.
To me, having a business with interests around the globe doesn't necessarily make you ideologically a globalist.    There's a big difference between having created a company with global interests in other countries and enacting globalist policies through legislature. Owning a hotel in Mexico and pushing for open borders are two separate things.
The only real competition I see in the US market is in the pre-paid service providers.  But they are just piggybacking off the networks of the larger carriers.  To have an actual functioning market they would have to be some legal framework that requires all carriers to share their networks at some reasonable fee rate and then put value added on top of that.  That is pretty much how the POTS worked.  We recognized that as a nation it is plainly ridiculous to compete on who can hang the most wires.  We lost that lesson and now we're letting carriers compete almost purely on who can erect the most towers.  AT&amp;T and Verizon are essentially the same company offering the same service.  The entire basis of their competition is who can get the most right of way access to install the most towers.  it's crazy.
There's plenty of companies selling groceries. I would say there's only one online store with an almost entirely vertically integrated business model where you buy goods and have them delivered by that same company. Literally the only middle-man left for Amazon to cut out is the manufacturers/distributors which for now probably won't be integrated to reduce risk/increase flexibility.
One of the challenges is that online shopping is still a relatively small slice of all retail. Yes, it looks great for the growth of firms in that space, but they'd need a few more years of that growth across the industry to make up for it. Similarly, internet advertising is still small compared to TV.
The questions what the price of the mechanisms would have been if there were several large scale manufacturers in the marketplace. Given that few people have bothered to try,it suggests that there is little opportunity to produce these mechanisms for a healthy profit and make them cheaper than swatch. However, the industry is probably a very conservative slow moving beast (little new technology impacting them in the last 50 years) and heavily brand focused, so it sounds very plausible to me that there has been a missing efficiency opportunity.   We'll certainly find out in the coming years.
[Here's](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-money-exists-in-the-entire-world-in-one-chart-2015-12-18) and explanation.  The broadest interpretation is that there are quadrillions (1,000,000,000,000,000) of dollars in various markets.  Bill Gates could become a Trillionaire, so even his wealth is a drop the ocean. Well, not really, but you get the idea.  A lot of this money is constantly on the move, it is impossible to track down all the movements. Value is increasing, Value is destroyed etc.  Your bank account can be tallied, but it's impossible to track down the money of the world, a continent or even a small country. Even bigger companies have trouble tracking down their money.  The idea of the 'tally' is a bit of an outdated one, it came from a time when there was a gold standard, and when old fashioned marxism  was still a thing.  //edit: words, English, difficult
"The economics of it say that you need to win 30% of the homes you pass in order to break even.  Google has only entered markets where there is already a cable incumbent plus the phone company probably offers service although their market share is surely smaller so there are 2 solid providers and 1 marginal provider, at least.  For a 4th provider to come in, they could really only hope to break even and that would be very difficult considering the marketing clout of the competitors.  At that point, you're talking a generic product and you can really only compete on price and possibly better service.  Competing on price is a fools errand in this case as the competitors will match your prices until you go broke.  Look at how Comcast and TWC ""miraculously"" boost speeds in cities when Google shows up.   For a different example, look at the airline industry and what has happened when a low cost competitor brings service to a city that has an airline fortress hub.  The big airline will double capacity on the route and match every price until they break the upstart.  The day (literally) the new airline folds, they cut service and raise prices."
Breaking up these dominant companies would be very different from industrial monopolies in the past. These tech companies provide a service, which is not measurable like other goods. Therefore it’s difficult to estimate the rents that consumers pay. Facebook for example get their revenue from selling user data and providing ad space, would a forced competition reduce the ads that we see? In the case of Google, I think there’s also many synergies within the different services. Breaking up these companies might not have a consumer welfare increasing effect.
"It's not consistent across the states. Most states have some implementation of these functions but fully regulated states don't have all of them and many are ""functions"" but are owned by the same entity.  Look at the southeast, the rockies, the PNW, AZ there are zero or few opportunities for merchant anything."
I'm not sure what the point here is. On a macro level, we all know globalization is good and that some markets and types of work die out as others take over. One (digital) computer can do more than a whole building of human computers. However, for the individual who has pride in his or her work as e.g a coal miner, and who made a decent living, won't be better off working for Arby's. Nor knowing that Arby's is a bigger employer.