vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Those government workers in Greece were just mooching off a corrupt system that was enabled by the blind pursuit of yield and the moral hazard of bailout expectations. They were way overpaid to do nothing but collect bribes and drink coffee all day. Good riddance. Greece is a poor agricultural country with some tourism and some shipping, and needs to go back to living within its means. Nobody is going to starve, and high unemployment was always the norm there until a few years ago - I lived there before the Euro, and they managed just fine despite high interest rates and inflation.   Japan has had lost decades because its banks, like those in the west now, are practicing extend and pretend, so there hasn't been a proper flush of the system. The PIIGS should just flat out default and get it over with, rather than slowly default while giving up sovereignty.   Even Germany would be better off if the PIIGS defaulted, since it is German taxpayers and savers who are going to pay for these bailouts. Let the banks fail, meaning let their equityholders and bondholders take losses - the depositors will be fine. The resulting lower asset prices will tempt risk capital back into the system, and life will go on. Bailouts just throw good money after bad and prop up corrupt banks and politicians.  EDIT: Let me clarify about depositors making out fine. The banks' equityholders and bondholders take losses before depositors, who are insured anyway. In most cases, in Europe as in the US, the write-downs are not large enough to eat through this cushion before threatening depositors. Creditors were rewarded with higher interest for lending to these irresponsible banks, so they should take the hit rather than get made whole at taxpayer and saver (inflation) expense.
Athens can't spend most of the bailout money it gets on helping its people. Most of the money it gets is required to go right back to international lenders, like the IMF, that have loaned the nation money. If you see a problem in this approach, then you clearly have what it takes to be head of an international finance organization. Christine Lagarde has been the IMF's managing director for 15 months and apparently just noticed it.
They aren't giving stuff away their resources for free. If they bail Europe they would get a massive boost in international clout and political power.  He who controls the purse strings, controls the world. When you give aid to a country, that country is pretty much your bitch. I mean, look at the power the US has over all of Central and South America. Hell you can even look at Pakistan, the US kills civilians over there with drones, yet Pakistan doesn't dare stand up to the US since the US provides billions in aid to Pakistan.  The US pays the bill for a large part of IMF, NATO, and the UN. And for those reasons, the UN/IMF/NATO is pretty much just a puppet of the US. If the US doesn't agree with something, none of those organizations will contradict the US. None of them can, the US foots the bill for most of their funding.  A China that just sits on $3.1 trillion dollars has zero world influence. Money that sits in a bank has no power. But when China spends those trillions, and trades them for power and influence. That's when China will turn into a superpower.
Are you talking about printing up more of the same kind of bill, or printing up a different kind of bill?  You'll have different answers based on which one you mean. If it's a different kind of bill: Governments don't like competition in this matter. In US history there are examples of the government shutting alternative currencies down.  A recent run at an alternative currency is the Liberty Dollar.  The similarity is not lost on BitCoin or even Chuck E. Cheese (last one is a satire, but I did worry for a second as I still have a bunch of those tokens!). If it's the same kind of bill: The currency is a tool of the government (in the US) and it does the sourcing for its production.  There isn't a whole lot of reason for others to get involved, really.  It's special paper, special plates, special presses, special everything, and doing it in one place ensures some consistency of product.  There aren't any compelling reason to open up another manufacturing channel to produce exactly the same product. There's no real economic benefit for banks to print their own money.  The larger ones play a key role in shaping how much is printed, but actually printing the bills is an offshoot of this.
Part of the purpose of a tax haven is retaining more capital for reinvestment.  Then you have more control over how, when and where you pay taxes.  Once the capital has been retained in your haven you can strategically deploy it to other favorable locations on the globe.  Should you ever want part of it to hit a personal account in the US you'd have a tax liability.  But at this level you could just put your ownership of that account up as collateral on a loan and buy your boat that way instead.
Credit agency sovereign ratings take into account the amount of external support the government is likely to get during a time of stress.  The whole EU just came to Spain's rescue, but who would come to India's rescue so as to be sufficient to prevent default?  See, the fact that Spain was able to get a bailout is most of the reason Spain's credit rating is higher than India's.
Yeah, I get the logic of what you are saying, because his comments are really ambiguous, but his argument is pointing the other way. So what he ACTUALLY means by driving capital overseas is that other countries are seeing greater economic growth overall, and therefore better investment returns (that's why capital is fleeing), but it's because US growth is badly constrained.  It's constrained because the Republican stranglehold on Congress is preventing government investment that will support greater corporate growth.  I wish he would say it more clearly, but from the context of his comments here (and elsewhere), this is what he means.  He is not reversing his former views, but amplifying them.
For an individual there will not be much impact immediately. This arrangement will help Corporates and Banks settle payments more easily. - It would typically help companies dealing with Yuan [Buying or selling to China or Countries that accept Yuan as payment] to make payments at a cheaper cost & in less time. - In the near future it would make it easier for companies to invest more into China financial markets - It would also open up / create new market for derivatives and other allied products - It would also make Singapore a market place for Yuan outside China [and Hong Kong] resulting in more money and related product. In a related move this would make it easy for Singapore Central Bank to invest in China.   Once the markets matures more, there could be some products for Individuals.
There is really much simpler explanation for the interest rate differences in different countries. It is the interest rate arbitrage. It is a very well explored economic concept, so you can look it up on the Internet, in case you want to know more. 1) Interest rates for the same currency in different countries Basically, as one smart person here pointed out, there is only one price of money in free market economy. It happens, because investors can move their money unrestrictedly anywhere in the World to capitalize on the local interest rates advantage. For instance, if I can take a loan in the USA at 3-4% annual interest and receive 5-6% annual income on my dollar deposit in Russia, I would take a loan in the US and open a deposit in Russia to enjoy a risk free interest rate differential income of 2% (5-6% - 3-4% ~ 2%). So, would any reasonable person. However, in real World very few banks in Russia or anywhere would pay you an an interest rate higher than it can borrow money at. It'd probably lose money if it'd do so. Anyways, the difference between the risk free rate and interest rate on the dollar deposit can be attributed to the risk premium of this particular bank. The higher expected return, the greater risk premium. If there is a positive difference in the interest rates on the dollar deposits in different countries, it will almost entirely accounted for the risk premium. It is generally much riskier to keep money in, say Russian bank, than American. That's why investors want greater return on their dollar deposits in Russian banks than in American. Of course, if you'd want to park your USD in Russian bank you'd also have to consider transaction costs. So, as you may have already guessed, there is no free lunch. 2) Interest rates in different currencies for different countries If we are talking about the interest rates in different sovereign currencies, it is a somewhat similar concept, only there is more risk if you keep money in local currency (risk premium is much higher). Probably, the biggest component of this risk is inflation (that is only attributed to the prices in local currency).
&gt; If corporations are already so flush with cash they only inflate the stock market, why would further tax breaks improve anything?  US Companies are hiding cash in oversea tax havens like Ireland and the Bahamas until tax rates go down or they are given amnesty so they don't have to pay exorbitant taxes that other companies who they compete against in other countries don't have to pay.   When that money eventually comes back to the US, investment of the repatriated money will be infused into the economy through capital investments (factories, new ventures and hiring people) which will benefit the economy and will create jobs and other benefits.
Does it add to their lending reserves or is it utilized in other ways? It depends on how the economy and the bank in particular are doing. To simplify things greatly, banks get deposits and lend (or otherwise invest) the majority of those deposits. They must keep some percentage in reserve in case depositors want to make withdrawals, and if they get a high percentage of withdrawals (pushing them to be undercapitalized) then they may sell their loans to other banks. Whether they lend the money to someone else or use the money for something else will depend completely on how many reserves they have from depositors and whether they have people lined up to take profitable loans from them. I wrote this answer for the benefit of CQM, I'd vote to close this question if I had 49 more reputation points, since it's not really about personal finance.
Typically developing economics are marked by moderate to high inflation [as they are growing at a faster pace], higher in savings rate and higher lending rates. If you reduce the lending rate, more business / start-up will borrow at cheaper rate, this in turn means lowers savings rate and leads to higher inflation. To combat this Central Banks make borrowing expensive, which lowers inflation and increases the saving rate. Essentially all these 3 are tied up. As to why these countries offer higher interest on USD is because most of the developing countries have trade [current account] deficit. They need to bring in more USD in the country. One of the ways is to encourage Non Resident Citizens to park their foreign earning back home, ensuring more funds USD inflow.  The rate differential also acts as a guide as to how the currency would be valued against USD. For example if you get 8% on USD, less than 12% had you converted same to Rouble, at the end of say 3 years, the exchange rate between USD and Rouble would factor that 4%, ie rouble will go down. Developed countries on the other hand are marked by low inflation [they have already achieved everything] as there is no spurt in growth, it more BAU. They are also characterized by low savings and lending rates.
"The primary advantage of HFTs is their speed to act upon opportunities that exist for only fractions of a second. The reason why they are able to do this is because they invest heavily in hardware, custom software, and custom algorithms.  Most of the fleeting advantage, as they all manage to top each other's hardware seemingly every other day, is from the hardware investment.  To see the extremes that HFTs will go to invest in hardware, one might view this. It is highly likely that the trader with the market making algorithm could have been ignorant of the ""hide not slide"" order and missed out on many more opportunities while still being successful.  Haim Bodek, who is very much against this order type, was not so lucky. If it was truly an investment bank then it was unlikely that they were actually front running, which is very illegal and easily possible with much more low tech means, since companies like Citadel handle most orders now, and they have not been successful in investment banking. The reality of HFT is slowly coming to light, that while HFT can provide extremely consistent returns with enormous sharpe ratios, the capital investment is equally enormous, and the amount of capital that can be employed is also as enormously limited.  After all, the richest people on the planet are not HFT owners. Also, when it comes to time periods longer than 500ms, their results become very human."
Your argument that we are the most stable economy in the world and deserve the reserve currency status is circular logic. We have had the reserve currency status since 1944. That has helped us maintain the stability the rest of the world hasn't enjoyed for a very long time. Without it we may never have become anything near the country we are today. It gave us access to tremendous capital which we were able to use to expand our nation incredibly. We have built an empire on our ability to take on massive amounts of debt. I am sure we would have been a superpower without it, but no one can say how much humbler or how harder other recessions would have been if we had never been granted that privilege."
"You are talking about a one time giving vs a continuous giving. When US give money to Pakistan, it's a continuous giving. that's why Pakistan don't say shit when US bombs the hell of out them. but when the money stops coming, I will bet you Pakistan will be the loudest on the street bitching about the US.  The bailout the Euros are asking for is a one time giving. What happens as soon as they take the money from China? ""Fuck the Chinese. Political power? What political power? HUMAN RIGHTZ VIOLATIONZ!!!"""
If you are a citizen of India and working in Germany, then you are most likely an NRI (NonResident Indian). If so, you are not entitled to hold an ordinary Indian bank account, and all such existing accounts must be converted to NRO (NonResident Ordinary) accounts. If your Indian bank knows about NRO accounts, then  it will be eager to assist you in the process of converting your existing accounts to NRO accounts most likely it also offers a money remittance scheme (names like Remit2India or Money2India) which will take Euros from your EU bank account and deposit INR into your NRO account.  Or, you can create an NRE (NonResident External) account to receive remittances from outside India.  The difference is that interest earned in an NRO account is taxable income to you in India (and subject to TDS, tax deduction at source) while interest earned in an NRE account is not taxable in India.  The remittance process takes a while to set up, but once in place, most remittances take 5 to 6 business days to complete.
Thank God.  I mean, I like having some kind of spending power... But not at the expense of my taxes being used to bombs kids in countries who's leaders try to reject the dollar.  Unfortunately, the international banking cartels are invested in Yen and Rubbles, so they win and we all lose no matter what.  If only the people of all three nations were able to see past nationalism and devise a system that doesn't rely on competition for currency dominance....
Politics and world events can be very hard to predict, and there is a high element of chance involved [see recent 'expected' election results across the world for evidence of this]. For something like the stock market, a particular industry may get hit every once in a while with unexpected news, but the fx market is inherently tied to politics in a way that may impact exchange rates multiple times a day. 4) Leveraging. It is very common for fx traders to borrow money to invest in fx. This creates additional risk because it amplifies the impact of your (positive or negative) returns. This applies to other investments as well, but I mention it because high degrees of debt leveraging is extremely common in FX. To answer your direct question: There are no single individual traders who spike fx prices - that is the impact you see of a very efficient market, with large value traders, reacting to frequent, surprising news. I reiterate: If you do not understand the risks associated with fx trade, I recommend that you stop this activity immediately, at least until you understand it better [and I would recommend personally that any amateur investor never get involved in fx at all, regardless of how informed you believe you are].
"It is measured in US dollars.  The US cannot just print the money because that would cause inflation.  Remember that money is really just a convenient placeholder for the barter system.  Creating more money regardless of whether there is more value in the economy (work, resources, etc.) is a very bad idea, and doing so has collapsed the economies of many countries. Debt increasing means that the US owes other countries more money.  So yes, they are receiving more money from other countries, but the US has to pay it all back with interest eventually. The US government spends more money than it receives in taxes.  To decrease the debt, spending needs to decrease and/or taxes need to increase. Many countries lend to the US.  One of the biggest is China.  These countries do so because of interest -- the US pays back more money than it gets lent, so the lending countries make a profit. If China suddenly called in all its debt to the US, this would severely damage the world economy.  China's biggest trading partner is the US, so it has no interest in harming the US this way; it would harm itself.  Additionally, the US would probably refuse to pay it (not to mention that it can't), and then China would lose all the money it ""invested"" in the US.  It would benefit no one."
"You might want to read about about the Coase Theorem.  ""In law and economics, the Coase theorem, attributed to Ronald Coase, describes the economic efficiency of an economic allocation or outcome in the presence of externalities. The theorem states that if trade in an externality is possible and there are no transaction costs, bargaining will lead to an efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property rights. In practice, obstacles to bargaining or poorly defined property rights can prevent Coasian bargaining."" This is similar to what you are asking. Each country has an endowment of gold, and they must create a set amount of money to represent their endowment of gold. This will establish an exchange rate. If I have 5 tons of gold and you have 5 tons, and I print 10 dollars and you print 20, then one of my dollars is worth two of your dollars.  Thus, the amount of money is not relevant-  it's the exchange rate between the countries. If all the nations know each other's gold endowment, then we will have a perfect exchange rate. If we don't, then currency printing will vary but arbitrage should drive it to an accurate price.  Gold and diamonds are both valuable in part due to scarcity, but gold has been used as a measure of value because it's been historically used as a medium of exchange. People just realized that swapping paper was safer and cheaper than physically transporting gold, but the idea of gold as a measure of value is present because ""that's how it's always been."" Nobody ""creates/supervises"" these procedures, but organizations like the IMF, ECB, Fed Reserve, etc implement monetary policy to regulate the money supply and arbitrage drives exchange rates to fair values."
No, there is no real advantage. The discrepancies in how they track the index will (generally) be so small that this provides very, very limited diversification, while increasing the complexity of your investments.
I think what ended up happening with this is the canadian banks issued some high risk debt that is in line with the bail-in requirements. So the interest payments are more, but they could lose it all in a bail-in situation.  There was actually some debate about the sale of the debt not being fairly handled, but from the sounds of it the notes sold pretty quickly. So there doesn't seem to be much risk to depositors and investors don't seem to be worried about the additional risk. Also at the time of the banks becoming compliant with the Basel regulation I think most of them jacked their service fees to help with raising the additional capital requirements.  http://business.financialpost.com/2014/07/21/rbc-responds-to-complaints-about-issue-of-nvcc-subordinated-debt/
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. If you're like me, you can probably find at least 9 people out of 10 who think ""investing in miners is a VERY BAD idea."" What do they think is a good idea? ""Duh, Snapchat and Twitter, bruh!"" Then there's the old saying, ""Be greedy when everyone's fearful and fearful when everyone's greedy."" Finally, miners own hard assets. Benjamin Graham used to point this out with the ""dead company"" strategy like finding a used cigarette with one more smoke. You're getting assets cheap, while other investors are overpaying for stocks, hoping that the Fed unleashes moar QE! Think strategy here: seize cheap assets, begin limiting the supply of these assets (if you're the saver and not borrowing), then watch as the price begins to rise for them because of low supply. Remember, investors are part owners in companies - take more control to limit the supply. Using Graham's analogy, stock pile those one-puff cigarettes for a day when there's a low supply of cigarettes. Many miners are in trouble now because they've borrowed too much and must sell at a low profit, or in some cases, must lose. When you own assets debt free, you can cut the supply. This will also help the Federal Reserve, who's been desperately trying to figure out how to raise inflation. The new patriotic thing to do is stimulate the economy by sending inflation up, and limiting the supply here is key."
I think your approach of looking exclusively at USD deposits is a prudent one. Here are my responses to your questions. 1) It is highly unlikely that a USD deposit abroad be converted to local currency upon withdrawal. The reason for offering a deposit in a particular currency in the first place is that the bank wants to attract funds in this currency. 2) Interest rate is a function of various risks mostly supply and demand, central bank policy, perceived risk etc. In recent years low-interest rate policy as led by U.S., European and Japanese central banks has led particularly low yields in certain countries disregarding their level of risk, which can vary substantially (thus e.g. Eastern Europe has very low yields at the moment in spite of its perceived higher risk). Some countries offer depository insurance.  3) I would focus on banks which are among the largest in the country and boast good corporate governance i.e. their ownership is clean and transparent and they are true to their business purpose. Thus, ownership is key, then come financials. Country depository insurance, low external threat (low war risk) is also important. Most banks require a personal visit in order to open the account, thus I wouldn't split much further than 2-3 banks, assuming these are good quality.