vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://eurbaninsight.wordpress.com/2017/09/17/modelling-an-agent-based-general-equilibrium-model-in-python/) reduced by 93%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The extension from this partial equilibrium in a single market to general equilibrium reflects the idea that it may not be legitimate to speak of equilibrium with respect to a single commodity when supply and demand in that market depend on the prices of other goods.  &gt; On this view, a coherent theory of the price system and the coordination of economic activity has to consider the simultaneous general equilibrium of all markets in the economy.  &gt; Labor print(&amp;quot;Price:&amp;quot;, price, &amp;quot;Product:&amp;quot; , product, &amp;quot;Labortime:&amp;quot;,labor ) def demand(lili, comps, wage): demand = totalwork = 0 totallabortime = 0 for indiv in lili: for comp in comps: indiv.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/70sqwg/how_to_model_an_agent_based_general_equilibrium/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~211887 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **Price**^#1 **comp**^#2 **weight**^#3 **def**^#4 **market**^#5"
unless you had a distribution network and the customers to use it, IE: brick and motor stores in every city that can field orders and the volume to justify truck routes.  Here in Canada there is grocery deliveries via grocery gateway (filled by longo's, a grocery chain in the GTHA) and even Walmart is getting in on it. Granted it is only in the GTHA right now, but the model could work in towns that aren't tooooo sparse.
I suspect that the economics of online information supply tend towards natural monopolies, and that it was inevitable from the outset that you would eventually only ever have one Amazon, or Facebook, Google or Twitter in the running.   One of the few things that Steve Bannon says with which I might agree is this idea of regulating Internet platforms as though they were utilities - they just exercise too much sway over popular opinion for control to be vested in private individuals.
Let me know how universal health care is going in countries where it's in place. The wait times and quality of care are dogshit! Ideally (IMO) the insurance market should operate as a free market and prices would get driven down via competition amongst the insurance companies.
"Yes, the De Beers Group of Companies is a diamond cartel that had complete control of the diamond market for most of the 20th century. They still control a sizable portion of the market and their effort at marketing (particularly with the slogan ""A Diamond is Forever"") has done much to inflate the market for diamonds in our society. The intrinsic value of diamonds is much lower than the market prices currently reflect, but with the caveat that there is a rarity factor which does drive up the price of larger diamonds. The larger the diamond, the more likely it is to have flaws, so when it comes to diamonds that are 5 carats or greater, you are not as likely to see a new supply of diamonds disrupt the prices of those larger stones. Some other ways that high end jewelers and suppliers are differentiating themselves is by patenting a specific cut that they design. This is another barrier to entry that works to create some artificial price inflation. One common example is the Lucida cut sometimes referred to as the Tiffany cut. Diamonds can also be manufactured. The same carbon structure can be grown in a lab. These stones have the same carbon structure as natural diamonds but without the flaws and visible impurities. Most manufactured diamonds are used industrially, but processes have improved sufficiently to allow for gemstone quality synthetic diamonds. They sell at a decent discount, so that might be an option to consider if you want a substitute. In the years to come, you can expect prices for synthetic diamonds to continue to decrease which will probably put some further downward pressure on jewelers' prices."
While it's possible that the dollar could lose its grip as the global currency, it's unlikely that it will be quickly supplanted by another.  The world might simply see a a paradigm shift towards the use of whatever currency suits whichever counterparty at any given moment.
"Of course there can always be _some_ ways you can integrate some amounts of social responsibility into product, but I don't think that's the point he's making. Social responsibility would be called ""business best practice"" if it improved the bottom line. It is inevitable that there are times when social responsibility and business goals diverge, and at that point given two companies that are in the same market space, the one who bets against society will win. This is the sort of thing that _must_ be handled in law, and absolutely cannot be handled by allowing the free market to work because the free market will not discover ethics, it will discover that ethics don't matter in an environment that doesn't require them.    It's the reason any claim that business does best when there are no regulations is absolutely false. If a company can make more by polluting and you don't have regulation that says clearly ""it may cost more, but we require you to compete by also being non-pollutiong"", then you should expect the market to converge on pollution as ""best practice"".  Removing regulation won't allow business to sort this out, it will allow business to not care that they are polluting.  There is the notion of a B-corp that is organized for the purpose of trying to be good guys without being sued. but it doesn't assure that they will have a fair stake int he market.  It just allows them to fail without getting sued by stock holders.  Basically if everyone is not required to be that level of good guy, though, B-corps are basically indulging unilateral disarmament. Sure, they can make a case that ethics matter, and that might work, but they don't need B-corp protection for that. If making the case that ethics matter was going to win in the market, any corporation could do it.  For more thoughts, so I don't have to drone on here, see my articles [Fiduciary Duty vs. The Three Laws of Robotics](http://netsettlement.blogspot.com/2009/02/fiduciary-duty-vs-three-laws-of-robotics.html) and [Losing the War in a Quiet Room](http://netsettlement.blogspot.com/2012/01/losing-war-in-quiet-room.html)."
"It seems like if that were true, then if everyone were in one group, you'd get the biggest discount of all.  My preference has been for single payer, but recently I saw a guy suggesting single-group, multi-payer, or SGMP. This was just a comment from a physician in a medical journal, and I don't have the link and haven't been able to find out anything more about it, but it seems intriguing. It had something to do with insurance companies bidding to provide coverage services.  edit: [Here it is](http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1211514#t=comments):  &gt; JOEL SPALTER, MD | Physician - Infectious Diseases | Disclosure: None  &gt; FAYETTEVILLE AR  &gt; October 02, 2012  &gt; Single Group Multi-Payer  &gt; True reform resulting in universal health insurance and access to care is achieved by state mandates for insurance with replacement of individual or group underwriting with underwriting by ""Dutch auction"" for a percentage of the single group consisting of all of the residents of a State – Single Group – Multi-Payer (SGMP). Each successful insurance company would be responsible for payment of the percentage of the total costs for medical services equal to the percentage of the population insured. This preserves the integrity of the bidding process.    &gt; States are free to establish the public contribution to premiums. SGMP prevents exclusion of insurance for pre-existing conditions or due to genetic background, absent individual underwriting; guarantees maintenance of health care insurance independent of place, or even existence of employment; assures equality of access to providers due to a single established remuneration scale; and assures patients' choice of providers free from any empanelling by insurance companies. Market forces will govern providers' attempts to gain and hold market share.   &gt; A single group eases statistical comparison, with EMR, of 50, State patterns of care."
"Because an equity option can be constructed at essentially any price by two willing counterparties on an exchange, there are not enough ISINs to represent the entire (i.e. infinite) option chain for even a single stock on a single expiration date.  As a result, ISINs are not generated for each individual possible options contract.  Instead the ISIN is used only to refer to the ""underlying"" symbol, and a separate formula is used to refer to the specific option contract for that symbol: So that code you pasted is not an ISIN but rather the standard US equity option naming scheme that you need to provide in addition to the ISIN when talking to your broker. Note that ISINs and formulas for referring to option contracts in other countries can behave quite differently.  Also, there are many countries and markets that don't need ISINs because the products in question only exist on a single exchange.  In those cases the exchange is pretty much free to make up whatever ID scheme it wants. P.S. Now I'm curious how option chains are identified for strike prices above $99,999.  I looked up the only stock I can think of that trades above that price (BRK.A), but it doesn't seem to have an option chain (or at least Google doesn't show it) ..."
"From Wikipedia A frontier market is a type of developing country which is more developed than the least developing countries, but too small to be generally considered an emerging market. The term is an economic term which was coined by International Finance Corporation’s Farida Khambata in 1992. The term is commonly used to describe the equity markets of the smaller and less accessible, but still ""investable"", countries of the developing world. The frontier, or pre-emerging equity markets are typically pursued by investors seeking high, long-run return potential as well as low correlations with other markets. Some frontier market countries were emerging markets in the past, but have regressed to frontier status. Investopedia has a good comparison on Emerging Vs Frontier While frontier market investments certainly come with some substantial risks, they also may post the kind of returns that emerging markets did during the 1990s and early 2000s. The frontier market contains anywhere from one-fifth to one-third of the world’s population and includes several exponentially growing economies. The other Question    and are they a good option as well? This depends on risk appetite and your current investment profile. If you have already invested in domestic markets with a well diversified portfolio and have also invested in emerging markets, you can then think of expanding your portfolio into these."
"Changing my answer based on clarification in comments. It appears that some of the securities you mentioned, including GEAPP, are traded on what is colloquially known as the Grey Market. Grey Sheets, and also known as the ""Gray Market"" is another category of OTC stocks that is completely separate from Pink Sheets and the OTCBB. From investopedia The grey market is an over-the-counter market where dealers may execute orders for preferred customers as well as provide support for a new issue before it is actually issued. This activity allows underwriters and the issuer to determine demand and price the securities accordingly before the IPO. Some additional information on this type of stocks. (Source) Unlike other financial markets... No recent bid or ask quotes are available because no market makers share data or quote such stocks. There is no quoting system available to record and settle trades. All Grey sheet trading is moderated by a broker and done between consenting individuals at a price they agree on. The only documentation that can be publicly found regarding the trades is when the last trade took place. No SEC registration and little SEC regulation. Regulation of Grey Sheet stocks takes place mainly on a state level. Unlike Pink Sheets, these stocks have no SEC registration to possess a stock symbol or to possess shares or trade shares of that stock. Such penny stocks, similar to Pink Sheets, are not required to file SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) financial and business reports. These stocks may not be solicited or advertised to the public unless a certain number of shares are qualified to be traded publicly under 504 of Regulation D. Extremely Illiquid. Gray sheet trading is infrequent, and for good reason... Difficult to trade, not advertised, difficult to follow the price, the least regulation possible, hard to find any information on the stock, very small market cap, little history, and most such stocks do not yet offer public shares. The lack of information (bids, history, financial reports) alone causes most investors to be very skeptical of Gray Sheets and avoid them altogether. Gray Sheets are commonly associated with Initial public offering (IPO) stocks or start up companies or spin-off companies, even though not all are IPO's, start-ups or spin-offs.
Because people trade currency in exchange for goods and services. They can easily prevent competition by violent means or by having control of the market through market share. Price can be controlled by the threat of super low prices in order to drive out competing businesses.
It isn't that good for EU banks either, but ultimately, it will be easier for them. The splitting of entities will be a common problem and not just in banking. However there can be no joint organisations without a joint regulatory mechanism and the British government have rejected that.
Obviously mate. Mortgage advisors don't have just one client, similarly why should you have only one advisor? it´s an open market. Don't worry about wasting their time, you are not wasting their time if you are considering a mortgage. then, in case you found a better deal with another mortgage advisor then that´s life - someone was better then them.
Because we're still in competition.  Before it was against nature, now it's against ourselves.  The world is not yet some safe paradise and its well within living memory that total war changed billions of lives and almost took away freedom for many.      Take 2 equal economies.  One grows at 1% and another grows at 3%, in 100 years the 2nd will be 7 times more powerful than the other.
"listed simultaneously in New York, London, and maybe even some Asian markets - is this correct? If the exchanges are not connected, then in primary market the shares are listed. On other exchanges, the ""Depository Receipts"" are listed. i.e. the Company will keep say 100,000 shares with the primary stock exchange / depository. Based on this it would create new instruments ""Depository Receipts"". They can be 1:1 or whatever ratio. hypothetically, if I want to buy all of the company's stock Even if it is on one exchange, buying all stocks would trigger various regulatory aspects of Companies Act, or Stock Exchange rules. This is not simple or easy like clicking some buttons and buying everything. That is, let's say that in New York the company has listed 1000 shares, and in London only 10 shares, each worth 10 USD Market capitalization is sum of all outstanding shares into value."
The market can only bear so many high-priced mini-mansions. It's like a car dealership trying to sell Lexus and BMWs in a neighborhood where everybody can only afford a base model Honda.  There is plenty of housing, but not enough housing that is affordable.
What Amazon is doing is called the Grey Market and normal bricks and mortar retailers do this as well.   For example, buying Irish Whiskey might be expensive at all the shops in Australia because the licensed distribution companies set a high price for Australia.  One retailer may simply buy Irish Whiskey off the retail shelf in South America, ship to Australia, pay import duties, and undercut all the competition.  This happens for all sorts of products all the time.   It destroys the channel distribution control that consumer goods companies have where they control distribution and set the prices consumers have to pay.
The idea of it being one state is kind of unrealistic, in terms of population it would be the same as 10 states. If you were to break the UK up into 10 states and add them to the US then London would be the richest state, many regions would be wealthier than the majority of the states. If you break it down into these regions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_regions_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita by GDP per capita it shows there would be 7 UK regions in the top 15 states.  edit: The link was messed up because it has brackets in it
I'd also like to address you're ridiculous implication that more liberal countries ie Sweden denmark etc etc are more innovative. That's a fallacy and I'll prove it. The United States has more Nobel prize winners than any other country by a long shot. We have arguably (in spite of the fda) the best medical services in the world. Switzerland is also arguably the most innovative country in the world it's not because of basic needs being taken care of its because of surplus capital in the private sector. Look at how space x can launch a shuttle for 300 million  less than NASA can. The free market does everything cheaper and more efficiently than the government can.
I would also consider unnecessarily complex investment strategies a big warning sign as they can easily hide poor investment advice or a bad strategy. This is especially the case when it comes to retail investment as complex strategies can have so many moving parts that you, as someone with a day job, can't spend enough time on it to keep an eye on everything and you only spot issues when it's too late. Other bugbears:
Its pretty much always a positive to have large institutional investors. Here's a few cases where I can see an argument against large institutional investors: In recent years, we've seen corporate raiders and institutional investors that tend to influence management in ways that are focused on short term gain. They'll often go for board seats and disrupt the existing management team. It can serve as a distraction and really hurt morale. Institutional investors also have rules in their prospectus that they are required to abide by. For example, some institutional investors will not hold on to stock below $5. This really affected major banking stocks, some of which ended up doing reverse stock splits to keep their share price high. Institutional investors will also setup specific funds that require a stock to be listed as part of an index (i.e. the SPY, DJIA etc.,). When a stock is removed from an index, big investors leave quickly and the share price suffers.  In recent months, companies like Apple have made their share price more affordable to attract retail investors. It gives an opportunity for retail to feel even more connected to the company. I'm not sure how much this affects overall sales... Generally, a good stock should be able to attract both retail and institutional investors. If there's not a good mix, then its usually a sign that somethings amiss.
I think it's because there are a lot of retail investors in this stock.  They are the ones that tend to overreact on news cycles, so creating bad press or over-hyping bad press really makes the stock price swing.
To add to Dheer's point, the vast majority of retail investors will have to pay fees and use up a large amount of valuable time on the entrance and exit of each stock, and each and every time you rebalance as the index weightings change. These also add up extremely fast vs the few basis points the large and liquid ETFs charge for this service.
"&gt; How about ""retail investors did not sufficiently research and think about the company, invested poorly""  Of course - but Wall Street did, in fact, set the initial price, which was far too high, and needs to at least share the blame for this debacle (starting to love that word)!"
It has got to do with the irrationality of humans.  The so called long term investor is in it for the long term, they are not worried about market fluctuations nor timing the market. But yet they will aim to try to get a bargain when they buy in.  It is contradictory in a way. Think about it; if I buy a stock and it drops by 30% I am not worried because I am in it for the long term, but I am worried about getting 1% off when I buy it.  They usually tend to buy when the stock starts falling. However, what they don’t realise is when a stock starts falling there is no telling when it will stop. So even if they get a bargain for that day, it is usually quickly wiped out a few days later. Instead, of waiting for the price to find support and start recovering, they are eager to buy what they think is a bargain. I think this type of long term investing is very risky, and the main reason is because the investor has no plan. They just try to buy so called bargain stocks and hold them until they need the money (usually in retirement). But what happens if the stock price is lower when they want to retire than when they bought it? I hope no long term investor was trying to retire in 2008. If they simply had a plan to indicate when they would buy and under what conditions they would sell, and have a risk management plan in place, then maybe they could reduce their risk somewhat and conserve their capital. A good article to read on this is What's Wrong With Long-Term Investing.
No. You're lucky, maybe, but not really a successful investor. Warren Buffet is, you're not him. Sometimes it is easier to pick stocks to bid on, sometimes its harder. I got my successes too. It is easier on a raising market, especially when it is recovering after a deep fall, like now. But generally it is very hard to beat the market. You need to remember that an individual investor, not backed by deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts, is in a disadvantage on the market by definition. So what can you do? Get the deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts. How? By pooling with others - investing through funds.
Granted, it is impossible to know the exact trading strategy of a mutual fund, and for good reason – if we knew for example, that a fund purchases shares every day at 2:30PM in order to realign with the S&P 500, then sellers of S&P components could up the prices at that time to exploit the mutual fund's trade strategy. Large traders are constantly trying to find ways to conceal their actual trading activity in order to avoid these exact problems. Finally, I feel obligated to note that it is important to keep in mind that trade frequency is linked to transactions costs – in general, the more frequently an investment manager (whether it be you or a mutual fund manager) executes trades, the more that manager will lose in transactions costs."