vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Do some research on the Great Depression before you start spouting how insignificant the 2008 financial crisis was.  I despise that the banks got the bailout, but you apparently have no idea how bad it would have gotten if they were permitted to fail in a cascade.
Pardon me, but the French and the Germans started wars with the Russians. The US kept a barrier to keep Stalin from marching further than Berlin. That's been eighty years now.  Why is it obtuse for the US to say they're done?
gimme a break. There is always shit storm. Other country experience recession and deep recession (under US economic attack even) but none drop that kind of money.  I still want to know what China is doing to even up Obama's attempt to crash their market and currency.
my concern is any possible secondary effects.   If it's isolated to cars- nbd- but if the majority of Americans take their car to work and we see a cascade of people losing income, and people failing to pay mortgages/rents then can it snowball?
This article talks about State controlled banking, before 1913 - the power of printing money and all that was under control of the State (Congress). If they shut down the Federal Reserve, they would then be able to eliminate the fractional reserve banking method and government wouldn't have to pay intertest to borrow in their own currency.
This.  If the dollar wasn't the reserve currency we'd probably be in inflation hell, but it's undeniable that QE had a positive (and yes, somewhat superficial) impact. As another commenter in this thread alluded it's poor policy to continually kick the can down the road via another government put, but it's worse policy to let an entire class get economically crippled worse than what happened.
I think that the 2008 events represented a loss of a very large amount of equity for Americas, also it had a ripple effect around the world on other countries.  Now - almost as if they wanted it to happen again, the Obama Administration's trade policy and big EU banks are pushing to use the [global TISA trade in services trade deal](http://corporateeurope.org/blog/342-civil-society-groups-oppose-deregulation-and-privatisation-proposed-services-agreement-tisa) to quietly irreversibly deregulate a huge number of areas whch will effect hundreds of millions of people, including the banking industry- deregulate global banks, which is exactly the wrong thing to do.  Deregulation is what caused the 2008 crisis- http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis
Do you know that Hitler sent the Jews of Libya and other north Africa Arab/Muslim countries to concentration camps? But not any Libyans or other Arab/Muslims?) SO, ALLOW me go the other direction with you now: do migrants get fined, houses raided and sent to jail over racist and intolerant sayings and actions? How about their religious leaders? Sheikh Abu Bilal Ismail, speaking at the Al Nur mosque in Berlin, called upon Allah to “destroy the Zionist Jews”. And nothing was done to him by the German government. However, an old German lady was fined and her house was raided. Think about it. This will not end good with Germany!!!! Think it's early 1930 in Germany. Nobody could predict what happened 10 years later. **I highly(!!!) respect Germans as they have very high and good standards in every respect. Something to admire! But, because of that, shown many times in the past, not only the 1930s, Germany is the last country that should be experimented in regards to racial tensions and rising problems (crime, intolerance, fanatic religious people, etc).** Crime by migrants in Germany is up considerably, [Read here](https://counterjihadreport.com/2016/02/page/8/) Read about Sheikh Abu Bilal Ismail in Germany [here](http://forward.com/news/world/202751/germany-warns-against-hate-speech-after-imam-calls/)"
"Follow on on 'unrelated' and maybe indirectly answering your question: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/25/business/india-outsourcing-layoffs-automation-artificial-intelligence.html  My take: ""And West is closing its gates. The only global thing that seems fairly sure is the universal social unrest! Ghosts of Marx and Engels carrying pitchforks? Doesn't seem that far-fetched!"""
That's true, and I hope they don't stand for it. It's about time we, after 700 years of failure, give up on fractional reserve banking and let the market decide it's own currency.   But the people will only fix it *after* it's broken at this point, and the clear decision is to wait it out in real assets. In which case you avoided exposure to the recession and the crash of the dollar, and increased your wealth by getting out before it broke.
Here is my perception of the situation, obtained from reading Degiro's Client Agreement. If Degiro shuts down, it will notify you about the fact at least one month in advance, and you will have enough time to order a transfer of your positions to a different broker. If Degiro shuts down unexpectedly, your assets will remain to be held at SPV, a separate legal entity which Degiro uses to hold the financial instruments belonging to the clients. Since SPV does nothing else but holding the assets, it is very unlikely that something bad will happen with it on its own. With some help from Degiro and/or the regulator (AFM) you should be able to transfer your assets from SPV to a different custodian and broker and thus regain control over them. If you have a non-Custody account, you have slightly higher chances of losing your assets, because Degiro can borrow your securities held at SPV. If both the client for whom Degiro borrowed a security and Degiro itself go bankrupt at the same time, the lent security will not be returned to SPV, there will arise a shortage, which will be proportionally distributed among the accounts of the clients holding this particular security. However, then the investor compensation scheme should kick in and help you recover up to 20000 EUR of your losses.
That would be a shame of course. It would leave the USA with the choice of preemptive strike, which will most likely be seen by other nations as aggressive over-reaction, or wait and see, with the possible consequence of a nuclear strike on US soil, to be followed by suitable retribution, perhaps also with nuclear weapons.
lol? Yes, it can hurt European corporations but it'll affect the Russian people at least as much. Was this really the best area of business they could think of? It's kind of a big deal.  Edit: I think [this theory](http://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/2d5iq2/russia_imposed_a_complete_embargo_on_food_imports/cjmafl7) is good. Frustration can help Putin point out scapegoats, because frustrated or angry people is, as history tells with  too much clarity, very easy to manipulate. Like scarily easy.
Dunno who downvoted you.  Yes, that (as far as I understand your US Glass-Steagall act) is what he's advocating.  In the late 1990s, when you guys were repealing your GS act, we in the UK were doing the same with our version of the same idea, thus permitting lunatic, risk-taking investment bankers to start playing with the deposited money of savings banks.  Yadda, yadda, yadda, time passed, investment bankers took all of our money down the shitter, and then we had to pay them off because they hadn't just lost their own money, they had also lost all of *our* money, too. Hence bank bailouts, which were really the government bailing *us* out, because we had all been *gigantically goddamn fucking moronically stupid* enough to invest our money in investment banks instead of savings banks.  Merv wants to re-separate the investment banks from the savings banks again because this is the *second* time this has happened, and we could do with the peace that will come from putting up walls that it will take another 80 years for the bankers to lobby down again.
China owes the white people. The fact that China didn't want to bail out a bunch of lazy entitled cheese eating surrender monkies is outrageous. After all, why wouldn't China want to recreate post opium war/boxxer rebelllion era relations with Europe?
These scenarios discuss the period to 2025. They assess the deep uncertainty that is paralysing decision-taking. They identify the roots of this as the failure of the social model on which the West has operated since the 1920s. Related and pending problems imply that this situation is not recoverable without major change: for example, pensions shortfalls are greater in real terms that entire expenditure on World War II, and health care and age support will treble that. Due to the prolonged recession, competition will impact complex industries earlier than expected.  Social responses which seek job protection, the maintenance of welfare and also support in old age will tear at the social fabric of the industrial world. There are ways to meet this, implying a major change in approach, and a characteristic way in which to fail to respond to it in time, creating a dangerous and unstable world. The need for such change will alter the social and commercial environment very considerably. The absence of such change will alter it even more.  The summary is available [here](http://www.chforum.org/scenario2012/paper-4-6.shtml) or at the foot of the link given in the header. The much richer paper is [here](http://www.chforum.org/scenario2012/paper-4-1.shtml).  These scenarios are the latest in a series in a project that dates back to 1995. Over a hundred people participated from every continent, over a six month period. The working documents are available on the web.
I'm going to reply to myself because why not... but seriously, it's almost a couple months away from 10 years from the time the fed opened up the discount window.    10 years after the financial crisis of 1907, the Great War was almost finished...   10 years after the deflation of 1920, the market has morphed into something completely different and the Great Depression had already started.   A little less than 10 years after the crash of of 1929, the world had completely changed, the US looked completely different, and Germany invaded Poland.   10 years after the cuban missile crises, America was winding down the Vietnam war.  What do you think of America during those two periods? I think of almost 2 different types of people.    Volcker was in charge of the fed for less the ten years. The fed before and afterwards was completely different.  And now I look at the US today vs the US when the fed opened the discount window in 2007, and it's basically the exact same.  Idk maybe it's just me.
Now I remember why I don't read zero hedge.  Allow me to summarize:  1) lots of people who write articles said so   2) Brazil concluded a currency deal with the Chinese government.  Until China is willing to allow relatively free capital flows they just won't be able make it a major reserve currency.  If political risk in all major reserve currencies is a problem, gold provides a better option than a country with an even more interventionist streak than the countries you're worried about.  The final chart is just absurd.  I'll leave it as an exercise to the readeea .
"many biz ""leaders"" are also leftists and see now as good time to bail out as Trump will not further assist in their quest for more government ...where government regulations, for example, hurt everyone, but least hurt are the biggest players...and over time, that reduces competition"
&gt; Are you worried at all about the $5 trillion in bonds held by the FED?  I'm not, no. It's just been an asset swap. In place of $5tn worth of bonds that the non-government used to hold, we're now holding $5tn worth of reserves.  Now whether you have $1mn worth of bonds, or $1mn in your bank, your net financial position is the same. You can buy a $1mn yacht just as easily either way, for bonds are one of the most liquid assets in existence. So why should swapping bonds for reserves, slightly more liquid but of the same value, be of concern to anyone? Who cares if our asset makeup has shifted from T-Bills that trade for their face value to Federal Reserve Notes that trade for their face value?  &gt;Is there any precedent for a country canceling that amount of debt ever and kept reserve currency status?  Firstly, I don't understand this obsession with being the primary reserve currency. New Zealand/Australia/Canada/UK - these countries all manage just fine without it. Secondly, as the world's largest economy and with 200mn+ taxpayers all seeking out USD and heaps of very desirable exports and USD-denominated assets, the USD is always going to be highly sought-after and a pillar-stone of any assortment of reserves.  &gt; I was just watching a documentary about WWI and Keynes said at the outset the war would have to stop after a few months because each side would run out of money.  Governments of the day simply [ceased convertibility to gold](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Impact_of_World_War_I), because guess what - whilst a country can run out of gold (and gold-convertible money), it can never run out of its own free floating currency. Again, just look at Japan - if it were possible, they would have eons ago.
This is not shocking news actually. Nothing happened to these banks that made them lose their ratings. Rather, it's the rating agencies that have set up more strict rules, especially when it comes to triple A status.  Specifically, it's no longer possible that banks or similar institutions can have a triple A status.This effectively means that only the richer countries can be triple A.
Could be risky, consider that some of their assets in Bolivia were nationalized.
"Would the net effect *really* be worse, though?  If everyone stopped paying back loans, and banks stopped lending, people would have to live within their means.  Prices would fall, and nobody would be in debt slavery for the rest of their lives.  As for allocating capital to new businesses, there would still be the option of a Kickstarter-like model, plus both private and public equity (and the rules could be changed so there could be more than 500 investors without being forced public).  A lot of options currently on the table would disappear, sure, but on balance, would it actually be worse?  As both government and Wall Street say it's bad, that seems to automatically suggest the opposite.  There has been a push to make it a crime to walk away from a mortgage, even though banks get the house back!  The fact that they desperately tried to paint it as ""morally wrong"" to walk away from a mortgage is a big red flag.  In any case, this is all going to be reshuffled in the near future, because of automation.  There won't be a need to borrow when your material needs are automatically met; and there won't be much of a point to promising your labor when machines are doing the jobs already.  The transition to a post-scarcity economy over the next 20 years is going to be interesting."
given that japan is just about out of savings (due to their policy of QE and stealing wealth from everyone else and giving it to zombie banks for the last 15 years, creating loses in median income, rises energy and food costs and leading to a generation of people whom a signifigant propotion of them will never be employable because there are no jobs because the economy is not growing), pretty soon there is going to come a time when the massively overburdened japanese citizenry cannot afford to buy any more govt debt. when that happens they'll have to get foreign buyers. foreign buyers will laugh at them, and japan's debt market will implode.
Pump-and-dump scams are indeed very real, but the scale of a single scam isn't anywhere near the type of heist you see in movies like Trading Places. Usually, the scammer will buy a few hundred dollars of a penny stock for some obscure small business, then they'll spam every address they have with advice that this business is about to announce a huge breakthrough that will make it the next Microsoft. A few dozen people bite, buy up a few thousand shares each (remember the shares are trading for pennies), then when the rise in demand pushes up the price enough for the scammer to make a decent buck, he cashes out, the price falls based on the resulting glut of stock, and the victims lose their money. Thus a few red flags shake out that would-be investors should be wary of:
Yes, it's possible. However, it's not likely, at least not for most people. Earning a million is not that difficult, but when you talk about billions that's an entirely different story. I think the key point that you're missing is leverage. It's common knowledge that Warren Buffett likes to have a huge cash warchest at his disposal and does not soak himself in debt. However, in his early years Buffett did not get to where he's at by investing only his own money. He ran what was basically a hedge fund and leveraged other peoples' money in the market. This magnified his returns quite substantially. If you look at Buffett's investments, you'll notice that he had a handful of HUGE wins in his portfolio and many more just mediocre success stories. Not everything he invested in turned to gold, but his portfolio was rocketed by the large wins that continued to compound over many years because he held them for so long. Also, consider the fact that Buffett's wealth is largely measured in Berkshire stock. This stock is a reflection of anticipated future earnings by the company. There's no way that alone could turn   $10k in 1950 into $50B today... could   it? Why not? Take the two founders of Google for example, they became billionaires in short order when Google had it's IPO and basically started in a garage with very little cash. Of course, they didn't do this by buying and selling shares. There are many paths to earnings enormous sums of money like the people you're talking about, but one characteristic that the richest people in society seem to have in common is that they all own their own companies.
10k in taser stock at $1.00 per share made those who held into the hundreds per share made millions.  But think about the likelihood of you owning a $1 stock and holding it past $10.00. They (taser millionaires) were both crazy and lucky.  A direct answer, better off buying a lottery ticket. Stocks are for growing wealth not gaining wealth imho. Of course there are outliers though.  To the point in the other answer, if it was repeatable the people teaching the tricks (if they worked) would make much more if they followed their own advice if it worked.  Also, if everyone tells you how good gold is to buy that just means they are selling to get out. If it was that good they would be buying and not saying anything about it.
"It's possible to make money in the market - even millions if you ""play your cards right"". Taking the course being offered can be educational but highly unlikely to increase your chances of making millions. Experience and knowledge of the game will make you money. The stock market is a game."
Right there with you.  It drives me crazy watching those commercials with the cute talking babies telling the average person they can take control of their own future and open a trading account.    A few months ago I met someone at a bar who worked customer support for a large company with lots of individual traders.  I asked him what percentage of his client accounts actually made money and he guessed only a few.  The company got paid either way (commissions).  What a scam.
"Warren Buffett pointed out that if you set 1 million monkeys to flipping coins, after ten flips, one monkey in about 1,000 (1,024) actually, would have a ""perfect"" track record of 10 heads. If you can double your money every three to five years (basically, the outer limit of what is humanly possible), you can turn $1,000 into $1 million in 30-50 years. But your chances of doing this are maybe those of that one in 1,000 monkeys. There are people that believe that if Warren Buffett were starting out today, ""today's version"" could not beat the historical version. One of the ""believers"" is Warren Buffett himself (if you read between the lines of his writings). What the promoters do is to use the benefit of hindsight to show that if someone had done such-and-such trades on such-and-such days, they would have turned a few thousand into a million in a few short years. That's ""easy"" in hindsight, but then challenge them to do it in real time!"
"This probably won't be a popular answer due to the many number of disadvantaged market participants out there but: Yes, it is possible to distort the markets for securities this way. But it is more useful to understand how this works for any market (since it is illegal in securities markets where company shares are involves). Since you asked about the company Apple, you should be aware this is a form of market manipulation and is illegal... when dealing with securities. In any supply and demand market this is possible especially during periods when other market participants are not prevalent. Now the way to do this usually involves having multiple accounts you control, where you are acting as multiple market participants with different brokers etc. The most crafty ways to do with involve shell companies w/ brokerage accounts but this is usually to mask illegal behavior In the securities markets where there are consequences for manipulating the shares of securities. In other markets this is not necessary because there is no authority prohibiting this kind of trading behavior. Account B buys from Account A, account A buys from Account B, etc. The biggest issue is getting all of the accounts capitalized initially. The third issue is then actually being able to make a profit from doing this at all. Because eventually one of your accounts will have all of the shares or whatever, and there would still be no way to sell them because there are no other market participants to sell to, since you were the only one moving the price. Therefore this kind of market manipulation is coupled with ""promotions"" to attract liquidity to a financial product. (NOTE the mere fact of a promotion does not mean that illegal trading behavior is occurring, but it does usually mean that someone else is selling into the liquidity) Another way to make this kind of trading behavior profitable is via the derivatives market. Options contracts are priced solely by the trading price of the underlying asset, so even if your multiple account trading could only at best break even when you sell your final holdings (basically resetting the price to where it was because you started distorting it), this is fine because your real trade is in the options market. Lets say Apple was trading at $200 , the options contract at the $200 strike is a call trading at $1 with no intrinsic value.
If you sell a naked call option - meaning you sell a call option but don't own the stock - for $100, at a strike price of $20, for 100 shares, you make money as long as the price of that stock is under $21. You have a potential to make $100, because that's what you sold it for; if the price is under $20, it's not exercised, and you just get that $100, free. But, on the other hand, if the stock goes up, you could potentially be out any amount of money. If the stock trades at $24, you're out $400-100 = $300, right? (Plus transaction costs.) But what if it trades at $60? Or $100? Or $10000? You're still out 100 * that amount, so in the latter case, $1 million. It's not likely to trade at that point, but it could. If you were to trade ""at random"", you'd probably run into one of those types of situations. That's because there are lots of potential trades out there that nobody expects anyone to take - but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't be happy to take your money if you offered it to them. That's the reason your 16.66 vs 83.33 argument is faulty: you're absolutely right that if there were a consistently losing line, that the consistently winning line would exist, but that requires someone that is willing to take the losing line. Trades require two actors, one on each side; if you're willing to be the patsy, there's always someone happy to take advantage of you, but you might not get a patsy."