vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
qe is just a fantasy - meaning punching the moon, the stars (thinking it will resolve the year 2008 economic meltdown). qe is an investment - yes!!! a massive investments to a dying economy, (absolutely wrong investments). qe will keep you running - it is like a ticking time bomb. qe is not good for the economy - the government acts (or play) as an investor instead of the businessman. qe is being very kind and generous to businessman, while keeping the country, the state's economy at stake or in jeopardy. qe is putting more money to a moribund business - supporting the company to stay, to exist for the time being. and later on will literally closed shop. qe is killing the mighty, precious dollar - slowly but surely. qe is hide and seek - like suze orman (of cnbc) say's, ""show me the money"". qe is treasure hunting - ultra rich, millionaires, billionaires is keeping it. they hide it. where are those precious dollars? making the economy sick, crippled, dead. qe is a money making machine (printing press) - once the economy becomes frail, weak, all they have to do is just print. qe is putting plenty of money to a basket full of holes - truly very few will benefit and so many will going to suffer. this is inequality. disparity is very disturbing (counter to a good economy). qe is experimental - (trial and error, testing) probability never done before. qe is good at the start (year 2008) - after spending, investing, releasing, trillions and trillions of mighty precious dollars - big companies, millions of jobs were blessed, saved, rescued, erstwhile salvaged. and like magic - america the wealthiest and most powerful country in the universe is now going to act again (today!!!) to spend, invest, release again (and again and again and again . . .) trillions and trillions of mighty precious dollars for the economy to keep moving, (my God!!! what an “abnormal cycle of the economy”).
if it was not China, then India, Brazil, South Africa, or Russia... the companies want lower taxes and wages, and will go where these are, in Brazil where I live there is a Shenzhen and Hong Kong equivalent(Polo de manaus), but never boomed because China had even lower wages and taxes, if the taxes were lower maybe the factories would come back but I doubt.  simplify the law and the taxes  would be enough of a change for a start. each day america looks closer to Brazil's 16 metric tons of taxes law and 69% corporate taxes
I think we can agree that each of us can point out instances where industry and government have pooped the bed. You can probably spill out a dozen example of government wasted dollars, and I can tell you a dozen example of corporations that weren't efficient, that were slow, and that the government beat them at a task. I think we are both right, and that both exist in a world where they can be inefficient and wasteful, and they can also be speedy and innovative. If you would like to see examples, I will share some. What we haven't seen, is a world in which commercial runs it all and runs everything efficiently. We have seen places where government runs it all, and it went to hell in a handbasket - USSR, NK, East Germany are all prime examples. I actually lived in Germany when the wall came down, so I got to see what an isolationist, and a government only run program looks like firsthand."
Japan PRODUCES.  Key point.  The Japanese work hard, produce and have a skillset and manufacture base important to the world economy.  Greece has Olive Oil and a population that took to the streets at the news that tax evasion would be investigated.  Not exactly comparing Apples to Apples.
According to a study this year by Michael Spence, a Nobel Prize-winning economist from Stanford University, and Sandile Hlatshwayo, all net job creation since 1990 has been in the “non-tradable sector”. Between 1990 and 2008, the US added 27.3m jobs, of which almost every one was in services. Almost half were in healthcare or the public sector – both areas in which productivity growth is virtually zero. Conversely, manufacturing’s impressive productivity growth has tracked its shrinking headcount. If there is an explanation as to why middle-class incomes have stagnated in the past generation, this is it: whatever jobs the US is able to create are in the least efficient sectors – the types that neither computers nor China have yet found a way of eliminating. That trend is starting to lap at the feet of more highly educated American workers. And, as the shift continues, higher-paying jobs are also increasingly at risk, argue Prof Spence and Ms Hlatshwayo. What, then, can be done to revitalise the increasingly sclerotic jobs market? If the answer were simple, it would have been on everyone’s lips a long time ago. Unfortunately, there is no precedent for the challenges America faces, and thus little consensus among economists or policymakers on the best remedies. However, almost everyone agrees on how to ensure the situation does not deteriorate. Top of the list is a better education system for all stages of life. Alas, rebooting an increasingly mediocre school system is easier said than done. Nor is permanent reskillling realistic for large chunks of the workforce. There may be lessons to be learnt from nations such as Germany, particularly on vocational education, but there is little federal appetite to apply them. “Every American is going to have to get used to the idea of a completely different work style,” says Mr Camden, whose company farms out hundreds of thousands of temporary workers around the world, from lawyers to office assistants. “What you learnt in college five years ago may already be obsolete.” Perhaps inevitably, given the fiscal climate, education and training budgets have gone in the wrong direction in the past few years. State schools and vocational community colleges derive much of their funding from local property taxes.
Yes, it's good the economy is doing well.  Hopefully it helps the many dissatisfied Trump voters. It would be nice to see some of the anger dampen in the country.  The truth is that this data still *mostly* for Obama's economy.  Trump's budget didn't start until Oct, after Q3 finished.  So this report is for the time when the federal government was operating under budgets passed during the Obama era.  Economies have enormous momentum, and this one is still following its long established trajectory.  You probably should give Trump credit for regulatory changes, bully pulpit leadership, and those sorts of things.  So he definitely should get *some* credit, it's hard to know how much.  The stock market rally is very likely in response to expected tax cuts from a GOP government (although if you draw a line for the stock market starting in 2009, we're still on the trend).
Germany does a hell of a lot more trade with the US than they do with Russia so if Putin thinks impacting Germany's trade can impact their foreign policy, the U.S. has Russia beat by a mile.  Russians always seem to think that by bullying and threatening and sanctioning other countries they can get them to do what they want. But more often than not it just pushes those countries in the opposite direction. Why else is NATO right on Russia's doorstep these days?  Right now, Russia is banning imports from Georgia (principally Georgian wine) because they don't like Georgia's western leaning government. And all it is accomplishing is making Georgia even more anxious to join the E.U.
Measures like GDP, unemployment, and wages are designed to measure the health of the economy.  Those are the right measures to look at.   When the economy is doing well, stock prices usually do well also, but not always.  The stock market went up 23% in 2009, and the economy was in the shitter.  And it shouldnt matter which newspaper published the numbers.  If the numbers are right, the numbers are right.  You dont need to hear GDP numbers on fox news to believe them.
"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it - Publilius Syrus It could be that, despite predictions from experts to the contrary, investors believe that renegotiating trade deals will have a positive affect on the economy, despite the upheaval uncertainty, and risk that it brings.  Keep in mind that, as Pete B points out, this is part of a bigger post-election trend many people refer to as the ""trump rally,"" which is a factor of more than one policy. Whether or not these policies will actually result in an a more robust economy, investors seem to be betting that it will."
I would say the Japanese economy is a bit different to Greece. It's still quite large. It's been in recession or stagnation for the last 2 decades or so.  One major problem for Japan is its aging population. Japan has the oldest population in the world (average is 42). This is a problem in terms of old age pensions, decreasing workforce, etc. in addition to low birth rates. Many young people have fewer kids, or [just none at all!](http://gaijinchronicles.com/2010/08/31/plight-of-the-grass-eater/)  While that doesn't sound good, the difference with Greece is they're close to bankruptcy, Japan isn't. Also Japan gets to somewhat control their currency, or at least, their economy is the primary thing affecting the currency, unlike Greece which is in a monetary union and so are not able to devalue their currency.
"Also within Germany the tax offices usually determine which tax office is responsible for you by asking where you were more than 180 days of the year (if e.g. you have a second flat where you work). That's a default value, though: in my experience you can ask to be handled by another tax office. E.g. I hand my tax declaration to my ""home"" tax office (where also my freelancing adress is), even though my day-job is 300 km away. So if you work mostly from Poland and just visit the German customer a few times, you are fine anyways. Difficulties start if you move to Germany to do the work at your customer's place. I'm going to assume that this is the situation as otherwise I don't think the question would have come up. Close by the link you provided is a kind of FAQ on this EU regulation About the question of permanent vs. temporary they say: The temporary nature of the service is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Here's my German-Italian experience with this. Background: I had a work contract plus contracts for services and I moved for a while to Italy. Taxes and social insurance on the Italian contracts had to be paid to Italy. Including tax on the contract for services. Due to the German-Italian tax treaty, there is no double taxation. Same for Poland: this is part of EU contracts. By the way: The temporary time frame for Italy seemed to be 3 months, then I had to provide an Italian residence etc. and was registered in the Italian health care etc. system. Due to the German-Italian tax treaty, there is no double taxation. Same for Poland: this is part of EU contracts. Besides that, the German tax office nevertheless decided that my ""primary center of life"" stayed in Germany. So everything but the stuff related to the Italian contracts (which would probably have counted as normal work contracts in Germany, though they is no exact equivalent to those contract types) was handled by the German tax office. I think this is the relevant part for your question (or: argumentation with the German tax office) of temporary vs. permanent residence.
No. Empirically no.  The issue at hand has little to do with market confidence. This loss of confidence is the effect of the problem. It's cause is the result of a wholly inadequate fiscal transfer mechanism that is incapable of addressing demand shocks. While there are relevant political and ideological parameters worthy of analysis, they render themselves moot because of the structural constraints of monetary union.  My two cents.
More likely I miswrote.  Yes, we're talking about capital gains.  But who, outside of the moneyed elite, have enough capital gains to incur substantial taxes?  Many don't and never will despite how hard they work or how productive they are.  Also, doesn't taxing income more than capital gains discourage production?  I always hear how high capital gains tax discourages investment and growth.
UK is still in Europe, leaving the union doesn't change that. I would change my original claim that they are doing fine, Italy is improving, but not at a good state yet. They are years away from that. However, you omitted all the great countries that I mentioned doing well.   Conclusion? They are individual states, each with their own political systems and leaders.
I think I found a simpler way to analyze this question: The U.S. Bureau of Economics publishes data of what sectors of industry contribute what percentage to Kansas GDP, and as of 2015, agriculture was ranked 7th at only 5.5%. What's more, Brownback has previously exaggerated the extent to which agriculture contributes to the economy, saying before that it's over 40% of GDP.  Definitely seems like a good starting point.
Labor union membership has been falling dramaticaly since 2008 in Germany.  Largely because the unions have continuously negotiated for job security at the expense of wage increases. Now workers are telling the unions to shove it and getting higher wages.
"But their economy is based on -- built upon -- the very concept of debt, just like the U.S. and most other advanced economies on the planet. Debt itself isn't the problem -- having to borrow to get capital and then *service the debt* is where the problems appear because whilst one group in the economy continues this old pattern of issuing debt and expecting payback with interest, another prominent group has been undercutting the ability of debtors to service their debt by shifting how products and services develop and are used by the public. It's the old ""watch this hand"" trick with the other hand stabbing you when you're not looking.  Simply put, you can't have an economy based upon the debt/return-on-interest model while -- at the very same time -- having an economy based on make-everything-in-China/India production/service model: If you make people have to borrow money to have money, then you *must* give them a way to service that debt; otherwise, you're just a daft bastard who refuses to acknowledge that adding two and two returns four; an imbecile who insists that he can indeed have his cake and eat it too; I could go on but the point is made."
No.   The US manufactures more goods than any other country, and only China is close. However, instead of making clothes, the US makes higher value items, like medical equipment. The impression that manufacturing is dead in the US is because of this, and because manufacturing has become highly automated, so there are far fewer manufacturing jobs than there were in the past.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/cold-war-espionage-paid-until-it-backfired-east-german-spy-records-reveal) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Deep in debt and struggling to provide for his family, Hans Rehder got an offer he couldn&amp;#039;t refuse: to steal key files from his employer, West German electronics firm Telefunken, for a monthly payoff from East German agents.  &gt; After controlling for the effects of trade and research and development, the team found that economic espionage boosted TFP growth in East Germany, helping it close the gap with West Germany by some 8.6% in 1989, they report in a working paper published by the Institute of Labor Economics, an economics research institute in Bonn, Germany.  &gt; &amp;quot;They basically quantified what I did [already] in a qualitative way.&amp;quot; Macrakis, who has argued that East German industrial espionage was ultimately a failure, says the next step is to look at how the stolen technology was integrated into individual East German firms, who often requested-and received-the stolen information.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6qykhk/cold_war_espionage_paid_offuntil_it_backfired/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~180676 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*: **East**^#1 **espionage**^#2 **economic**^#3 **Germany**^#4 **German**^#5"
Would you believe that Germans, Russians, the British, and the US all make the same claims?  Every country believes that their country invented anything that one of their citizens had a hand in.  I'm reality, invention takes many people, sometimes hundreds of brilliant innovations, and credit tends to drift towards those you are most familiar with.
Political systems do not have to be intertwined with economic systems, as China demonstrates.      By most rankings (Cato, Heritage, etc) China actually has a bit more economic freedom than India.    I don't necessarily think that China's development path needs to be copied to India.  But I would take a very strong look at what China has done and how.  The results are unbelievable.  If you think that India's democratic system is superior, then it should be even easier and faster for India to achieve similar or better results.
The success of a free market economy requires constant growth in production of goods and services.   Doesn't this contradict the entire point of economics in that there are scarce resources to distribute?   How can you have never ending growth in production when there are limited physical resources?   Population growth is one of the major factors sustaining this continued growth but the planet can only sustain a certain amount of people, what happens when we hit that? We're already overpopulated and this only ends one way - famine and wars over resources where huge numbers of the population will die.   Maybe this is just our nature, maybe this IS nature;  destruction and then rebirth.   Does anyone think it's possible to develop a different type of free market economy that doesn't rely on constant growth in production ?
High risk, high reward doesn't really mean anything. The reason that investments are risky is that the investor is clueless. As you gain more information and experience, you reduce the risk. To answer your question, you can consider BRIC ETF's (Brazil, Russia, India and China). They are correlated to the U.S. economy. However, over the long term (say, 40 years), they may make sense. It depends on your outlook. Do you think India and China will have bigger economies in than the U.S. in 40 years? Many people do. Do you think that countries that are rich in commodity resources like oil will do well in the next 5 years? If so, then those countries may do better than the U.S. It's not a clear answer to your question, but maybe it can help lead to a good solution for you.
Here is a list of threads in other subreddits about the same content:   * [Sales of beer down 3.1% in Germany in the first nine months of 2017](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/79nk88/sales_of_beer_down_31_in_germany_in_the_first/) on /r/Economics with 0 karma (created at 2017-10-30 21:04:28 by /u/piaxtla)  ----   ^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot  ^^[FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/wiki/index)-[Code](https://github.com/PokestarFan/DuplicateBot)-[Bugs](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/comments/6ypgmx/bugs_and_problems/)-[Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/comments/6ypg85/suggestion_for_duplicatesbot/)-[Block](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/wiki/index#wiki_block_bot_from_tagging_on_your_posts)  ^^Now ^^you ^^can ^^remove ^^the ^^comment ^^by ^^replying ^^delete!
To be clear, the fed or the poll didn't say the economy got worse.  And it certainly didn't say that QE caused the weak economy.  It's just a survey of opinion.  And since it's the first one we don't know if people's opinion is getting better or worse.
"The answer is stimulus, but more specifically direct spending.  The kind of ""stimulus"" where we simply fill in giant gaping holes of bank balance sheets is not ""stimulus"" at all, and those who criticize ""keynesian economics"" because the bailouts ""failed"" don't understand what they are saying.  Bailouts are not stimulus.  Creating middle class jobs, that is stimulus.    I will put it to you this way.  Almost every single company in existence uses some kind of debt to leverage its operations.   Almost every company that is listed on the stock exchange either sells bonds or issues commercial paper or both.  This can also be a useful position for the government, especially since their cost of borrowing is lower than that of any company.    Essentially, the government can borrow at 1%, put people to work, and collect 25% in taxes.  Its cash flow positive in the short term, and in the long term as well, as long as it is effective and the economy gets better.  A growing economy will bring in more than enough tax revenue to offset any costs of jump starting the economy.    If instead you wanted austerity, you would be calling for austerity on the largest economy in the world, who's bonds are still rated AAA, and who's borrowing costs are 1%.  If you are calling for austerity on that, then nobody on earth is credit worthy.  It is a non-sensical position."
It depends on what you're trying to measure, PPP is a far more accurate measurement of a nation's industrial and military power. If you want to measure the might of a country's financial industry then nominal GDP is more accurate.  China doesn't pay its soldiers or scientists in nominal currency, it doesn't pay for its tanks, ships, roads, bridges, high speed rail etc in nominal currency, it pays for it in local currency.  This is why the CIA uses PPP to measure a nation's real industrial power.  [Who Has the World's No. 1 Economy? - Bloomberg]( https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-10-18/who-has-the-world-s-no-1-economy-not-the-u-s)
Losing the manufacturing jobs is a necessary evil of any developed nation. Yes Germany is an exception but that is only because they specialise in expensive high quality items. This transition has happened before in every developed nation when manufacturing replaced agriculture as the main sector of income and the same is happening again.  The key is that we have to adapt and accept that rather than fight it. Fighting this transition will simply slow progress. People simply have to retrain and adapt to a knew skill set. Yes it isn't easy but trying to artificially stop low paid jobs moving to places with a cheaper labour force is impossible. Companies have to remain globally competitive.   I appreciate if everyone globally gets paid a descent salary this wouldn't be an issue. However, this is not the case and will not be any time soon. The reality is manufacturing of non luxury goods will hardly exist in  developed nations and will be solely down by the likes of china and india. However give it another 20 years china will be in exactly the same boat losing their manufacturing jobs to a less developed nations or maybe robots by then.
Don't take it personally, take their money, hombre. There is no way they start WW3 when China is trying to take top spot and stabilize it's economy, Russia is playing siege mode with neighbors under sanctions, and the Middle East is still embroiled in who owns what after the Arab Spring blew itself up, and Europe is fighting off countries leaving the EU. No one has the ability to wage a real concentrated war.