vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"&gt;There is no fact that shows taxing the rich is good or bad. Sure there is. What is the outcome you are trying to achieve? What are the consequences of your solution (i.e. how does your solution turn into a problem)? If you are using evaluative concepts like ""fair"" as guiding design principles for a system, we are still able to articulate our intuitions of fairness when presented with specific facts. Is there going to be clear consensus? No. I agree with you in that sense it is ""opinion."" When you dig down and move beyond magic words like ""fair"" and get at the reasoning why a thing is fair or not, that is how you build common truth and consensus. That's how you have a meaningful discussion beyond ""Yeah, huh"" and ""Nah, uh."" Bringing facts allows you to ground out your argument and explore how principles are actually being applied, situate decisions historically, and connect choices with how they fit in our larger system. Are there definitive answers? You are, again, right there are not but ambiguity tolerance is a sign of intelligence, not a failing. &gt;And my point isn't that Republicans are bad, but that they are covering their harmful economic policies with helpful ones. The obvious implication isn't that they are bad people, but that we should be critical of their bad policies and applaud their good ones. Let me just concede that you are policy focused. It is fairy uncontroversial also to say that stimulus causes the general public not to feel the effects of tax cuts until years later and so, there is less resistance to them. That can be true, however, while still seeing their choices made in relation to those made by democrats. Further, when you explain the situation, you can just as easily switch which side labeled ""harmful"" and ""helpful."" Are solutions to social problems which entail tax burdens placed consistently on one portion of the population again and again the ""harm""? Is it the tax cut which now underfunds an existing outlay?
Firstly, comparing debt to GDP is comparing a stock to a flow, you're committing a transgression that is warned about in Econ 101.  Secondly, I appreciate your concern about the height of debt but it's really just a measure of the flow of capital. Debt is an investment too, and the headline debt number mixes government, corporate, and consumer debt which have very different attributes. In fact the holders of most government debt are normal citizens and pensioners. More concerning might be the levels of *consumer* debt, but (I would argue) that only becomes an issue if debt starts being issued fraudulently to people who shouldn't be receiving it, e.g. ahead of the mortgage crisis.   There may be nothing I can say to convince you otherwise, and I'm not saying that overleveraging *isn't* something to be concerned about, but I'm trying to remind you that the story is more complicated than you're letting on.  Finally, respectfully, please don't scaremonger about derivatives. The notional value is very high, but derivatives are a zero-sum market (unlike the stock market, e.g.), and in fact the majority of derivatives are for hedging and reducing risk. While it's certainly possible to use derivatives to leverage oneself, this really only happens with hedge fund-type operations, and even if the derivative market blew up I highly doubt it would affect average people very much.  TL;DR, If there's another crash in the next 5 years, I doubt it will be due to debt (outside of *perhaps* China, but I think that'd lead to more of a recession than a full blown 2008-esque crisis). It definitely will not be because of derivatives.
Reading that fallacy: it says that the money could have been spent elsewhere rather than here to possibly greater benefit. In this case it's the full tax revenue that the state declined to take (which is he tax break). So I don't really see the point when that revenue will possibly not even exist.
"Somehow I just stumbled onto this thread... &gt; You essentially robbed the person holding the debt (since you promised to pay it off). Depends on leverage, with fractional reserve lending. Banks are permitted to loan out 30x their actual assets, or more. If I have $1 but can loan out $30, and anything more than $1 gets paid back, I haven't lost any money. In addition, I can write off the amount defaulted, *and the government will pay me back* for certain types of loans. With student loans, since they are almost impossible to discharge, gov't will pursue the borrower for years and decades, and ultimately collect more interest. Here is an article on it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704723104576061953842079760.html &gt; According to Kantrowitz, the government stands to earn $2,010.44 more in interest from a $10,000 loan that defaulted than if it had been paid in full over a 20-year term, and $6,522.00 more than if it had been paid back in 10 years. Alan Collinge, founder of borrowers' rights advocacy Student Loan Justice, said the high recovery rates provide a ""perverted incentive"" for the government to allow loans to go into default. Kantrowitz estimates the recovery rate would need to fall to below 50% in order for default prevention efforts to become more lucrative than defaults themselves. Not to mention: http://studentloanjustice.org/defaults-making-money.html &gt; So essentially, the Department is given a choice: Either do nothing and get nothing, or outlay cash with the knowledge that this outlay will realize a 22 percent return, ultimately (minus the governments cost of money and collection costs).
*Finally,* a safe way to milk poor stupid people without crashing the economy. I just can't work out how you double down and recover the losses from the taxpayer though? Somehow you need to shift the debt onto an industry or entity that is critical and can't be allowed to collapse. I'd love to know what the end game is.
"Normally I avoid any links pointing to guardian or telegraph or such sites but just was curios to what exactly the content of such a ""paper"" would be.   As expected, it has the seeds of a world war and is a lab factory for future terrorism. How does one expect value without work. US atleast produces some value here and there, but the other countries are just decline stage. Seriously UK? It seems some people can just not let go off their easy life ride or ""way of life"" as it is often referred to - basically create a system highly stacked in one's own favor and then blatantly call out others as conspiracy theorists or some such noun to get them on the defensive. Elimination of public debt should not be allowed for these countries.   There is so much cunningness, guile, cheating, lying in sneaky fashion and so much negativity hiding behind that theory - it is sometimes depressing how world operates and then people complain about it when there is real chance to put checks and balances to stop such disgusting things from taking form."
Big topic but I worry much more about who gets debt and who gets subsidies (bailouts) as those are both inefficient and unfair. -- one economist.   Ps. I think the Fed should print $ and distribute per capita rather than do QE, which helps the rich more...
I'm no expert but I don't think it's too far fetched to say there's billions of dollars that could be saved with making government spending operate more efficiently. Also there's plenty of things that the government spends money on that could be left to the private sector/state governments (housing, education, healthcare)
&gt;*It's a reminder that you can't suspend the laws of economics. You can't print money to pay for things without creating inflation. And you can't stop that inflation just by saying you want it to. But not only will this magical thinking fail, it will also create new and even worse problems like shortages.*  &gt;*Capitalism is the worst economic system except for all the others.*  Cross-post from /r/MAConservative
"The supposition at the core here is supposed health risks - and costs- of green house gas on individual realities health? Almost laughable using data in such a way. Further, the attempt to suggest ""only"" 84 billion cost in regulations assumes regulations and the economy exists in a vacuum. The economy doesn't work like thAt, but then again, given the priorities of the individuals writing/supporting the paper, this propaganda is no surprise. Regulations curb business, income, efficiency, materials usage, individual and collective quality of life and a host of other positive indicators. The lefts obsession with regulation is absurd- and lacks accurate empirical support for long term net gain."
&gt;so it's a pretty useless and obvious observation.  Well, if you're trying to figure out what the difference is between 1920 and today, I think that it's important to know that there's a whole lot more debt being taken out, and that debt service is transferring a lot of money from people without money who want stuff *now* to people with money who want to lend it.  Here's a graph of [public debt in the US from 1920 to today](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/chart-of-the-day-americans-income-and-the-us-debt/241463/) that I mentioned further down.  Inflation-adjusted and per-capita.  Every time that line inches up, it means more taxes or fewer services in the long run, as wealth is constantly siphoned over to lenders.  It's gone up by an tremendous factor since the time of our great grandfathers.
"Perhaps people in student loan debt aren't the source of the assessment. There have been multiple warnings from Nobel economists on the potential for student loans to do what the housing market did in 2008. If we suddenly find out a large fraction of the educations loaned weren't worth enough to pay back, many positives on company balance sheets would suddenly  appear as negatives. When negatives are realized, it triggers what some economists have termed a ""balance-sheet recession"": the great depression and 2008 recession both had this mechanism at their heart. They're a special type of recession that are not temporary and take on the order of a decade to crawl out of."
This is why GDP is a reasonable proxy in a market economy for the value of goods and services produced. But in a command economy, investment can be driven by factors other than the need to increase productivity, such as boosting employment or local tax revenue. What's more, loss-making investments can be carried for decades before they're amortized, and insolvency can be ignored. This means that GDP growth can overstate value creation for decades. That's what has happened in China. In the first quarter of 2017, China added debt equal to more than 40 percentage points of GDP -- an amount that has been growing year after year. In 2011, the World Economic Forum predicted that China's debt would increase by a worrying $20 trillion by 2020. By 2016, it had already increased by $22 trillion, according to the most conservative estimates, and at current rates it will increase by as much as $50 trillion by 2020. These numbers probably understate the reality. If all this debt hasn't boosted China's GDP growth to substantially more than its potential growth rate, then what was the point? And why has it proven so difficult for the government to rein it in? It has promised to do so since 2012, yet credit growth has only accelerated, reaching some of the highest levels ever seen for a developing country. The answer is that credit creation had to accelerate to boost GDP growth above the growth rate of productive capacity. Much, if not most, of China's 6.5 percent GDP growth is simply an artificial boost in economic activity with no commensurate increase in the capacity to create goods and services. It must be fully reversed once credit stops growing. To make matters worse, if high debt levels generate financial distress costs for the economy -- as already seems to be happening -- the amount that must be reversed will substantially exceed the original boost. Once credit is under control, China will have lower but healthier GDP growth rates. If the economy rebalances, most Chinese might not even notice: It would require that household income -- which has grown much more slowly than GDP for nearly three decades -- now grow faster, so that the sharp slowdown in economic growth won't be matched by an equivalent slowdown in wage growth.
I've done a paper on this subject all meme aside. I've read several pro-researches and contra. In all honestly I don't think an UBI is viable. The main reason being the inefficient spending of money.   It was a nice thought-experiment and a nice idea but unfortunately no
"&gt;they do not really TRY to disprove that dogmatic assumption.  A true economist or economic academician is searching for facts, the truth, the reality of a situation. Your claim is completely arbitrary and unsubstantiated.   &gt; Yup, and that ""confirmation"" was the entire goal of the project... it is entirely unsurprising that they managed to achieve it.  If you're going to make an assertion, at least attempt to back it up. I've tried to do that with everything that I have claimed in this thread."
"Correct me if I am wrong, but Germany has a very extremely diversified economy. It does not depend primarily upon oil exports like other countries, but rather on very complex machinery and other finished products. So being locked upon a system that ""puts exports ahead of anything else"" from my perspective is not bad for the German economy. If an industry collapses, the whole country does not go into panic straight away like oil rich exporting economies."
The fact is the world is very global nowadays. Its easier and cheaper for the companies to just leave instead of being forced to pay higher taxes... IMO, Germany hit it right on the head. Low corporate tax rates with high personal tax rates. This maintains a very business friendly environment (business move there because of the skilled labor and low corporate taxes), but they effectively pass the burden on to individuals (who also benefit from the pro-business environment). You'd be hard pressed to find an economist that doesn't think Germany's economy has been very strong over the past decade (very good Soros speech that was recently posted about his analysis of the Euro and Germany's unfair benefits, but that's a whole different gear). What I find the issue to be is the whole concept is complex enough that's difficult to explain to the average person with a 2 second attention span. That's why I like writing posts like this, to try to help people understand how finance and businesses operate behind the scenes!"
The German language has a great influence on the world because Germany plays a vital role in the European Union. Also, the economy of Germany encourages the growth of the German translation industry. Besides, the prosperity of tourism in Germany increases the need for learning and translating German. As a result, this language is widely learned, used, and translated in the Middle East.
"did you pull that info from fox or something? please step out of your bubble, visit one of those countries and talk to people living there.  being a german myself, i can assure you our system isnt ""crumbling"" due to UHC, we had this for decades and as even you might have heard our economy is pretty fine besides the leiharbeit bullshit (the U.S. CEO repeatedly ranted about the german trade surplus on twitter).   granted, ours is one of the most expensive compared to other OECD countries and it could probably made more efficient, but shits made by humans, and those have flaws. its still only about 10% of GDP (pulled from german wiki).  how much did you spend on military again?   ^^^hint: ^^^never ^^^less ^^^than ^^^16%, ^^^usually ^^^around ^^^20%"
There is not a quantified set in stone amount of pain that must be endured for this situation to be resolved, and it is my belief that Germany stepping up and doing their part would help minimize the overall pain that must be endured, to say nothing of it being the right thing to do. Additionally, I do believe it will result in the greatest amount of economic growth overall.
[You seem to be a little out of the loop](https://theculturetrip.com/europe/germany/articles/the-10-german-fashion-designers-you-should-know/). Germany has never seized to be a big fashion player, they harbored people like Hugo Boss, Karl Lagerfeld, Wolfgan Joop, Jill Sander, Escada, etc.   When the French fashion company Chanel has a German head designer and creative director I fail to see how Germany would not be a big player.
"Yeah, in high school my AP Government/Honors Gifted Economics teacher was all ""Economics? Economics is worthless now, study for your AP test.""  It'd be cool if someone took all of these economic unions and compared them. But as it stands right now, it seems that in the EU the only country with a head on its shoulders, economically, is Germany."
So if China produces cars, that will convince people who want to drive a BMW or Mercedes how exactly?  There are already cars that give you a better bang for their buck and yet Germany still sells cars and that has not only to do with quality construction but also quality engineering and design.  That the German car industry will be dying out if they continue their anti-electricity stance and backwards mobility philosophy is another thing.
"If you are hard-working Japanese or German, it takes less than 10 years. This is with little investment from outside.  Actually, think about it this way: before the devastation, Japan and Germany were thriving economies to begin with.  In comparison, no matter how much money you throw at Afghanistan, Iraq, or ""Palestinians"", they will not have proper infrastructure and economy, before and after the devastation, DESPITE no need for outside investment because they have plenty of oil and minerals to sell."
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://medium.com/united-green-alliance/the-reality-of-how-the-economy-of-the-third-reich-functioned-is-steeped-in-mystery-and-deception-80c29d28d0d9) reduced by 97%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Outlining the ideas that &amp;quot;Unemployment causes poverty, employment creates prosperity,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Capital does not create jobs, rather jobs create capital.&amp;quot; The complete and total elimination of unemployment is central to National Socialist economics, and was especially important to the German National Socialists of the 1920s and 30s, given Germany&amp;#039;s situation.  &gt; In point two, the NSDAP addressed the claim that there would be no markets for these new German goods.  &gt; The concept of resettlement in the East is mentioned again, and it&amp;#039;s goal is to reestablish the lost German agriculture in the East.In conclusion, the economic policies of NSDAP can best be seen as economically pragmatic; not wholly protectionist or pro-free trade, and not wholly pro-free market or pro-central planning.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/70uz3g/the_economics_of_the_nsdap_united_green_alliance/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~212049 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*: **German**^#1 **work**^#2 **Germany**^#3 **economic**^#4 **National**^#5"
It could be that when the market is doing well - it's a good sign of other macroeconomic variables (employment, GDP, incomes, etc) and all these factors power how often individuals travel, vacation, etc. It also has to deal with the economy of the country producing the oil, when you have OPEC countries selling petrol to the U.S. it is likely much cheaper per barrel than domestic produced and refined petrol because of the labor laws, etc. So a strong economy may be somewhat correlated with oil prices and a strong market, but it's not necessarily the case that strong oil prices drive the economy..I think this is a great research topic that cannot be answered in one post.. Check this article here. From here you can track down what research the Fed of Cleveland has done concerning this. My advice to you is to not believe everything your peers tell you, but to research everything your peers tell you. With just a few clicks you can figure out the legitimacy of many things to at least some degree."
Did you just assume my nationality? How dare you... We should not talk about military spending as long as Germany's budget is at 1.2% of the GDP instead of the 2% that was agreed on in NATO contracts. Btw, the US' military spending is at 3.3% of their GDP. And I'd rather have a state that concentrates on its core tasks than one that blasts more than 40% of its annual expenditures into social welfare while neglecting the rest...  And the German healthcare system is crumbling. It used to generate at least 9 billion euro in deficit every single year; despite the fact that you have to pay 15,5% special healthcare tax and despite the billions pumped into the system from other sources. It's basically funded by the upper 10%; not voluntarily of course. The only thing that keeps it afloat at this point are the insanely low base interest rates of the ECB. And German mandatory public pension funds are a Ponzi scheme...  PS: you obviously don't understand the concept of subcontracted labour if you think it's a bad thing.
Illinois has one of the strongest and most diverse economies in the world.  The state will be fine.  That said, it is amazing what kind of mess it's politicians have managed to make over the past 30 years. For such a strong economy to be imperiled by bad political and fiscal decisions.
The economic dominoes in Europe and China are not damaging the core of their economies. Unless Europe breaks apart violently and goes to war with itself or China has a civil war, the basic aspects of their economy that make them a valuable part of the global economy will not go away. Their productive capacities will remain intact and we'll still want to buy stuff from each other. The beauty of free market capitalism is that it's so adaptable and the fact that things are changing does not mean that everyone will be worse off. Whether or not the US is above everyone else in the end is mostly irrelevant, but the fundamental aspects of the US economy that make it among the strongest in the world will not change because of these things. Our workforce will remain highly educated, very productive and very innovative. We have the best farmland in the world and a lot of it, enormous amounts of natural resources, a relatively flexible and adaptable economy and a tremendous amount of wealth. There may be troubles related to certain institutions and governing bodies, but remember that those things are not the economy. The economy is the people, the things they can make, the things they know, and the things that they can do."
I don't really think supply will be a problem. Here in NZ the farming community are already looking at this as a windfall.  I'd be interested to know how this will effect Germany, I don't expect a lot, but it will have some impact especially if you are producing a perishable good that you need to find a new market for quickly.
I was thinking down the road about what may happen as some countries pile on debt and others are more responsible. I've spent a lot of time oversea and talented people in the capital cities are really mobile these days.  Right now there's a small brain drain to the benefit of Switzerland which has some really innovative people moving there. What if a large country like Germany were to do on a larger scale? Educated workforce, innovative and if you overlook a really ugly period, a great history of innovation.   It seems they could bring in a lot of people from Japan and (increasingly) the US as they head slowly toward debt of 200% of GDP. Why would talented people who are highly mobile want to stay in a country where the debt will take 30 years to repay mostly on the back of the talented high earning people?