vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"&gt;&gt; reducing regulation &gt; You do know that monopolies and mega corporations are bad for consumers Reducing regulations is FIRST(!) to help small business, because only big companies can handle regulations. Please study economics first. &gt;&gt; killing the PTT &gt; Debatable at best. Really? The TPP is still alive and will be voted and accepted by the USA under Trump? Yes or no? &gt;&gt;killing NAFTA &gt; See above. Really? Does president Trump support NAFTA, yes or no? Does he act against NAFTA, yes or no? Do you honestly think that NAFTA will continue unchanged under Trump, yes or no? **Best question, is NAFTA, signed by Clintons, a good thing, yes or no?** &gt;&gt;reducing immigration &gt; Well, there's actually pretty strong evidence that increased immigration has a net positive impact on an economy. Absolutely not. Legal immigration of qualified people is Ok, but they take jobs from Americans who are as qualified as them. Trump is not against immigration!!!! He's against illegal aliens who are criminals, uneducated, religious crazies, etc. There's zero benefit to the USA and economy from those people. &gt;&gt; investing in infrastructure &gt; I guess this depends on the type... Does Trump invest in infrastructure and has big plans to invest in it? Yes or no. No stories please. &gt;&gt; pulling out from wars (Syria) &gt; When was the last time bombing a foreign country was used as a strategy for pulling out of a war? Under Obama, 8 years, constant war with MORE countries and places. Yes or no? Under Trump, he killed the CIA ""program"" to ""support the ""rebels"" against Assad"". Read about it, but not on fake-news MSM channels, where you won't find it. Under Obama, the war in Syria and the disastrous ""Arab Spring"" started ONLY BECAUSE the USA did not support the strong leaders tyrant Arabs have.
&gt; You actually have far less government than we do.  What?  He just said that his country has a strong safety net and universal health care.  [If you look up a New Zealander's total tax burden]() it is 25% higher.  How do you conclude that their government is smaller?
It is exactly the same mindset. People then were no different then people now. They did think they help germany by getting rid of those ""pests"". Most of them did nothing at all and after the war they said they didn't know about any attacks or killings of jews. Needles to say that the actual crime rate if jews in Germany was no different then the non jew crime rate just as it is now with muslims. The overall crime rate rise significantly though since the start of the refugees crisis as a result of massive right wing activity. You said you hate nazis a while back. I don't think you know what a nazi is and sure enough i called you one and you did not deny. My friend i was wrong about you. You are a helpless cause with terrible arguments based on prejudice and hate. I still did enjoy this conversation because it was a) mostly civil and b) gave me a very good look into the mindset of a nazi. You may be happy to here that i realized while researching the topic that the problem of nazis is much bigger then i have thought and i can not ignore it anymore and have to join the fight. Good day to you and may reason catch up to you in your future life."
"I'll assume that you would work as a regular (part-time) employee. In this case, you are technically a Grenzgänger. You will need a specific kind of Swiss permit (""Grenzgängerbewilligung"") allowing you to work in Switzerland. Your employer typically takes care of this - they have more experience than you. You being non-EU might make matters a bit more complicated. Your employer will withhold 4.5% of your gross income as source taxes (""Quellensteuer""). When you do your tax declaration, your entire income will be taxed in Germany, since this is where you live. This will happen after your first year of work. Be prepared for a large tax bill (or think of this as an interest-free loan from Germany to you). However, due to the Doppelbesteuerungsabkommen (DBA), the 4.5% you already paid to Switzerland will be deducted from the taxes you are due in Germany. Judging from my experience, the tax authorities in Germany are not fluent in the DBA - particularly in areas far away from the Swiss border. I had to gently remind them to deduct the source taxes, explicitly referring to the DBA. The bill was revised without problems, but I strongly recommend making sure that your source taxes are correctly deducted from your German tax liability. Once your local German tax office understands your situation, you will be asked to make quarterly prepayments, which will be calculated in a way to minimize your later overall tax liability. Budget for these. You didn't ask, but I'll tell you anyway: social security will normally be handled by Switzerland as the country of employment - not the country of residence. Your employer will automatically deduct old age, unemployment and accident insurance and contribute to a pension plan, all in Switzerland. However... ... if you do a lot of your work in Germany (>25%), which certainly applies if you plan on mostly working remotely, your social security will be handled by your country of residence.
"There is so much wrong in what you wrote.   A) You keep saying that it isn't right or good to do what you are advocating, implying that you are being forced to do it. The laws of capitalism are not ironclad, we live in a society that gives us the means to set ground rules. And even without these ground rules, a company could decide to set a higher standard, and many have in the past.  B) The existence of outsourcing doesn't apply here. You can't outsource a walmart cashier.  C) Even if outsourcing was part of the equation just saying ""well it is all fucked"" isn't the answer. There are ways around this from fighting for labor rights across the world, to less savory ideas like tariffs.   D) WTF does ""fiscally sensible (although not so much in the United States, in some cases)"" even mean? You seem to be implying that the US is horribly fiscially irresponsible in comparison to other countries. Have you heard of: Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain? Also, going back to your argument that fair labor laws are impossible have you looked at Germany?  Edit: Also, Walmart employees are unionized everywhere outside of North America."
gee, why not pump lots of money into large infrastructure projects, creating jobs, giving people a wage they can live on and have some disposable income to pump back into the economy so that the products the rich are producing have buyers.. or is that just too simple for an economy.
"&gt; Despite the fact that this correlation between immigration and wages is well-documented Link does not go to proper documentation. Link goes to another article on the same site, with the title ""3 Reasons Why Mass Immigration Is Bad For The Economy"" and subtitle ""Is Immigration Good for the Economy? No, Not Always"". Please make up your minds. &gt; The evidence suggests otherwise, including new data reported by Fox. It looks like this bit is the closest thing there to proper data: &gt; Just how bad is it? According to the National Association of Home Builders, more than 56 percent of developers nationwide are reporting labor shortages. &gt; NAHB says the problems started when the recession hit and domestic construction workers dropped out of the market to find other jobs. At the same time, immigrant workers went back to their home countries. But as the economy has picked up and the construction industry has heated up, those workers have remained missing. Yeah, that's not even close to as clear as they're making it out to be. &gt; In fact, according to Ted Wilson of Residential Strategies Inc. construction costs have risen by 30% this year—the majority of which is due to higher wages and increased overtime pay. Heh. That Fox article says wages are about 60% of costs. A bit of math says that a 30% increase in costs that was due *entirely* to wage increases would mean wages had gone up by 50%. That's a missed opportunity by the article writers -- the headline really should say that wage-growth is ""up to 50%"". ;) (Math: given $100 costs, $60 would be labor. A 30% increase is +$30. If that's all from labor, it would have gone from $60 to $90, and 90 / 60 == 1.5, or a 50% increase.) . Also, back to the leading paragraph: &gt; There is a strong correlation between immigration—particularly illegal immigration—and wages. This should be obvious to anyone familiar with the fundamental principle of supply and demand: more supply (workers) means lower prices (wages), and vice versa.
"Thanks for bringing up gift economies. The ""barter-to-credit story"", as you call it, is a good just-so story for explaining our current monetary system, but it's not how it actually happened. It's important to emphasize that.  The gift economy is the original economy. It's used in small groups,bands or tribes of up to ~100 people, where you keep how much each person owes you in your head. These peoples don't have writing, remember.  The problem with the gift economy is that it doesn't scale. Once you've got more than a couple hundred people or so (basically, Dunbar's number), or too many tradable goods and services, it starts to break down. People can't keep track of their debts anymore, and it becomes harder to agree on prices.  Random aside: It's interesting to look at communism with this in mind, because essentially it's a return to something very much like a gift economy, but on a grand scale. But despite modern records-keeping and communication, it failed because we still can't coordinate such a large economy without some sort of market to set prices."
&gt;some of it is actually decent investigative reporting  lol.  Businessweek could draw up a better article here than Vice.  &gt; Of course, you have a strong opinion adamantly against it, so I am guessing you really don't ever read that content.  One I did read it.  Two I am against it as most of what Vice does today is clickbait and journalism on the same level of Buzzfeed which is low.  The Atlantic, Time, The New York Times, etc all do far better investigative journalism than Vice does.  If you think this Vice article is good investigative journalism I don't know what to say.
This isn't some new revelation. Pensions have been around for a long time. And the bankruptcy code is complex and has developed over a long period of time along side it. There is a strong reason why secured creditors are favored over unsecured creditors - because we want creditors to actually make loans and finance operations, investment, expansion, etc... If you eliminate the secured creditors' priority, then loans don't get made in the first place. The company can't offer pensions let alone salaries because the company isn't likely to exist or at least it would be much smaller.  The claims of employees are valid. Nobody is questioning that. But they are just *lower* priority than those of secured creditors who only made loans on the promise that they could recover some assets if ever the loans go into default.  This is also another reason pensions have gone out of style in favor of 401ks. It is foolish to rely on whether a company will exist 10, 20, or 30 years down the road. Companies are always rising and falling in the economy and there is no reason to expect one to just exist in perpetuity.
"Neo-Nazis nowadays attack a lot of minority's but yes i would defend jews as well. My ""other fights"" have to do with the field i work in which is registration of Chemicals and Toxicological studies. Please read your source completely because the answer why the statistic is risen and why it is not a good indicator for crime rates is in the text. I did send to you the statistic about pilitical crimes in germany so read it if you want to see the crime dustribution. Really my last post this time because i do not see any value created from posting here. Maybe something to think about for you at the end: Is a guy stabing a Muslim because he thinks he defends his country a terror attack ? What about a Muslim stabing a guy because he thinks they destroy his culture ? To me both are acts of terror ! Just towards diffrent groups but yet the news covers the one and ignores the other. Try to stay open minded and dont ignore the power of speech and the impact you can have with racial speeches like ""The terrorists are muslims even so some are nice guys""... to me that is a talk of a ""but"" nazi as we call them in Germany. E.g. i have nothing against refugees BUT they making terrorist attacks rape our women and are highly unhygienic by shitting in the streets"" That is a 1a grade hate speech and pretty much your opinion as far as understood you. Please try to see that such things are damaging to the society and lead to mobs with pitchforks trying to restore ""order""."
"&gt; the economy has experienced a huge expansion    what is ""the economy""?  share values have been expanding for the last 8 years.  too bad wages haven't expanded at all. even after trump.  the rich get richer .. and everybody else can go fuck themselves."
"&gt;One presidential election is not going to break a business in such a cut-and-dry fashion.  Maybe it's the straw that broke the camel's back. I hate when people use the argument ""Oh, this one thing won't or will do whatever,"" because it implies that camels have infinitely strong backs."
"At this point, I want to tell you two things: 1. I truly believe that you are very concerned about racial hate and damage to society. You truly want Germany to help those in serious need. You are a fine person! I have the same concerns and approach. 2. I am a Jew, with many original family members in Germany now (almost all my family ran away from Germany and Czech Republic before WWII, few got hurt, and after WWII, some returned back, and to Germany). So all this argument I have with you is not so much about Germans, who some of them risked their lives to save few members of my family. Yes, Germans almost died to saved some of my family. It's about a concern for a misguided policy in Germany to allow AGAIN the rise of intolerance and racial problems, of which, for sure, Jews will be the victims again, but mostly other minorities, but not (!) Muslims. If you did not know, the word ""anti-semitism"" was invented by Germans, and it is supposed to be against the semite race. European Jews are hardly semite but all Muslims and Arabs are pure true semites. Yet, Hitler and Muslims worked together and collaborated against Jews. Muslims were not killed by Germany. (If you did not know, yes, all Jews were semites, but 2000 years in Europe, after expelled from ancient Israel 2000 years ago by the Romans, made the Jews in Europe hardly semite. Meanwhile, most Jews (60%) in Israel are not of European descent as they ended up in northern Africa and Asia and ALL(!) of them expelled from the Arabs/Muslim countries when Israel was established in 1948. 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.
"My statement: &gt;If you slowed production, maybe you could prevent wealth from collecting in a few hands so quickly? Wouldn't that be a ""weaker economy"" rather than a ""stronger economy""?  Your response:  &gt;No one's arguing that. Straw man. What people really want to see is policy reform to give labour better compensation.  That's the only option though. In a market economy, capital collects in the hands of a few. It's inevitable because capital is capable of making capital all by itself. If you want to slow that down, then you have to add in more aspects of a planned/socialist economy. Or, you have to slow production so that capital doesn't pool together so quickly. Inadvertently, planned/socialist policies will slow production too.  You're obsessed with money. Money is only a form of debt security. At the end of the day, you have to analyze an economy by how it answers a few questions:   * What goods and services should be produced and in what quantities?  * How should goods and services be produced? That is, by who and with what resources and technologies?  * For who should goods and services be produced? That is, who is to enjoy the benefits of the goods and services and how is the total product to be distributed among individuals and groups in the society?  According to these three maxims that an economic system must have answers for, the current economic system is doing quite well. Versus any era, the answers that present day has are equal or better.   The only era you can claim as superior is this 20 year period immediately after WW2 when the USA became far wealthier than any other nation in the world. That was a ""honeymoon"" period in this economy that had nothing to do with economic policy. That was simply us being rich because every other country became poor.  Moreover, after WW2, the USA population was half of what it is today. Same size pie, smaller slices. Pies (aka total amount of resources) don't magically change sizes when populations grow. It was for this very reason that people in the 1500s were desperate to find new land like the Americas; Europe was getting overcrowded."
Yes, because you cannot have an exponential growth rate that is faster than the rate at which the economy grows on the long term. 100% growth is much more than the few percent at which the economy grows, so your share in the World economy would approximately double every year. Today the value of all the assets in the World economy is about $200 trillion. If you start with an investment of just $1000 and this doubles every year, then you'll own all the World's assets in 37.5 years, assuming this doesn't grow. You can, of course, take into account that it does grow, this will yield a slightly larger time before you own the entire World.
"Right. Because there was no profits. The company managed to grow by keeping very tight control of costs with respect to revenue. It's not a loophole. The alternative is spending less or charging more. Either of these things probably has significantly worse outcomes to the company - slower growth due to lack of reinvestment in the business, or slower growth due to not attracting as many customers through competitive pricing. What they have done is become a very valuable company due to a strong revenue stream. (You can ask whether a strong revenue stream alone is enough to justify their valuation, but investors seem to think so, and it also seems to indicate that they expect the stock price to continue rising or they wouldn't spend that much.)  When Amazon started, I remember people joking ""they lose money on every sale, but they make up for it in volume"". Seems to have worked out for them in the long run."
Wishful thinking.  Like it or not, we exist in a global economy today. The U.S. has certain competitive advantages in that economy, and we need to build/expand them, but cheap labor is not one. The days when assembly/manufacturing workers could union up and command high wages (or, increasingly, even middle-class wages) are basically gone. And as another commenter here alluded to, workers can choose to take a job at lower wages, or... not have a job.  Go ahead and complain about CEO pay if you want. It doesn't change the basic argument of labor supply vs. demand that sets wages. Workers aren't owed some % of company profits.
Saudi isn't going to listen to China. Albeit China is an important trading partner for Saudi, it doesn't have anywhere near the leverage America has. Actually, Japan has a better relationship with Saudi Arabia than the latter does with China.  Saudi riyal is pegged to the dollar and so it remains as strong as it possibly can. The USD is simply the most stable currency, the petrodollar is an exaggerated reason as to why it is. US imports are almost the same as the China in terms of percentage but the US sells lots of weapons to Saudi Arabia. China doesn't have the amount of investment into Saudi Arabia like US companies do.  China and the yuan are not substitutes to the US and usd.
At least he knows how the economy works and has ran a business.  What business did Obama run again?  What business experience does he have?  None.  Our economy is in shambles.  The world economy is about to collapse.  The last thing we need is another Jimmy Carter tax and spend liberal to drive us the rest of the way into the ditch.  Fuck Obama and any of his blind, misinformed supporters.  And God help you if you plan to vote for Obama simply because he's black - your right to vote should be revoked.
i'm not talking about giving money to the gov't to have them help with it (i agree, our gov't should care only about us), but doing it yourself. or maybe flying over there to help yourself with your own money. my point is: a direct approach isnt best in the long run. the best help is having a booming economy. the poor are much better in a booming economy than in a shitty one. and govt redistribution will make a shitty economy. of course a bigger problem is the gov't manipulation of interest rates and over-regulation, but a better economy pulls people out of poverty. that's why everyone was financially equal, yet extremely poor in the USSR. nice and moral are always a good thing, but not by force. libertarians DO believe their policies are best for the poor, despite a lack of redistribution of money.
I think class is a little more than just how much money you make. You could make $1,000,000 a year but if you are still wretched, have a corrupt morality, and possess no sense of culture, then you are still lower class. Yet, you could be making $40,000 but if your mind is elevated, your self control strong, and possess a good degree of culture, I would consider you upper class. Its not just money bro!
"The 1% thing is a  platitude and socialism always creates a distopia. What ""socialist"" government has come closest to creating the dream society you describe? They all turn into something worse than an organized crime syndicate combined with a fundamentalist religion.  Russia, Cuba, Bulgaria, north Korea, Romania, Albania, Somalia, Ethiopia, East Germany, soviet occupied Czechoslovakia, Poland, China, ,Cambodia, Venezuela and on and on. If your dream of unlimited time to play video games and free cheetos worked wouldn't it have worked a little in one of them?"
That may depend largely in which country you are in, the legislation in that country and the state of the economy and property market (more specifically) at the time of the foreclosure. In Australia, where we do not have non-recourse loans (except in SMSFs) the banks are obliged to recoup as much as possible for the mortgagee, however they would not hold on to the property indefinitely, as that could cause other problems and they have to return the mortgagee portion of the funds back to them (if there is any funds left after the bank takes their portion).  In 2008, when the property market here was weak we had bought some foreclosure houses and were able to get them 20% to 25% below what they were selling at the year before. If there was a forclosure in today's strong market in Australia (and especially in Sydney), I dought you would get much of a discount at all. So it may largly depend on the demand and supply at the time of the forclosure.