vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Its the economics subreddit. People post here to talk about economics. I assume people here have attention spans long enough to read a few paragraphs.  I can understand your issue with principal. I understand people who will willingly take a worse system that costs more just to fuck over a drug addict. I'm not one of them.  Personally, I would pay zero dollars extra to fuck over drug addicts and I have no desire to have worse quality care so drug addicts can be denied care.  I want the system that is a good balance between cost and quality. Sure, the trade off of paying ""less for better"" is when everyone else is covered, there will be people who I don't like, and who made poor choices that will also get that coverage. I suppose one could make a single payer system that also doesn't cover drug addicts. Maybe that would be ideal for you. However, studies also find that paying for these drug addicts/lazy assholes also saves money in the long run. I assume you don't want to explore the theories as to why statistically this is the case because you know.....TL DR.  I'm sorry you don't like the ideas. Don't worry about ideas. Worry about facts and reality. Base what you ""agree with"" on reality. I'm going to go out on a limb, I think if you thought about it, saving yourself and your family money for better treatment will rank higher than the principal of denying treatment to those who you don't like.    Once you establish what you value, abandon ideology. See what works best with what you value and go from there. I would make a guess that one of the reasons Americans are absolutely ripped off when it comes to medical costs is because people don't agree with ""ideas""."
&gt;Let's be honest though; you would to if accepting reality meant that your way of life, your job, your grossly inflated salary, etc. just dried up over night.  I can't speak for everyone else, but for me personally:  Hell no.  I work for a telecommunications company and network neutrality is terrible for us.  Our management has actually asked us to volunteer to contribute to anti-neutrality PACs.  Local municipal broadband initiatives in rural areas (our territory is largely rural) are opposed strongly by my company.  And you know what?  If those local broadband collectives eat our lunch and cause the demise of my company?  I'm totally fine with it.  I'll find another job somewhere else.  I am not cheering for my own company's downfall - far from it - but if it happens due to competition, I'm not going to stand in the way.
I work for one of the big 3 but there are no cars from them (yet) that fill the market segment I'm looking for.   Buick has an AWD wagon coming this fall that is supposed to be a poor man's A4 Allroad. I'm hoping that's the case. It's nearly impossible to find a nice awd wagon with a turbo from an American manufacturer.    Edit: it's a rebadged Opel Insignia. The new model looks MUCH better than the previous one. I'm hoping the performance is better as well.
I've been using xetrade for quite awhile, also used nzforex (associated with ozforex / canadian forex, probably ukforex as well) -- xetrade has slightly better rates than I've gotten at nzforex, so I've been using them primarily.  That said, I am in the process of opening an account at CurrencyFair, because it appears that I'll be able to exchange money at better rates there.  (XETrade charges me 1.5% off the rate you see at xe.com -- which is the FX conversion fee I believe -- there are no fees other than the spread charged).  I think the reason CurrencyFair may be able to do better is because the exchange is based on the peer-to-peer trade, so you could theoretically get a deal better than xe.com.  I'll update my answer here after I've been using CurrencyFair for awhile, and let you know.  They theoretically guarantee no worse than 0.5% though (+ $4.00 / withdrawal) -- so I think it'll save me quite a bit of money.
"I'm working from 6am-2pm today (from home, since it's Saturday) and I'm on call from 2pm-4am tomorrow.  If the phone rings at our company help desk at any time from 2pm-4am, I am expected to answer it or return the call promptly.  I'm not paid for the entire time of 2pm-4am, but only for the time I'm ""on a call"" essentially.  It was a shock when I found out that was the terms of the job (3 months in, there were dramatic changes in my schedule) and most of my friends seem to agree with me.  Am I off base?"
I'm not going to look this up to confirm but back in prehistoric times when I was in high school I'm sure I am was taught that the 4x4 or 2x2 referred to the rough sawn timber an that most people but dressed timber sand that is why it's smaller.  That said this is a stupid lawsuit for many reasons.
I'll say this right now.  There is absolutely no way he will go to prison for this.  As a former head of Goldman Sachs and a former governor, he's a very powerful man and has friends in politics and finance.
As of this moment the DOW 30 is up 6.92% Year-to-date. Of the 30 stocks in the index  6 are in negative territory for the year. And of the 6 in negative territory 3 are farther below 0 than the average is above 0. The investors in those 3 stocks (Boeing, Goldman Sachs and Nike) would look at this year so far as a disaster. Individual stocks can move in opposite directions from the index.
To understand the answer we first have to understand what Goodwill is. Goodwill in a companies balance sheet is an intangible asset that represents the extra value because of a strong brand name, good customer relations, good employee relations and any patents or proprietary technology. An article from The Economist explains this very well and actually talks about Time Warner directly - The goodwill, the bad and the ugly When one firm buys another, the target’s goodwill—essentially the premium paid over its book value—is added to the combined entity’s balance-sheet. Goodwill and other intangibles on the books of companies in the S&P 500 are valued at $2.6 trillion, or 10% of their total assets, according to analysts at Goldman Sachs. As the economy deteriorates and more firms trade down towards (or even below) their book value, empire-builders are having to mark down the value of assets they splashed out on in rosier times. A recently announced $25 billion goodwill charge is expected to push Time Warner into an operating loss for 2008, for instance. Michael Moran of Goldman Sachs thinks such hits could amount to $200 billion or more over the cycle. Investors have so far paid little attention to intangibles, but as write-downs proliferate they are likely to become increasingly wary of industries with a high ratio of goodwill to assets, such as health care, consumer goods and telecoms. How bad things get will depend on the beancounters. American firms used to be allowed to amortise goodwill over many years. Since 2002, when an accounting-rule change ended that practice, goodwill has had to be tested every year for impairment. In this stormy environment, with auditors keener than ever to avoid being seen to go easy on clients, companies are being told to mark down assets if there is any doubt about their value. The sanguine point out that this has no effect on cashflow, since such charges are non-cash items. Moreover, some investors take goodwill write-offs with a pinch of salt, preferring to look past such non-recurring costs and accept the higher “normalised” earnings numbers to which managers understandably cling.
I was kidding.  Of course it's accurate.  Just because Romney is a bigger hypocrite doesn't mean Obama isn't one.  Google corporate lobbyists and executives in the Obama administration.  Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, JP morgan, etc etc. the list goes on. No multibillion dollar multinational is left out.
They say a nonprofit think tank NBER is publishing the paper.   Here is where funding for NBER came from in 2016:   http://www.nber.org/CorporateSupporters2016.pdf     Contributing $10,000 - $25,000:   AIG AQR   Bank for International Settlements    Bracebridge Capital   Brevan Howard   Capital Group Companies   Credit Suisse   ExxonMobil   Fuller &amp; Thaler Asset Management    General Electric   General Motors Foundation    Goldman Sachs   Google   Insurance Information Institute   JP Morgan Chase Institute   Pfizer, Inc.   Vanguard   Anonymous (2)     Contributing $5,000 or Less:   Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System    Haver Analytics, Inc.   Macroeconomic Advisers   U. S. Regional Federal Reserve Banks (12)      Individual Supporters   Contributing $5,000 or Less:   Allen Sinai   Francis Schott
Starting with the basics, you have the sell side (investment banks, Goldman Sachs) and the buy side (asset managers, Blackrock). The buy side are the clients of the sell side, directing trade flow through banks and using their research and taking part in origination and new issues. Basically both are currently under structural pressure from passive investing combined with new technology and regulation (MIFID 2 in Europe).
"You know what this remind me of? When Madoff got caught by the investigators and just said ""the money's all gone, it was a fraud"".  The guy was chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs. He's not a naive young upstart who doesn't know how big money moves."
"What disconnect? And I'm not even kidding here - where is it? Do you really think that arbitrage that is a pittance compared to long term trading somehow distorts the process that some people claim is actually socially beneficial? Given that there's really no evidence of it causing misallocation or mispricing, what is the problem? That some dumbass day trader (who is, by the way, trying to make money in exactly the same way as the HFT people - he's just worse at it) got screwed over by some not-quite-as-dumbass people working at Goldman Sachs?  And why would you think that HFT (or any other advancement) is somehow related to such a thing; we've had ""speculation"" and foul play of various types for hundreds of years. What is it that is fundamentally different this time that wasn't there in, for example, the 80s?"
"Well, though he is doing it for childish reasons, I guess he is bumbling towards doing the right thing.  I for one would feel better not have Goldman Sachs Penis in the President and the Fed.  We might get a ""two fer"" a clean Fed and a castrated Goldman  Hell I might even start to like Trump, he is so dumb the right thing is happening by default"
Just got out of a wonderful seven-course dinner with two very qualified individuals: one is a former trade minister of a large ASEAN nation, and the other a retired Goldman Sachs partner. I'm not trying to name-drop here, just emphasize how these are some of the savviest investors I know. They spent the entire evening waxing on about click-and-collect and how Amazon is finally gaining a one-up on trad. retailers like Walmart who are expanding their online segments, by actually staking out some good PP&amp;E. As avid shoppers of Whole Foods and Amazon we are very excited to see where this goes.
&gt;It's always been that way. You are trying to bend the world around your own circumstances. That's not how it works. Not my circumstances. The majority of people's circumstances. And that *is* how it works. At least that's the way it's supposed to in a democracy. But corporations like Goldman Sachs dedicate millions to lobbying every year, have 7 lobbyists for every 1 politician in Congress, and have people go on from their company to take government positions. Goldman is a parasite at its core: makes money on wall st to lobby Congress into making it more easy to make money on wall st and more effectively lobby to make it even easier to make money on wall st, rinse wash repeat ad infinitum. Goldman is a prime example as more Goldman former employees go on into government than any other financial instution, but they all play the same game and it's beyond naive to think that my 1 vote can ever compare to the influence that corporate motives have on my government. And you can tell by the political hierarchy that the more of your own constituents' interests you sacrifice in favor of corporate profit motives, the more successful you'll be. Compare the likes of Sanders, Warren, Ron &amp; Rand Paul, to the likes of McCain &amp; Kerry and my point becomes glaringly obvious: if you represent your contsituents' interests then you don't stand a chance of influencing the direction of the country, suck lobbyist dick and you'll become a central player in the federal government. &gt;Everything is consolidating to be more efficient. With digital, robots, and globalization, markets have reduced the need for U.S. manufacturing ...and that's what a lot of small towns had going for them. It's gone. Sitting around and wishing for the past to come back with something like the government to legislate it is wishful thinking. &gt;I highlighted the solution: It's to move where the money is or is going. I live in NYC, not some random farm town. However, even though it's home to a lot of rich people, most people are poor and have no social mobility.
&gt; But the good news is if they implement their policy unfairly, then they'll get slapped by the invisible hand and go broke  That's completely untrue though.  Companies get away with so many things and they are only given token fines.  Just look at Nestle, BP, Goldman Sachs, HSBC.
Banks and energy are fundamental requirements for modern civilisation, and there are plenty of both who contribute a great deal to society's well-being, but I do know where you are coming from.  The nature of the system we have is that the largest organisations tend to attract the most ruthless leaders who are prepared to screw over people and the environment in pursuit of their own selfish interest. Sociopaths cunning enough to not get caught out are rewarded and those who prioritise social benefits over the growth of their organisation are out-competed and make themselves less relevant. In theory, that should be kept in check by culture of social responsibility, a strong free press and good government, but those things have been eroding for a long time.  There are mutual funds who seek to invest only in ethical companies. Ethics are subjective, so there's always the possibility that you'd disagree with their choices, or they make errors of judgement, but it's a better option than a fund that only considers returns. You've got a better chance that it is run by people who think ethics are important, so they might not see their clients as muppets to be fleeced (like Goldman Sachs apparently does).  Alternatively, you could invest in a fund that contributes to growing a developing nation's economy, or only invests in renewable energy, or agriculture, or whatever you consider important.
It's already gone through a big correction, but another crash is a possibility. But if the US economy keeps eroding it's going to become more of a safe haven. Also Goldman Sachs sees it as an investment option, so that's a sign financial houses are interested (and not a good sign for the dollar).
&gt;Goldman Sachs’s asset-management unit bought the securities, sold by Petroleos de Venezuela SA, through a broker and had no interaction with the government, the New York-based firm said in a statement.   Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-30/goldman-sachs-faces-venezuela-probe-protest-after-bond-purchase  Purchasing these bonds on the secondary market and from PDVSA are not mutually exclusive. Quit being a dick.
Large companies whose shares I was looking at had dividends of the order of ~1-2%, such as 0.65%, or 1.2% or some such. My savings account provides me with an annual return of 4% as interest. Firstly inflation, interest increases the numeric value of your bank balance but inflation reduces what that means in real terms. From a quick google it looks like inflation in india is currently arround 6% so your savings account is losing 2% in real terms. On the other hand you would expect a stable company to maintain a similar value in real terms. So the dividend can be seen as real terms income. Secondly investors generally hope that their companies will not merely be stable but grow in value over time. Whether that hope is rational is another question.  Why not just invest in options instead for higher potential profits? It's possible to make a lot of money this way. It's also possible to lose a lot of money this way. If your knowlage of money is so poor you don't even understand why people buy stocks there is no way you should be going near the more complicated financial products.
&gt;Oh definitely, you just need to be willing to work in Bismarck ND, or various parts of the rustbelt. And it's not that you're getting paid especially high, it's that everything is so insanely cheap (for the most part).  That's not what I mean though, it's easy to find locations where cost of living is cheap, its difficult (but possible) to find locations where the average salary for your field isn't reflected in that lower cost of living.   For example New Hampshire, the property costs are fairly low - you can find a great house for 250k-300k - but the average salary of a software developer is still high, and not just relatively, it would be considered high in New York as well.   I've found houses in New Hampshire that stay on the market for $350k that would be nabbed up in a weekend for 1M easily in my current location, and the average salary is comparable so just imagine what that implies in terms of quality of life.
Does that justify the purpose? That is for individual Banks to decide. No bank would pay for daily expenditure if you are saying primary salary you are spending on eduction. So your declaration is right. You are looking at funding your eduction via loan and you are earning enough for living and paying of the loan. I noticed that a lot of lenders do not lend to applicants whose purpose is to finance the tuition for post-secondary education This could be because the lenders have seen larger percentage defaults when people opt for such loans. It could be due to mix of factors like the the drag this would cause to an individual who may not benefit enough in terms of higher salary to repay the loan, or moves out of country getting a better job. If it is education loan, have you looked at getting scholarships or student loans.
What?!!! how dare you sir!!! how dare you!!!  I'll have you know that the Fed and the Treasury has their back, not to mention Goldman and a number of other banks . . .you know finance is their thang . . .and if you say anything at the UN, you will find your 401K being used as toilet paper in an illegal settlement  . .and you will be on food stamps . .then they will kick you in the balls and yell terrorist  Woohoooo!!! . .Krav Maga . . .Shekel as a global reserve currency!!! WoooHoooo
During the financial crisis, synthetic CDOs based on standardized indexes like iTraxx Europe suffered losses as traders expected defaults to pick up. Investors who held on, though, have since done “great,” says Mr. Champion. Investors who agreed to insure against a rise in defaults for 10 years on the equity tranche of the iTraxx Europe index in March 2008 have made roughly 10% a year, according to an analysis of data from IHS Markit . That’s despite defaults from two companies in the index: Italian lender Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Portugal Telecom International Finance BV. In contrast, investors who sold insurance on tailored CDOs packed with riskier credits—such as Icelandic banks or monoline insurers—would have been on the hook for losses. Synthetic CDOs have evolved since the crisis, bankers say. For instance, most are shorter-dated, running up to around two to three years rather than seven to 10 years. Some banks will only slice and dice standardized CDS indexes that trade frequently in the market rather than craft tailored baskets of credits. There are also fewer banks involved in arranging these trades. Those active include BNP Paribas SA, Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase &amp; Co. and Société Générale. Postcrisis regulations have forced banks to set aside more capital against these transactions and use less leverage. That has encouraged banks to parcel out the risk to clients rather than keeping it on their own books. “There is a lot more regulation and scrutiny and a lot less leverage,” said Mr. Agbo-Bloua. Mr. Champion says he only trades tranches based on standardized CDS indexes, which he says are easier to buy and sell than more tailored products. Currently, he sees value in selling default protection on super-senior tranches. Mr. Champion said he has to lay down only around $1 million in upfront margin costs on a $100 million trade of this kind. “The cost of leverage in the derivatives space is very low,” he said. Any expectations of default rates picking up could inflict losses on synthetic CDOs, though at the moment analysts forecast they should decline.
Assuming the value of the house hasn't changed, let's call total selling costs 8% of the house value of $200k (which is probably low); that's $16,000 in seller's costs. Again, assuming home value didn't change and that you got an FHA loan requiring only 3.5% down, your down payment ($7k) plus principal paid (about another $7k; 6936.27 to be exact) only covers $14k of those costs. You're now in the hole $2,000, and you still have to come up with your next home's down payment. With all other things being equal, in order to get back to where you were in net worth terms before you bought the house (meaning $7,000 cash in the bank after selling it), you would need to stay in the house for 4 and a half years to accumulate the $16,000 in equity through principal payments. That leaves you with your original $7,000 down payment returned to you in cash, and you're even in accounting terms (which means in finance terms you're behind; that $7,000 invested at 3% historical average rate of inflation would have earned you about $800 in those four years, meaning you need to stick around about 5.5 years before you ""break even"" in TVM terms). For this reason, I would say that you should be very cautious when buying your first home; it may very well be the last one you'll ever buy. Whether that's because you made good choices or bad is up to you."
"JoeTaxpayer's answer is dead on... but let me give my own two cents with a little bit of math. Otherwise, I personally find that people talking about diversified portfolios tends to be full of buzzwords.  Let's say that Buffett's investments are $10 million. He would like to earn ≥7% this year, or $700,000.  He can invest that money in coca-cola//underwear, which might return: Or he can invest in ""genius moves"" that will make headlines: (like buying huge stakes in Goldman Sachs), which might return: And he makes plays for the long haul based on the expected value of the investments. So if he splits it 50/50... ($5 million/ $5 million), then his expected value is 822,250: By diversifying, he does reduce the expected value of the portfolio... (He is not giving $10 M the chance to turn into $1.5 million or $2 million for him!). The expected value of that shock-and-awe portfolio with all $10 million invested in it is $1.2M. By taking less risk... for less reward... his expected return is lower. But his risk is lower too.  Scale this example back up into the $100 million or billion range that Buffett invests in and that extra margin makes the difference.  In the context of your original article, the lower-risk 'cake and underwear' investments let Buffett go big on the things that will make 20%+ returns on billions of dollars, without completely destroying his investment capital when things take a turn for the worse."