vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Or you know maybe the EU could have stayed out of the Ukraine in the first place.  Trying to draw the Ukraine into the EU is the equivalent of China getting Canada to agree to lease a few military bases on Canadian soil to them.  There is absolutely no chance in hell the U.S. will sit by and let that happen without serious consequences.  Perhaps Western Europe should take responsibility for the shit they started in the first place when they proposed that trade pact with the Ukraine.  Because now any free country in Eastern Europe that is anywhere close to Russia is worried about paying the consequences and running to the only major power that looks like it actually gives a shit about standing up to the Russians.    After 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan Americans really don't want to get into another shooting war.  We have enough on our hands keeping China at bay.  It's the EU that grossly under estimated the Russian response and can't get its shit together without U.S. help to form a coherent strategy to counteract Russian aggression.  There is a lot of injustice and conflict in this world that you can blame us Americans for.  But this shit in the Ukraine is not one of them.
**Litany of woes **  Nokia has been the number 1 seller of mobile phones since 1998. In Q1 of 2012 they relinquished this lead to Samsung. Samsung now has a 21% global market share against Nokia’s 20%.  Till 5 years ago Nokia was in the top 5 most valuable brands in the world but had slipped to 14th place last year, and this year it will be lucky to be in the top 50.  Nokia is shedding jobs like a sinking ship jettisoning all excess weight.  Microsoft seems to be going its own way with the Windows mobile platform with the announcement that windows 8 update wont be available for Lumia range in the market.  The stock is now at a 16 year low.
There are good reasons to not go the cash route here (see Jay's answer). If one insists however, at 30 k€ anti-money laundering regulations have to be considered (and are not mentioned by the existing answers so far). Depositing amounts larger than 10 k€ will trigger questions about the source of the money to fight tax evasion and organized crime (splitting the amount may still trigger the process). So prepare good proof concerning the origin of that money and a paper trail that shows it is legal money and that it has been taxed already.  I.e. the latest Anti-Money Laundering Directive is supposed to be implemented by national laws, thus including Spain. The European Union Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive is the most sweeping AML legislation in Europe in several years. On 25 June 2015, the EU Fourth Directive was enacted, which replaces the previous Third Directive. With a two-year window for implementation, all EU member states must be compliant with the new mandates by 26 June 2017. Source
""The republicans"" will do a lot of whining and shit throwing, but the reality is it will have happened because a handful of Republicans prioritized actually helping the people in their states over party rhetoric and desparation for a ""win"". McConnel's ""shoring up"" talk could lead to a half-decent outcome... at the very least it'd be a change in the optics. No GOP senator who failed to Repeal is going to want to talk about health care at all come re-election time, so they have a bit of political cover to quietly give ground in terms of the structure of the shoring up. Or maybe not. But we have to allow for the possibility. The tea party was born out of people on the right taking a Hard Line, and the actual work of government has suffered immeasurably for it. Deeper trenches just lead to a longer war."
It's not. If you look at the page you link to and change dates, it's clear the rate changes a bit. 120.15 120.1 per hundred. The Swiss can keep the 1.200 as a target and if it's higher, sell agingst the euro to bring it down, if lower, buy. If the swiss experienced a serious financial crisis and their currency fell, they may not have the power to control it, if the rest of the world said it was worth less, you can be sure it will fall.
Honestly this part of the show shouldn't confound people as much as it seems to be. Cersei might be repaying to pave the way for an even larger loan. She might be repaying to maintain diplomatic/trade relations or retain one of the few material allies she still has. Plus it's best to fence the merch when it's hot. Or she might be paying because she's genuinely worried about interest of all things. This whole magical war might be the end of our story, but Cersei doesn't see at as the end of hers (and no monarch would).  Historically, monarchs are playing a much longer con than just the single war. King Charles II of England spent a fortune on multiple failing wars before finances got out of hand and he declared his debts illegal (it's good to be the king I guess).  These days, things are substantially more complicated. Manipulating prime interest rates is a much more subtle tool that has thus far lead to more stable economies. Defaulting on debt like King Chuck would lead to a serious shock to your system, since every state is so interconnected these days. So they use finer controls to maintain a much larger economy (think bow thrusters on a container ship instead of oars on a canoe).
I pointed this out to my wife (Russian), and she said not to forget that most of those imports are from old soviet satellites, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Latvia, ect...    Infact, your own article, just a little further down states:  &gt;The major food exporters to Russia last year were, in order of importance: Belarus ($2.7bn), Brazil ($2.4bn), Ukraine ($1.9bn), Germany ($1.8bn) and Turkey ($1.68bn), Reuters news agency reports.  None of those countries with the exception of Germany are sanctioning Russia, and are thus not part of the embargo.  Not sure how impacted Ukraine's production capacities have been with the conflict?    My wife is convinced that the none EU partners Russia already imports form will keep up just fine.  The other Russians I know, agree, and think this was a good move by the government.  She thinks the whole point of this embargo is to impact Germany so they get the EU to stop blatantly doing whatever the US wants, since this will impact them probably the most of the EU members.
You can't currently avoid it. The reason the legislation was introduced was to prevent the big-name developers from setting up shop in a low-VAT country and selling apps to citizens of EU countries that would normally be paying a much higher VAT. You need to register for VAT and file quarterly nil-returns so that you get that money back. It's a hassle, but probably worth it just to recoup those funds. From an article in Kotaku from late 2014: You see, in the UK we have a rather sensible exemption on VAT for businesses that earn under £81,000 a year. This allows people to run small businesses - like making and selling games in your spare time, for instance - without the administrative nightmare of registering as a business and paying VAT on sales. Unfortunately, none of the other EU member states had an exemption like this, so when the new legislation was being put together, there was no exemption factored in. That means that if someone makes even £1 from selling something digital to another person in another EU country, they now have to be VAT registered in the UK AND they have to pay tax on that sale at whatever rate the buyer’s country of residence has set. That could be 25% in Sweden, 21% in the Netherlands, and so on. [...] There’s one piece of good news: even though anyone who sells digital stuff now has to be VAT-registered in the UK, they don’t actually have to pay VAT on sales to people in the UK if they earn less than £81,000 from it. (This concession was achieved earlier this month after extensive lobbying.) But they’ll still have to submit what’s called a “nil-return”, which is essentially a tax return with nothing on it, every quarter in order to use the VAT MOSS service. That’s a lot of paperwork. Obviously Brexit may have a significant impact on all this, so the rules might change.
Article (behind paywall): &gt; There has been a glut of gloomy Brexit predictions about the UK’s financial services industry. Consultancy Oliver Wyman has said up to 75,000 jobs could leave Britain. EY, another consulting firm, thinks as many as 83,000 roles could move. The London Stock Exchange Group has plumped for 100,000. &gt; Much of the analysis is based on worst-case “hard Brexit” scenarios, involving only a very loose association or no deal at all between the UK and the EU. The banking industry would be most at risk, experts agree, but there would also be some impact on insurance. Analysts have been more optimistic, however, about the asset management industry. &gt; For anyone paying attention over the summer break, though, this last piece of received wisdom has been thrown into doubt. &gt; In mid-July, Esma, the EU securities regulator, published an opinion paper, suggesting national regulators should take a tougher line on policing the asset management sector after Brexit. &gt; In particular, it zeroed in on “delegation” rules that allow a fund management company registered in one country to outsource its asset management to another place, either within the EU or outside it. &gt; This sounds like pretty arcane stuff. But it is crucial architecture for the European and global asset management industry. Philip Warland, a former Fidelity executive who is now a consultant, reckons about 90 per cent of EU assets under management make use of delegation rules. Most European funds are registered in Dublin or Luxembourg, but the actual fund management takes place globally, with the largest chunk delegated to London. &gt; Anecdotal evidence suggests France is very keen to win more of this business. And when Esma published its paper, the UK industry smelled a rat. Not only is the regulator Paris-based, but the “convergence” agenda, under which the opinion paper was published, is the responsibility of Sophie Vuarlot-Dignac, a seasoned French regulator. &gt; The wording in the delegation section of the document has alarmed some fund managers. “Delegation to non-EU entities could make oversight and supervision of the delegated functions more difficult . . .
&gt; which is why i find it wrong that interest for money collected in a given financial year is announced after the end of the next financial year.  Oh, I may have misunderstood. Generally it would be reported at the end of the *same* year. I'm a little intrigued as to why it's waiting a year to be reported... are contributions reported elsewhere?
In the UK if you come into the possession of the information in a way that isn't available to the general public that's insider trading. It even states this in section 7, and uses the example of if you observe something like a burning factory as a member of the public, that's not insider information as anyone could have seen it.   If you attended a meeting or somehow got hold of private information not yet made public, then it would be considered insider information.   Its possible the OP got this information through public observation but considering the nature of the information it's highly unlikely
"Just skimming through the Wikipedia article on airberlin, I notice there is more to the story than simply ""airberlin's IPO failed, so they postponed it and did it anyways."" 3 points to keep in mind about IPOs:  1) An IPO is the mechanism for taking a private company and setting it up for shares to be owned by ""the public"".  2) The process of selling shares to the public often allows original owners and/or early investors to ""cash out"". Most countries (including member nations of the EU) limit some transactions like pre-IPO companies to ""accredited investors"".  3) Selling shares to the public also can allow the company to access more funds for growth. This is particularly important in a capital-intensive business like an airline; new B737-MAX costs >$110M. New A320neo costs >$105M USD.  Ultimately, the question of a successful IPO depends on how you define success. Initially, there was a lot of concern that the IPO was set up with too much focus on goal #2... allowing the management & owners to cash out.  It looks like the first approach was not meeting good opinions in the market during 2006. A major concern was that the initial approach focused on management only cashing out its shares and no money actually going to the company to support its future.  The investment bankers restructured the IPO, including the issuance of more new shares so that more $ could end up in the company's accounts, not just in the accounts of the management.  If anything, it's still a pretty successful IPO given that the shares were successfully listed, the company collected the money it needed to invest and grow, and the management still cashed out."
&gt;The interesting thing for me - In Ireland's case they need to have a refurendum. I wonder if they will accept this?  It's not clear cut whether we need a referendum.  It's a common misconception that all Treaty changes require a referendum in Ireland. Not so. In Crotty v An Taoiseach it was accepted by the Supreme Court that joining the EEC (as it then was) involved getting on board a moving train and that even the assignment of new competences to Europe would not necessarily necessitate a referendum. Any change in the fundamental scope of the Union would however require a referendum. In that case the introduction of a Common Foreign and Security Policy and qualified majority voting was a change in scope and referendum was necessary.  In this case, it's hard to tell. The EU already has some competence in this area - its possible to levy fines etc for breaches of the stability and growth pact already. I couldn't predict how the Supreme Court would characterise giving the Court of Justice oversight in this area. They will feel presssure from many corners in this case as well - holding in favour of a referendum might be seen as threatening economic disaster, while holding against would undermine democratic legitimacy.  If there is a referendum, I predict it will go down like a lead balloon. Forcing the Lisbon Treaty on the electorate twice gave rise to enough resentment - botching the recovery and being seen to enforce austerity on the country made it worse. I imagine support for the EU is at an all time low in this country.
Banks in general will keep saving rates as low as possible especially if there is a surplus of funds or alternative access for funding as in the case of the Fed in the USA. Generally speaking, why would bank pay you a high interest rate when they cannot generate any income from your money? Usually we will expect to see a drop in the loan interest rate when their is a surplus of funds so as to encourage investment. But if the market is volatile then no banks will allow easy access to money through loans. The old traditional policy of lending money without proper security and no control from the central bank has created serious problems for savings account holders when some of these banks went into bankruptcy. It is for this reason most countries has modified their Financial Act to offer more protection to account holders. At the moment banks must follow rigid guidelines before a loan can be approved to a customer. In my country (Guyana) we have seen the collapse of a few banks which sent a shock wave across the county for those that have savings held at those bank. We have also seen unsecured loans having to be written off thus putting serious pressure of those banks. So government stepped in a few years ago and amended the act to make it mandatory to have commercial banks follow certain strict guidelines before approving a loan.
According to this study put out this year by Judson and Porter, the face value of counterfeit currency relative to the total amount in circulation is about 0.01%: We conclude that the total value of counterfeits in circulation at any moment is on the order of $60 to $80 million, or less than $1 for every $10,000 outstanding, and is highly unlikely to exceed $220 million, or less than $3 for every $10,000 in circulation. Further, we conclude that the incidence of counterfeits is roughly the same inside and outside the United States ... Actual numbers from five years ago suggest about the same: Out of the approximately $759 billion in U.S. dollars held in U.S. currency in the form of banknotes (paper currency) in circulation outside the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve at the end of 2005, the Secret Service reported that about $61 million in counterfeit currency was passed on the public worldwide. Of the counterfeit currency passed, the majority, $56.2 million, was passed in the United States, with the remainder passed abroad. As to why they're checking:  Would you want to receive a counterfeit bill? Costco checks my cash when I check out.  The guy I got a buggy ride from up in upstate New York checked my bill.  It's easy to check certain things on the bill.  Why not?
The City of London economy is entirely dependent on total, unhindered access to the EU. Any blockages and it's over. No deal, no matter how good is going to replicate the City of London being in the EU. It may be a substantial financial centre for a few years after Brexit but that will very quickly evaporate. Libor would have been something keeping banks there, but with that now gone there is nothing else.
"The basic idea is that money's worth is dependent on what it can be used to buy. The principal driver of monetary exchange (using one type of currency to ""buy"" another) is that usually, transactions for goods or services in a particular country must be made using that country's official currency. So, if the U.S. has something very valuable (let's say iPhones) that people in other countries want to buy, they have to buy dollars and then use those dollars to buy the consumer electronics from sellers in the U.S. Each country has a ""basket"" of things they produce that another country will want, and a ""shopping list"" of things of value they want from that other country. The net difference in value between the basket and shopping list determines the relative demand for one currency over another; the dollar might gain value relative to the Euro (and thus a Euro will buy fewer dollars) because Europeans want iPhones more than Americans want BMWs, or conversely the Euro can gain strength against the dollar because Americans want BMWs more than Europeans want iPhones. The fact that iPhones are actually made in China kind of plays into it, kind of not; Apple pays the Chinese in Yuan to make them, then receives dollars from international buyers and ships the iPhones to them, making both the Yuan and the dollar more valuable than the Euro or other currencies. The total amount of a currency in circulation can also affect relative prices. Right now the American Fed is pumping billions of dollars a day into the U.S. economy. This means there's a lot of dollars floating around, so they're easy to get and thus demand for them decreases. It's more complex than that (for instance, the dollar is also used as the international standard for trade in oil; you want oil, you pay for it in dollars, increasing demand for dollars even when the United States doesn't actually put any oil on the market to sell), but basically think of different currencies as having value in and of themselves, and that value is affected by how much the market wants that currency."
Here's a pretty comprehensive data source on immigration trends: http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/social-issues-migration-health/international-migration-outlook-2017_migr_outlook-2017-en#.WazX28aB2gA#page18  On page 18 there's a table when you can compare the net immigration flows to the EU and to the US.  The EU net immigration annually is roughly double that of immigration to the US.  For people of immigration origin the US has more; EU figure is 35M.  Source: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/1/10/Foreign-born_population_by_country_of_birth%2C_1_January_2016_%28¹%29.png  The US had roughly 43.3M people of immigration origin in 2015.  Source: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states  My point being - there is plenty of incoming cheap work force available in all rich countries. The structure of the US service economy cannot be explained with supply of work force.
The president doesn't have a magic wand that automatically makes his will the law of the land.   The president is the chief executive over a complicated bureaucratic system we call the US government. With many branches and departments, some of which are legally separated by the US Constitution and not directly under the president's control.  No things aren't going to get better because the issues this country faces are beyond the office of the president. Maybe if Congress would get serious about America we would see a little traction on the recovery, as we would have 2/3 branches of the government moving in in the same direction. Currently the US government is a centipede with 2/3rds of its legs busted.  **EDIT:** I don't mean to give the impression that the Judicial Branch is dysfunctional so much as I wanted to illustrate that it tends to follow the Legislative and Executive branches, not lead them. The Legislative branch creates the laws that the Executive branch (Office of the President) enforces. The Judicial branch oversees these two branches to make sure they create laws that abide by and operate within the Constitution.
The severity of wealth inequality- more so than its existence- is what I'm getting at when I talk about the Fed. The cantillon effect is a theory that essentially states that the first recipients of stimulus are far better off than those 2 or 3 degrees of separation later.  So if you look at Fed policies, where monetary stimulus is directed only towards the financial system and credit markets, certain parties will benefit disproportionately first before others later. In this case, that would be those employed by the industry (bankers, investors, etc), institutions in that industry (banks, hedge funds, pension/mutual funds), and owners of securities (the wealthy). Spillover effects impact the stock market, real estate, art, etc. and they are not a result of fundamentals, but rather of mis-allocated capital.  What I'm getting at is we don't need central planners (i.e. the Fed) to make decisions regarding the market for money - interest rates - or pursue dubious financial experiments at best to somehow fix problems that they themselves caused in the past (through extended low interest rate environments). Central banking could take a very serious hit if cryptocurrencies become mainstream- which I do not expect for a long time- but it's the best emergent challenger to the existing paradigm.
"Yes, I'm a big picture guy.  Like when the central banks opened unlimited short term lines recently the first thing I thought was ""now hedge funds can short the euro with impunity!""  So, short bets on the euro became a no brainer even as the market was perversely celebrating the announcement with a euro rally.  Almost as if they have no idea how the bigger picture works.  As if all liquidity is created equally.  All it meant to me was that European banks would not have to call in the lines of credit they extend to hedge funds for THREE YEARS.  That is enough time to crash the euro, hold a funeral and dance on the grave.  It is just musical chairs over there.  All the banks know the EU is coming for them an they all want to be in the right capital position to survive the banhammer.  They'll sell out the euro to get there.  I think I'm a bit too jaded for Graham style fundamental analysis.  Then again I do use strong companies as my preferred trading vehicles.  So, maybe I do a hybrid."