vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Washington Post's website is cancer. Shame on whoever decided that was a good way to run a website. Looks like a geocities website from the 90's complete with popup ads and anti adblock nonsense. But anyway.  I like how the article cites Bill Gross. He is the star of one of my favorite stories in recent financial history. In 2011, during the debt ceiling madness, the S&amp;P downgraded the US credit rating in an unprecedented move because they felt there was too much political turmoil for us to pay our debts on time. Bill Gross was the manager of Pimco's fixed income fund at the time, the largest bond fund in the world - I don't know how much, but probably hundreds of billions AUM? Gross was, and still is, one of the world's leading experts on FI securities. When the credit rating was cut, he predicted investors would flee from riskier US debt. He basically sold the entire fund's considerable holdings of US treasuries and fled to cash.    Then the market did something absolutely crazy: it bought *more* US debt after our debt rating was cut. Prices went UP and interest rates went DOWN. It was insane. I remember seeing Gross on MSNBC or whatever right after it happened and he basically said ""I'll be damned man, whodathunkit?""    ¯\\_(ツ )_/¯  That's when I officially 100% lost faith in active fund management and went to index funds only. I've always felt that there is very high efficiency in securities these days due to the free flow of information and enormous processing power to analyze it. That being said, the flight to index funds will probably tilt the ""balance of power"" in the other direction, and increase inefficiency, which will produce lower hanging fruit, and then stock pickers start winning again. Maybe markets will reach a natural equilibrium; or maybe we'll just see the tide come in and out every few years or decades or so."
"There's an old adage in the equities business - ""buy on rumor, sell on fact"".  Sometimes the strategy is to buy as soon as the rumor is out about a potential merger and then sell off into the news when it is actually announced, since this is normally when the biggest bounce occurs as part of a merger. The other part of the analysis you should do is to understand which of the companies benefits most (or is hurt the worst) by the merger and then make your play accordingly.  Sometimes the company being acquired will see a bounce while the acquiring firm takes a hit, which is an indication the experts think the acquisition will be a drag on the acquiring company (perhaps because it is taking on a great deal of debt to make the acquisition, or because the acquiring firm is paying too much of a premium for what it's getting in return).  Other times the exact opposite is true, where the company being acquired takes a hit while the buyer bounces, and again, the reasons for this can vary widely. If you wait until the merger is actually announced then by the time you get in, most of the premium from the announcement will likely have already been realized, and you'll be buying near the top of the market for the stock.  The key is to be ahead of the other sellers by seeing the opportunities before they do and then knowing when to get out before everyone else does.  Not an easy thing to pull off when you're trying to anticipate the markets, but it can be done if you do the right research and have patience. Good luck!"
When the inflation rate increases, this tends to push up interest rates because of supply and demand: If the interest rate is less than the inflation rate, then putting your money in the bank means that you are losing value every day that it is there. So there's an incentive to withdraw your money and spend it now. If, say, I'm planning to buy a car, and my savings are declining in real value, then if I buy a car today I can get a better car than if I wait until tomorrow. When interest rates are high compared to inflation, the reverse is true. My savings are increasing in value, so the longer I leave my money in the bank the more it's worth. If I wait until tomorrow to buy a car I can get a better car than I would be able to buy today. Also, people find alternative places to keep their savings. If a savings account will result in me losing value every day my money is there, then maybe I'll put the money in the stock market or buy gold or whatever. So for the banks to continue to get enough money to make loans, they have to increase the interest rates they pay to lure customers back to the bank. There is no reason per se for rising interest rates to consumers to directly cause an increase in the inflation rate. Inflation is caused by the money supply growing faster than the amount of goods and services produced. Interest rates are a cost. If interest rates go up, people will borrow less money and spend it on other things, but that has no direct effect on the total money supply. Except ... you may note I put a bunch of qualifiers in that paragraph. In the United States, the Federal Reserve loans money to banks. It creates this money out of thin air. So when the interest that the Federal Reserve charges to the banks is low, the banks will borrow more from the Feds. As this money is created on the spot, this adds to the money supply, and thus contributes to inflation. So if interest rates to consumers are low, this encourages people to borrow more money from the banks, which encourages the banks to borrow more from the Feds, which increases the money supply, which increases inflation. I don't know much about how it works in other countries, but I think it's similar in most nations.
"You may be missing how countries like Canada may have oil be more of the GDP than countries like the US. In Canada, the lower oil prices may mean more of an economic slowdown with oil companies laying off staff, canceling projects and some companies probably going under as some provinces like Alberta are highly dependent on oil prices to drive most of the economy. In contrast, the US isn't quite as rich in Energy sources and thus may not have the same issues would be my guess. Context matters here. If the rate change helps everybody, doesn't that include the oil producing companies? I'd like to think so using basic logic. What if the main reason for lowering rates was the economic fallout of the decrease in oil prices? Consider that the there would be the question of, ""Why do this now?"" that has to be answered and the only main change is lower oil prices on a macroeconomic level."
While JB King says some useful things, I think there is another fundamental reason why stock markets go down after disasters, either natural or man-made.  There is a real impact on the markets - in the case of something like 9/11 due to closed airport, higher security costs, closer inspections on trade goods, tighter restrictions on visas, real payments for the rebuilding of destroyed buildings and insurance payouts for killed people, and eventually the cost of a war. But almost as important is the uncertainty and risk. Nobody knew what was going to happen in the days and weeks after an attack like that. Is there going to be another one a week later, or every week for the next year? Will air travel become essentially impractical? Will international trade be severely restricted? All those would have a huge, massive effect on the economy. You may argue that those things are very unlikely, even after something like 9/11. But even a small increase in the likelihood of a catastrophic economic crash is enough to start people selling. There is another thing that drives the market down. Even if most people are sure that there won't be a catastrophic economic crash, they know that other people think there might be and so will sell. That will drive the market down. If they know the market is going down, then sensible traders will start to sell, even if they think there is zero risk of a crash. This makes the effect worse. Eventually prices will drop so far that the people who don't think there is a crash will start to buy, so they can make a profit on the recovery. But that usually doesn't happen until there has been a substantial drop.
&gt;the flattening of the curve most likely results from a domestic unemployment figure that doesn’t capture global labour market competition  This.  We're not competing with ourselves when it comes to wages, we're competing with much lower living standards in other countries.  The result is stunted wage growth due to a huge vacuum existing between the consumer markets of the Developed and Developing countries: Wage growth is being absorbed by differences in purchasing power parity, resulting in almost deflationary pressure.  The effect on employment numbers means that unemployment can hit zero in one economy without inflationary pressure, because the slack can be picked up *in another economy*.
How about the fact that when a stranger calls me at 3pm on a Tuesday it means only a few things:  * I've forgotten to pay a bill * Someone I know is in the hospital * Someone wants my opinion on something I don't care about  At 3pm on a Tuesday (like nearly every other weekday afternoon) I'm busy.  I answer the phone to ensure it isn't a forgotten bill or someone in the hospital, but it's usually someone trying to sell me stuff or ask for my opinions.  I always decline.  BECAUSE I'M BUSY, LIKE EVERY OTHER WORKING ADULT WITH A FAMILY!
If suppose western union is an american company with physical existence in 100 countries they not only have to be registered with Financial Services Authority in US but also in every other countries they have their physical address in. I know many of you will still argue that it has a valid verisign logo which means it's a company with physical address and its been verified. But please remember its very easy to fool those verisign guys coz almost every verification is done online. Also the verisign information of this company shows its a company registered in UK not Malta. Just to be very sure again I also checked the FSA website of UK. There is no such company under FSA regulations even in UK. I would want to give you the answer to your question very boldly but I had a bad experience today on this same website so I would rather allow you make the decision wether its a legit company or a SCAM.
Ive said my plea, and my experience in the domain makes me very comfortable trashing that article; if you want to trust him no questions asks, by all means, just makes you as arrogantly ignorant as he is portrayed by this article. Really sounds like this article was written based on the markets of 2010.   I am not crying, just pointing out how your arrogance and your insults are not backed by much, and its not the first time I've seen an academic thinking he understands the markets so well, while not understanding shit about it.
&gt; My biggest thing is I can't put them on bookshelves...I have a mini library starting and I really enjoy having physical books around I can pick and choose from whenever I feel like reading.  Aah, the stationary life.    As someone that likes experiencing the world and has spent 2+ months in maybe 5 countries so far in his life (including living in 2 and soon a 3rd), the bookshelves are the most annoying part of physical books. Sure, they're visually pleasing, but when we moved countries last time I swear 50% of the weight we dragged over was in books.  Also: I do a great deal of long distance flying, and used to pick up books for both flights. 20 flights a year and I'd have 40 soft cover books of mediocre quality accumulating on my shelves just from that. I hate throwing books away, and with my wife flying similarly we just accumulated this crap (and it was annoying while traveling too).  All in all, life has been **much** easier since the e-books came out.
Thats true that they love to report gaffs, but I dont just watch the Aussie news, In fact I hardly watch it at all, I tend to read most of my news online from a variety of sites, not just reddit, and watch a few different US news programs. I also see how he acts in Debates and such. Anyway my point was more to find out if other people have risen to power while not against redditors beliefs. People got hung up on the Romney part though.
Thanks, that was super helpful. Here is what I took from that. Any criticizimes?  Money- sell to government (microgrid &gt; traditional infastructure)  Safety- educate Nigerian citizens on the dangers of exposure to high voltage electricity (something us as Americans take for granted, but an un-educated Nigerian may not understand)  Jobs- use the opportunity to train Nigerian workers to work on and in the future set-up these microgrid systems (will help with sustainability and expansion in the future)  Sustainability- excess energy produced by microgrids could be sold to neighboring communities and other countries. This money can be reinvested into development of microgrids  Expansion- start small with a couple of community's as proof of concept and once those show benefits over community's with traditional infrastructure start expanding at exponential pace. (The more community's with microgrids the more successful the power grid)
"I would be wary of having coins in containers with cardboard. Ideally you want the coins to be in an airtight envelope made of plastic to minimize any chance of oxidation or reaction with chemicals in the air. Cheap, retail coins like you would find in a Whitman collection are not generally going to hold value well. Sometimes you can sell a collection and break even if you have a nice complete set, but in general  VF coins with common dates will not appreciate at all. Investment coins usually are high-priced items that sell for thousands each, not the sort thing you find in Whitman folders. In general, collectibles are bad investments in the US because IRS rules tax gains as ordinary income. So, unless you sell them under the table or have really low income, you lose a lot of your profit. If you enjoy collecting, focus on the fun of it, worrying about investment in coin collections is a joy killer. A Parting Anecdote... When I was a kid I painstakingly assembled a lot of BU rolls, because that was the hot thing back then. I wrote on them ""DO NOT OPEN FOR 10 YEARS"". You know how much a 1980 BU roll of Lincoln cents is worth now, 40 years later? $2.00 on eBay. Some days I spend more on lunch than the worth of my entire Lincoln cent collection."
"I don't look to Super or Pension, I am working on self funding. My method is work in Sydney and buy a house in Sydney (I bought 6 years ago). Let my property rise on this stupidly insane Sydney growth (my place has risen by 76% in the last 6 years and thats in a ""bad"" economic climate). Each time the equity hits a certain point get an investment property on an interest only home loan and rent it out. Build this portfolio up as much and as quickly as you can. Repeat over and over until I decide to retire. Sell up investment properties and buy NOT IN SYDNEY where it is much cheaper and move there, keep the main house I always lived in as by this time I will own it outright, rent it out for an income that will more than sustain me in my retirement. Although there is also merit in the idea of sell the one you lived in and use the money to pay of one of the investments, this way you avoid capital gains tax. This idea came to me last night :)"
The first thing that I learned the hard way (by trying my hand at actual options trading) is that liquidity matters. So few people are interested in trading the same options that I am that it is easy to get stuck holding profitable contracts into expiration unless I offer to sell them for a lot less than they are worth.  I also learned that options are a kind of insurance,and no one makes money (in the long run) buying insurance.  So you can use options to hedge and thereby prevent losses, but you also blunt your gains.  Edit: IMO,options (in the long run) only make money for the brokers as you pay a commission both on the buy and on the sell. With my broker the commission on options is higher than the commission on stocks (or ETFs).
i have experienced other countries, among them have been 20 plus countries in europe, 10 ish countries in asia and a few countries in middle east - and there were downsides to these especially kind of old world europe that was not built to be comfortable for moderm life the way us / new cities in asia like singapore are
Give it time. Soon, other countries won't be able to have flights to the US unless people are pre-screened by the TSA agents in the departing country just past customs.  Considering all the other expansions the TSA is doing, I have no doubt they'll try.  And I have no doubt more than a few countries will go along.  It wouldn't surprise me if the TSA screened people from the other countries after they got off the plane. You know, so they can figure out if you *were* going to blow up the plane.
My experience (from European countries, but not Portugal specifically) is that it's better to change in the European country, as many banks will give you US $ as a matter of course, while in the US (insular place that it is), it can be rather difficult to find a place to exchange money outside an international airport.  In fact, I have a few hundred Euros left from my last trip, several years ago.  Expected to make another trip which didn't come off, and haven't found a place to exchange them. PS: Just for information's sake, at the time I was working in Europe, and found that by far the easiest way to transfer part of my salary back home was to get $100 bills from my European bank.  Another way was to withdraw money from an ATM, as the US & European banks were on the same network.  Unfortunately the IRS put a stop to that, though I don't know if it was all banks, or just the particular one I was using.  Might be worth checking, though.
My two cents:   I, like many people in finance, got into it for the money. However, I like many other people, found myself liking it for intrinsic reasons once I got into it.   I genuinely enjoy learning about financial theory, economics, understanding how global markets work, following the different story lines for the EU/US/Asian economies, working on financial models, reading the WSJ, keeping up to date on new earning releases, analyzing investments, learning about companies/industries, etc.  But I never would have found out that I liked these things unless I had chosen to study them and the only reason I chose to study them in the first place was because I wanted to make money. I'd take an intro finance class and see if it seems like something that could grow on you.
I'm in Estonia, so a while back I did some coding for a US company, who figured it would be cheaper to outsource to Estonia. Since I had too much on my plate at that time, I outsourced the task to a guy in the US, who was having a hard time finding a job, because of all the outsourcing.
The College Board offers a calculator.  (Targeted to US residents; not sure how the figures will differ for Canada and other countries.)  Keep in mind that college costs typically increase faster than inflation.  When I attended in 2001-2005, my college's tuition costs increases ranged from 4 to 6%.
This can happen even if demand for our dollars inside our own borders is high, and is generally a function of our trade situation; if we're buying more from other countries than they are from us, then our dollars are flooding the currency exchange markets and thus become cheaper because they're easy to get. Again, there are other variables at play here that keep our currency strong. First off, again, it's bad everywhere; nobody's buying anything from anyone (relatively speaking) and so the relative trade deficits aren't moving much. In addition, devaluation without inflation is self-stablizing; if currency devalues but inflation is low, the cheaper currency makes the things that currency can buy cheaper, which encourages people to buy them. At the same time, the more expensive foreign currency increases the cost in dollars of foreign-made goods. All of this can be beneficial from a money policy standpoint; devaluation makes American goods cheaper to Americans and to foreign consumers alike than foreign goods, and so a policy that puts downward pressure on the dollar but doesn't make inflation a risk can help American manufacturing and other producer businesses. China knows this just as well as we do, and for decades has been artificially fixing the exchange rate of the Renmin B (Yuan) lower than its true value against the dollar, meaning that no matter how cheap American goods get on the world market, Chinese goods are still cheaper, because by definition the Yuan has greater purchasing power for the same cost in dollars. In addition, dollars aren't only used to buy American-made goods and services. The U.S. has positioned its currency over the years to be an international medium of trade for several key commodities (like oil), and the primary currency for global lenders like the IMF and the World Bank. That means that dollars become necessary to buy these things, and are received from and must be repaid to these institutions, and thus the dollar has a built-in demand pretty much regardless of our trade deficits. On top of all that, a lot of countries base their own currencies on our dollar, by basically buying dollars (using other valuable media like gold or oil) and then holding that cash in their own central banks as the store of value backing their own paper money. This is called a ""dollar board"".
"For the same reason that people bet on different teams. Some think the Tigers will win, others thing the Yankees will win. They wager $5 on it. One of them wins, the other loses. In a short, one person bets that the stock goes down, the other bets that the stock goes up (or hold). You're basically saying ""I think this stock is going to hold it's value or go up. If I thought it would go down, like you do, I would sell it myself right now. Instead, I'll let you have it for a while because when I get it back I think I'll come out on top."""
Don't forget that as Americans go to bed, the Asian markets are just opening, and by the time US markets have opened, it is already past 2PM in London. In addition to the information (and therefore new knowledge) gained from these foreign markets' movements, macro factors can also play an important part in a security's price-- perhaps the ECB makes a morning statement that is interpreted as negative news for the markets or a foreign government before the US markets open. Stock prices on the NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. won't be able to react until 9:30, but the $40 price of the last trade of a broad market ETF at 4PM yesterday probably isn't looking so hot at 6:30 this morning... don't forget either that most individual stocks are correlated with the movement of the broader market, so even news that is not specific to a given security will in all likelihood still have an impact on that security's price. The above are only a few of many examples of things that can impact a stock's valuation between close and open: all sorts of geopolitical events, announcements from large, multi-national companies, macroeconomic stats such as unemployment rates, etc. announced in foreign countries can all play a role in affecting a security's price overnight. As an aside, one of the answers mentioned after hours trading as a reason--in actuality this typically has very little (if any) impact on the next day's prices and is often referred to as ""amateur hour"", due to the fact that trading during this time typically consists of small-time investors. Prices in AH are very poor predictors of a stock's price at open."
"I've said it before here on Reddit, and I'll say it again: How does HFT affect an investor looking to buy XYZ at $10 and hold for six months to sell at $12? The answer: It doesn't.  HFT is just the new exchange ""floor."" There have always been professionals on the floors of the exchanges who could compete with one another for single ticks. And then, just as now, they had little to no impact on long-term investors.  Reading through the comments of the article makes it abundantly clear that there is a shocking lack of knowledge of HFT practices and impact on the markets."