vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I know bitcoin. I don't understand ethereum except that the smart contracts bit is an abstraction of the blockchain concept to expand it beyond a mere ledger to a crypto-enhanced trust system that could be the escrow of the financial world.  I still need to read more about it and understand how ICOs are done. I had those sources open already. Some 10 tabs that I still haven't gotten to read in 4 months. Oh well, some incentive to get to it this weekend I guess.
If you don't have other income, then seriously consider selling the 65% property and diversifying the payout into something else. E.g. stocks and bonds. Perhaps your relative would be willing to float you the loan. That would save you bank fees and closing costs. Write up a contract and agree to take assignment of the title at payoff. You'll need to pay a lawyer to write up the contract (paying a modest amount now to cover the various future possibilities), but that should still be cheaper. There's a certain amount of trust required on both sides, but this gives you some separation. And of course it takes your relative out of the day-to-day management entirely. Perhaps the steady flow of cash would provide what they need. If your relative is willing to remain that involved, that can work. Note that they may not want to do this, so don't get too attached to the idea. Be prepared for a no. This would be a great option for you, as you pretty much get everything you have now. They get back the time meeting with you to make decisions, but they also give up control over those decisions. Some people would not like that tradeoff. The one time I was involved with a professional managing a property for me, the fee was around 7% of the rent. If that fits your area, you might reasonably charge 5%. That gives a discount for family and not being a professional. There's a relatively easy way to find out what fits your area. Look around and see what companies offer multiple listings. Call until you find a couple that will do management for you. Get quotes for managing your properties. Now you'll know the amounts. The big failing though is that this may not describe the issue that your relative has. If the real problem is that the two of you have different approaches to property management, then making you the only decision maker may be the wrong direction. This is certainly financially feasible, but it still may not be the right solution for your relationship. If you get a no on this, I'd recommend moving on to other solutions immediately. This may simply be too favorable to you.
I'm all-in on hard silver, a small portion is stored at my house for emergency expenditures and the vast majority is in a high-security vault in Canada. That was actually the cheapest place I could find for long-term storage and insurance, which happened to be off-shore. It could turn out to be beneficial to be off-shore though. In the 1930s gold became illegal to privately own its very possible they could do the same this time, although they didn't in 1979. Oil is too high in volume to reasonably store. Gold isn't as undervalued as silver, which I could spend a full day talking about. But to sum it up in a few points: there is less silver than there is gold, gold has a premium for jewelry which will likely go down in a crash even though you will still see gains, silver is the second most used commodity besides oil, less people are in the know about it, silver prices were actually higher than gold a few times in the past century, simply measuring the dow in silver will show it's further below the historical average compared to gold. I'll stop there, but I could go on though on silver if people want. Real-estate is still very expensive from the 2008 recession, traditionally mortgages are $1.05 per dollar you would spend on renting the same property. Currently real-estate is at like $1.25+ I believe, It peaked at about $1.95. I rent, to save money, which you can spend on other assets. If one's willing to move to another state for lower taxes, they definitely should. Employment is going to be harder to come by, and they should get as much out of it as possible as they can. If they don't save enough, they could end up just using their entire savings during the whole thing if they can't find a job, in which case at the end you'd never know they knew it was going to happen. Overall I don't think this crash is going to be like the great depression. I don't feel compelled to store food and buy a generator or anything. I believe the living will be *easier* than it were to live in the 90s for those who are invested in assets.
"Lol. We also used to have actual trace amounts of cocaine in Coca Cola, used meth for medication, and have eaten some pretty nasty shit in the past. Doesn't mean we can't learn it's bad for us. Do you know how many societies that never had access to dairy are unilaterally lactose intolerant? The developed world had consistent access to cow milk and therefore maintained an unnatural lactose tolerance. If one doesn't continue its consumption, they become intolerant after infancy. If the natural human reaction to dairy without interference isn't ""natural"" I don't know what would convince you."
"I think the issues you have listed will definitely be some of the larger ones over the next few months even. In relation to interest rates though I think inflation/deflation will aslo start to become an increasinly debated topic, especially if they decide on more QE.  Over the next few months into the election I expect to see a flight to quality from the big money and then from retail investors (aren't we already seeing this?). This would bear negative for most stock averages and indexs and positive for ""safe"" assets such as gold, treasuries, what else? In my opinion the industry that stands to take the biggest losses are the  financials, particulary the TBTF banks. This will be a large issue in the election and there is really no way they can walk away from the Europe situation unharmed.  In the event of a war (Israel/Iran I assume you mean), I would imagine oil would come up from the relative low it is at now. This would then increase the appeal of Nat Gas which I don't think can stay at the price level it is at now.  tl;dr - bearish for the stock markets, bullish on safe assets as doubt in the system increases significantly"
If you're wrong it is worse for the children. Artificially quadrupling energy costs in a vain effort to lower temps will kill more people by demolishing economies and restricting access to food and water.   I hope for global warming as it historically coincides with relative human prosperity. The little ice age was marked by human suffering and famine.
I can understand if people think I'm showing off. I'm not trying to and I'm extremely sorry if it seems like I am. Trust me, my Beta is probably much larger than it should be relative to my returns. However, I think I can keep the pace up but I just didn't know if this was too short of time to try and make a decision off of or not
If they don't save enough, they could end up just using their entire savings during the whole thing if they can't find a job, in which case at the end you'd never know they knew it was going to happen. Overall I don't think this crash is going to be like the great depression. I don't feel compelled to store food and buy a generator or anything. I believe the living will be *easier* than it were to live in the 90s for those who are invested in assets. Everything is going to be on sale, meanwhile their wealth will be increasing. Depending on how much they own it could be increasing faster than they need to spend it. Sounds like the life to me. But with that said those without real assets, especially the lower class, will be unemployed and living on food stamps. Perhaps even the food stamps making more people leave the dollar and the economy. This actually might not be a prediction and is what happening already. But I don't believe anybody, in america at least, will be starving. In the 30s we had not mastered industry farming yet and we had the *dustbowl* to make things worse. Crime though, I'd own a gun. The protesters are here already, and I think we are just passing the half-way point right now, they will get angrier. I don't know enough about taxes to know the best country or place to store to combat taxes. Maybe someone else can chime in. I'm in canada to avoid high insurance and storage fees. And for careful selection of primary residence, In the long haul I'd rent a small apartment, as small and cheap as possible. In a safe neighborhood, but not so much secluded that a single grocery store or gas station going out of business could ruin it.
"The public doesn't really need to ""notice"" for inflation to take effect. Inflation happens there's more money relative to things to buy. Most people think that if say we increase the money supply by 2x, everything should get more expensive. But it matters ""where"" the increase in money supply is and to ""whom"" is receiving it. For example, the liquid money supply for US$ increased almost 4 times from 2009 to 2017 via quantitative easing, where the central bank purchased not just short term treasuries, but also longer term bonds. You would think that having 4x the amount of US$ circulating would lead to a lot of inflation on consumer prices. For every $1 that was floating around in 2009, we now have $4, so people should be willing to pay more for a given good, increasing its price. However, the ""new"" money has been primarily used to purchase assets, and drive up their prices. It has not really found its way to into worker pay (or to the general public), as median income for workers has stayed relatively flat in that time frame. So it can be argued that the ""asset"" markets are feeling the effects of ""inflation"" from the increased money supply. Where real estate prices, public stock prices, venture capital investments, etc. have all seen a large increase in their costs to acquire relative to the same asset and opportunity. These assets are acting like a ""sponge"" for the ""new money"" that prevents the effects of its inflationary properties from exiting out into the consumer economy. That is also why central banks across the globe are in a predicament in how to ""stop"" quantitative easing. If they were to shrink the money supply, the inflationary pressures on assets would go down because there's not enough new money to keep raising their prices. Doing it the wrong way would cause housing, stocks, and investment markets to stop growing, because there wouldn't be as much ""new money"" creating demand for those assets. The best way I can illustrate this is with an example: Say you have an economy that consists of an ""Orange Tree"" that produces 10 oranges per year.
So if I wanted to create my own smartphone navigation app, I would have access to all the same collected data Google has? Or are you saying I'd have the same ability to collect data? I'm talking about the economy of scale relating to data.   Google/Waze have tons of users and user data, which allows them to tailor their services very well. As a small start up, I wouldn't have access to this data right? Google owns it. They bought Waze do double down on their data. How does a small firm build something very reliant on data, if it hasn't collected any?   If this data isn't important, why do the big guys buy out firms that have this data? I think smaller firms have the ability to collect and process data, but the vast amounts of info Google, Amazon, and the other giants allows them to make better decisions and build better products. Smaller firms without years of data collection or the ability to buy the data, are extremely disadvantaged.
Here in Germany there is a special case. I am studying (and working a little on the side) and still receiving child benefits from the state which is like 190€/m. Because I am getting this I don't have to pay tuition which is 1k/y. If my side income would get over the boundary (which is like 9k/y) I would lose those benefits (~3.3k) and would have to pay insurance myself (I dont know how much that would be. 50-100/m I guess.) So getting a raise from 8k to 10k sounds nice as it is a 25% raise, but it actually means getting less.
"That's interesting, I didn't know that.  I'm in the sales/marketing field myself, so this is a very strange idea to me.    It seems like this could help contribute to their problems though...I'd like to think that I'm a relatively intelligent and successful individual, and I would hate the prospect of entering an environment like that.  Don't get me wrong, a job at MSFT is still a job at MSFT.  There are few companies that can offer their level of job security.  But, to know that no matter how much of an asset I'd make myself, that I'm just ""climbing"" a rigid ladder...that's a bit rough.  Obviously, you always have to work your way up any where, but I could see how that might turn away motivated and ambitious talent."
Others have pointed out why one typically chooses a CD: to lock in an interest rate that's higher than most other savings accounts (at the expense of having quick access to your money). While most savings accounts have practically 0% return, there are high yield savings accounts out there with little to no strings that offer ~1% APY. I've personally not found CDs to be compelling when viewed against those, especially for something like an emergency fund where I'd rather just know it's available without having to think about penalties and such. Some people ladder CDs so that they're always no more than a month or so away from having access to some of the money, but for the return I've decided I prefer to just avoid the hassle. For 2.25%, which I haven't really seen, I might consider it, but in any case, you're better served by paying more to your loans.
Holy shit, there are so many experts in here!  The banks change software with physical access to the ATM, the type of access the public doesn't have without breaking into it and setting off an alarm.  And you linked a 4 year old article.  You think all ATM machines are still that vulnerable to physical attack?    I don't know where you live, but ATM machines here are very new.  And even if they run Windows XP, so what.
So, if you're willing to take a 20% haircut, then by all means do that. However, realize that you may be throwing 1/5 of your money out the window. Meanwhile, REITs can be quite risky as investing in the real estate market itself can be quite risky. One reason is that the assets are very much fixed in place and thus can not be liquidated in the same way as other assets. Thus, you are subject to the vicissitudes of a relatively small market. Another issue is the large capital outlays required for most commercial building projects, thus typically requiring quite a bit of credit and risk. Another way to put it: Donald Trump made his name in real estate, but it was (and still is) a very bumpy ride. Yet another way to put it: you have to build it before they will come and there is no guarantee that they will like what you built. What mutual funds or index funds should I investigate to implement these strategies? I would generally avoid actively managed mutual funds, due to the expenses. They can seriously eat into the returns. There is a reason that the most mutual funds compare themselves to the Lipper average instead of something like the S&P 500. All of those costs involved in managing a mutual fund (teams of people and trading costs) tend to weigh down on them quite heavily. As the Motley Fool expounded on years ago, if you can not do better than the S&P 500, you should save yourself the headaches and simply invest in an S&P 500 index fund. That said, depending on your skill (and luck) picking stocks (or even funds), you may very well have been able to beat the S&P 500 over the past 10 years. Of course, you may have also done a whole lot worse. This article discusses the performance of the S&P 500 over the past 60 years. As you can see, the past 10 years have been a very bumpy ride yielding in a negative return. Again, keep in mind that you could have done much worse with other investments. That site, Simple Stock Investing may be a good place to start educating yourself. I am not familiar with the site, so do not take this as an endorsement.
"What you charge them depends on what kind of use you want them to have of the house.  Your use of the term ""roommate"" implies you're imagining, well, a roommate-type situation where everyone has full access to all common areas.  This is the usual situation when multiple people jointly rent a house that none of them owns.  In this situation all the roommates are essentially equals. But if you own the house and are renting it out, you can do whatever you want.  A lot of people would not look for ""roommates"" but for ""lodgers"" or ""tenants"" --- you rent one room to a person, and you decide what the terms are for their use of the rest of the house.  That means you get to decide if/when they use the kitchen, if/when they get to use your dishes, what they can do in the back yard, etc.  In this situation the roommates are not your equals.  You own the property and you set the terms for everyone else.  (To clarify after reading the other answer: by ""not your equals"" I don't mean to imply that renters aren't equal as human beings to the landlord or should be treated as lowly peasants or anything like that.  I just mean that they need not have equal decision-making powers with regard to the housing itself.) I would say the big difference is the social dynamic: personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable renting out rooms to ""roommates"" unless I was quite sure I would get along with them --- basically, the kind of people I would actually rent with, not just rent to. If you do rent roommate-style, and everyone has essentially equal access to all the facilities of the house, I'd say it's reasonable to split all house expenses roughly equally (with perhaps some adjustments for differences in amenities, like if one person has a larger bedroom than others).  If you rent tenant-style, where you're not expecting them to be your buddies, the best way to determine a reasonable rent is to find other people renting similar rooms and see how much they're charging.  Craigslist is a great way to do that; you can also ask around to people you know."
Yes, it's considered the students asset, regardless of the custodian aspect.  I don't know how you'd propose to put it in a retirement account, even with the earned income to facilitate this, the limit is $5500/yr.  The larger issue is parental income. That and parental assets. Tough to game that part of the system to get aid. In the end, one should look to scholarships, both merit and non merit based to maximize college support.
"Yeah, I understand that is a nebulous term, akin to stopping ""pork"" in various bills. However, getting back to that Economist article, this really stood out to me:  &gt; America’s corporate tax has two horrible flaws. The first is the tax rate, which at 35% is the highest among the 34 mostly rich-country members of the OECD. Yet it raises less revenue than the OECD average thanks to myriad loopholes and tax breaks aimed at everything from machinery investment to NASCAR race tracks. Last year these breaks cost $150 billion in forgone revenue, more than half of what America collected in total corporate taxes.  I'm not clear on where they got that number, but assuming it is true, there are certainly plenty of places we could start if we were to lower the tax rate to a sane level.   Also, I still don't see how just lowering the tax rate and removing the repatriation tax on foreign earned profit would truly disincentivize inversion. If there are countries like Bermuda still out there with say, random number here, a 5% corporate tax, wouldn't the incentive still exist?"
While others have made a good case for how you may want to save and spend I just want to take a moment to comment on Acorn and Robinhood.  Having never used either of them, I would stick to the seasoned professionals for my long term investment relationship. I'm sure they have the right licensing and proper SIPC coverage etc, but I wouldn't, personally, trust my money to an entity that's almost entirely funded by venture capital.  I would stick to a company that exists and is profitable on it's own.  All of the major brokerage houses (Vanguard, Schwab, ETrade, Scottrade, etc) in the US give account holders access to a list of ETFs and Mutual Funds with zero load on deposits, no or low minimum account balances, no or low investment minimums, and no commissions.  With access to these no cost options, I wouldn't waste time with an entity that exists because of it's investor fund raising abilities.
"Its a good question. Off the top of my head I would suggest to revoke their licenses to do business, and involuntary dissolution of the corporate entity. Mandatory sale of all assets including customer lists and other intangibles to the highest bidder. The entity would essentially be absorbed by other businesses in their industry so the industry and economy as a whole probably wouldn't be affected too much by the ""execution."" The shareholders would lose a lot obviously because the proceeds from the fire sale would probably be way lower than FMV. But fuck the shareholders, investing carries risk and their business failed. The relatively innocent employees could go work in the other businesses that bought up OldCo's assets. Higher level corporate executives should have to take personal responsibility legally. This is similar to how SOX requires the CEO and CFO to take personal responsibility for the financial statements they prepare and publish, with penalties up to and including millions of dollars of fines and jail time.  But of course, as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony too as the saying goes."
I realize this is a dated question, but for anyone interested in this subject please be aware of the availability of IRC § 1235 and capital gain treatment for the sale of patents.  When the holder of a patent transfers all substantial rights to an unrelated person, it can qualify for long-term capital gain treatment.  That can be a meaningful tax savings relative to ordinary income treatment. There are a number of specific provisions and requirements to access § 1235.  The holder must be the creator or someone unrelated (and not the creator's employer) who purchased the patent from the creator.  The holder must transfer all substantial rights to the patent (not a licensing), or sell an undivided portion of all substantial rights (partial sale, again not a license).  The benefit of § 1235 is that long-term treatment will apply even for patents with holding periods under 1 year.  Other rules and permutations of course also apply.  Those who fail § 1235 may still qualify their assets as capital under § 1221 or § 1231.  A patent held by its creator will often qualify as a capital asset. It may not make any sense to sell your business as a whole, particularly if all a purchaser wants is a patent or group of patents.  Of course, if the patent was held by its creator in a single-member LLC or other disregarded entity sold to a buyer, then the tax treatment is still treated as the sale of a long-term capital asset.
Did you even read the article or just scroll through the headline? “Affordable” is relative to subsidies. For example, my wife and I earn about 100k a year combine and we do not receive subsidies because *gasp* we can afford health care at that income.  This is also based on a percentage of income that the ACA defines as affordable. Whether it actually is affordable or not is relative. Is dumping a percentage of your income into the governments discretionary and travel budget so they can fly private jets affordable? Someone deemed it was when they set the budget (though of course its grossly negligent).  Not to mention insurers (like ehealth.com) can game the system by adjusting rates. It’s kind of amazing how quickly people on the Internet jump to make an issue a partisan pissing match so they can feel “right” rather than considering solutions.