vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
to be fair , if people stopped living over their mean and stop taking debt for stuff they don't need , we would not be in this mess in the first place, you cant place all the blame on the lenders when the lendee is ok with taking on more debt. Only a fool would refuse a fool's money...
Today the rates are arrived simply on the basis of demand and supply. Historically rates were pegged to Gold, when all currencies were printed depending on the Gold reserves. So if one country printed 100 units of currency of a 1gm of gold and other country 10 units of currency for 1 gm of gold, the rate would be 1:10. However In the seventies with shortages of Gold and other reasons, USD became the default standard, so the rate started being pegged to the USD reserves the countries started maintaining. However later in the early eighties, US backing out, the rate purely started getting pegged to market demand and supply. So for most currencies there was a default rate to begin with and today its changed ... Incase of USD/EUR, the initial rate was determined by the weighted average of the currencies that it sought to replace. After that its been market supply and demand. Since most of the trade in international market is US denominated, largest being Oil, each country has created a huge reserves of USD. So technically if China were to bank half its USD denominated treasury bills, the USD would come crashing down, but then China itself would be at disadvantage as its value of USD its holding would become less and it cannot buy the same items. Hence all countries keep hording USD and this means US if they print more money, the value will not come down, because it that happens, all countries holding USD would loose their value of reserve. In essence a country can print as much as currency it wants if all(majority) its debts and trades are denominated in local currencies. This is 100% true for US and hence it can get away by printing money. This is also true to a large extent for Japan as bulk of its Debts are denominated in JPY.
Quite a lot changed since back then, so I consider it highly unlikely that you could point to one single cause. You can think about it more clearly when you remove money from the equation. Know that money is only an intermediary in the exchange of goods, and it is in fact the exchanged goods that matter. So to reframe your question. You produce some goods and exchange them for the goods you consume. The amount of goods that you can exchange what you produced for determines your quality of life. So what parts could change?  1. you could actually produce less. The alledged increase in productivity is really hard to accurately measure because even if you know for a fact that one worker's producitivity increased when buying a machine, maybe that comes at a cost of less productivity in other areas.  2. Not everything that you pay for does actually increase your quality of life, for example speeding tickets don't. Other stuff might increase your quality of life but in a manner that you don't easily recognize. For example more prisoners that you pay for might reduce your chance of being mugged, however if you're not being mugged on a regular basis you wouldn't notice.  3. Other people get a higher percentage. Most countries' tax rates rise with rising income, so when the currency is being devalued, tax rates rise relative to your purchasing power in addition to other taxes and fees that might be introduced or increased. But even without government your bosses might simply take a bigger cut of the company's earnings.  4. We might produce the wrong stuff. If more stuff gets produced that you do not want. The production of the stuff you do want will decline even if total productivity is increased.  And that is only what I can think of from the top of my head. You will probably find that all of those happen and most likely other causes as well.
"NO, IT ISN'T.   You would give my economist friend an aneurysm with this article.   If you remove yourself from the labor market why should you be counted as unemployed? That's like calculating the odds of the lottery by including those who stopped buying tickets because they lose too much. It's nonsense!   It may be unfortunate that you've become discouraged and given up but by bowing out you are no longer technically ""unemployed"" by the official numbers."
"In my view, it's better to sell when there's a reason to sell, rather than to cap your gains at 8%. I'm assuming you have no such criteria on the other side - i.e. hold your losses down to 8%. That's because what matters is how much you make overall in your portfolio, not how much you make per trade. Example: if you own three stocks, equal amounts - and two go up 20% but one falls 20%. If you sell your gains at 8%, and hold the loser, you have net LOST money. So when do you actually sell? You might say a ""fall of 10%"" from the last high is good enough to sell. This is called a ""trailing"" stop, which means if a stock goes from 100 to 120, I'll still hold and sell if it retraces to 108. Needless to say if it had gone from 100 to 90, I would still be out. The idea is to ride the trend for as long as you can, because trends are strong. And keep your trailing stops wide enough for it to absorb natural jiggles, because you may get stopped out of a stock that falls 4% but eventually goes up 200%. Or sell under other conditions: if the earnings show a distinct drop, or the sector falls out of favor.  Whenever you decide to sell, also consider what it would take for you to buy the stock back - increased earnings, strong prices, a product release, whatever. Because getting out might seem like a good thing, but it's just as important to not think of it as saying a stock is crappy - it might just be that you had enough of one ride. That doesn't mean you can't come back for another one."
If you plan to take profit at $1.00 then your profit will be $40. Then, if you set your stop at $0.88 then your loss if you get stopped will be $20.  So your Reward : Risk = 2:1.  Note, that this does not take into account brokerage in and out and any slippage from the price gapping past your stop loss.
A great deal of the money was made abroad.  I imagine they paid some tax in those respective countries.  I heard that they and other large Co's were trying to get a deal bring the money home. If they did they would be taxed again.
"Lmao so the fact that the government ""could possibly switch currency"" negates the current demand they create? The government creates a demand for USD. That alone is enough to say dollars have intrinsic value.   Add to that the fact that there are trillions of dollars in outstanding government bonds that are required to be paid out in USD when they mature. Changing the currency would be considered a form of default by many and could have massive negative consequence far outweighing the benefits of the rapid adoption of blockchain. Even if they stopped issuing bonds today they would still have ones maturing until 2047.   It's like saying bananas don't have monetary value because people might decide to stop buying them. Yeah, it's true they would lose value if that happened but as of today it's just not true"
The article does not support this at all.  &gt; profits would gush if breakneck growth were to stop. Uber says it is profitable in cities where it has operated longest, such as San Francisco. Nextera says that if it stopped investing in new capacity, it would make $6bn of free cashflow a year.
Tesla was founded in 2003.  In those 14 years they have managed to build a complete car company, fight a lot of regulatory nonsense off, ship the two incredible production electric vehicles and other products, and build out a network of dealers and charging stations.  That is and insane feat.  So what if they missed some deadlines, that is going to happen when you consider the scale they are working at.
As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth ... to provide men with buying power. ... Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. ... The other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped.    — Marriner Eccles, former Chair of the Federal Reserve 1934-1948, said in 1951  &amp;nbsp;  If people think 2008 was the worst of it, man they ain't seen nothing yet.
If your criteria has changed but some of your existing holdings don't meet your new criteria you should eventually liquidate them, because they are not part of your new strategy. However, you don't want to just liquidate them right now if they are currently performing quite well (share price currently uptrending).  One way you could handle this is to place a trailing stop loss on the stocks that don't meet your current criteria and let the market take you out when the stocks have stopped up trending.
Can't read the article. But WHO gets 78 trillion richer? Cause so far it damn sure has not been the working class of the majority of countries in the world. Rather it's been corporations who massively benefit from the cheap labor that globalization provides. And politicians being bribed/blackmailed to let it happen has pretty much been what's happening all along.
If not Target, then who is the party who is and ought to be most knowledgeable about the details and outcomes of the promotion?  In my view, they did choose to honour it when they let the promotion run a second time with the exact same set of rules, with full knowledge of the slickdeals thread.   If they had any opposition at all, they would have stopped the promotion, minted new coupons with unique codes, sent down new policy to retail management, or programmed the tills not to allow the purchase of gift cards with gift cards.   If you disagree that all the above signifies consent, then fine. Target was negligent and now they are paying for it. Satisfied?
Agreed, early in the article one of the owners compares themselves to their german competitors that eat $200+k of their lunch regularly because they lack staff to keep up with demand.   Germany does not traditionally drug test every position up and down the chain. They generally only do it if you are responsible for narcotics (pharma), running heavy equipment or handling something that would kill people if you screwed up. If you are a cashier, desk worker or laborer you do not get tested as it is considered an invasion of privacy.
&gt; You can't be both down on patents and vigorously defending your own dubious patent.  I disagree.  You could argue that Bezos is lying about wanting to change the patent system, but I see no contradiction with his statement.  Besides, if Amazon stopped enforcing their patents, the system would be unaffected.  Their goal here is to change the system.
There is no reason to try to build a commission discount into the contract when you are not represented by a buyer's agent. Make your offer is 3% lower than it would be otherwise. Then the seller's agent becomes your best ally. He knows he'll get the whole commission, so it's in his best interest to make the deal happen. Even if he believes another unrepresented buyer will come along, the difference in his commission will be minuscule and probably not worth his time. If you get the price you offered, does it matter whose pocket the discount came out of? On the other hand, if you enter negotiations that stall at an amount less than half of the commission, then mention a discounted commission. At that point the deal is so close that the seller and agent may be able to bridge the gap themselves.
Depends on the level of risk in the specific p2p provider. I've looked at lendinvest which secures loans against property. You can select loans based on loan-to-value ratio etc. Even if a recession happens, if the LTV is around 50% it would have to be a pretty awful recession for you to lose any money once they recover, although there will be a delay while you wait for the recovery to happen. I would thus consider this lower risk than other p2p options, so I'd be willing to put more money into it. At the end of the day as others have said there's no objective answer. This is just one factor to consider which I don't think has been pointed out yet on this discussion
If the base rate is USD LIBOR, you can compute this data directly on my website, which uses futures contracts and historical data to create interest rates scenarios for the calculations: http://www.mortgagecalculator3.com/ If your rate index is different, you can still create your own scenarios and check what would happen to your payments.
This is exactly what needs to happen for the benefit of the country. Don't make this a republican vs democrat thing. The mortgage interest deduction causes artificially high home prices and discourages building small affordable homes. Home purchase prices falling means builders might start building smaller, cheaper homes again. If it causes a housing crisis, it will be for those who bought 3000 sq ft Mcmansions on what used to be farmland.   Removing the state and local tax deduction means there might finally be incentive for cities to consolidate local townships and increase overall efficiency again. The ultra-wealthy townships that keep poor people out through high taxes will decrease and join other larger local governments. This would be a huge plus as far as tax reform goes.
You can't really blame company for trying to maximize profits. We are, after all, a capitalist society, and Burger King is just exercising the spirit of capitalism - profit maximization. If you want to blame someone, blame the government for its tax codes which allowed this to happen.  It would be interesting, doubt it will happen, if the profit lost due to this boycott actually exceeds the profit gain through tax dodge.
I don't know about this. Craftsman started selling lots of Chinese made garbage a couple of decades ago if I remember the time frame correctly. Somewhere in that same time frame I recall that their lifetime warranty was only being applied to US made tools and those were getting scarce.  I stopped buying Craftsman, so I could be in error here. But I stopped thinking of Craftsman as a top tier non-pro tool maker years ago. Hell, lots of that Mexican Stanley stuff seems better made these days than Craftsman.  If Craftsman went out of business and I didn't read it on reddit, I might never know.
I think everyone assumes various segments of the market/economy are going to cool off at some point. The question isn't if it'll happen, but when, and how suddenly. I don't think it'll be that big of a deal if we see market corrections across stocks or real estate if they happen over the course of months, and if anything it'll be a relief to many. The trouble will be if it happens suddenly and 'violently,' as it did in 2007, causing bankruptcies, massive job losses and lasting damage. That probably depends more on whether or not this was an artificial bubble (caused by Fed policies, likely), like what caused the Great Recession, or if it's a more normal market cycles.
You must mean the current debt ceiling debacle. The meaning of it is: US government is constantly borrowing money (by issuing treasury bonds) and constantly repaying some of the bonds that come to maturity, and also has other obligations it has to meet by law all the time - such as Social Security checks, bonds interest, federal employees' salaries and pensions, etc. By law, total amount of money that can be borrowed at the same time is capped. That means, there can be situation where the government needs to borrow money to pay, say, interest on existing bonds, but can not, since the limit is reached. Such situation is called a default, since the government promised to pay the interest, but is unable to do so. That does not mean the government has no money at all and will completely collapse or couldn't raise money on the market if it were permitted by law to do so (currently, the market is completely willing to buy the debt issued by US government, and with interest that is not very high, though of course that may change). It also does not mean the economy ceases to function, dollars cease to have value or banks instantly go bankrupt. But if the government breaks its promises to investors, it has various consequences such as raising the costs of borrowing in the future. Breaking promises to other people - like Social Security recipients - would also look bad and probably hurt many of them. Going back to your bank account, most probably nothing would happen to the money you store there. Even if the bank had invested 100% of the money in US treasury bonds (which doesn't really happen) they still can be sold on the open market, even if with some discount in the event of credit rating downgrade, so most probably your account would not be affected. As stated in another answer, even if the fallout of all these calamities causes a bank to fail, there's FDIC and if your money is under insured maximums you'll be getting your money back. But if your bank is one of the big ones, nothing of the sort would happen anyway - as we have seen in the past years, government would do practically anything to not allow any big bank failures.
"Well, they can. Up to six years in many countries. There can be consequences. If you went to the dentist three years ago, were happy with the bill and returned every six months, and the dentist informs you that your six $200 bills should have each been $1,200 then it is obvious that you would have looked for another dentist if the first bill had been correct; in that case you have a very good reason to refuse to pay the difference on the other five bills.  (That's if you were not aware that the bill was wrong. If every time he fixed your teeth and the bill says ""examining your teeth"" which you would expect to be a lot cheaper, then maybe you should have known that the bill was wrong. Just an example)."
If true, business is the only thing that can change chinas behavior. China refuses to be bullied by other countries  and chasing the almighty USD is all that matters.  And yet the american public remains blissfully ignorant of the atrocities created by their insatiable desire for ever cheaper shit.
"Amount is the closest single word.  ""Amount in dollars"" would be the easiest way to specify information you are requesting.  ""Amount and currency"" if you ware in an area using multiple currencies.  An accountant might be able to give you a more technical term, but it would be accountancy jargon.  Amount due, credit amount, debit amount, amount deposited, amount credited, amount withdrawn, or amount included.  If you're writing instructions and want to specify that the person following the instructions needs to indicate the currency, you'll probably have to simply state that requirement.   Based on US centric thinking, inside the US, money is dollars, dollars is money.  For US citizens outside the country, we would always tack on the currency.  100 dollars, or 100 Euro.  There is a segment of Americans who do not understand geography, and that other countries exist, and that they use different currencies, might not realize that other countries have currencies named dollars, and that USD means US Dollars.  So for U.S. citizens, be specific and clear. Bottom line, if this is written for US residents, and they need to specify the currency, you need to explicitly require them to ""List the amount and currency."""
"Fair enough, thank you. But my takeaway from this is not ""Trump should be allowed to do this"", as much as ""How in the hell have we been letting these things happen all these years?""   This is not something Trump should get a pass on because we've never stopped anyone before. It's something we need to figure out how to end ASAP."
Good read. I do wish there were more stats on the issues associated with geographic concentration touched upon in the article. For example, how are the economic gains of being in an urbanized environment mitigated by the costs associated with traffic jams, urban poverty and crime? What would happen to the economy of the US if those inefficient small cities kept declining, how would it have to change?
The reason they have this massive debt is largely (not entirely) because they have been employing Keynes' policies and spending more than they had for so many years as it is. Austerity is not the solution. However, reckless spending is not the solution either. A lot of people arguing for keynesian policies (not a bad idea in most recessions) don't grasp that investors have a limited amount of money to invest and aren't going to place it in a country that has as bad of a debt problem as you pointed out.  So many people keep arguing these struggling countries need to spend more. While that would help expand their economies, it is not feasible. Where do you guys going to think the money is going to come from? If investors don't want to provide then they have to print more money, which creates the risk of hyperinflation.  Spending could help a little maybe if it was a realistic thing to do. Right now any Keynesian solutions are a fairy tale. Countries like Greece need to do what they can with the resources available to them instead of spending like a bunch of millionaire playboys on crystal meth. Look at the U.S. We have spent trillions and our GDP is still growing at only slightly more than half the rate it has from 1947-2012. If people expect massive government spending to be a fix to these problems, then we are a clear case that it isn't. I acknowledge we could be a lot worse and possibly still be seeing a contraction without the spending, but it clearly isn't fixing our problems and sooner or later we won't be able to take on more debt to fix it. We need real solutions to generate real growth instead of dicking around like this. Other western countries need to do the same.  edit:Also what we are doing right now would not be considered keynesian solutions. Keynes would advocate spending money to fix the problems, not just dumping money into the economy. That is something I would agree with. But since our politicians can't grasp that I don't want them in control of the purse strings anymore.
&gt; if all man made CO2 magically ceased to be created that the climate would still change. Climates change, always.  This is true. Even if we stopped contributing to global warming immediately, the climate would continue to warm for 4 or 5 decades, but this is because it takes time for the planet to heat up. And yes it's true that the climate does change, but usually at a slower pace.   Species are going extinct at about the same rate now as they did back during the extinction of the dinosaurs.  This isn't all due to carbon ether, there are many other environmental pollutants and issues.  &gt;poor people (through burning of wood for heat and to cook with) actually have a much greater impact on CO2 levels than to rich people.  That's just false. Burning wood is definitely less efficient, but overall poor people release less carbon that wealthy nations.
Too bad if they pulled something like this my family would cancel all of our subscriptions, and I suspect many other people would do the same.  These numbers are bullshit because they would mean every password sharer would become a paying customer and that's never going to happen.  It's easy enough to stream everything these days and the content on Netflix is so shitty right now this would absolutely be the straw that breaks the camels back for me.  You can't offer worse content while increasing the
I feel like when your assets are mostly stock, then your every minute is basically fluctuating by the hundreds of millions and on a ~~good~~  active trading day you could be up or down a few billions.
Meebo's toolbar is installed on thousands of site and seen by millions of visitors, giving Google the ability to plug into that. Meebo's developers are quite smart as well, so Google will get them in the buyout. Plus, Meebo's focus has shifted in the last few years from an online chat service to a website toolbar service to an interest profiling service. The latter is right up Google's alley.