vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I took two of their online classes, attended an on campus case discussion, and attended a discussion between two professors on the future of capitalism.  What's being taught and talked about at HBS in the past year that I've been a student has been focused on using business and the economy to serve humanity. At the end of the disscusion one professor suggested getting rid of income taxes and replacing it with a financial transaction tax. A sales tax on financial instruments not targeted at long term investments but at high frequency trading.
"Maybe if you read the article, you would have seen:  ""The data was obtained from the county Department of Public Social Services -- which is responsible for doling out the benefits -- and gives a snapshot of the financial costs associated with sanctuary and related policies.""  Keep your head in the sand buddy.  Just because you don't like the source doesn't mean that it isn't true. I'm sure you'll believe a CNN article by the esteemed Don Lemon though, right?"
"The following is from Wikipedia - Term life insurance (with very minor editing) Because term life insurance is a pure   death benefit, its primary use is to   provide coverage of financial   responsibilities, for the insured.   Such responsibilities may include, but   are not limited to, consumer debt,   dependent care, college education for   dependents, funeral costs, and   mortgages. Term life insurance is   generally chosen in favor of permanent   life insurance because it is usually   much less expensive (depending on the   length of the term). Many financial   advisors or other experts commonly   recommend term life insurance as a   means to cover potential expenses   until such time that there are   sufficient funds available from   savings to protect those whom the   insurance coverage was intended to   protect. For example, an individual   might choose to obtain a policy whose   term expires near his or her   retirement age based on the premise   that, by the time the individual   retires, he or she would have amassed   sufficient funds in retirement savings   to provide financial security for   their dependents. This suggests the questions ""why do you have this policy?"" also ""how many term life policies do you need?"" or ""how much insurance do you need?"" Clearly you will be better off investing the premiums in the market.  Your beneficiaries may be better off either way (depends when you die and to a lesser extent on market performance). If you are not able to retire now but expect to be able to later, you should strongly consider having sufficient insurance to provide income replacement for your spouse.  This is a fairly common why."
"here is what I don't get . . .when they say ""Unwind"" does it mean put a corkscrew up their ass and twist? because if they mean sell it back int the market, the problem was that there was no market and thats why it ended up on the Feds balance sheet.  There is still no market for those Toxic assets . . . so does that mean the Fed is going to write it off?  I bet we see QE 4 before any unwinding"
Interesting, I actually didn't know some bankers ended up going to jail, wondering why there's so much misinformation about that..   I guess after seeing numerous times, high level executives and bankers get away with enormous crimes, people are simply out for blood.   You can't legally go after economists or home buyers (unless they lied about their income but with ninja loans, they didn't even need to have an income, so why lie about one?), but there were bankers who were betting against the very financial instruments they were selling to clients. There were the credit rating agencies who had a fiduciary responsibility to provide accurate ratings of these mortgage-backed securities. You can definitely make the claim that at least in these two instances, people acted outside of the law.
Is that indicator can only be used for short-term trade? First of all, indicator works perfect during trends and oscillator works perfectly in the range market(or flat market). So, indicator can be used for long term, as well as short term. I mean if it is a range market, using this or any other indicator will not help much, so it you should consider market direction first. If it can be used to long-term trade, is there something I need to change from the parameters used? like, only using SMMA(5,8,13)? The parameters are there to change them. Of course you can change them based on your trading style. Considering my statement above does not mean that trading is very easy. I never use indicators alone to make trading decisions. It is always good to use oscillator to filter out bad trading signals.
"Many investors don't invest for the short term and so a stock ""nose-diving"" in the short run will not affect their long term strategy so they will simply hold on to it until it recovers. Additionally funds that track an index have to hold on to the constituents of that index no matter what happens to its value over the period (within trading limits). Both of these kinds of investors will be able to lend stock in a company out and not trigger a forced buy-in on a short term change. If the underlying long-term health of the company changes or it is removed from indices it is likely that this will change, however. Employee stock plans and other investors who are linked directly to the company or who have a vested interest in the company other than in a financial way will also be unwilling (or unable) to sell on a down turn in the company. They will similarly be able to lend their stock in the short term."
However, because your budget is both direct and indirect costs, you will only be billed for your direct costs (tuition, etc.). So if your direct costs equal $50,000 and your student loan was certified for $60,000, then you will get that $10,000 back in the form of a refund from the school. That does not mean you don't have to pay it back - you still do. But that money is meant for indirect costs (i.e. books, rent - if you're not staying on campus, etc.). If your school is on semesters vs quarters, then that amount is divided between the terms. Summer term is not factored in, that's another process. Also with student loans, there are origination costs - the money associated with processing a loan. A good rule of thumb is to never borrow more than you need. Source: I used to work in financial aid at my college."
Financial panics tend to last about 7 years.  I mean, there may be nothing at all unusual about this last one.  Having a steady hand, not panicking may turn out to be the right course.  The US isn't Japan primarily because our population is still growing and we have a shitload of natural resources.  So there is reason to believe we'll come out of the financial panic in roughly the same timeframe as prior financial panics.
Uhm, this is my disclaimer that this is not financial advice. But. I would imagine a decent amount of high growth tech will go into the toilet. Also cyclicals that are heavily reliant on the low cost of short term capital. But really these are just some intuitive guesses. It would really depend on what the mechanism and impact of a future recession would be.   Curious though, why do you personally think a recession is looming? I know there's been a lot of talk but per the VIX, investors' worries don't appear to be affecting their behavior too much (at least in equities).   I think the big risk is the Fed not being able to control the yield curve, i.e if short term rates increase but the Fed can't or won't shrink the balance sheet enough to impact long term rates. Just an idea.
In most circumstances prices do not change on a daily basis on most goods and services, and just because inflation is high does not mean all prices of every good and service has to increase over the short term.  Prices are determined by costs of doing business, manufacturing costs and wage growth, and by competition.  For example, if one product has very little competition and costs to produce it have gone up, then the seller might increase prices by 10% to cover their cost of buying the goods off the manufacturer, whilst another product may have plenty of competition, the seller has sourced a new manufacturer from overseas with lower manufacturing costs, they might lower their selling costs by 5% to better compete and increase their sales. Inflation figures are calculated from a set basket of goods and services, and if inflation increases it does not mean that all prices in that basket have gone up, only that the aggregate for the whole basket of goods and services has gone up since the last inflation figures were calculated.
I am using the term homework generically to mean anything that is a part of school work that you should be working on independently.   You can see if the people at r/investing or r/finance will answer your question
Capitalism assumes people are selfish?  Or it accounts for both sides?  Capitalism actually does none of the above.  Capitalism simply says that Capital is the means of trade and financial growth.  Pure Capitalism would mean that Capital is used for every transaction that can influence Trade and Growth.  That is impossible.  Capitalism neither adjusts for, nor makes rules about, whether people are Selfish, Selfless, or somewhere in-between.    Capitalism does promote Selfishness, but isn’t based on Selfishness.  It is based on Capital.  To give Capitalism any other extraordinary properties is to fail to see it for what it is.  I’ve been hearing people associate Capitalism as the cause for tons of modern things:  Roads, Medicine, even the Space Program.  But Capitalism didn’t do any of those.  Where did this foolishness come from? People made Roads, Medicine, and the Space Program.  Capitalism was the market style they used, because it is the prevalent style in America.  But it is just a tool, a method, and not some gift of amazing abilities.  It simply makes Capital the standard for exchange and financial growth.
&gt; People should come before profits.   The entire Corporate Charter process is in United States law. It does say profit comes before people, it's called fiduciary responsibility. I haven't seen any political parties rise around this topic -- so I'd assume corporations hurting people isn't as big as Reddit makes it out? Otherwise most Americans would change how they vote and find a new party?
It's a circular firing squad. There always is much more going on behind the scenes than is what the public knows .. no I don't know anything, but I have been involved is some very nasty Board room battles. Just to put it in perspective how nasty these get - you have a founder that created a company in his image vs. Board members that have fiduciary responsibilities to investors (this includes the potential for personal liability).  I cannot see how this gets better before it gets worse .. these are just the opening maneuvers.
Using 10.5% (average return of the S&P 500 over it's lifetime) the result is a staggering $3.7 MILLION. So if I'm looking at $3.7M vs. $1M, It costs me $2.7 Million dollars to give me the same coverage as my term life policy. That's one expensive Term Life Insurance policy. My personal favorite: Blindly following the advice of Wall Street and financial “gurus” such as Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman got you where you are. Are you happy with the state of your finances? Do you still believe their fairytale, “Buy Term (insurance) and Invest the Difference”? Yes, I sure do believe that fairytale and I'm prospering quite well thank you. :) While I don't think this is a scam, it's outrageously expensive and not a good financial choice."
Many of the limitations of blockchains and bitcoin in particular can be overcome with changing the implementation, but most of the proposed fixes undermine the ideological underpinnings of decentralized verification and a fully traceable ledger.  The major hurdle that it doesn't currently have a fix to make it a national currency is that the monetary policy with bitcoin is fixed -- and not by a government.  Very few modern governments would be willing to entirely give up monetary policy; and as the number of transactions increases to the levels in which cash is exchanged for a blockchain, the kinds of entities that have the processing power necessary to verify a block timely gets consolidated into very few hands that own sizable data centers -- and then they arguably get to determine monetary policy among themselves without any election, voting, or duly appointed fiduciary responsibility.
Yes, you're hoping the price of your gold investment will increase to at least match inflation, but you're hoping, i.e. speculating, which isn't the same as depositing your money in an insured bank account. If you want to speculate and invest in something with the hope of outpacing inflation, you're likely better off investing in a low-cost index fund of inflation-protected securities (or the S&P500, over the long term) rather than gold. Just to be clear, I'm using the laymen's definition of a speculator, which is someone who engages in risky financial transactions in an attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations This is similar to the definition used in some markets, e.g. futures, but in many cases, economists and places like the CFTC define speculators as anyone who doesn't have a position in the underlying security. For example, a farmer selling corn futures is a hedger, while the trading firm purchasing the contracts is a speculator. The trading firm doesn't necessarily have to be actively trading the contract in the short-run; they merely have no position in the underlying commodity.
"Okay, yes! That would seem to make sense. So something like a Dupire local vol model.   In the context of term structure modelling, you can also incorporate a volatility surface into the pricing of European and even exotic options (e.g. through a SABR or an LMM-SABR for exotics), which I suppose means by your criteria there are actually varying degree of ""arbitrage free-ness"" when it comes to picking a model. By that I mean there are varying degrees of what your model takes as ""given"". If it takes the market price of risk as given, it's an equilibrium model. If it takes the observed term structure as given, it's an arbitrage free model. If it takes the volatility structure as given, it's something else.  Nawalkha, Beliaeva and Soto wrote a paper called ""A New Taxonomy of the Dynamic Term Structure Models"" in the Journal of Investment Management that basically coincides with what we're saying.  So yes, it sounds right to me."
Add in the worldwide employment, and there is no comparison at all.\* And even then, all of it is beside the point. Yes, you cannot ""eat"" software or an iPod... but likewise you cannot ""eat"" a car. What is chiefly critical is whether a nation can FEED itself, and the US production of foodstuffs has never been higher, nor -- on a long term comparison basis -- have food or energy costs ever been lower (even with all of the disastrous effects of monetary inflation). \*What the US's current problem is, is DOMESTIC employment -- and that is mainly a result of various TRADE, MONETARY and TAXATION policies -- it certainly isn't the direct fault of private industry (and definitely not the fault of ""technology""). I mean good god, how many times does the Luddite meme need to be proven false."
"For allocation, there's rules of thumb. 120-age is the percentage some folks recommend for stock market (high risk) allocation.  With the balance in bonds, and a bit of international fund to add some more diversity.  However, everyone needs to determine how much risk they're willing to take, and what their horizon is. Once you figure out your allocation, determine how much of your surplus goes into investing, and how much goes into short term savings for your short term financial goals such as purchasing a home. I would highly recommend reading about ""Financial Independence, Retire Early"" (FIRE).  Most of the articles I've seen on it were folks in the US, with the odd Canadian and Brit, but the principles should be able to work in the Netherlands with adjustment.   The idea behind FIRE is that you adjust your lifestyle to minimize expenses and save as much of your income as possible.  When the growth of your savings is > the amount you spend on a yearly basis, you've reached financial independence and can retire any time you wish. CD ladder is a good idea for your emergency fund, but CDs (at least in the US) usually pay around the same rate as inflation, give or take.  A ladder would help you preserve your emergency fund."
What nonsense. You're in effect saying that companies that might face negative npv project should simply 'look harder'. Hell no, as a shareholder I demand they have a fiduciary role. If buybacks are excessive due to CEO incentives to the expense of worthwhile project, that's a different problem and always leave me to vote with my departure as a shareholder.
"&gt;HOWEVER, any close to normal person can see that there are a whole lot of people with serious issues that nobody mentions to them (or they themselves are afraid to acknowledge) because they don't want to deal with all of the drama.   Doesn't mean they are caused by a ""mental illness"".  &gt;And, just to be clear, the term ""Mental Illness"" in this case(according to the above studies) is really anything from anxiety, to depression, to schizophrenia, personality disorders, and even more social things like compulsive lying. Obviously, the definition is very broad and that is precisely why the statistic(25%) is so shocking.   Just to be clear... that is basically the definition of a ""con operation"".  The term ""mental illness"" (as it is used by the industry) is simply a fraud."
Aside from the fact that there are massive problems with taxes, liability, fiduciary responsibility, and (assuming you're accepting any sort of compensation at all) licensing. The mere fact that you're asking this question indicates that you're probably not suitably qualified to handle this for others. Why not have someone qualified handle this?
We frequently get whole insurance vs term insurance questions; and most of the answers will support term insurance.  We get questions regarding getting insurance before there is a need in case there is a problem getting it later. And for most people it doesn't make sense to over-insure early. You have asked from a slightly different position, you have a more solid reason to be concerned about your health. You don't have a need now, and can't estimate what your need will be, or when it will be. Those numbers you quote may seem high, but when you don't know how many kids you may have, or what you will need to protect against, they may turn out to be inadequate when you do need the insurance. You need to sit down with a fee only financial planner. They can lay out your options today, and as your situation changes.  Then as the years go by, have that plan reexamined. The fee only planner will not tell you what company to buy insurance from, or what funds to invest in, but they will help you decide what types of protection and investment you need.
I would respectfully disagree.  They have chosen to invest in commodities that provide no return (Gold, Rare Earth Metals) over derivatives that lose money.  I believe the following explains some of their logic.  http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-05/jpmorgan-loss-proves-system-too-complex-china-s-gao-says  They take issue with the basis of the Western financial system, and while Gao claims he is speaking about his personal beliefs, his observations are quite accurate.  Most of the transactions in the financial system add very little value, while commissions and fees are taken from every transaction. This is one of the core issues that isn't talked about, but is a very real cause of trade disputes between the US and China.  (And arguably all of the BRICS nations)  A simple example of what I mean is when BoA slapped monthly debit fees on everyone's account.  Thanks, but what did that really do for their customers?  Another attempt to 'pick' the customers pocket.
We ask Trump to denounce hate groups and condemn their actions. I would like to see the people ask CEOs to publically denounce specific Trump statements, positions, tactics, and policies under threat of boycott. If CEOs have a fiduciary duty to advise and associate with the president, combat it with the prospect of lost revenue for their business.  EDIT: And now Trump has [ended the business councils](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/897869174323728385) after eight CEOs quit.
I would point this out to the committee or other entity in charge of handling this at work. They do have a fiduciary responsibility for the participant's money and should take anything reasonable seriously. The flip side to this is 95% of participants -- especially participants under 35 or so -- really pay next to no attention to this stuff. We consider it a victory to get people to pony up the matching contributions. Active participation in investment would blow our minds.
&gt;Better for you and for me, yes, but not for the disadvantaged without benefactors. That's the situation I was in.   That wasn't exactly my point. I'm all for helping people, and social security does help people, and I am very happy it helped you - I'm not disputing that.   What I'm saying is that what you got from social security is not as good as what you would have got from a $500,000 - $1,000,000 term life insurance policy. For people in there 20s, in good health, that kind of policy should be $20-$40/month, which could easily be bought with the money we otherwise spend on social security. (Now... whether parents would actually be responsible enough to buy term life insurance and put money towards retirement if we didn't have social security is a WHOOOOOOOOOLE nother discussion.)  That's all I'm saying - I'd rather buy term life and invest for my own retirement because me and my family will come out ahead of where social security will put us. I'm really not a financial wizard, and I have to believe that this type of plan would work well for everyone else, too.
"With the second example, if you continue to read on you will see that although directors must try and maximise shareholders wealth. That precedence doesn't change however the interpretation of the actions and whether they maximise shareholders wealth does. For example giving money to charity with regards to the Doge v. Ford case would probably have been blocked on the grounds that it decreases shareholder wealth, but later cases such as A. P. Smith Manufacturing Co. v. Barlow say that donations can increase shareholders wealth in the long run. So it gives a broader coverage of the actions deemed to increase shareholder wealth.  The second is related to short term vs long term wealth but part of the reason for it was due to the inability of Paramount to prove that the value increase for shareholders in the long run from selling to Viacom rather than QVC would be larger than the difference between the two offers, which was 1.3 billion. Then there is also the issue of shareholders rights and the companys ability to block shareholders from selling to whomever they want. So as I said it's related, but the issue isn't solely and simply about short term vs long term wealth.  Both examples are kind of weak as in the first, well the issue doesn't really exist in the present day as previous case law has broadened the definition of actions which increase shareholder wealth, and in the second, short term vs long term value is related, but mostly tagging along with a larger issue. Your original statement was ""in matters of cost vs. quality I'd expect publicly traded companies to prioritize short-term shareholder profit (or be sued by said shareholders.)""  Are there any examples where shareholders have sued simply because they wanted better short term performance over long term performance?"
America is planning to make the Dodd Frank act less comprehensive. You can focus your work on what it would mean for financial institutions in terms of reduced regulatory costs but more risky assets. Or if  this could again expose American banks to a domino like collapse in a crisis.