vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"And you think they do this out of the goodness of their hearts, or because it maximizes their appeal to a niche audience with lots of disposable income and higher proportional spending on luxury food and drink items? Do you honestly believe that anything in a Whole Foods isn't proven to be helpful in selling products? Look at how fervently you jumped forth to inform me of how polluted that other meat is- do you ever wonder if maybe that passion is appealed to and marketer towards by businesses, and as such, there exists a profit incentive to make ""organic, pure"" foods as attractive as possible to consumers?    To claim Whole Foods is somehow less consumerist than any other retail chain is absurd. It is the most modern contrivance possible- a result of years of manipulation of public opinion through advertising about the *quality* of your food, based around fearmongering about unknown chemicals and ethical questions about livestock care."
"First of all, kudos for thinking about budgeting at 21 years old.  So many people don't plan with their money, and years later wonder where it all went. You are doing a lot of things right with your budget.  You've got saving goals, namely your next car and a down payment on a house.  You are saving almost 20% of your income for retirement, which is amazing. I like the luxury fund, too.  It is good to put some money aside that you can spend on whatever you want, guilt free, because you know that everything important is already planned for. When it comes to budgeting, one thing to remember is that your budget does not have to be perfect, and it is not set in stone.  If you find that your amount for ""living costs"" (which I'm assuming includes things like food, utilities, and rent) is too low, you can allocate more money to it and reduce something else.  There is no need to feel bad if you end up having to change some things around in the budget. Congratulations on being debt free!  I would encourage you to stay out of debt.  Keep the credit cards paid in full each month, and save up for your next car so you can pay cash for that, too. Another saving goal that I would recommend adding to your budget would be an emergency fund.  This is basically a pile of cash that is available to you in case something unexpected and urgent comes up that you haven't planned for.  By having the emergency fund in place, you won't be forced to go into debt due to an emergency.  The amount recommended is usually 3 to 6 months' worth of your expenses."
"It's a real pain in the rear to get cash only from a bank teller (the end result of cutting the card as suggested). There is a self control issue here that, like weight loss, should ultimately be addressed for a psychologically healthy lifestyle. You don't mention a budget here. A budget is one of the first tools necessary for setting spending limits. Categorizing your money into inviolable categories, such as:  will force you to look at any purchase in context of your other needs and goals. Note that savings is at the top of the list, supporting the aphorism to, ""Pay yourself first."" Make realistic allowances for each budget category, then force yourself to stick to this budget by whatever means necessary. Cash in several envelopes labeled with each category can physically reinforce your priorities (the debit card is usually left at home for now).  Roll remaining funds from each month over into the next month to cover irregular larger expenses, such as auto repairs.  What sort of investing are we talking about? If you are just talking about retirement savings, an automatic deduction of just $50 to a Roth IRA account at a discount brokerage every pay check is a good start. An emergency fund of 6 months expenses is also common financial advice, and can likewise be built from small automatic deductions. In defense of wise use of plastic, a debit card can be a great retroactive budgeting tool because it records all spending for you. It takes a lot more effort to save and enter receipts for cash, and a compulsive spender without a budget is just as likely to run out of money whether or not he uses plastic. You could keep receipts in the envelope you take the cash out of when you're getting started. If you are so addicted to spending that you must cut your debit card to enforce your budget, at least consider this a temporary measure to get yourself under control. When the bank issues you a new card, re-evaluate this decision and the self control measures you've implemented to see if you've grown enough to keep the card."
Yes, conflicts of interest are absolutely okay - are you serious? Conflicts of interest are a constant part of life. All scientific knowledge we have ever discovered was implicated in conflicts of interest, in that the researchers have an interest in finding scientifically significant results so they can get published and receive credit for discovering that knowledge.  Do those conflicts of interest mean you dismiss evidence off-hand? Of course not. A conflict of interest is a reason to give less weight to a source's claim *in the case that you have evidence to the contrary*. It is never a reason to reject a claim in and of itself.   By your logic, it is wrong for your doctor to recommend a certain examination because they profit if you take it. It makes informed decision-making impossible.
No it's really not, I have no illusions that private school is any better than the public schools around here.  The problems with them differ, but one is no better than the other.  Our education system in Florida is broken, the voucher system they instituted created broken schools and soon to be bankrupt private schools.  Every state that's done so has or soon will have the same problems.  Even states that aren't screwing their public schools with vouchers, are screwing them with poor funding at every level.  Shits broke, and getting more broke every year.  Eventually it might get fixed, but I'm not going to play 'maybe' games with my kids.  I'd rather move them to a country that isn't supporting the most expensive military on the planet.
It just states that the price doesn't justify the valuation which is not a factual statement. Also this is based on someones opinion of the companies P/E. The P/E was published and public information and idiots on both the buy and sell side jumped in.   The article does not make a factual claim about Fraud (cooking the books), Francine McKenna speculates that management  and auditors cooked the books.
"Compare the first part of the statement, ""constant growth can only make most of us poorer"" with what is supposed to be evidence of that (ridiculous) claim.  Just because people are worse off (which isn't actually true if you aren't measuring things only in money) doesn't mean it *has to* work that way.  This is such a short run analysis and it is just so ridiculous my head is seriously about to explode.  Why not say, ""Since 1914 we have had consistent growth and everyone is better off for it"".  I hope that people this stupid never get any sort of political power because they are truly the destroyer of things."
THEY ARE NOT RUNNING AROUND KILLING PEOPLE. A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE OUT OF LITERALLY MILLIONS ARE. WHY DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND HOW NUMBERS WORK????  There is NO statistical evidence supporting any of the bullshit you're spouting. You are a racist, stupid fuck. Go away. I hope the evil Muslims get you first.
&gt;The days of the secrecy regime are long gone and continued success is based on respected levels of regulation, strong legal protection, and access to international investment opportunities. Tax information is automatically shared with nearly 30 states including the United Kingdom, France, Canada and the United States. In today’s world a financial centre’s reputation is a key factor in success.  Good thing governments like Sudan and Zambia doesn't have the clout that the OECD countries do in shutting down blackmoney and tax havens for people trying to dodge their taxes. I'd imagine quite a comfortable living could be made with just black money from the developing world.   This is a PR piece for the Cayman Islands.
Japan  has huge current account, trade surplus and shrinking population/consumption,  Unless they print money, Yen will shoot up, creating problem with their export economy. Japan can only wish the rest of the planet dump their currency, lowering yen and enhancing export. Yen is not a major reserve currency. So there is that.  Does it apply to US? probably not, US is deficit and debt economy.  Dollar is reserve currency, creating artificial demand and pumping US economy.   Once that privilege is gone, dollar global purchasing power will tank.  So toying with dollar credibility like Japan printing Yen is not really an option.
See, here you have created a “blanket narrative” that is your explanation of what is going on, that provides no details of the actual process, which means resolving the issue is impossible.  Then you toss an Link and claim it represents every other part of the system.  This is labeling in the extreme, and obfuscates the issue, while trying to get me to accept your narrative.  So I have to dig past your veil to the real information every time.  And I’m not understanding your point on that link.  The EPA is having their budget cut, and Trump proposed to cut it in half, and so the EPA will be laying off tons of employees, and will also have a harder time getting their air standards guidance out in a reasonable time.  Who is the attacker on special interested her?  Trump?  He’s the only specifically mentioned voice on the cuts., and who are the special interest groups going after them?  I don’t see what retaliation is occurring here.
I'll just say this. You are in much better shape financially than I was when I moved out on my own and started supporting myself, and I did fine.  The 6 month emergency fund is nice, but I'd gamble that most people that have been out on their own for a long time can't match that. The main thing is just to keep a budget that is commensurate with your income and adjust it if you see that emergency fund start to dwindle. Look at it this way, assuming you are wrong and you completely weren't ready for independent living, you could always go back. Nothing ventured nothing gained.
Investigative journalism is another form of entertainment. Yes, it also happens to provide a service to the public.  I have a budget and a family and I have to pick between different sources of entertainment. I *want* to give WaPo money for service, but I can't justify it at their current price. We don't go out to eat, we don't buy cable TV, and we don't go to the movies, so it's not like I can just give up a Big Mac to pay WaPo. At their current price point, they simply don't provide enough entertainment for me to give up a different source of entertainment to replace it with WaPo.  I am a relatively poor person who wants to stay informed and contribute to supporting investigative journalism, but they've price themselves out of my reach.
What you are describing is called following (or going over) a budget. There is no debt or loans in the scenario you are describing. Simply put a budget is when you allocate a certain amount of your income for expenses in various categories, and a certain amount for savings.  So lets say you earn $100 a month. If you budget $50 in expenses every month, then that means you try not to spend more then $50 a month, and the rest you save. In any given month, you may go over your self-imposed budgeted amount for expenses. That simply means you are over the budgetted amount for that month, but that does not make you 'in debt'. It just means you didn't meet your goal for that month (or whatever time period you created). However, if you do this habitually then you clearly don't have a realistic budget, because the idea behind a budget is a plan that you can realistically meet on a consistent basis. Sometimes you may have to break it, but it should be made in such a way that if you work at it, it is consistently achievable. If not, then you need to rethink your budget. Instead of thinking in terms of taking loans from yourself, I would encourage you to think in terms of saving up for goals and only spending money from those 'goal funds.' In this way, you are not arbitrarily spending money that would instead go into savings, but rather explicitly setting money aside for those goals. This will also help you to see where exactly your money is going and also help you to prioritize your financial goals.
I'm sorry, I know that it's not your fault but you really need to think about what you're saying and stop listening to the financial advisors on tv...   If you think that all you need to do is give people money to spend then you need to read up on Zimbabwe. They tried that - at it's hight they *think* that Zim's inflation hit 6.5 x 10^108 % ([that's 6.5 quindecillion novemdecillion percent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe)). I can't even begin to imagine how large that is - basically bread cost billions of zim dollars a loaf. I remember hearing the one day that they were dropping 3 zeros from their notes. I'm ashamed to say that I laughed.  No one is buying right now because, instead of buying stuff, everyone is paying back loans - or they're too scared to buy in case they need the cash to survive in the future. Look at the liquidity crisis; the housing bubble; all the bank failing/needing to be bailed out lately - all because people couldn't pay back the loans they took out.  The US government is already $15 trillion in debt (nearly 16 trillion now) - and that's only the public debt. The gov is already paying $454 billion every year *just to repay the **interest** on the debt!* Never mind actually paying back the principle amount. Last year it added another $1.2 trillion to the deficit (that's another 1,200,000,000 dollars that it owes on top of the 15,000,000,000 dollars it already owes). At the beginning of this year, public debt amounted to 102% of GDP - that means that if everyone in America didn't buy what ever it was that they bought last year and instead repaid the public debt (not private mind you, just the debts that the government owed) then they *still* wouldn't have been able to pay it all off.   Now after reading all of that, please keep a straight face and tell me that all that the government needs to spend even more money to sort it all out.
Having been in exactly this position (not in a debt hole, built a budget to get a better view of what spending is), I can say what the greatest gift it brings is: it's a decision tool. When you are spending out of only one account, you often make decisions based on the total money in the account. “Should we go out for dinner? Can I make this impulse purchase?” This is terrible, because many, if not all, of those dollars are already intended for certain future expenses like groceries, bills, etc. You can't see how many of those dollars are discretionary. A budget is like having many accounts. Instead of looking at your real account(s) to make spending decisions, you look at your budget lines. You to want impulse buy a gadget — do you have money remaining in a relevant budget line? If yes, the decision is yours, if no, the budget is telling you that you don't have dollars for that.* Similarly for more prosaic purchases — you want to splurge on some non-staple groceries to make a fancy dinner or try out a new recipe, and the budget line for Groceries will tell you if you can do that. Instead of looking at (e.g.) $6000 in a chequing account, you're looking at $600 (assigned) − $146.86 (spend) = $453.14 (available) in a monthly groceries budget line. Just like you can now see where your money has been going, by maintaining and using your budget lines, and having every single dollar you spend go through the budget (to show your totally assigned, total spent, and total remaining), you can continue to see where your money is going in near real-time. You're no longer looking at bills and statements to figure out what's going on and plan, you're looking at money flows and future intentions, as you should be. This approach to budgeting has completely changed our finances.
My attempt to convey the shorthand report notes on file:    &gt;...bipartisan opposition at the capitol to the GOP health care bill. All three members of Vermont's congressional delegation joining the Republican Governor, and Republican and Democratic leaders of the state house and senate, all joining forces here to attack this new GOP bill...  It would send the budget into deficit or throw 51,000 Vermonters off health care completely.      &gt;The proposed deductions in Medicaid would leave our state with a budget deficit because  [we can't] absorb without cutting health services for the people who deserve it the most or significantly raising taxes... If you have heart disease, or get cancer, and are suddenly thrown off of health insurance... it is immoral, it's not acceptable.    &gt;Now it is rare to see leaders from all three parties speak out so forcefully here. Governor Scott, in particular, pleading with the Senate to slowdown, take a breath and draft something acceptable to both parties. He is back from a weekend in which he met with his fellow Republican governors, and said that many of the fellow GOP leaders feel as he does. Even conservative... minority leader Donald Turner, who supports health care reform said the Senate GOP repeal bill is not the answer. Some leaders saying the Medicaid cuts could force a number of our small rural hospitals to close.
Investors speculate about the future of the market all the time, but they are starting to dump them now http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-15/u-s-investment-outflow-reaches-record-as-china-sells-treasuries.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/15/usa-economy-capital-idUSL2N0QL0T520140815 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/eaccbe18-aea6-11e3-aaa6-00144feab7de.html &gt;The total net outflow of long-term U.S. securities and short-term funds such as bank transfers was $153.5 billion, after an inflow of $33.1 billion the previous month, the Treasury Department said in a report today. The June figure, and $40.8 billion in net selling of Treasury bonds and notes by private investors in June, **were the largest on record, the Treasury said.** &gt;""This is a disappointment and is a negative for the dollar. Clearly, the United States is having a hard time attracting investments to offset its current account deficit,"" said Michael Woolfolk, global market strategist at BNY Mellon in New York. &gt;Central banks sold US Treasury debt at the start of the year, according to the latest official data released on Tuesday, as stress among emerging market countries intensified. Declines in Treasury holdings were seen for Thailand, Turkey and the Philippines, which sold $3.9bn, $3.3bn and $1.5bn respectively during January. Wow look at that. Did you just dismiss all evidence that proves you wrong? I think so!"
Especially because rather than fix true trade deficits (like the US has with China) Trump and his cronies are lying to the public about NAFTA.     U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said publically that the he has to fix the draft deficit with Canada yesterday (or was ~~tit~~ it the day before?). The US has a trade SURPLUS with Canada.        So he's either lying or he's an idiot. Not sure which is worse.
"says the [Congressional Budget Office](http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9688/MainText.3.1.shtml#1089499):  &gt; CBO estimated the Army’s total costs at $88 million to maintain 1.2 units at home station and $110 million to have 2.0 units at home station for each deployed unit (see the table above). Those costs bracket Blackwater’s total cost of $99 million to perform the same security function.   This was directly comparing contractors to military. The contractors are, long-term, cheaper because we do not intend (or at least should not intend) to maintain military presence indefinitely. Police forces or waste removal are not things that will go away, to replace those would make little difference. Please read the entire section of the linked *evidence* before your respond with any more grey lady propaganda.   &gt; “Part of the problem with doing studies like this is the lack of data about what the government pays contractors,” he said.  we don't have enough evidence to make any valid conclusions, but that's not gonna stop us from doing it anyway.  edit:  Steven Shooner on May 19, 2005: There's a number of episodic studies since, but there has not been a compelling case made that government outsourcing, particularly this type of outsourcing, saves money.""  CBO on August 2008:This paper, which covers the period from 2003 through 2007, provides an overview of the federal costs of employing contractors in Iraq and in nearby countries, the type of products and services they provide, the number of personnel working on those contracts, comparisons of past and present use of contractors during U.S. military operations, and the use of contractors to provide security.  He may have been right at the time, but the CBO has now done a comprehensive study of contracting in that situation. read the paper. Contractors aren't a cure all and the implementation lacked effective oversite (included in the paper) but it is cost effective"
"Most likely because they don't know what they're talking about. They all have a belief without evidence that information set X is internalised into the price but information set Y is not. If there is some stock characteristic, call it y, that belongs to set Y, then that moves the gauge towards a ""buy"" recommendation. However, the issue is that no evidence has been used to determine the constituents of X and Y, or even whether Y exists in any non-trivial sense."
No!  I care more about how accurate our information is that we are making these judgments from.  You are apparently not even vetting your information.  You claim the government is strengthening, protecting, and creating domestic shipping monopolies, but your sources of information are opinion tripe that don't even delve into ANY f the IMPORTANT particulars.  The article just plays the blame game, and doesn't give you anything you can use as evidence in court!  Vet your sources!  Then maybe we can have a rational discussion.  Also, pay attention to the REAL cause, not just the symptoms.  Choose a solution that will actually solve the problem, not hand the keys to known thieves.  It's like you have thrown rationality to the wind because you FEEL these solutions are right!  And you told me I was the one feeling and not thinking!
Probably cause their entire paycheck is barely enough to cover the necessities like groceries and rent and utilities. Let alone small (in Western terms) luxury items like being able to own and upkeep your own vehicle vs public transportation, or having some kind of entertainment budget. Especially if you have a child.