vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"The biotechnology sector as a whole is a popular buy recommendation among some analysts these days for a few reasons. Some analysts feel that the high costs in R&D, even without much profit, are a positive sign for growth because it means a company is working towards finding the next ""blockbuster drug"" or the next class of such drugs. There haven't been many new classes of blockbuster drugs since the development of SSRI's and statins, and many of the new drugs that have been developed have been tweaks to existing classes of drugs. Some analysts feel that ""it's about time"" for a new class of blockbuster drugs to hit the market. A new blockbuster drug means significant profits for the company that develops it; a new class of blockbuster drugs means significant profits for the whole industry. Since about 2009, the Food and Drug Administration has been more lenient in its approval of new drugs. This wave of new approvals has reduced R&D costs for companies because they don't need to go back to the lab or earlier phases of clinical trials and continually tweak their drugs in order to gain approval. This has also made some analysts optimistic. Genetic engineering is considered an up-and-coming field with potentially significant applications to the pharmaceutical industry. Advances in this field may increase profits for the pharm industry, but since biotech companies are often the ones producing the engineering equipment, research, etc. such advances could be a major source of revenue for the entire biotech industry. In the US and in the developed world as a whole, the elderly population is growing, and since people consume more medicine as they grow older, this could lead to higher profits for companies involved in the production of pharmaceuticals (which includes biotech companies, of course) in the long run. In the US, the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act expanded insurance coverage, which gives more people the means to afford pharmaceuticals. Also, in general, people consume more healthcare services when they have insurance (this is called moral hazard), so some analysts expect that the expansion of insurance coverage will only lead to more profits for the pharmaceutical industry and biotechnology firms in general. The global food crisis.
While dealing with US pennies and not 1 and 2 cent euro pieces, you may find this Wikipedia article of interest and analogous: Penny debate in the United States This article briefly summarizes both the arguments for and against retaining the one cent piece.  The arguments against include: Arguments for preservation include: Already a number of countries have removed their equivalents of the one and two cent coins, including New Zealand, Sweden, Australia, Israel, and Brazil (to name a few).
Drug addiction is one of the most serious and sensitive problems that could afflict a community, as it affects not only the users, but also the people surrounding them. In Kansas City, the number of heroin overdose that often leads to deaths continue to increase over the last few years, according to a report from The Kansas City Star.
"What have the followers of ""serious"" economists brought us? Within 40 years of the end of a good standard, central banks that apply Keynesian and monetarist economic policies have created a debt bubble thatcwill collapse the global economy in the next few years.   You can sound very intelligent by denoiuncing ideas that challenge the status quo, not do much when it is clear that the status is about to fall off of a cliff"
"1.Why is there no ""United States Treasury"" endorsement? Why should there be, and what do you think it would look like? Some person at Treasury sitting at a desk all day signing ""Uncle Sam""? At most you would expect to see some stamp, because it's clear that no person is going to sign all of these checks. 2.Can I have the check returned for proper endorsement? No, this is none of your business unless you have some serious reason to believe that someone other than the treasury cashed your check. (If that were really your concern, then you'd have a bigger issue than the endorsement.) 3.If I am required to endorse checks made out to me, why isn't the US Treasury? As others have noted, an endorsement is often not required as long as the name on the check matches a name on the account to which it is deposited.  Individual banks may have stricter rules, but that's between you and your bank."
Many states require that USE tax be paid on items purchased out of state and the subsequently brought to your home state. The vendor has the responsibility to collect based upon the shipping destination. It is the buyers responsibility to declare and pay taxes on purchases where the vendor is not required to collect them for your state(like when you purchase it out of state). So if you have an item shipped out of state to avoid sales tax and then bring it to your home state then you are required to pay sales tax in your home state as well.  Some states (Florida for 1) allow for the reduction in sales tax owed by the amount paid in out of state sales taxes.  Some states (Like CT) exempt purchases under a certain amount. Federation of Tax Administrators website has links to state revenue services where you can check the tax requirements for your (and other) states.    Other State Links
I'd like to point you to article ten of the bill of rights:  &gt;The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.   It seems to me that the Constitution gives the states the right to do whatever they want so long as the Constitution doesn't specifically forbid it. Either concede the point or show me where the Constitution forbids the states from levying a sales tax.
The simple solution here would be to either sell or give the car to your family member.  The answer depends on whether they can afford to buy or you can afford to give.  Transferring ownership gets rid of any of the liability considerations you outline, and also gets it out of your driveway!  It also saves you from having to deal with any relationship issues that could arise if they borrow and something goes wrong (they damage, fail to return, etc).  Your gut is telling you that there could be issues with lending a car to you family member, and i would trust your gut & transfer ownership one way or another.
&gt;Keynes didn't use the term, but some of his work refers to the conditions most would recognise as stagflation. In the version of [Keynesian macroeconomic theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics) which was dominant between the end of WWII and the late-1970s, inflation and recession were regarded as mutually exclusive, the relationship between the two being described by the [Phillips curve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve). Stagflation is very costly and difficult to eradicate once it starts, in human terms as well as in budget deficits. &gt;In the political arena, one measure of stagflation, termed the [Misery Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics\)) (derived by the simple addition of the inflation rate to the unemployment rate), was used to swing presidential elections in the United States in 1976 and 1980.
It is, but most people don't have the need or the ability to attend a private school. There's a good, cheap option in plenty of states. Many of them also have a tuition assistance program available if you keep good grades. I'm only familiar with a handful, but look at UC, UGA, Auburn or Alabama, UF, FSU, USC, UC Boulder, Texas, Texas A&amp;M... I'd wager that most states have a great option for the average person, and it's sometimes the best in the world -- look at Berkley for many hard sciences or Auburn for their veterinarian program. Sure, if you want to be a doctor, lawyer, veteranarian, investment banker, or chase some other professional career you might want to attend one of the top universities to make the right connections, but if those are serious considerations for you in high school your family probably already has the money to be able to afford that.
The dollar is the reserve currency of choice because the full faith and credit of the US is big, liquid, and stable compared to any currently-available alternative.   The Euro and Yuan are big enough to displace the dollar (and maybe the Yen), but any fears about the dollar being subject to fickle whims of politics and policy are significantly worse with those options.
"Apartment complexes have had a long history of not accepting cash for payment of rent. This eliminates the problem of robbery and strongly reduces the risks of embezzlement.   THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE  Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution states:   No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts Previous editions of banknotes stated that the notes were redeemable in gold or in lawful money. The Mint Act of 1792 set gold and silver as legal currency (and that one did not have to accept ""base metal coins"" for more than $10 which is why coin rolls only go up to $10). The Coinage Act of 1873 dropped silver and made gold the legal standard for currency. In 1933, the ""redeemable in gold"" was changed by federal statute and the legend you mention was added. Prior to 1933, someone could demand that you pay them in gold and not with a bank note. Legislation in 1933 ended that. This clause in the Constitution leads some political groups to wish to return to a gold standard. I recommend reading the book Greenback as it describes how our currency got the way it did and why that clause appears on currency."
Why are doctors so overworked? Maybe their AMA cartel restricting new entry is to blame. They also lobby to restrict the number of procedures that nurses can legally perform and limit the number of medical schools. This is a huge factor in the cost of health care in the United States.
If you want to make money while European equities markets are crashing and the Euro itself is devaluing: None of these strategies are to be taken lightly. All involve risk. There are probably numerous ways that you can lose even though it seems like you should win. Transaction fees could eat your profits, especially if you have only a small amount of capital to invest with. The worst part is that they all involve timing. If you think the crash is coming next week, you could, say, buy a bunch of puts. But if the crash doesn't come for another 6 months, all of your puts are going to expire worthless and you've lost all of your capital. Even worse, if you sell short an index ETF this week in advance of next week's impending crash, and some rescue package arrives over the weekend, equity prices could spike at the beginning of the week and you'd be screwed.
Let’s try the more straightforward approach again:  The current state of Economics doesn’t take into consideration the human condition.  As you have done yourself, it refuses to even admit that the human condition should be a factor it considers.  But when humans are in dire straights, we find their economic position is pitted directly against their human condition.  Which of these two will win?  Hint: Not the current economic system, unless it starts accounting for and being tolerant of the human condition.  How could I possibly know that?  Humans created the economic system.  It is not an innate part of their condition, contrary to what many would suggest.  When faced with two opposing forces, humans will ALMOST always destroy the weaker of the two, to end the conflict.  Humans can not destroy the human condition.  Feelings DO have an impact on the economy.  Trust and loyalty, love and hate, all impact it.  When we let the economy lead to suffering, we design its own downfall.  If the economic system could, instead, be seen as ONLY a trade structure that backs off when other influences come to bear, it could survive.  But the current Capitalist structure tries to place money above all else.  So of course it is seeing problems.
Behind paywall, so copy/paste of article below: &gt; Brexit will push up costs for banks by as much as 4 per cent and their capital requirements will rise up to 30 per cent, according to the most detailed assessment yet of what Britain’s departure from the EU means for the sector. &gt; The findings by consultants Oliver Wyman will make grim reading for its bank clients, many of which are struggling with low profitability. They come a day after HSBC became the first lender to put a price tag on Brexit, saying the immediate disruption would cost it $200m-$300m. &gt; Stuart Gulliver, chief executive of HSBC, said $1bn of revenue in its global banking and markets unit would be put “at risk” by Brexit. But he said it planned protect this revenue by moving up to 1,000 of its 6,000 UK investment banking jobs to France. &gt; The pace of announcements about banks’ Brexit plans has picked up in recent weeks, partly because of pressure from the Bank of England for them to submit their plans for coping with the “worst-case scenario” of a hard Brexit, severing access to EU clients. The UK is set to leave the EU in March 2019. &gt; Such plans are expected to cause duplication of resources and capital for large banks in Europe, Oliver Wyman warned. It said this may cause some banks to abandon some European activities altogether and shift resources to the US and Asia. &gt; “At the moment what everyone is doing is planning to be able to continue doing what they already do after a hard Brexit,” said Matthew Austen, head of European corporate and institutional banking at Oliver Wyman. &gt; “Once you have done that, if you have a strong performance in the US or Asia, then that is when you start to look at the post-Brexit foundations and it will prompt you to look at what the right business mix is,” he said. &gt; The consultancy, which has access to detailed figures on almost every bank from the benchmarking work it does for the sector, estimated that 2 percentage points would be knocked off wholesale banks’ return on equity in Europe because of the disruption.
"Talk about some serious hardcore overreaction. I merely made a comment on how Uganda should want to be more like Spain, not less. You argued with me. Then I cited development status. That was obviously what I meant.  You're spewing nonsense.  &gt;coming in here to discuss how a third world country is generally less well off than a member of the EU and a first world country and you're going to quote the HDI. In other news the sky is blue, water is wet, the snosberries taste like snosberries and you're wasting my time and yours.  Wait, I didn't want to ""discuss"" it. I made a comment with an obvious meaning, **you challenged it**, so I had to bring in facts.  Now you're going completely mental on me and deleting all your comments. Not sure what kind of strategy that is, but have fun.  PS: I have no idea what ""flame baiting"" is supposed to be, but that is not the first bizarre accusation you're making here, so I'll ignore it."
The reason it has shifted to the rich is because as the currency has debased the gains have gone towards the biggest companies, wealthiest individuals, assisted by government which works like an auction house to those with connections which is why lobbying ROI is huge. &gt;Fiat currency is a good thing for countries like the United States. We can safely finance and pay our debts for a few more years while wracking up debt without fear of hyperinflation. Because our massive debt is doing so well for us? In the beginning it looks nice because there is very little pain and is practically unnoticible, but as we see current events playing out in the US and to a greater extent Europe which isnt as tightly knit economically as the US, fiat currency has huge problems. Hyperinflation of commodities and deflation of assets are occuring before our eyes. House values are plummeting, medical/education/consumer goods are inflating. Not QUITE to the hyper part, but inflation is increasing and only when commodities such as oil see a deflation in demand as we see right now does inflation look under control. Shadow inflation is very much alive. If you have dollars in savings, the rates do not even outpace inflation, you are forced into riskier and risker investments to make a return. &gt;Now, there may be a lot to gripe about how the United States is currently spending its money, but it's established ""practical"" fact that government investment can spur growth, level out recessions, help people, etc. Established over what? the last 40 years? Thats hardly enough time to call practical fact when the gold standard existed for hundreds and thousands of years. Infact NO fiat currency that has ever existed has survived. That is the real fact, and the dollar and euro themselves are currently going through the end stages of this cancer. &gt;TL;DR The Gold Standard sucks, it has a lot of problems. Fiat Currency rocks for the USA because USA Fuck yeah!
I recommended Currency Trading For Dummies, in my answer to Layman's guide to getting started with Forex (foreign exchange trading)? The nature of the contract size points toward only putting up a fraction of the value.  The Euro FX contract size is 125,000 Euro. If you wish to send the broker US$125K+ to trade this contract, go ahead. Most people trade it with a few thousand dollars.
I know I'm late to the party, but a couple of rebuttals as a recent bitcoin advocate. I may be out of place in this subreddit as I come from a primarily technological background, not a financial one. &gt; Bittcoin is not a currency, it's a store of value, because it is not widely accepted as tender by most people. Bitcoin is not a currency *yet*, but because it does not have widespread adoption *yet*. Like other revolutionary technologies, there is an [inflection point](https://medium.com/@mcasey0827/speculative-bitcoin-adoption-price-theory-2eed48ecf7da) where adoption goes from hardly anyone to almost everyone very quickly. [Example chart](https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/0*E4eb7wxHinGNdYQq.) &gt;Even as a store of value, it's not very good. It's volatile and the fact that there is a limited supply of bitcoin is not a good thing. Sure, in the short run it results in speculation that drives up the price of a coin and makes it all the rage among gamblers but I don't think anyone can explain how, if used on a larger scale, wouldn't lead to deflation in the price of goods. To me, this is basic supply and demand, and it would in theory become less volatile and more stable following mass adoption. Bitcoin has virtually no inflation, and I agree that this could lead to the deflation of goods, but only insofar as that valuation is determined in bitcoin. For example, milk is still $2, but as the value of bitcoin fluctuates, I may pay .001 BTC or .0005 BTC for that milk. It's important to remember we're dealing with a digital asset in an increasingly more digitized world, a point-of-sale device like we use for credit cards could certainly tackle that conversion in the future. &gt;Also, at the end of the day, fiat currencies are based on trust and accountability of the government.
"In most cases, if you are a member of the class the law-firm will contact you via postal mail to notify you of the class action and give you an opportunity to opt-in or opt-out of participating in any settlement that happens. More often than not, they take the opt-out approach, meaning that if you don't say you want out of the class it is assumed that you agree with the complaints as defined in the class action and would like to receive your portion of the money if there is a settlement. If you haven't gotten such a letter and you think you should have, it is a good idea to contact the law firm. How do you find the law firm? Usually some Googling on ""class action"" and the name of the defendant company will get you there. Also, check the legal section of the classifieds of the local newspaper, they sometimes advertise them there. Typically they aren't hard to find because it is in the law firm's best interest to have everyone sign on to their class action for a number of reasons including: If you have a lot of people who are supposedly aggrieved, it makes the defendant look more likely to be guilty, and more participants can equate to higher settlement amounts (for which the law firm gets a percentage). That is why you see non-stop ads on daytime TV for lawyers marketing class action cases and looking for people who took this drug, or had that hip implant. Once a settlement occurs and you are a member of that class, there are a number of ways you might get your piece including: - A credit to your account. - A check in the mail. - A coupon or some other consideration for your damages (lame) - A promise that they will stop doing the bad thing and maybe some changes (in your favor) on the terms of your account. A final note: Don't get your hopes up. The lawyers are usually the only ones who make any substantial money from these things, not the class members. I've been paid settlements from lots of these things and it is rare for it to be more than $25, but the time the spoils are divided. I've gotten NUMEROUS settlements where my share was less than a dollar.
"Google ""forex broker"" and find one of the thousands that allows you to trade on Gold futures.  Then use one of them to short Gold... just watch your leverage. I would certainly wait before you're shorting gold.  Why tie up capital in a bubble that you think will burst in the next few years.  Wait for the price to increase and monitor for actual signs of the bubble bursting.  Right now with the Euro possibly collapsing shorting gold probably isn't your best bet."
Yes, from the point-of-view to the end speculator/investor in stocks, it is ludicrous to take on liabilities when you don't have to.  That's why single-stock options are far more liquid than single-stock futures. However, if you are a farmer with a huge mortgage depending upon the chaos of agricultural markets which are extremely volatile, a different structure might appeal to you.  You could long your inputs while shorting your outputs, locking in a profit.  That profit is probably lower than what one could expect over the long run without hedging, but it will surely be less volatile. Here's where the advantage of futures come in for that kind of structure: the margin on the longs and shorts can offset each other, forcing the farmer to have to put up much less of one's own money to hedge.  With options, this is not the case. Also, the gross margin between the inputs rarely fluctuate to an unmanageable degree, so if your shorts rise faster than your longs, you'll only have to post margin in the amount of the change in the net of the longs and shorts. This is why while options on commodities exist to satisfy speculators, futures are the most liquid.