vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
You expect interest because you forgo the opportunity of using the money as well as the risk of losing the money if the borrower can not pay you back.  This is true also with gold - you would expect interest if you loaned someone your gold for a time period. When you deposit your money in the bank you are loaning your money to the bank who then loans the money to others.  This is how the bank is able to pay interest on your accounts.
The paper check method also allows the bank to use your money while the check is in the mail.   My bank debits my account immediately, so while my $100 utility bill is traveling the U.S. Postal System for two days, they can make use of my $100 in whatever slush fund they like.
The guarantor is the Government of Latvia, the fund is the means of executing that guarantee. Unless the government defaults, the guarantee is valid. See here: In accordance with amendments to the Deposit Guarantee Law adopted by   the Parliament of the Republic of Latvia (Saeima) as from December 16,   2010 compensation of EUR 100 000 (approx. LVL 70 000) is guaranteed to   the clients of the Latvian banks (both natural and legal persons) per   depositor per each bank (all accounts added together, if several   accounts at one bank in one name). The government guaranteed   compensation covers deposits, current account balance, salary   accounts, savings accounts etc. further down: In accordance with the Deposit Guarantee Law, in the occurrence of a   case of unavailability of deposits in the Fund for paying out the   guaranteed compensations, such payments shall be made from the   Government budget via FCMC.
My simplest approach is to suggest that people go Roth when in the 15% bracket, and use pre-tax to avoid 25%. I outlined that strategy in my article The 15% solution.  The monkey wrench that gets thrown in to this is the distortion of the other smooth marginal tax curve caused by the taxation of social security. For those who can afford to, it makes the case to lean toward Roth as much as possible.  I'd suggest always depositing pretax, and using conversions to better control the process. Two major benefits to this. It's less a question of too late than of what strategy to use.
Many brokerage accounts for trading stocks are covered under SIPC insurance, which is up to $500,000  You can also have multiple checking and savings accounts with the $250,000 balance split up. You can also check your bank's capital ratio on the FDIC website, somewhere. The FDIC won't move on them unless it falls under 3% and even then FDIC will force them into receivership and sell them to a bigger bank before they go bust and experience losses of customer deposits. This is what mostly happened when hundreds of banks failed during the crisis from 2008-2010. There were very isolated events where customers actually lost their cash balances, and that was mostly because those customers had completely uninsured accounts. As that was the most extreme moment in US and global financial history, you should be able to judge risk with the aforementioned information in mind. You can stay in a cash balance easily and be fully insured.
the person at the other end of the question is probably some low level employee getting paid less than $20 an hour, most likely, he'll just ask you if you have a point and then move on to the next person that actually needs something.  You are seriously overestimating reddit. Do you realize that the majority of redditors are young teens who don't even have bank accounts? Not to mention the amount of people who not only understand the equifax situation but actually care?
The company provides the best online electronics and phone accessories. If you want to electronics product. Then you can visit our company website. This company has vast experience in manufacturing of various kin of electronics and phone accessories. Now this company has many happy customers all over the world. The main aim of this company is to provide best quality electronics products so that people will satisfy with the products and can use it for long a period of time.If you are looking for a good power bank for your phone or I pod then progressfactory is always best. You can easily collect some outstanding power banks, which are of different mAh. You can easily purchase your required power bank for its store.
"All cash deals basically mean that the acquiring company isn't going to offer you shares in itself, but only the cash equivalent. Mechanically, the acquiring company will find out who the shareholders are, then use electronic means to send money to the shareholders of the target company through their brokerage accounts (slightly oversimplifying here but it's the essence).  As you've pointed out, using physical cash is impractical - they would have to send these amounts of cash to each shareholder of WFM, who will easily number in the tens or hundreds of thousands.  As for AMZN, how it raises this amount of cash is not addressed when we say the deal is ""all cash"". Essentially, it's AMZN's problem to figure out where to get this cash, be it through internal operations, bank borrowings, or issuing new equity."
"&gt;No one is to blame other than these antiquated ceos that are so out of touch with the public. If half of your failed aplicants are failing due to mj maybe its time reevaluate your requirements perhaps ? The excuse of saftey concerns is completely misleading bs. I wonder how many current employees most likely use mj regularly. Fact is the general public view mj as more innocuous than alcohol yet these companies use its illegality as a reason to dodge isurance claims when thier employees are injured. Most frustrating part of this article is when he complains about being unable to compete with germany ...you know why ? Because most of Europe doesnt have completely invasive drug testing procedures and instead recruits based on qualification and performance like any good company should. The safety concern is real. A single injury in the workplace can cost upwards of $20K. That's serious money, and if our workplace injury involves multiple people, damaged equipment, and so on, you do the math. It's not a ""bullshit"" concern, it's the potential to be on the hook for serious money when someone impaired by a drug injures himself and needs to go to the hospital or perhaps maims someone else who has the misfortune to be working with him that day. There are workplaces that are dangerous enough when everyone is sober. Adding drugs or alcohol to that mix is pretty much planning on maiming or killing one of your employees. Secondly, basing a policy on what the general public (99% of whom know nothing about pharmaceuticals) think are dangerous drugs is a terrible way to make that sort of decision. People think aspirins are harmless, which is why people overdose and severely damage their livers. If you took a poll, most people wouldn't know that OTC pills can be dangerous. Doesn't change the fact that they can be. People misjudge the dangers of all kinds of things they do everyday. Don't base your opinion on what the general public thinks is true. Base it on facts. As for the illegal thing -- I'm sure you'd willingly turn over all your bank accounts and credit cards to a guy who is actively breaking the law for his own personal pleasure.
"You can store millions of dollars in deposit accounts, you just lose the explicit FDIC guarantee. So you look for rock-solid banks. Bankrate.com has ""Safe and Sound Ratings"" that show the relative strength of various banks. You put your excess deposits in those banks, and you are pretty safe. Note that in addition to the explicit FDIC guarantee, there is now an implicit guarantee that certain institutions have been deemed too ""big to fail"", and will be backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government, without regard to the capitalization of the bank. Bank of America, for example, is not well capitalized and is carrying billions of dollars of ""assets"" that have little or no value. Yet government policy keeps the bank afloat and your deposits secure. Another strategy is to use municipal money market accounts, which provide secure (but not guaranteed) deposit-like accounts as well as a tax benefit. If you have > $1M in liquid assets, you probably need a financial professional and attorney advising you to make sure that you are aware of  and are controlling for risk in a way consistent with your longer-term goals."
If you're coming from Europe and want to buy some USD from the bank, well, how much USD does the bank ""have"" and what does it mean for them to have money? The bank gets money from depositors, or from lenders. If one person puts money in a deposit account, and then the bank borrows that money from the account and lends it to a home buyer in the form of a mortgage, the same dollar is being used by two people. The home buyer might use that money to hire a carpenter, and the carpenter might put the dollar back into a bank account, and the same dollar might get lent out again. In economics this is called the ""multiplier effect."" The full supply of money being used ends up becoming harder to calculate with this kind of debt and re-lending. Since money is something used and needed for conducting of transactions, the number of transactions being conducted (sometimes on credit) affects the ""supply"" of money. Demand and supply blur a bit when you consider people who hoard cash. If I fear the stock market, I might keep all my money in dollars. This takes cash away from companies who could invest it, takes the cash out of the pool of money being used for transactions, and leaves it waiting under my mattress. You could think of my hoarding as a type of demand for currency, or you could think of it as a reduction in the supply of currency available to conduct transactions. The full picture can be a bit more complicated, if you look at every way currencies are used globally, with swaps and various exchange contracts and futures, but this gives the basic story of where prices come from, that they are not set by some price fixer but are driven by market forces. The bank just facilitates transactions. If the last price (exchange rate) is 1.2 Dollars per Euro, and the bank gets more requests to buy USD for Euros than Euros for USD, it adjusts the rate downwards until the buying pressure is even. If the USD gets more expensive, at some point fewer people will want to buy it (or want to buy products from the US that cost USD). The bank maintains a spread (like buy for 1.19 and sell for 1.21) so it can take a profit.
It's a good point to make with bot presence. For the most part Twitter is made of people, even if there are a lot of false or bot accounts. That being said I don't find it as strong a marketing channel because of the nature of Twitter at its core.   If you follow 1000 people you're likely to have nearly 10,000 tweets going through your feed. It's hard to really fight for attention but you can still get decent response and views when done right.   As for Instagram...  I think in the long term, just as any other social network, the lifespan of it depends on the content. As long as people are having new experiences and taking photos of them there will always be more content.   That being said there are tons of accounts that pretty much post the same content. It saturates things like the explore feature because they're using less than kosher tactics to get likes.   Ultimately I think policing of Instagram as they have been is the best strategy for keeping it going.   Even though I'm a marketer, I'm also a Millennial with pretty typical values. Blatant advertising is annoying and intrusive when it comes to user experience and many young people today feel that way.   By policing things like auto-engaging, false locations (you used to be able to just type locations like 'Follow Me') and being very keen on following through with reports of spam accounts is a good way to keep younger people on it.   Unless you're paying for ads marketing on Instagram typically consists of native content that looks good on feeds and needs engagement to rise up. This is a good way to curb marketing while still maintaining a good user experience.   As a side note, part of why I use Snapchat less is how they shove ads down your throat, which gets old pretty fast. Ads on snapchat pretty much ruined the platform for me personally aside from using it for communication.   As long as Instagram maintains this balance based around the user and not the advertisers I think it will be going for quite some time.
"&gt;first is that investors are perfectly rationale allocators of capital.  Yes, they are rational, and far superior to the government.  &gt; that excess capital is invested - at all  It is either invested, or converted to consumption that Hanauer claims to be so important  &gt;that taxation (presumably what is considered ""high"") has caused unproductive investing practices, when in fact the inverse is true  nonsense, and stupid. unworthy of further comment  &gt;have resulted in the incentive for investors to sit on their capital and do nothing to return it to the system.   wrong. people don't sit on cash.  &gt;that investing profits back into expansion and worker compensation is misallocation of resources.   Yes, it absolutely is unless the people in charge have determined that the ROI is sufficient. Without adequate reward, you are literally just burning money.  &gt;giving precedence to the relatively elite investor class ensures that capital is allocated according to their whims  You mean retail investors and pension funds? yeah, so elite, such whims. You act like stock holders are all fat cats smoking cigars in a country club.  &gt;and often times that simply means into their bank accounts.  Wow, such retardation:  - rich people don't just leave mountains of cash in bank accounts  - even if they did, the bank would be using that money to fund loans, etc, so it's still ""in the system""  &gt;i would like others to know that what you are saying is widely debunked, chicago school nonsense   You sound like a very pretentious liberal who wants very badly for the reality of economics to not be true because it conflicts with your political beliefs  &gt;a few hours of unbiased research will make this evident  everything in your post is written is a jaw-droppingly pretentious style, almost like you see yourself as posing for the cover of the New Yorker as one of those fat cats you despise"
"Currencies that are pegged or fixed require that foreign currencies are held by the central issuer at a proportional amount. This is analogous to having a portfolio of currencies that the central bank issues shares from - in the form of its own currency. We will continue with this analogy, if the central bank says these ""shares"" are worth $1, but the underlying components of the portfolio are worth $0.80 and decreasing, then it is expensive for the central bank to maintain its peg, and eventually they will have to disregard the peg as people start questioning the central bank's solvency. (People will know the $1 they hold is not really worth what the central bank says it is, because of the price changes people experience in buying goods and services, especially when it comes to imports. Shadow economies will also trade using a currency more reflective of labor, which happens no matter what the government's punishments are for doing so). Swiss National Bank (central bank) did this in early 2015, as it experienced volatility in the Euro which it had previously been trying to keep it's currency pegged to. It became too expensive for it to keep this peg on its own. The central bank can devalue its currency by adjusting the proportions of the reserve, such as selling a lot of foreign currency X, buying more of currency Y. They can and do take losses doing this. (Swiss National Bank is maintaining a large loss) They can also flood their economy with more of their currency, diluting the value of each individual 1 dollar equivalent. This is done by issuing bonds or monetizing goods and services from the private sector in exchange for bonds. People colloquially call this ""printing money"" but it is a misnomer in this day and age where printers are not relevant tools. The good and service goes onto the central bank's balance book, and the company/entity that provided the service now has a bond on its book which can be immediately sold to someone else for cash (another reading is that the bond is as good as cash). The bond didn't previously exist until the central bank said it did, and central banks can infinitely exchange goods and services for bonds. Bond monetization (also called Quantitative Easing) is practiced by the Federal Reserve in the United States, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank and now the Central Bank of the Republic of China"
I have read numerous accounts of this, and yes, it is criminal, but no, they can't figure out who did, though presumably the people handling the accounts were guilty of this. Mutant human [Angelo Mozilo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Mozilo)'s organization stands out as the worst offender in this regard with no trickery too extreme.  Ironically sourcing these particular accounts is difficult because of the sheer amount of material pertaining to subprime mortgages and fraud in general.
As we've seen here, many questions are from adult children trying to help their elderly parents in retirement, and include aging parents who do not understand their own access to social security, medicaid/medicare, assistive resources, or community help organizations. What happens to those aging without children or younger friend networks to step in and help? Well, we don't really have a replacement for that. I am not aware of any research that quantifies just how many in the US don't take advantage of the resources they are fully qualified to make use of and enjoy, due to a lack of education, social issues (feeling embarrassed and afraid), or inability to organize and communicate effectively. A resource being available is not very much help for those who don't have enough supportive resources to make use of it - which is very hard to effectively plan for, yet is exceedingly common. Without one's own independent resources, the natural aging and end of life process can be especially harsh. Elderly who are economically and food insecure experience far heightened incidence of depression, asthma, heart attack, and heart failure, and a host of other maladies. They are at greater risk for elder-abuse, accidental death, life-quality threatening conditions developing or worsening, and more. Scare-tactics aren't always persuasive, and they do little to improve the lives of many because the people who need to know it most generally just don't believe it. But my hope here is that the rather highly educated and sophisticated audience here will see a little more of the harsher world that their own good decisions, good fortune, culture, and position in society shields them from experiencing. There is a downside to good outcomes, which is that it can cause us to be blind to just how extremely different is the experience of others. Not all experience such terrible outcomes - but many hundreds of thousands in the US alone - do, and sometimes worse. It is not helpful to be unrealistic about this: life is not inherently kind. However, none of this suggests that being co-dependent or giving up your own financial well-being is necessary or advised to help others.
Empirial evidence for the second scenario: Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — The theories and the empirical evidence. Excerpt: It was examined whether in the process of making money available to   the borrower the bank transfers these funds from other accounts   (within or outside the bank). In the process of making loaned money   available in the borrower's bank account, it was found that the bank   did not transfer the money away from other internal or external   accounts, resulting in a rejection of both the fractional reserve   theory and the financial intermediation theory. Instead, it was found   that the bank newly ‘invented’ the funds by crediting the borrower's   account with a deposit, although no such deposit had taken place. This   is in line with the claims of the credit creation theory. Thus it can now be said with confidence for the first time – possibly   in the 5000 years' history of banking - that it has been empirically   demonstrated that each individual bank creates credit and money out of   nothing, when it extends what is called a ‘bank loan’. The bank does   not loan any existing money, but instead creates new money. The money   supply is created as ‘fairy dust’ produced by the banks out of thin   air.
POWER BANK, it is one of the best electronic gadgets which is   used by everyone for charging their phones, laptops and more electronic gadgets. We have affordable POWER BANK, which is sold in our online website like Motorola POWER BANK Micro 1500mAH, Ctroniq and more. All power banks are genuine quality and shopallitems is one of the first worldwide  electronic stores, who delivers all over the World. Our Power bank  can use for iPad, iPhones and all other devices. For booking of the POWER BANK, please to our website or click on the given below link.
There are many financial reasons why a bank would not want to allow this. While making a note of them does not answer your question, I think it's important to note why traditional CD products do not allow such contributions. Below are two reasons. If a bank wanted to offer such a product they could hypothetically create mechanisms to account for the above And guess what these types of accounts exist ... they are called savings accounts. They allow regular deposits, but often have variable interest rates, charge fees if you don't make regular deposits, or offer interest rates below a typical CD. Note you say you understand what a CD ladder is, but you haven't explained why you don't want to do it. It sounds like what you want is the convenience of a savings account but with the higher interest rate of a CD. Unfortunately, you have to give up a bit of interest if you want this convenience.
I quit contracting years ago and moved on to working in investment banking.   And the other 11 series are even worse. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. So I'd ask again, why do you think that your skillset is in excess of the tens of thousands of guys that have gone through the two premier PSC's, the countless more who have moved through various SOF groups over the last three decades, the thousands that do protection ops for OGA, all of the police officers who have protection experience...
There are some people that still get an old-fashioned paycheck but for the most part if you are an employee at a company you get a paystub while the money is direct deposited into your accounts.  Paying for stuff at a store with a check is not very common.  Most people use credit cards for that purpose.  A significant percentage of the population still use checks for paying there regular bills through the mail.  Although the more internet savvy people will most likely use online bill pay from their bank so they don't have to mail checks.  Personally I have only written about 15 checks in 5 years.  Mostly to people and not to businesses setup for receiving bill payments electronically.