vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"&gt; They would work in any way those who choose to participate will it too work.  Again, that is no answer.  Saying, ""it will work how everyone decides"" is just sidestepping the issue that your proposal will probably implode due to human nature.  Let me make my question more specific.  I was asking about military spending with five service providers.  If these providers will work as the participants choose then I think it is pretty clear the left and far-left service providers would quickly opt-out of military spending. The libertarian provider would probably quickly follow suit. That would leave you with a country where the right and far-right providers pay for 100% of the national defense.  At that point I would expect the right and far-right providers to protest since the other three providers benefit from a military that they don't pay for. Eventually they would cut their defense spending in protest until the left ""pays their fair share"".  The left doesn't like the military and would refuse.  The US would end up with a weak, underfunded military.  Is that how you want your system to work?"
Budgeting is a key concept, and the younger you start the easier it gets. While the financiers will disagree with me, you cannot really invest if you are borrowing money. Keep debt to zero or just on a primary residence. I can tell you from personal experience that I did not started building wealth until I made a firm commitment to being out of debt. Buy cars for cash and never pay credit card interest. Pay off student loans as soon as possible. For some reason the idea of giving to charity invokes rancor. A cursory study of millionaires will indicate some surprising facts: most of them are self made, most of them behave differently than pop culture, and among other things most of them are generous givers. Building wealth is about behavior. Giving to charity is part of that behavior. Its my own theory that giving does almost no good for the recipient, but a great amount of good for the giver. This may seem difficult to believe, but I ask that you try it."
"You should certainly look into investments. If you don't expect to need the money until retirement, then I'd put it in an IRA so you get the tax advantages. It makes sense to keep some money handy ""just in case"", but $23k is a very large amount of money for an emergency fund. Of course much depends on your life situation, but I'm hard pressed to think of an unexpected emergency that would come up that would require $23k. If you're seriously planning to go back to school, then you might want to put the money in a non-retirement fund investment. As I write this -- September 2015 -- the stock market is falling, so if you expect to need the money within the next few months, putting it in the stock market may be a mistake. But long term, the stock market has always gone up, so it will almost certainly recover sooner or later. The question is just when. Investing versus paying off debts is a difficult decision. What is the interest rate on the debt? If it's more than you're likely to make on an investment, then you should pay off the debt first. (My broker recently told me that over the last few decades, the stock market has averaged 7% annual growth, so I'm using that as my working number.) If the interest rate is low, some people still prefer to pay off the debt because the interest is certain while the return on an investment is uncertain, and they're unwilling to take the risk."
Would you like me to add fake experiences or to throw assumptions into my evaluation? If someone has one experience with a company, that is all they have to base their opinion off of. I'm not sure how a lack of abundant personal preference subdues the value of the anecdote as a whole. Also, I haven't ever used either, I would not pay for a ride when I can always provide it myself or a find a free one. I'm referring to which I'd rather be employed by.
$23,000 Student Loans at 4% This represents guaranteed loss. Paying this off quickly is a conservative move, while your other investments may easily surpass 4% return, they are not guaranteed.  Should I just keep my money in my savings account since I want to keep   my money available? Or are there other options I have that are not   necessarily long term may provide better returns? This all depends on your plans, if you're just trying to keep cash in anticipation of the next big dip, you might strike gold, but you could just as easily miss out on significant market gains while waiting. People have a poor track record of predicting market down-turns. If you are concerned about how exposed to market risk you are in your current positions, then you may be more comfortable with a larger cash position. Savings/CDs are low-interest, but much lower risk. If you currently have no savings (you titled the section savings, but they all look like retirement/investment accounts), then I would recommend focusing on that first, getting a healthy emergency fund saved up, and budgeting for your car/house purchases.  There's no way to know if you'd be better off investing everything or piling up cash in the short-term. You have to decide how much risk you are comfortable with and act accordingly.
"I am not an expert in this stuff, but my understanding is that the debt is in the form of US treasury securities, which mature at set rates and are paid at maturation.  So technically, the US Treasury ""pays off"" a portion of its debt whenever the debt securities mature.  Thus, if China (or any country) buys new Treasury securities at a slower rate than its currently held Treasury securities are maturing, the amount of US debt held by China will decrease.  This is what I hear China has been doing recently."
"What would be the ""up front"" stuff?  I make more than 40k, and have no debt. 0 debt. I don't own a house yet, so I pay rent and bills. No car loan, no school loans, etc. Don't run a balance on my credit card.   Yet I still feel financially strained. I don't make 75k, although I do believe that would make me feel much *closer* to stable"
My god man, where do you live that is too expensive to live on your own and  7K isn't enough for emergency cash? Anyway, with your age and income I would be more worried about a long-term sustainable lifestyle. In other words, a job that nets you more than $26K/year. Someday you may want to have a wife and kids and that income sure as hell wont pay for their college.   That was life advice, now for financial: I've always been a believer that if someone is not a savvy investor, their priorities before investments should be paying off debt. If you had a lot of capital or knew your way around investment vehicles and applicable returns then I would be telling you something different. But in your case, pay off that car first giving yourself more money to invest in the long-run.
As much as I'd like to tell you to save some for an emergency fund or use it to pay off some debt, if you really need a new roof you should get that taken care of first.
"I made this mistake and tried calling Paypal...the first time I have ever been unhappy with their service.  The girl gave me some number but didn't make it clear whether it was an order reference number or a reference phone number for the company I ordered from.  I called within 10 minutes of placing my order and they were unable to cancel or change the payment method.  I did find however, that even though you can't pay paypal with your credit card, some banks will let you.  I went into my account and ""paid"" my account the amount needed using my credit card from the same bank that I had intended to use in the first place...hopefully it went through quickly enough to not get a service fee from Paypal"
I do online grocery shopping directly with my local supermarket.  Its great.   I keep a basic list of recipes/supplies I use pretty dependably every week.  I add them all at once.  Then I quickly pick through them to fine-tune and bam, done. 15 minutes while drinking mai tais in my underwear.   Schedule pickup for the next day on my way home from work.
Your question contains two different concepts: fractional reserve banking and debt-based money.  When thinking of these two things I think it is important to analyze these items separately before trying to understand how the whole system works. Fractional Reserve Banking As others have pointed out fractional reserve banking is not a ponzi scheme.  It can be fraudulent, however.  If a bank tells all its depositors that they can withdrawal their money at any time (i.e. on demand) and the bank then proceeds to loan out some portion of the depositors' money then the bank has committed fraud since there is no way they could honor the depositors' requests for their money if many of them came for their money at one time.  This is true regardless of what type of money is deposited - dollars, gold, etc..  This is how most modern banks operate. Debt-based money Historically, the Fed would introduce new money by buying US Treasuries.  This means Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) are backed by US Treasuries.  I agree that this seems strange.  Does this mean if I take my FRNs to the Fed I could redeem them for US Treasuries?  But US Treasuries are promises to pay FRNs in the future.  This makes my head hurt.  Reminds me of the definition for recursion: see recursion. Here is an experiment.  What if we wanted to recreate FRNs today and none existed?  The US government would offer a note to pay 100 FRNs in one year and pay 5% interest on the note.  The Fed would print up its first 100 FRNs to buy the note from the US government.  The US government would spend the FRNs.  The first 100 FRNs have now entered into circulation.  At the end of the note's term the Fed should have 105 FRNs since the government agreed to pay 5% interest on the note.  But how is the US government going to pay the interest and principal on the note when only 100 FRNs exist?  I think this is the central point to your question.   I can come up with only two answers: 1) the Fed must purchase some assets that are not debt based 2) the US government must continue to issue debt that is purchased by newly printed FRNs in order to pay back older debt and interest.  This is a ponzi scheme. The record debt levels seem to indicate the ponzi scheme option was chosen.
Ford paid off a tremendous amount of debt prior to reinstating the dividend. While they still have a sizable amount of debt on the balance sheet, they've been able to refinance this debt to a much more affordable point. Their free cash flow + cash on the balance could enable them to pay it off in the very near future (12 - 16 months). Most auto companies have debt on their balance sheet if they choose to offer financial services.  Their overall credit rating (if you really think such things are valid) has also improved. Generally speaking, I agree its a poor idea to give money back to shareholders if you have high-interest bearing debt.
I think I get your question, but your wording is throwing a lot of us off. If what you want is a clean, effective and efficient interface over port 80, then USAA.com has done some great usability work. Additionally, they have really done some pioneering work with web services and mobile applications. On top of that, they have excellent document archiving. I can navigate their site more quickly than any of the other I've used.
Agreed. I constantly think how much happier I'd be running my own business. Not even considering pay. But right now pay is what matters and I haven't acquired a skill that will give me a product masses will want or that I can afford to implement on my own.
I think this could be changed quickly if they were forced to participate in the markets.  Sadly I spent 3 years of my bachelors degree in finance studying EMH. Only in my last year, in two classes we covered the disiquilibrium.
This is at the bottom of my list of concerns, as both an employee and an employee.  When hiring, its because I have work that needs to be done.  I want to get someone in as quickly as possible, so I really don't care about holidays.  Holiday pay also doesn't come out of my budget, so that doesn't enter in the decision. As a employee, if I'm unemployed I want to start as soon as possible.  If switching jobs, I'm going to get paid for the holiday at one job or another, so it really doesn't matter.  The last time I changed employers, I started the second week of January.  That was more driven by moving concerns than anything else.
You have paid the vendor (school?), etc, $75.75 too much, for whatever reason. They can send you back this money, or it can apply against a future bill.  This is common when I pay my credit card in full, but also have a store return. The bill can show a credit, but it will quickly get used up by new purchases.
"The key phrase in your post is that the options are ""in a good position now"".  They may be worthless in three months or a year.   If I was you I would cash in the options and pay off the debt.  Cash in enough to also cover taxes.  You may want to cash them all in."
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2017/07/27/Bank-Consolidation-Efficiency-and-Profitability-in-Italy-45063) reduced by 49%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; This paper examines the case for efficiency-driven banking sector consolidation in Italy, evaluates its potential effects on profitability, and discusses policy options to facilitate a consolidation process that is as effective as possible.  &gt; A bottom-up analysis of 386 Italian banks suggests that while profitability is expected to improve as the economy gradually recovers, operational efficiency gains are nonetheless needed to restore large parts of the banking system to healthy profitability.  &gt; Banking system consolidation can play a role in facilitating such efficiency gains, but its effectiveness is likely to be most as part of a comprehensive strategy that includes complementary reforms to clean up bank balance sheets.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6pxk55/imfbank_consolidation_efficiency_and/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~177073 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **bank**^#1 **IMF**^#2 **consolidation**^#3 **profitability**^#4 **paper**^#5"
They didn't report it was six figures a month, but I work in the industry and know that is the minimum cost for this type of service.  Putting Auto credit freezes on everyone seems like a good idea but I imagine the lenders would go up in arms if that happens because it would hault all new consumer debt.
"I don't usually pay much attention to IPOs. Is it normal for a software company to declare their intent to sell themselves as part of ""gaming industry consolidation""?  I get it as a pitch to angel investors for a start-up. Building to a certain point to then GTFO is a business as usual model. I just haven't seen it applied to an IPO before."
You will have to write it off as an offset of capital gains or as bad debt against personal income, limited to $3k/ yr. Write off 3k this year, 2k next. Here's the tax code, you'll need to file a form 8949, link below. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc450/tc453 So, this requires that it is a loan, acknowledged by both you and the borrower, with terms of repayment and stated interest, as well as wording for late payments and time for delinquency.  The loan document doesn't have to be fancy, but it must show a reasonable intention of repayment to distinguish it from a gift.  Then send out a 1099c for cancellation of debt. This is a starting point, it's a good idea to run everything by your tax processional to make sure you're meeting the requirements for bad debt with your contact and payment communication.
I think, generally speaking, people who say things like that don't have a firm grasp of their finances. On the other hand, if you take a mortgage as a vehicle for leveraged investment the interest can pay for itself in gains made elsewhere. Paying mortgage interest is otherwise only good for the banks, but our system reinforces the idea that everyone should be in debt instead of profiting from their capital.
Bitcoin isn't exactly backed by any substantial economic factors, like a good, skill, etc., and people are less familiar with it than a bond.  The idea of currency existing as debt has been with humankind for thousands of years, and we've just forgotten, so I thought using the bond equivalent wold refresh that thought in peoples minds, and begin a period of rethinking our culture on social and economic terms.
Bollinger Bands are placed standard deviations away from the moving average. Therefore if the price is volatile, the bands diverge from the mean. During consolidation the bands would converge. They do not provide a clear indication of whether the price is trending or not.
"Hilarious. No one is going to steal your idea. Because your idea is worth NOTHING. A business running on an idea *might* be worth something. But an idea by itself is literally worthless.  You would be incredibly LUCKY if someone copied your idea, because it would mean it's a good idea (99% of business ideas are terrible ones) and you could then advertise as the ""often copied but never equaled..."""
You may not have a good choice until you start that job. $2,000 is awfully low for a car, so it could be very risky. But you may not be able to get a loan until you start the new job. I would talk to a bank or credit union to get an idea of how much, if anything, you could borrow at this time. If you have a letter offering you the job that might help to get a loan. There are dealers who will finance a very cheap used car for anybody, but that kind of deal is likely to be at a very high interest rate and should be avoided. You could wind up with a debt and no car. One other possibility is to have a co-signer, such as a parent or other relative. That could make getting a car loan easy.
That's a dumb thesis for Klarman if it's what he's doing.  What history shows is that new investors are very interested in the total debt payments you are on the hook for.   The higher your debt payments, the less room there is for new payments.     You clear off all debts, people are more excited to lend, because it's the previous lenders that got the pain.  It's gambling.  I really have no idea what Klarman is doing, we just know what happened with the Algerian situation.   If Klarman is not demanding 100% face value of the bonds, but something not too much more than what he bought them for, then who cares.   There's a reasonable function of debt where the debt holder who doesn't want to deal with a long term repayment plan sells the debt to be out of the stress, and the guy taking it on knows he will get an amount more that is a function of being willing to wait things out.   It shouldn't be a stratospheric amount more though.  Otherwise the original investor is an idiot for not waiting.
Leasing is never a good idea.  A car is a depreciating asset -- it loses money over time.  Pay cash for your car and buy used ones until your net worth reaches at least $1M.
Government purchases of mortgages simply transfers the debt burden from households to the sovereign. Taxes pay sovereign debt (65% of whom are homeowners anyway). No debt has been restructured -- it's now paid via taxes instead of monthly mortgage payments -- and those paying include persons who responsibly avoided housing speculation. The U.S. has a debt-to-GDP ratio just shy of the critical point of 90%. Purchasing $10 trillion in mortgage debt (about a year of GDP) would put the U.S. on an inexorable path towards insolvency and inflation. There are all sorts of other risks (loss of a risk-free asset, moral hazard, nationalization of the housing industry, etc.) but this should make the point clear that it's not a good idea. There are only three ways to reduce debt: 1) default, 2) restructure, or 3) lower the real debt burden by de-valuing currency in which the debt is denominated.
"No one thinks a flat tax is a good idea.  As someone that has a good income, I would love to be paying 20%.  But I doubt a poorer person paying 5% would agree.  Flat tax is regressive and hurts poorer people the most.  ""The flat tax falls flat for good reasons""  https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/26/the-flat-tax-falls-flat-for-good-reasons/"
This is only true if you're retarded and don't know what ""residual"" means. &gt;This idea is supported by modern options theory. In effect, bondholders own the right to access cash flow but have sold a call to shareholders, while shareholders own the right to access the cash flow but have sold a put to bondholders. Neither shareholders nor bondholders can claim an exclusive right to “own” the company’s cash flow, much less the company. This is a made up explanation that doesn't mean anything. The real options model of corporate assets is that corporate debt is a risk-free bond with a short put option and equity is a call option. There is no ""deal,"" in actuality or in spirit, between debt and equity owners. You can dismiss the article as ""shit."""
Clearly this is doable and many people are doing exactly this.  At that kind of rate many will tell you to borrow as much as you can and invest.  This strategy does not work if you spend that money on dumb stuff, but you don't seem the type to do such a thing.  In some will argue that it is the only logical thing to do. Some will say that this is not a good idea due to risk.  Your chosen investment could lose value.  If this happens you would have been better off paying down your mortgage.   While my own interest rate is not as good as yours, it still pretty darn low (1.97%) after my tax discount.  Despite that I am aggressively paying down my mortgage.  My wife and I want to be debt free.  There is a certain freedom that comes along with that which cannot be explained by numbers.
"Um, for the same reason they don't give everyone free Google stock or index fund shares, which are also good long-term investments. Or water, which you also have to pay for, or food, which is an excellent short-term investment. Wiping yourself after using the restroom is also a good idea, but I wouldn't wait for the government to do it for you.  ""Is a good idea"" =/= ""the government should do this for everyone for free"""
This is more of a legal question than a monetary one. You can try to negotiate with the debt owner as Pete B. suggests. Alternatively, you can ignore them and see what happens. They might sue you for the 400 plus costs, or maybe not. That is a pretty small amount for a lawyer to show up in a court of law. If you go to court, you can win by testifying that you returned the box and the charge is invalid. If you testify in court that you did not return the box, then you will lose. Sometimes a debt collector will just file a credit complaint against you and you would have to go to court to get that complaint removed from your record with the credit agency. The loan owner has no idea whether you returned the box at all. All they have is a debt security which simply says who owes the money and how much it is. In a court room they have zero evidence against you (unless you said something to them and they wrote it down or recorded it).
In addition to all the other answers, here is a New Zealand Herald article from earlier this year about second mortgages, confirming that it is both legal and common in New Zealand.  Whether or not it is a good idea in your situation is another question.