vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
No, your point seems to be that markets will handle this issue by themselves. Heroin users rarely kick the habit without help; like you said, they just use until they die. That is a perfect example of why the government should get involved.
Not on board.  We've gotten this far without making it a regulated monopoly.  Not sure why it's important to do so going forward.  It's a two-way debate.  I'm generally a political progressive, but I'm happy to say that the cards are stacked against you on this particular issue.  Sorry you aren't on board.
Im not sure if its normal/sensical/healthy, and that is kind of opinion based. But there is a reason for it. Certain rules and regulations passed recently are causing companies or institutions to shift to bonds from cash. Fidelity, for example, is completely converting its $100 billion dollar cash fund to short term bills. Its estimated that over $2 trillion that is now in cash may be converted to bills, and that will obviously put upward preasure on the price of them. The treasury is trying to issue more short term debt to balance out the demand. read more here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/money-funds-clamor-for-short-term-treasurys-1445300813
There's no doubt that equities, as well as junk bonds (which have, in Europe, according to BAML, reached the same average return as 10-year-US treasuries) are currently overvalued, which is why I, and I suggest this to any active investor, have taken out all my money from tradable equities and debt and invested it into undervalued dank memes.
the taxi industry?  each city has it's own way of regulating taxis, car service, and limos (a lot of times they fall under different jurisdictions).  the regulatory bodies aren't really a cash crop for municipalities.  radio companies and fleet owners are separate a lot of times, and neither are really rolling in the dough (a fleet owner i know drives a 2004 camry and only recently was able to buy a house in his 60's).  the drivers usually lease from the owners, and bring home about $20,000 a year even if they take radio calls and drive like a maniac.  it's not some giant industry monopolized by bigwigs holding everyone back with their draconian style of operation.  it is easier to compare taxis and car service to other public services like buses and trains.
I'm saying that healthcare isn't the only issue here. Read the article. According to it up to 80% of their employees are on food stamps.  The government does incentivize good behavior. Unfortunately there are always loopholes and market pressure frequently rewards bad actors. I don't see why I should support Walmart for skirting the system and passing the cost onto the US taxpayer.
"The problem with putting things back where you found them is that the things are a different shape now. You also have a responsibility to make sure you haven't made changes to the water table that would make putting things back a now larger, man-made problem (as opposed to a more minor natural issue).  The issue with PV is really more NIMBY related than anything else. The ""rare earth"" materials needed aren't really rare, but they are *extremely* dirty to process into a usable state, which is why most of the facilities are in China."
"And the absolutely brilliant punchline: who do these regulators and leaders"" think will be the purchasers of said debt? Why other systemically important, TBTF banks of course! Which means that, in the by now quite familiar ""daisy-chaining"" of counterparties and collateral, once one bank fails, its exposure via collateral, repo and certainly, funding of other bank balance sheets, everything will promptly freeze as risk reprices, a la Lehman bonds."""
Yes, they're using it as a currency.  What they actually have demand for is houses and Lambos, and if bitcoin wasn't available they'd be happy to do it in any other currency.  When any other currency goes up it's because there's overall higher demand than supply for it, to buy things you can only buy in a particular currency.    A very common example is government bonds of the issuing government for a currency.  That's why when the Fed raises the interest rate, the US dollar goes up.  It is because at a bond auction the government will only take US dollars so anyone that wants to buy some bonds needs to first buy US dollars.  If the interest rate goes up, all things being equal those bonds are relatively more attractive than other countries bonds, and that change in demand increases the demand for the currency, which raises it's price.  Note the key thing here - it needs to be something you can only buy (or at least, buy for the cheapest price) in a particular currency.  If it's something you can buy with any currency, than that event generally doesn't impact the currency price.  Although it's a very important food crop, if the price of rice goes up, it doesn't really impact the USD even though you can buy rice with USD.  Here's the tricky part, what can you buy with bitcoin that you can't buy with any other currency?
I think a big issue with Sears and Kmart is that they have no image. They have become so diluted nobody even knows why they would shop there. Ask anybody what they think about the image of Target, Meijer, Wal-mart, or other successful chains and you will likely get an accurate description across the board. Do the same with K-mart and Sears and you will get looks of confusion.
&gt; African Americans have just the same opportunities as any other race, so why is that an issue?  it's not an issue, but it is the libtard **agenda**  the idea is to always be squawking of Afro-Amer so as to claim **concern**  never mind the jobless rate among black, among black teenagers, the crime rate, incareceration numbers, the murder rate, the woman-only household numbers, the numbers in poverty  no...no mention of dem failures, just dem **concerns**   it's smoke and mirrors politics and done **because it always works**
Whether you’re using Hotmail for your business or personal purposes, you surely don’t want the account to be lost. That is why as soon as an issue occurs; you need to give a call to the Hotmail tech support @18448883870 and this way you will save a lot of your time and money.
Why?  I fly on a regular basis and I've never had a single issue with TSA agents.  With the new machines, going through security is fast, effective, and painless.  The stories you see on the internet are almost always from someone who purposely created a confrontation because they already had an agenda to prove.
What better way to do it--while earning some decent money--than driving around for Uber and Lyft. These services are, without a doubt, revolutionary, and are being used and employed by both young and old, men and women, struggling students, and strategically utilized by incredibly wealthy and successful Hollywood types and investment bankers. It's cheap, reliable, and very fun too. It's also bringing back the long lost art of human interaction and conversation back into our daily lives. So far, so good, and it breaks my heart whenever I hear misinformation and astroturfing about these services throughout the internet, and I'm supremely angered as to how certain municipalities are colluding with taxi cab lobbies to prevent Uber and Lyft and other ride-share services from competing fairly at a time where cities are desperate to ease congestion, reduce DUI's, and make sure their citizens are happy and are left with more money in their pocketbooks."
"Quote from the article: ""The banks achieved this gigantic rip-off by secretly colluding to rig the public bids on municipal bonds, a business worth $3.7 trillion.""  Please explain to me how you read that and why you think it is correct. Does it read as the banks made 3.7T? Are the values of the banks 3.7T? Did they steal 3.7T? Did the bonds return 3.7T? Or is it just that the total value of the bonds over many, many more years than this entire fraud took place total to 3.7, including the value that really was owned by bond holders and had nothing to do with the profits or theft?  (Hint #1: 3.7 trillion is not the worth of *any* of those businesses, not even the sum of all their market caps probably reaches that value. Hint #2: Matt Taibbi is smart enough to know this, yet writes it that way anyways because sloppy thinkers will buy his crap, find that the value of an entire class of assets is 3.7T, even though it is not the value of any business. It's like saying Citibank is worth the sum of all the deposits it holds, when that is nonsense)."
&gt;taxes are too high to justify paying them before reinvesting the money in the economy.    Doesn't Trump's Tax Plan help alleviate this issue, especially with the whole bracket change? What about the loop-holes, why can't the government simply patch up all the loop-holes before they try to introduce something revolutionary as this?    -Curious student
10 year US Treasury bonds are currently yielding 3.46%. If you're offered an investment that looks better than that, you should ask yourself why big investors are putting their money in US Treasuries instead of what you've been offered. And obviously at 3.46% per year, you're not going to get rich quick -- it will take you over twenty years to double your money, and that's without allowing for inflation.
And what has sporadic research turned up? Why did we change to fiat money? What was the issue with the gold standard? What underlying models helped secure fiat money? Were there alternatives? Why weren't they chosen? And of course because you already know all that, what alternative would you have chosen?   I have sporadically researched physics, biology, and chemistry. But I don't post my opinions on those subjects, because I am poorly informed. I do not want to risk the possibility of misinforming someone with my stupidity. You should consider filtering the things you write in the same manner. Trust me, you would be doing the world a service.
"It will happen about 5 or 6 months before the tragedy that makes everyone wonder why the fuck we thought it was a good idea. The issue is not just computers being ""faster"", it is ow the receive and process information, the reliability of their sensors, how they react to conflicting information, etc, etc, etc."
It's almost nice, in that it doesn't draw negative attention to an organization for being a spammer. If the org can figure out how they got on the list, resolve the issue, and get back to good standing, then we can all move on civilly. There might even be a legal reason why the list isn't public. Libel?
How is this not getting more attention? Half of the American population are affected by the Equifax breach and the federal government is making it easier for them to settle the issue behind closed door? The FTC will write a report and nobody will so much as go to prison. Why isn't the govt facing any heat over this? What am I missing here?
"Is that really why you think he should never write another piece? Because he's backing up Damore? You obviously disagree with Damore but it's no reason Brooks shouldn't write anymore.   His ""opinion"" differs from yours and the logic you have on display is exactly the type that causes these things to become an issue.   *i don't agree with it so it must be factually wrong*   Cry me a fucking river."
Keep in mind there are a couple of points to ponder here: Rates are really low. With rates being so low, unless there is deflation, it is pretty easy to see even moderate inflation of 1-2% being enough to eat the yield completely which would be why the returns are negative. Inflation is still relatively contained. With inflation low, there is no reason for the central banks to raise rates which would give new bonds a better rate. Thus, this changes in CPI are still in the range where central banks want to be stimulative with their policy which means rates are low which if lower than inflation rates would give a negative real return which would be seen as a way to trigger more spending since putting the money into treasury debt will lose money to inflation in terms of purchasing power. A good question to ponder is has this happened before in the history of the world and what could we learn from that point in time. The idea for investors would be to find alternative holdings for their cash and bonds if they want to beat inflation though there are some inflation-indexed bonds that aren't likely appearing in the chart that could also be something to add to the picture here.
Nope. Fed buys bonds, banks get money, banks reinvest money in equities. DJIA went from 6,626.94 in March 6, 2009 to 17,100.18 in July 18, 2014. That's nearly a 200% increase in 5 years. The economy, on the other hand, has not reflected this rise. So where is this money coming from? QE. This is also why the biggest equities market drops in the past year and a half coincided with Fed announcements about QE tapering.
But then why wouldn't that be their primary mode to control their currency now/are they starting/hinting at doing so to move away from US treasuries? There must be benefits to Treasury purchasing that seems better to them, maybe that QE can't do alone?  And I have to imagine with the tenuous nature of their financial system, the shock alone from losing access to the Dollar (and before they could use QE to devalue the currency back down) would be a major issue.
"Some investors worry about interest rate risk because they Additional reason is margin trading which is borrowing money to invest in capital markets. Since margin trading includes minimum margin requirements and maintenance margin to protect lender ""such as a broker""  , a decrease in the value of bonds might trigger a threat of a margin call There are other reasons why investors care about interest rate risk  such as spread trade investors who benefit from difference in short term/ long term interest rates. Such investors borrow short term loans -which enables them to pay low interest- and lend long term loans - which enables them to gain high interest-. Any disturbance between the interest rate spread between short term and long term bonds might affect investor's profit and might even lead to losses. In summary , it all depends on you investment objective and financial condition. You should consult with your financial adviser to help plan for your financial goals."
As for when it's due - I don't know of any indicators of the top of my head. I'm sure you can find out with a bit of googlefu    As for when economics starts and finance ends it's hard to explain in simple terms.  Think about everything in an economy as 'acticity done by people'. Economics tries to study these activities (by governments, individuals and firms). It sounds like you're interested in this side more than the finance side so I'd highly recommend looking up Kahn academy videos in micro and macro economics.    Finance is sort of a study of the measure of economic activity (MEASURING the bonds the government's or firms issue etc).      Lastly I like listening to podcasts so it might be something you're interested in as well. Maybe check out some of the Bloomberg podcasts and others on the economy
It's a major problem in Chicago and it's not going away.  Part of the issue is that any meaningful change would be wildly unpopular for one side.  Many people &amp; families desperately rely on their pension payments.  There's no easy fix to such a huge gap in funding/structure.  Plus why have a hard conversation when you can talk about who's standing or kneeling during the national anthem?
The joint narrative here is that a Democracy is a poor form of government.  That’s why it is great that we don’t have a Democracy.  We have a republic.  And our Republic is showing fracturing.  What causes fracturing?  It isn’t just difference of opinion, as Madison states.  It is also a refusal to listen to, work with, or acknowledge the legitimacy of the arguments of our opposition or dissenting members.  We fail to communicate properly, holding attitude and superiority above understanding and attention.  You won’t fix a communication issue with a change of government.  Our communication issue has festered into distrust.  How can you trust someone who won’t even acknowledge your point of view?  How can you trust someone who is willing to dust you to save their own skin?  I doubt any government can survive poor communication.  Our government waste can be seen as poor communication as well.  People with one interest refuse to acknowledge their opposition, and put into place inflexible and unsustainable rules.  Those rules address the one issue those people saw, but fail to account for market forces, new social views, geography, or sometimes simple greed.  People love that the first issue is handled, and are willing to watch the ship sink rather than change.  Opposition refuses to acknowledge the reason the rules were originally created. Both sides get defensive, and division increases.  Let’s always look to the source of the issue, that we may cure as close to the root as possible, rather than be content fighting the symptoms.
"Are you not allowed the y5 option?   I'm no guru, but one thing that sticks out to me in that plan is the vesting period of 5yrs as opposed to 10, so the money is ""yours"" in half the time....so if after 5yrs, you find a better gig, you can roll those benefits into another account and manage them on your own (or just leave and draw on them when you are eligible)  Then again, knowing that many municipalities are in shit shape due to their pension benefit liabilities, they may be pushing to the longer vesting period to a) encourage you to stay employed there and/or b) allow them to keep the money should you leave before that 10yr period  Like I said, though- I'm def no guru, and that is only one aspect of these plans.  I'd personally reach out to a financial planner so they can game it all out for you and equip you with the info to make the best choice"
according to their client services it is a licensing issue: Thread: OKpay didn't Accept USA clients? They do not elaborate but do suggest that they don't plan to fix that issue.
"Assuming that the will that bequeathed the money to your son did not stipulate any restrictions or set up a trust to hold the money until your son turns 25, or something like that, I don't think you have much choice except to put the money in a UTMA account (which of course can be invested in whatever  the trustee (which could be you, or you and your wife jointly) decides.  Note: not a UGMA account since the money is not a gift. You also don't have any option except to turn the account over to your son when he turns eighteen. The point is, the investment can be in anything as long as the account is registered as a UTMA account.  But do remember also that your son is entitled to sue you for breach of fiduciary duty if you don't take good care of the money, so that blowing it all in risky investments is also not a good idea. If you are worried about taxes and your son's income being taxed at your rate, one way of deferring the issue is to buy US Savings Bonds. The interest can be deferred from taxation until the bonds are redeemed. Edit added in response to JoeTaxpayer's comments: But a better strategy is to declare the accrued interest each year as unearned income of the child on the kiddie tax form that is part of your tax return, and pay the tax, if any, that results To ease your mind or conscience, think of the tax that you pay on your child's behalf as a gift to your child! In any case, there will likely not be much tax due since the first $950 of unearned  income of a child is tax-free and the next $950 taxed at 10%. Then, when the bonds are cashed in, the interest that accrued (and was ""taxed"") in earlier years can be deducted  from the interest (cash in price minus purchase price) that you (or your son) will be told is the interest that the bonds earned. Of course, if kiddie tax is not a concern (and it shouldn't be, given the amount available for investment), an even better strategy is to set up the UTMA account(s) in long-term investments in low-cost index funds or ETFs (as JoeTaxpayer suggests) and pay the tax, if any, as it comes due."
I don't know why your comment got downvoted because it's perfectly sensible. My only issue with extending the SOL is what basis to use when determining what the statute should be. I'm sure there is, or at least was, a perfectly logical reason for setting it at 5 years. I don't have the foggiest idea of what the basis was mind you, but I'm sure there was one. That being said, extending the statute for future crimes solely because the prosecutors let it run out this time strikes me as being on shaky footing.
I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to default.  What I'm saying is that if they can't pay back their debts then they should default.  The article makes it sound like Argentina deserves to be let off the hook and pay back only a portion of its debt.  In the short term this seems appealing because the investors get back some of the money as opposed to none and Argentina gets to keep it's economy intact.  However this sets a dangerous precedent in the long run because countries know they have this out and may issue bonds expecting not to pay the full amount.  I think it is good that Argentina is being made an example of, this way countries will think twice before borrowing money they may not be able to pay back and will lead to more stability in the long run.
Jesus you're retarded. Should he take the time out of his day to condemn every group that might like him individually? He condemned the violence on both sides and political violence in general. What more do you fucking want? Do you want him to flog himself publicly and apologize for being white? The absurdity of the left's expectations for him is palpable and the only thing holding up most of their condemnations is pedantry. Literally nothing he does will satisfy you/ them so why bother? If anything he shouldn't have said anything about it just to piss you people off so you make a fool of yourselves. Should business owners and public figures issue public statements condemning any white supremacists that might be patrons or admirers of their work? It's preposterous to assume so, so why assume the same with the president?
"&gt;The CTR stuff is unquestionable.  Enough information has been released to demonstrate it as so. &gt; &gt;Regarding the ""tow the line"" or silence/ban policy in T-D, you're 100% right.    I know, and thats why theyre substantively different from what happens on r/politics. Which was my point. We could be having this discussion in politics, but not t_d.   &gt;My issue is the trend on reddit that anyone who posts anything that isn't 100% vile disdain for Trump must be from /T_D and that the extremists in /T_D are some kind of outlier in how they act - when there are other significantly sized subs that behave in a similar fashion.   Thats not at all the issue you originally brought up where you equated r/politics or r/t_d"
I don't like REITs because they are more closely correlated to the movement of the stock market. They don't really do the job of diversifying a portfolio because of that correlation.  When the stock market dropped in 2008, REITs were hammered as well because the housing bubble burst. Bonds went up, and if you rebalanced (sold the bonds to buy more stock) then you came out much further ahead when the stock market recovered. The point of adding bonds for diversification is that they move in the opposite direction of equities; blunting the major drops (and providing buying opportunities). REITs don't fit that bill. REITs are not undergoing a correction like bonds because the price of real estate is a function of housing supply and buyer demand. Rising interest rates only make it a little harder for buyers to buy, so the effect of rising interest rates on real estate prices is muted. The other effects on real estate prices (more wealth in the economy for buyers) pushes in the opposite direction of the rising interest rates.