vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"hey numb nuts, I've been working with blockchain implementation since before you became an armchair investor. blockchain technology is an implementation of security by consensus, it can be between 2 people, and 100 million. bitcoin's incentive is the mother of all pyrimid schemes,""put value into this, so it has value, so you can get value out of it"". It was never suppose to be industrialized in the way it has been, and it's become an amoral waste of resources. further evidence can be found in the fact that bitcoin HAD no value except as a currency before people started hacking contracts and the like into it. Etherium is admirable in that it actually has some kind of intent of value built into it, but it's simply not good enough for high demand applications. in a private chain, mining doesn't operate with an increasing cost, it *could* be done by a single system, which is good enough for an internal chain. The security comes from the immutability of the chain that is generated which is what everyone subscribed to the chain gains. once something is added, no amount of hacking a centralized system could change the confirmed blocks, an attacker might be able to add a bunch of new blocks, but you could (with consensus) roll back the entire chain. as a simple example: a company has several partners who it coordinates exchange rates with. they set the value and they want to share that with their partners, while keeping an entirely tamper proof history of the set values. they start the chain, and allow their partners to subscribe to it. they can then set their system to add a block every hour, which contains the set values. now every partner is keeping a consensus based record of what the trading values were when. If for whatever reason an audit was required (ie say they suspect someone was trading higher/lower than they should have) they can audit the chain and see exactly what everyone agreed would be the price at the time the exchanges were made. if a partner messed with his chain to cover whatever shadiness he would be involved in, the other's would refute it. It would be exceptionally hard for any single bad actor to alter all the chains.
The plumber will apply for and receive a refund of the amount of VAT he paid on the purchase amount.  That's the cornerstone of how VAT works, as opposed to a sales tax.  So for example: (Rounded approximate amounts for simplicity) Now, at each point, the amount between (original cost VAT) and (new VAT) is refunded.  So by the end, a total of £3 VAT is paid on the pipe (not £6.2); and at each point the business 'adding value' at that stage pays that much.  The material company adds £1 value; the producer adds £4 value; the supplier adds £5 value; the plumber adds £5 value.   Each pays some amount of VAT on that amount, typically 20% unless it's zero/reduced rated.  So the pipe supplier pays £1 but gets a £0.2 refund, so truly pays £0.8.  The plumber pays £3 (from your payment) but gets a £2 refund.   So at each level somebody paid a bit, and then that bit is then refunded to the next person up the ladder, with the final person in the chain paying the full amount.  The £0.2 is refunded to the producer, the £1 is refunded to the supplier, the £2 is refunded to the plumber.
This fortune article is referenced in his either 2003 or 2004 annual report in which he does say that the market will not likely return much in the future and generally talks numbers. I am also a value investor, such that I can be in this environment and believe there is a bit of value in knowing where you think the market is headed but the real value is in underwriting each deal. In long, I agree with you
Extrinsic value of Call Options are deflated due to dividends not only because of an expected reduction in the price of the stock but also due to the fact that call options buyers do not get paid the dividends that the stock buyers do. This makes call options of dividend paying stocks less attractive to own than the stocks itself, thereby depressing its extrinsic value. How much the value of call options drop due to dividends is really a function of its moneyness. In the money call options with high delta would be expected to drop the most on ex-date while out of the money call options with lower delta would be least affected. If a stock is expected to drop by a certain amount, that drop would already have been priced into the extrinsic value of its put options way beforehand. This is what happens to put options of dividend paying stocks. This effect is again a function of options moneyness but this time, in the money put options raise in extrinsic value more than out of the money put options. This is because in the money put options with delta of close to -1 would gain almost dollar or dollar on the drop of a stock. As such, in the money put options would rise in extrinsic value almost as much as the dividend rate itself while out of the money put options may not experience any changes since the dividend effect may not be strong enough to bring the stock down to take those out of the money put options in the money. So, no, a dividend of $1 will not necessarily decrease an option's price by $1 on the ex-dividend date. It depends on whether it's a call or put option, and whether the option is ""in the money"" or ""out of the money"" and by how much."
"On the one hand the author says this:  &gt;the forcible seizing of land from individuals by government without just compensation deserves to be called tyranny.  Then in the next breath says this:  &gt;Property owners merely need to pay the communities from which they receive benefits through their exclusive use of land the exact market value of the benefits that they receive.  There is no way to ""pay the communities"" except through some form of representation: Government.  So what the author is stating is that people who gain value of the land they use must pay the government a fair market value for that use.  Also known as taxation.  But the author takes it one step further: ALL land should be in the hands of the representatives of the community (Government) and everyone must lease said land from the community (Government).    Yeah. That will work well."
"This is called ""import duty"", and it is based on the value of the goods imported. The one to pay the duty is the importer/receiver. As long as you fill the correct information (including the description and value of the items sent) on the USPS customs form (which you'll have to attach to your USPS shipment), you're good to go."
There are a few reason why share prices increase or decrease, the foremost is expectation of the investors that the company/economy will do well/not well, that is expectation of profit/intrinsic value growth over some time frame (1-4 qtrs.)there is also demand & supply mismatch over (usually) short time. If you really see, the actual 'value' of a company is it's net-worth (cash+asset+stock in trade+brand value+other intangibles+other incomes)/no of shares outstanding, which (in a way) is the book value, then all shares should trade at their book value, the actual number but it does not, the expectation of investors that a share would be purchased by another investor at a higher price because the outlook of the company over a long time is good.
"The mortgage broker makes money from the mortgage originator, and from closing fees.  All the broker does is the grunt work, mostly paperwork and credit record evaluation.  But there's a lot of it.  They make their money by navigating the morass of regulations (federal, state, local) and finding you the best mortgage from the mortgage lender(s) they represent.  They don't have any capital involved in the deal.  Just sweat equity. Mortgage originator is the one who put up the capital for you to borrow.  They're the ones who get most of the payments you send in.  They sell the mortgage if they receive what they consider an equitable offer.  Keep in mind that the mortgage, from the lender's point of view, is made up of three parts.  The capital expenditure, the collateral, and the cashflow.  The present value of the cashflow at the rate of the loan is greater than the capital expenditure.  Any offer between those two numbers is 'in the money' for them, and the next owner, assuming no default.  But the collateral makes up for the chance of default, to an extent. There's also a mortgage servicing company in many cases.  This doesn't have to be the current holder of the loan. Study ""the time value of money"", and pay close attention to the parts about present value, future value, and cash flow and how to compare these."
While it is a true loss, as you've determined, is not a cash cost, per se. A cash cost would be a decrease in cash holdings.  Inflation does not take your cash balance; it devalues it, so it is an accrued loss. Central banks are extremely lazy in determining inflation, so the highest resolution available at a public level is monthly.  In the United States, there is a small project that tries to calculate daily inflation rates and seems to do a decent job, but unless if you are a customer of a particular financial institution, you will suffer a lag.  The small project refuses to make the data public in real time or even allow outside analysis. In the UK, the Office for National Statistics is responsible for consumer inflation statistics.  The methodology is not readily available, but considering the name, it is most likely an inferior Laspeyres index instead of the optimal Fisher index as it is in the US. To calculate the accrued cost due to inflation, simply multiply the amount of money held by the price index value at the beginning of the time held and divide by the price index value at the end of the time held. For example, to determine the amount of value lost since March 2014, multiply the money held by the price index value for March 2014 and divide by June 2014.
TARGET2 is a high value realtime settlement system across Europe and for this to be open on weekends would mean all the Banks including Central Banks in the Euro Zone work. Quite a few times to manage intra day liquidity, banks borrow from each other, hence there is an active monitering of the liquidity by Banks. The borrowing happens over phone and fax and the lending bank sending a high value transaction that credits the borrowing banks. These is the day to day job of treasury group [highly paid individuals] to manage liquidity. Now if on weekends the volume is less, it does not make sense to keep these people, the cost of supporting this for very insiginificant business gain is not driving to build such systems.  On the other hand on retail transactions, say Cards [Debit / Credit], ATM, the value is not high and hence there is no treasury function involved and there is a huge need, everything is automated. So no issues.
"Time Value of Money - The simple calculation for this is FV = PV * (1+r)^N which reads The Future Value is equal to the Present Value times 1 plus the interest rate multiplied by itself by the number of periods that will pass. A simple way to look at this is that if interest rates were 5%/yr a dollar would be worth (1.05)^N where N is the number of years passing.  The concept of compound interest cannot be separated from the above. Compounding is accounting for the interest on the interest that has accrued in prior periods. If I lend you a dollar at 6% simple interest for 30 years, you would pay me back $1 + $1.80 or $2.80. But - 1.06^30 = 5.74 so that dollar compounded at 6% annually for 30 years is $5.74. Quite a difference.  Often, the time value of money is discussed in light of inflation. A dollar today is not the same dollar as 30 years ago or 30 years hence. In fact, inflation has eroded the value of the dollar by a factor of 3 over the past 30 years. An average item costing $100 would now cost $300. So when one invests, at the very least they try to stay ahead of inflation and seek additional return for their risk.  One quirk of compounding is the ""rule of 72."" This rule states that if you divide the interest rate into the number 72 the result is the number of years to double. So 10% per year will take about 7.2 years to double, 8%, 9 years, etc. It's not 100% precise, but a good ""back of napkin"" calculation.  When people talk about the total payments over the thirty year life of a mortgage, they often ignore the time value of money. That payment even ten years from now has far less value than the same payment today."
Baran and Sweezy in ""Monopoly Capital"" talk about this in the form of things like military spending, and, I think, advertisement. But it can also relate to the generation of ""wealth"" (opposed to income). Things that don't hold inherent value, like art, becomes investment. You can't say it is ""taken out of "" the economy, but the value itself is generated by those who can purchase it. Though, I believe this value fetishism is more an outcome of the contradictions, rather than the cause. What it does contribute to contradictions, however, is the rise of speculation. Rather than consumption or productive investment, accumulation will increasingly become speculative. Real estate is usually the primary example. Many people buy houses, condos, or land, not for use, but for the expectation that the value will go up. When bad enough this can reshape the market, so for people who aren't investing their rent/living cost increases. This likewise happens with stocks and other financial investments. Again, it can't really ""leave the economy"", but it makes it more difficult for the ""traditional"" or productive and labor economy to operate."
Science &amp; engineering degrees are better for employment, but still aren't a guarantee- no degree is.    It's like degrees in general vs no degree- better, but not the golden ticket it once was.  It's like being smart and hard working- they help with success, but they're not guarantees.   It doesn't matter how many good decisions you make or how well educated you are or how hard you work if your luck (which is defined in this context as 'the totality of factors over which you, as an individual, have no control') is consistently shit.  In the end, it comes down to luck.   Education, preparation, hard work, and good decisions are all about shaping the odds.    People who are doing well want to believe it's all hard work and good choices (because then they get the credit, and are safe- it's similar to the slut-shaming dynamic in this respect) and people who are not doing well want to believe it's all luck (because then it's not their fault).
Inflation is what happens, it is not good or bad in and of itself.  But consider the following. In a thriving economy with low unemployment, people are buying, buying, buying.  People are not saving for later, they are buying now.  Industry is also making purchases.  Now.  From economics 101: high demand for goods/services leads to relative scarcity leading to higher prices.  Inflation tends to be one byproduct of a thriving economy.  Governments want the thriving economy that brings inflation with it.
There are several camps for stock valuation, and much of it boils down to your investment style.  A growth investor will not consider something with a 50x P/E ratio to be overvalued, but a value investor certainly would. I would recommend looking up the Fama-French n-factor model (it was 3-factor, I believe they have released newer papers which introduce other factors), and reading The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham.  Graham's methodology is practically canon for many investors, and the methodology focuses on value, while outlining quantitative factors for determining if a stock is under or over valued.
There are several factors that can help you make a decision.  How friendly are the laws to tenants as opposed to landlords?  How easy will it be for you to collect rent?  How much management is needed?  Do you desire to own rental properties?  What does your schedule look like? Based upon pure numbers I would keep this property.  It looks like you can earn 3K per year, which you may have done some math wrong, on about a 15,000 per year investment.  About 20%, very good.  Even if you only collect half your profits due to maintenance or missed rent checks the numbers still look really good. If you don't need the extra funds, you can always pay more on the mortgage.  The other thing to consider is the rest of your fiances.  Can you cover a couple of months of missed rent?  Do you have an emergency fund?  Do you have other debts?
Actually, it's more likely because Seattle is growing and building more buildings than anywhere else because of the recent tech boom. It's most likely that all of the painters are booked up and their is a job shortage for painters, like there a shortage for engineers here. &gt;should society fill the gap? Lastly, congrats on owning your own company, but it makes me sad how you look down on minimum wage workers just because they are at the bottom, seemingly finding whatever justification you can for this position. Those are jobs that are needed and just because someone works them does not mean they are lesser or undeserving, or incapable of making good money and life decisions. Check this article out. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/14/when-work-isnt-enough-to-keep-you-off-welfare-and-food-stamps/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/14/when-work-isnt-enough-to-keep-you-off-welfare-and-food-stamps/) It discusses how working people at the bottom still have to rely on government assistance to make ends meet. You never answered my minimum wage question, but if you are paying people only minimum wage, I want you to know the tax payers are picking up the rest of the bill that you are unwilling to pay in the form of public assistance programs. Do you think that is fair for the tax payers?"
As mentioned in the comments, the problem stems with converting your U.S. Dollars to Indian Rupees so as to be able to purchase an Indian fixed deposit. At the time of writing this, 1 U.S. Dollar = 64 Indian Rupees. Consider the following economic factors: Both of the above factors are not definitive but are worth considering. You might be thinking- what if I never intend to convert my rupees back to dollars? If it is the case that money converted to rupees would stay that way, that then eliminates the risk of foreign exchange losses mentioned above. However, you must still keep in mind that part of the reason interest rates on fixed deposits is as high in India is because inflation is high. A 9% return must be looked at after adjusting for inflation. Inflation is somewhere between 5%-6% at the time of writing which then reduces your real return to about 4% (pre-tax).
Most construction is not done in 110 degree heat and there are plenty of immigrants making, what to them are good wages, but compared to prior construction wages, not great. Just because you haven't met them means little.   And most people with the option to work for Apple as a programmer are not the people looking to be in construction. Same could be said of all the people looking for the jobs at Amazon warehouses this week.
"You will hear a lot about diversifying your portfolio, which typically means having a good mix of investment types, areas of investments, etc. I'd like to suggest that you should also diversify your sources.  Sad to say but the defined benefit pension is not a rock solid, sure fire source of security in your retirement planning. Companies go bankrupt, government agencies are reorganized, and those hitherto-untouchable assets are destroyed overnight. So, treat your new investment strategy as if you were starting over, and invest accordingly, for example, aggressively for a few years, then progressively safer as you get older. There are other strategies too, depending on factors like your taste for risk: you might prefer to be conservative until you reach some safety threshold to reach ""certain safety"" and then start making riskier investments. You may also consider different investment vehicles and techniques such as index funds, dollar cost averaging, and so on."
"It's only a ""loss"" if you believe the purpose of indexes is to represent the basket of underlying companies with the highest returns. But that's simply not true. An index is just a rules-based way to track/measure a thing. That thing could be the largest US companies, all the companies in a specific sector, all of the companies in the world, a commodity or basket of commodities... Pretty much anything. Somebody just has to write down the explanation of what an index tracks, then create ETFs to track the index. By being a ""passive investor"" you are still making active investing decisions to some degree, in that you need to decide which indexes to passively invest in. If people are not going to attempt to understand the companies they invest in because they're almost certainly better off indexing (which is fine), then the responsibility must fall on someone to make decisions about what are the best rules for the indexes. For most of the history of capital markets, good corporate governance has been enforced by shareholders. If management did something bad, shareholders could vote to replace the Board of Directors and in general they had tools to hold management accountable. Only in recent years, founders of companies like Google, Facebook, Snap, etc., have attempted to subvert this relationship (public shareholders give a company money, and in return the company must answer to the shareholders) and essentially take money for nothing. So far (it's still a pretty short experiment) this has worked as long as the share price is going up, but what happens when it doesn't? What happens when these companies screw up and stop performing well, and there's nothing shareholders can do about it? Investors who intentionally own individual shares will have little to no leverage to demand change, and passive investors would be stuck with some of their money in these companies with terrible governance - and the precedent would only make dual-class and non-voting shares more attractive for future IPOs, making the problem more prevalent. If you think it is in your best interest to own the entire S&amp;P 500, *plus* Snap, then just do that. For every dollar you invest into SPDR or something similar, allocate something like $0.01 into Snap. It's that simple.
"The issue with your point is that government has/does move to make decisions in the markets to institute their political views or agendas. Of which these views and agenda do not often take into consideration any of the unforeseen consequences in the light of market realities. The market realities which I speak of are everything affected by government action from businesses dealing with the cost of extra added government regulation on their bottom line, employee costs, taxes, the impact of subsidies, and price controls, etc in a competitive market where everyone is looking for an edge over their competitors. However with government many times these market realities are often ignored when making broad and over-reaching governmental polices based on political agendas and the whims of the public rather then on solid and sound economic decisions.  Which in turn these governmental polices effect many, many more people then businesses acting for their own needs to ensure their survival in the marketplace. Thus having a president who does not or willfully will not acknowledge how government interaction in the market place can create unintended and often negative results is worse in respects to having a president who does understand how the ""bottom line"" is effected via government action and attempts to reconcile both in light of making a decisions that effects the economy as a whole."