vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The way the world gained all its wealth is by innovation driven by the pursuit of profit/higher standard of living. If you remove that incentive then we will no longer keep progressing. That's why socialism always fails - you eventually run out of other people's money and innovation halts.
&gt; And to save ~800,000 good jobs in the Midwest   Those jobs would have just moved to stronger competitors like Toyota and Honda, both of which do plenty of manufacturing in the U.S. Not to mention Ford didn't need a bailout, so loss of our industry was just politicians fear mongering. Even if GM and Ford went out of business, there are still plenty of smaller manufacturers that would love to pick up the market share. People don't stop buying cars just because GM goes out of business.
This is where someone hand waves: innovation, competitive spirit, technology, hard work, and values -- code words for -- cut everything to the bone, replace with automation as much as possible, and/or acquire work-slaves, rinse-repeat until an exit strategy is found, bail out at optimal point and leave someone else to clean up the mess.
&gt;i dont see what's the big deal, all the banks got bailed out. Govt printed over 7 trillion bucks, not much inflation. govt has to help private sector. gave plenty of freebies to the rich mother fukers in the banking sector.  Yes that was bullshit, I agree. The difference is that most of the money that went to the banks is held with the banks. It didn't cause inflation because it isn't circulating in the economy. The government also had to do something with the banks because it would have triggered a major depression if they didn't. I don't think they handled it the best way at all. They should have nationalized the banks after the bailouts rather than let them keep thriving. However, students don't **need** that extra debt. That would be $1 trillion extra that actually is circulating in the economy, which would cause serious inflation. That would mean [doubling](http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12773.htm) the amount of money in circulation. That is a lot different than the trillions the government printed, mostly just to set monetary policy.
"I remember the bailout propaganda using economic pseudo-science pretending it was well established that using debt and QE 1, 2 and 3 would only be good. They refused to prosecute obvious banking fraud too. I recommend the book ""Bailout"" by the IG for TARP. Geithner and Holder did everything they could to protect their banker buddies and Obama knew they would. However, I have to say, most of those hurt worst by it all voted for ""Hope and Change"" in disproportionate numbers. Baby Boomers not as much. Biggest bait and switch in American history."
Approximately 25% of all cars sold last year were leased, which is the highest on record. When you are leasing you don't own the car, instead you are basically renting it for a fixed term, and turning it back to the dealership.  It is very cost effective, because the manufacturers have a keen interest in making lots of cars. They are often subsidizing the lease by giving incentives to the dealer. They are gambling on the future value of their cars. They can lose on that gamble. The car business has turned into a financial nightmare for the car companies; they have huge development costs as the cars become more like mobile computing platforms loaded with sensors, and software that is constantly changing.  They can't hold a model for 20 years like Mercedes was able to do in the past. Now they have to constantly update their products. The only way to survive as a car maker is to pump out volume, and the leasing programs, which are quietly being underwritten by the manufacturers help them increase the production quantities, which helps lower the fixed development costs. If only the defense contractors could do this! they are stuck spending billions to build 20 planes, and so each one has a staggering price tag.  In the future, the car companies that will survive are those that have terrific credit, and low borrowing costs. That means Japanese and Germans will own the car business entirely in the end, and countries with higher borrowing costs (like America and Brasil) will not be competitive. Luckily Ford is so frugal, due to the lingering spirit of  its founder, that they can hold out. One thing strongly in favor of leasing is that you have zero maintenance costs typically. The repair risk is significant in luxury cars.  When you buy a 10 year old BMW, and when the tranny goes, it costs a fortune. Having a superb car for 30 months for a few hundred bucks a month is something a lot of people enjoy doing. Who can blame them? you spend an hour or 2 a day in your car, and why not live in a nice place?
(1) People have been predicting recessions as long as we can remember. That's a no-brainer. Participation trophy for being the next schmuck to do so.    (2) It's still a given. Many are saying the bailouts that took place in response to the Great Recession didn't allow for a proper correction. That may be what worsens the effects of the next asset bubble burst.
His logic was basically that if the banks went bankrupt and didn't get a bailout, all of society would collapse ala Great Depression. So from a risk reward standpoint it was an easy decision. Iirc he made his investment just a couple weeks before TARP, and he himself admitted he didn't think they would be bailed out as quickly as they were.
"Computer advances increasingly let manufacturers customize orders and ship goods faster. In the new world, making products in faraway low-wage countries like China can be a disadvantage: It can take too long - weeks, months - to ship finished products to the United States.  ""This is about customer proximity,"" said Michael Mandel, chief economic strategist at the Progressive Policy Institute. ""You develop a sustainable and durable advantage against overseas competition.""  Mandel said the growing trend would have emerged regardless of who occupied the White House. Still, President Donald Trump took the opportunity to take some credit Wednesday for the Foxconn announcement, saying it ""definitely"" happened because of his election and his pursuit of tax and regulatory cuts.   [source] (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BC_US_AMAZON_AND_FOXCONN_SPEED_TO_CUSTOMERS?SITE=AP&amp;SECTION=HOME&amp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&amp;CTIME=2017-07-27-03-16-36)"
Yeah, it ends up being a bail out.   But then again, the tax payers bailed out the banks during the financial crisis (a crisis that was largely perpetuated by them) so should it be okay not to help bail these homeowners out during an actual natural disaster...
It may be the case that the Russian government puts higher priority on repudiating other nations, and demonstrating strength and self-sufficiency, than on ensuring a food supply for the Russian people. It's a gross understatement to say that, historically, it wouldn't be the first time.
Every American has benefited from a decrease in cost of goods. Some may also have lost, and some may well have lost more than they gained, but everyone has gained.  It feels like four years ago or so all anyone cared about was cost of goods, and no one cared about worker's wages. Now it's flipped, and no one cares about cost of goods. Radical idea: all relevant  factors matter.
We would like this to be the beginning of a number of high level trade deals we are in negotiations with right now with high level Middle Eastern business consortiums, in Dubai, Doha, Muscat, Tehran, Kuwait. We feel Britain has missed it to France and Germany when it comes to Iran, and would like to work with all the relevant departments to create a due diligence plan which is effective and helps us reach our goals. I would appreciate any advice you can give us in this respect. Thanks Alfie Star Senior project manager alfie.star@commodustrade.com http://www.commodustrade.com
If they need _one_ bailout, then they're _obviously_ not capable of running themselves. Two is just fucking insanity.  That shit doesn't matter. Both the Dems and the Republicans are very much in bed with the financial industry, and if the big banks run the entire goddamned country into the ground again, the only argument the two political parties will have over it is who gets to sign the first check.
[Here.](https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/) I'm pretty sick of the crying about the bailout. My libertarian friends just don't seem to grasp how much worse things would have been if we let them fail. No one seems to recall their history courses on the great depression, a bank run would probably have brought us to or knees for decades along with complete lack of trust that would have been instilled in an entire generation. Yes, the banks should have been punished, but that's a separate issue in my mind. They also should be held to higher capital requirements to ensure their ability to weather these rare events. But we need regulation BECAUSE we cannot allow them to fail and we need LARGE fines or heavy-handed indictments to enforce them rather than a slap on the wrist.
Maybe if fuckers like him could manage their house then government wouldn't have to bail them out and there wouldn't be a need for as much regulation. But no, he's going to keep gambling and expect tax payers to cover his losses, and then has the audacity to bitch about it. Fuck him.
"People are naturally pessimistic or optimistic. I am a pessimist, I have a anxiety disorder to prove. Tried to have a business, gave up when I realized I would have to borrow more money to keep on going. My dad on the other hand, he is eternal optimist. He was part of the 80es real estate bubble. It just was in his genes to believe that prizes keep on going up. And they might have, but there were factors at play that he could not foresee (falling of soviet union which influenced Finland).   To me, bubbles are born because of 1 simple reason. Government backed loans. If governments would not bail out banks that lend money to speculators. There would not be bubbles. It is that simple. But then the economy would freeze, since banks would demand perfect guarantees before they would loan you a cent.  One way to deal with that might be that central banks would naturally print money at a certain rate each year, knowing that a lot of that money will just burn in bad investments, basically forgiving banks for the bad loans they have made. Not too much to cause inflation, yet not too little to cause banks stop lending.  This money would be simply printed off thin air.   There would have to be a agreement on IMF level at what this ""burn rate"" could be to invidual countries. But since that burn rate could give an edge to a country that was allowed to print more, it would be very hard to come to an agreement how much each country could print.   Or, there could be a international agreement that the money would printed this way only during recessions.   Else we are stuck with bust and boom cycles, which are very destructive as I have witnessed first hand."
It's a con being played upon the middle money people by the big money people and it's based on the Bernoulli Principle or Venturi Effect. Simply put -- and in analogous form -- if a lot of something goes in one direction, then a lot of other similar somethings will go in the same direction too. So, if a lot of big money gets invested into derivatives then other money will follow. That original big money is called the primer -- it primes the pump flow and gets the other money following it in. If the original money, the primer, gets removed from the process it doesn't stop the flow of other money into the flow because once the flow is going, any new money in the process acts like the original primer money, sucking in even more money; this is the Venturi Effect in action -- it's how most pumps work.  So, you prime the pump, get it flowing nicely, move your priming money out of the process and wait for the thing to suck out as much money as the economy can withstand and then *crash,* er, profit! If you've set your stakes correctly to benefit from the stopping of the flow -- the crash -- you can make billions with very little effort and practically no risk at all.
The market would be extremely more competitive if for example the Dodd frank act which to my understanding the repeal just recently passed the house went away. It has been choking community banks, just like Glass-Stegal did. It essentially only allowed the big banks to compete, surprise they did some stupid things (Great Recession) But if you don't think they didn't already know that they those bailouts were coming if needed, you are fooling yourself. These messages are almost getting to the point of TLDR. I want to simplify our debate a bit. The crux of my whole belief is this: The only way for a government to spend their citizens money in a better way than the citizens could would be if the government knew the utility of every single citizen. It is absolutely impossible to do that. The only people that truly know their own utility from something is them self. From here on I would like to debate the headlines like what I wrote above and not necessarily bullet points. We can every now and then but I find that we then start working on tangents of tangents of tangents and can get a little messy. However, I do not want to leave the current stones unturned with your response. I would say that if it was privatized, you are not going to have scope creep, at least not to the same extent. Say we have the LA militia that is wanting to help protect their ports, they want to help develop a new boat that is fast and can help maneuver around big ships quickly, like a better version of the new Mark Patrol boat. That money is their money directly, or the peoples money who they've asked to voluntarily give their money up to help protect their area. If they screw up and start asking for above necessary stuff or pick a developer who wastes their money, etc. They are going to lose ""business"", they will stop getting donations, lose profit, etc. However, the government doesn't have that. Why? Because their revenue/donations aren't voluntary. There really isn't accountability, especially in bureaucracy. To the exchange/stock problem: I would say that exchanges are private businesses too. They should have full reign on whether they allow trades.
&gt; The racial angle at the end cheapens your argument, though.   Thanks for pointing that out. Removed race and replaced with 'low income families'   &gt; The principles behind creating and keeping those entities are reasonable, civilized, and economically sound  I disagree 100%. If banks did not have a big brother to bail them out of loans that went bust whenever they wanted, they would be a lot more careful in who they loaned money too. No one is promised a house and a lawn in this life. Some of us will be renters in apartments for life, and there is nothing wrong with that.
How fucking retarded are you?  &gt;Maybe if fuckers like him could manage their house then government wouldn't have to bail them out and there wouldn't be a need for as much regulation. But no, he's going to keep gambling and expect tax payers to cover his losses, and then has the audacity to bitch about it. Fuck him.  Literally look at what you posted, and how none of it is even true. What does Citibank have anything to do with what you posted you dumbass? And you ask me a question that you can google? Fucking lol
"In the US, the ""first class forever"" postage stamps.  The post office has never lowered the cost of a stamp, but has raise it several times recently.  Given that the gov't has bailed out everyone else, I believe it is a safe bet that they would bail out the post office if it financially fell apart. And you can always use them to send a letter. They aren't very liquid, and it would probably be difficult to invest in them in large quantities.  Although, when the post office does raise rates, you could sell yours off on ebay or something."
You misunderstand my intentions.  The financial markets dipped pretty badly after 08 happened - primarily because of the crisis. But they stayed down because of the following deregulation...  Mandated they kept more cash on reserve to prevent bailouts (Dodd frank), and increased spending on compliance - overall decreasing their profit margins.  They're still at historical lows. Now if those regulations were rolled back, their profit margins would increase (minus any external setbacks).  That's why I think it would be calculated to strive for their historical averages pre-08 if the industry returns to the historical climate.  Sure it's a bet, but I would argue it's a logical one
"gatorsrule, First I want to say that I agree with you that the gators rule. Now, on to economics. I will try to address each of your points as best I can. -The lack of ""demand"" is aggregate demand. This includes individual spending, corporate spending, government spending, and exports. Individual spending is down as geerussel pointed out. Whether or not that is a good thing let's reserve for later. Next, corporate spending is at all time lows. The S&amp;P 500 companies have the highest cash on hand ever in history. Nobody is hiring. Bond issues are down. Mergers are down. Capital is being hoarded. Third up, government spending. We all know this is up, but don't rush to add in the fed and bailouts to this number, lets just consider it what the government actually spends into the economy. Lastly, exports are down because the rest of the world is hurting. So, 3 out of the 4 components of aggregate demand are down, and there are those that want the government to stop spending as well, which would make it a straight 4 for 4. -Interest rates. Well, if you know that aggregate demand is down, that tells you everything you need to know about interest rates. If companies were borrowing, hiring, expanding, opening plants, etc. etc. etc., then interest rates would naturally rise due to loans being made to these companies. The fact is that companies are not expanding, and loans are not being made, due to no demand for them. Bank reserves are at an all time high. Nobody is willing to take out a loan to grow their business right now because aggregate demand is down so hard. At the same time the stock market spooked everyone, and on top of it, people are paying down their home mortgages at a record pace. So you have record low demand for loans, and record high supply of capital (money), so, yeah interest rates are at 1%, effectively 0 if you are in a savings account.
If you didn't have a stop loss set (or trailing stop loss) then an equally random spike in the other direction could have obliterated your account and put you in debt to the broker, depending on the terms of that broker, as these are highly leveraged positions. Market anomaly? If your currency bet was unrelated to the fed's interest rate decision today, then you should probably just stop trading.
Exactly - it is as if the Vulture Funds do not get that when you invest in something, it might just go to zero.  Well, I suppose that might be for us common investors, but not for all.  Bailouts, and this sort of thing is what to expect for those on the other side of the apartheid wall.
"National City Bank did great on subprime.  They bought First Franklin for around $100m, took millions out in profit for about a decade, and sold first franklin for $1b to Merrill Lynch.  What killed NCB was home equity lines or credit, 2nd liens, which were given to high scoring conforming borrowers.  But when the panic set in the media told people ""dont pay your mortgages, the government will bail you out"" and people stopped paying on their 2nds.  Values dropped and in order to foreclose on a 2nd you have to buy out the 1st lien too... not possible.  That killed the NCB balance sheet and the sharks in DC all but forced NCB to capitulate to PNC and be acquired for cheap."
If we hadn't blockaded Cuba for 60 years, it would likely look a lot like China, albeit not as overall productive.  Keep in mind both nations had communist revolutions at roughly the same time, the main difference being the US effectively shut out all trade with the island nation.
"The way you phrased what you said was bothering me.  What is happening is that many, a great many, die from diseases that would be effectively treated in other countries. Here the care keeps getting more and more abbreviated and more and more people fall through the cracks. Also, the US is [trying to use trade with the US](http://www.ttip2014.eu) as a means of eliminating new public healthcare and incrementally dismantling existing public health care and access to generic medicines around the globe.   Since thats obviously ""what rich Americans want"" &lt;/sarc&gt; (people really say that) having elected neoliberal Obama."
"One practical application would be to protect yourself from a ""flash crash"" type scenario where a stock suddenly plunges down to a penny due to transient market glitches. If you had a stop-loss order that executed at a penny (for a non-penny stock) it would be probably be voided by the exchange, but you might not want to take that risk."
well with all the scientist saying that we're doomed anyway. If the parachute is gone just enjoy the fall while it lasts.   According to mainstream media the only thing that could stop the carbon  emissions on time is a plan economy. Is this the proposition?   If there is any chance of us avoiding this it will be due to the alternative energies being better and winning on the free market. We see this happening with coal already. But to hand away all the power of the production to a bunch of hippies, unconditionally since if we don't the God of climate change will punish us for our hedonistic ways, is a rather wild suggestion.
Actually, it would be freaking awesome!  (1) People would stop arguing about earth being 10000 years old. That dispute has been settled decades ago in most of the civilized world.  (2) Funding of science and medical research would go through the roof. Funding of idiotic wars would go down. You are not going to die from a terrorist attack, you are going to die from cancer. If we were to spend as much $$ on science as we do on miliary, that problem would have been long gone.  (3) Government would be done based on hard numbers rather than BS statements by former exterminators who somehow made their way to congress.  (4) We would be on the way to solving global warming problem.  (5) My local bookstore would have had a bigger science section than religion section. That same story would not have Bible audiobook in non-fiction section. What's sad, I am not living in Deep South. I live in Seattle.  I could go on and on and on and on....
Apart from some of the excellent things others say, you could borrow money in AUD and invest that in another currency (that's risky but interesting) if the AUD interest rate is low and the other countries interest rate is higher, you'll eventually win. Also, look at what John Paulson did in 2007, 2008... I wish I'd thought of that when I was in your position (predicting a housing crisis)
Depending on how tech savvy your client is you could potentially use bitcoin. There is some take of indian regulators stopping bitcoin exchanges, meaning it might be hard to get your money out in your local country but the lack of fees to transfer and not getting killed on the exchange rate every time has a huge impact, especially if your individual transaction sizes are not huge.
"Am I being absurd? No. Should I be worrying? Yes. If I sell in the morning, I've only lost a couple hundred dollars, and   learned a valuable lesson. Is there any reason to believe it won't be   that simple? If you're lucky, you'll be able to dump your stocks to someone like you who'll be punching himself in the face tomorrow night. If not - you're stuck. You may end up selling them to your broker as worthless. You might have become a victim of a ""pump and dump"" fraud. Those are hard to identify in real-time, but after been burned like that myself (for much lesser amounts than you though), I avoid any ""penny"" stocks that go up for no apparent (and verifiable) reason. In fact, I avoid them altogether."