vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
But why not call it economic hardship, cause that is what it is. Using strong negative words loosely (like slavery, racist (don't want to get into the 'racist' debate but it still serves as a good example)) as if you do they loose the strength of their definitions.   She CAN change her life in a positive way, slaves couldn't. It'll be hard but doable.   And if she chooses to work at a dead-end job that it HER choice. If she likes it more power to her, I'm not one to judge what makes her happy, but don't you dare come asking for help when you can change. Show me the progress you're making and I'd gladly help. You don't help a druggie who continuously shoots up, you help the ones who help themselves get better, not continue to swim in the mess they made.
"I think you're projecting a little bit there when you say it's in my head.  From the Wikipedia article on [Nazism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism), it says that they ""sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the 'common good' and accept political interests as the main priority of economic organization.""  That sounds pretty well like socialism to me. I'm sorry that the bad men you don't like pointed it out, but that doesn't make it not true."
"I don't see how employing more middle class workers would accelerate, say, the microprocessor research leading to better phones.  I also don't see how we are at a point in resource distribution that only the rich can afford things. As far as I can tell, poor people have a tremendous amount of wealth compared to the poor of 500 years ago or even 100 years ago.  What would a ""stronger economy"" do? Use more fuel? Produce more knicknacks for consumers to waste money on?  You're missing the entire point."
It is likely a bit of both.  Cooking the books AND an economic miracle.       There will definitely be a downturn eventually, and it will be interesting what shakes out.  At this stage, the Chinese model appears to be stronger than any alternatives.
Nokia is a bit of an anomaly really. They aren't sinking because of the weak economy, although I dare say it plays a part in things. They are struggling because nobody wants to buy a Nokia phone anymore, whereas five years ago half the world's population wanted one.
&gt; hat being said, I don't believe that a group of countries where several still have their royal and noble classes  They're figureheads, period.  &gt; and the economy is a commodity driven market economy.  You're taking Norway and applying it to the rest of the Nordic countries?  I didn't realize all of them had oil.  This goes to show how biased is your perception of them.
"You are entirely correct that it is an assumption, so I will not argue the point any further other than to say that I don't think it's a very large stretch of the imagination to say that a more robust bitcoin ""economy"", and a larger user base would smooth it out the volatility. It seems pretty reasonable to me that the instability in prices can't be accounted for from the technology that runs bitcoin, and yet it is obvious that the current bitcoin economy is borderline abysmal. It's the things bitcoin allows you to do outside of financial institutions that give it a robustness over typical government backed fiat currencies. When we utilize this advantage, **real** people will use the technology, and a genuine bitcion economy could flourish.   As a caveat to this, I'm not 100% convinced that *""bitcoins""* are the answer. To me, bitcoins are one particular brand of free (as in speech), decentralized, crypto-currencies. When I speak of bitcoins, I'm promoting the idea it represents more than this particular implementation, although I do believe bitcions (the exact software you can download and run at this moment) have the potential for tremendously more use than they're currently being used for."
They mention the struggling economy but not McD's caving to the franchisees and getting rid of the dollar menu at precisely the wrong time.  Also, McD's long-time strength -*consistency* is now a given in any franchise operation. It isn't novel anymore and is perceived as *bland sameness*.  The posts about Five Guys, Whataburger, In-N-Out, etc. show that regional favorites still have an impact and a place in our hearts and there's the smaller nationals as well, like White Castle, Carls Jr./Hardee's, and A&amp;W.  Whenever I visit Washington or Oregon Burgerville USA is de rigeur, or Arctic Circle or SteakBurger.  Also, the article talks about burgers vs. 'Other' like OS market share. Does that make Fast Casual the iOS of dining (flame bait)? Does that make the burger joints equivalent to Android version fragmentation?  Edit: fixed typos from mobile posting.
&gt; Come on, Germany!  Look at history and start understanding that you’d be far better off looking eastwards, reaching intelligent agreements with raw-materials-rich Russian, than with just dragging as dead-weight “Old Europe” and its increasingly decadent and misgoverned American controllers.
America's economy is a War based economy, you need to understand that and chew on it and admit it to yourself. We are not some happy happy charlie and the chocolate fucking factory economy, we profit from war, human misery and of course really really bad banking practices and exporting inflation as the retarded Indians are going to find out soon, not the Red ones we gave cholera &amp; Small pox to, the ones that think they are our friends and we are going to build F-16s in their land of open defecation and cow piss consumption. Now everything was really great and we were about to get our hands on some really cheap Iraqi oil, but the fucking Taliban we trained and armed to fight the Russians decided they wanted to fight us when we attacked them. Problem was we didn't need M1 Abrahams and F-35s and nuclear subs to fight them. And then the Bloody Iraqis wouldn't quit and it turned out we didn't need M1s, and F-35s and Nuclear subs to fight them. In fact we didn't have anything that made it cost effective to fight a guy with a rocket launcher and a pick up truck and our economy started to fail and we landed up in a depression which we called a recession, but it was a depression and thats why our central bank is still trying to get rid of that shit they sold to raise US $ 2.4 Trillion dollars for the Iraq war. Really bad investment that. Well a reemergent Russia, was like a god send, we could restart the cold war and start making M1s and F-35s and Subs again and have a worthy foe, we would have to scare the shit out of the American people to divert the money to the military, but that would get factories cracking again and corporate lending going again, and NATO would just have to buy our shit up . .right? Turns out it wasn't a God send, the priests were busy diddling the choir boys and the rabbi's selling Palestinian spare parts, and the rest of the godless lot getting confused about the gender and the Russians were actually dead serious, scared the shit out of Ukraine and annex Crimea . . .and we couldn't do shit. North Korea . .
"&gt; In Germany most terror attacks are made by right-wing guys who want to save Germany from the muslim terrorists That's absolutely not true. You know that! Please tell me about the recent right-wing ""terror attack"" against **civilians** in Germany! Also, how many terror attacks were done by Muslims at the same time against **civilians**? (I am not pro far-right wing people, but they are not the level of Muslims.) **Hey! Did you just say hate speech about right-wing guys? Are they terrorists?** &gt; So the problems comes fron people saying things like you did: Muslims are terrorists. Taking a group as a whole and given them an attribute. If you say americans are fat idiots you say all of them Repeating over and over that if someone says ""group X does such and such"" means that all members of the group do it will not work. You just said: ""*most terror attacks are made by right-wing guys*"" and also ""*americans are fat idiots*"" I say ""terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims"" (I did not say ""Muslims are terrorists"") and the Swedish old lady said ""Muslims shit in the street and burn cars"". Only the ""*americans are fat idiots*"" implies that ALL Americans are fat and are also Idiots. Do you understand why? If not, I will explain further. **Do you think I think all Muslims are terrorists?** &gt; heres a link to the sweden Problem No thanks! I don't needs stats from a Swedish source. Here are the stats from a [non-Swedish source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Sweden): Crime is up a lot. Why? One quote: ""**In januray 2017, the the Löfven Cabinet denied the request from member parliament Staffan Danielsson to update the BRÅ statistics on crime with respect to national or immigration background of the perpetrator, as had previously been done in 1995, 2005 but the 2015 was overdue.**"" &gt; Your Right about the nazis though.
[It works in Austria, Belarus, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care)  Surely you don't think America is too dumb or lazy of a nation to do what these many others have done.. [Even conservative sources seem to think that the move to UH increases economic freedom.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/01/27/conservative-think-tank-10-countries-with-universal-health-care-are-economically-freer-than-the-u-s/#2e52bfc5137e)  I guess our versions of morality are vastly different.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-25/china-early-data-show-resilient-economy-as-market-investors-wary) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Manufacturing picked up in July, according to the China Satellite Manufacturing Index, which rose to 50.5 this month from 49.5 in June.  &gt; The S&amp;P Global Platts China Steel Sentiment Index jumped to 55.3 in July, the first time this year it has breached 50, which separates increase and decrease.  &gt; A survey of the China Economic Panel - a joint project of the Centre for European Economic Research in Mannheim, Germany, and Fudan University in Shanghai - showed expectations for the next 12 months slumped to minus 4.1 from 9.7 in June.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6plnn3/china_early_data_show_resilient_economy/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~175754 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*: **survey**^#1 **China**^#2 **July**^#3 **wrote**^#4 **small**^#5"
"Ok, here's the final statement from me. Think about it in the future.  &gt; Your views are highly racial and not based on facts.   You know very very well that I do not hate ALL(!) Muslims!  [Here are facts about Muslims](https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6f7y9l/stats_the_left_doesnt_want_you_to_see/)  Fear of Muslims is not ""Islamophobia"". It's a fear grounded in reality.  On the other hand, your view about Muslims is a baseless theory, just based on events in the last 24 hours.  Christians don't go on killing sprees during lent. Jews don't go nuts during Passover. Why do Muslims go all ""Allah Akbar"" during Ramadan?  Hence, ""Islamophobia"" is a word invented to Silence ANY Critics of Islam.  Do you see any problems with Islam and/or how it's practiced? If yes, would you tell a criticise a Muslim over that? Any problems you see with Jews or Christians?  &gt; A Moron heres your speech translates it to beat up all muslims because they are the terrorists and will do so.   Plenty of morons in Poland, Japan, Hungary and Norway. Also in Germany. Where do you think the morons beat Muslims? **Where do they already hit Muslims, according to you?**  You said it yourself: Germans beat Muslims. Is it going to stop? Do you think it will be reduced if more Muslims come over?  &gt; They actually do have a big Problem with antisemitism and this Problem needs to be addressed.  LOL!!!!!!! Honestly, as you probably know, many many Germans are antisemitic, past and present.  How is Germany, up until recently, doing addressing this issue? Success story? The same method will work to address antisemitism among Muslims?  Auf Widerehesen!"
&gt; Subaru, formerly called Fuji Heavy Industries, is partnered with Toyota Motor Corp., a top shareholder. Toyota and Honda Motor Co. have said they did not have dubious inspections. Toyota said it was checking with Subaru on the reported irregularities. &gt; Nissan is recalling more than a million vehicles in Japan to re-inspect them, and has set up an investigative team that includes a third party to get to the bottom of the scandal and prevent a recurrence. &gt; The problem does not affect Nissan vehicles sold outside Japan and is not believed to have affected vehicle safety as they were final-stage checks. &gt; But the scandal raises serious questions about ethics and professionalism at Nissan, which makes the Leaf electric car and Infiniti luxury models, and is allied with Renault SA of France and Mitsubishi Motors Corp. of Japan. &gt; Reporters peppered Subaru's Yoshinaga with questions about why it took so long after the Nissan scandal for Subaru to come forward. &gt; ""I always wanted to make my company a great company, and I now know we had not done enough,"" he said. ""I am so ashamed that my company has become a cause for tarnishing Japanese monozukuri."" &gt; The auto industry has been hit by a series of scandals. &gt; Nissan took a controlling stake in Mitsubishi Motors last year after that company was caught inflating fuel economy figures for its minicar models, which are also sold under the Nissan brand. &gt; Japanese supplier Kobe Steel acknowledged recently it had systematically falsified data on its products, including steel, aluminum, copper and other materials, affecting some 500 companies including major global automakers, as well as the aircraft, electronics and railway industries. &gt; Volkswagen AG of Germany acknowledged in 2015 that it had equipped its diesel cars with illegal software that enabled cheating on U.S. emissions tests. Volkswagen has agreed to more than $20 billion in fines and civil settlements over the scandal. &gt; Air-bag maker Takata Corp. filed for bankruptcy protection after some 100 million air-bag inflators were recalled worldwide. The defect has been linked to 19 deaths and dozens of injuries."
Once wealth accumulates in the hands of a few, they're less likely to spend it, as opposed to when there's smaller amounts of wealth in the hands of many. That's one of the primary arguments for more economic equality.  You then also have the case of that wealth being used to generate more wealth without really adding anything of value. Employing hedge fund managers, bankers, lawyers, and accountants to manage large amounts of that wealth in order to use it to generate more wealth, sometimes in ways that doesn't benefit society at all, and sometimes even to its detriment (toxic assets, tax evasion, etc).   Overall, this has the effect of weakening the economy, at the very least inhibiting its growth, and I don't possibly see how you could argue that a weaker economy benefits *anyone*, especially those in the best position to take advantage of the goods produced by a stronger economy (the wealthy). A stronger economy means more and better goods on the market, that the rich can then benefit from. I don't think the luxury goods market would go anywhere either, and may even allow it to grow because of the people who are just under the wealthiest would get richer with more equality (remember it's only the top 10% who benefit from the current massive inequality).
The data shows the economy is following the same trendline over the last year.  So yes, it's doing better than a year ago.  It was supposed to do better, all the trends were already pointing up in 2016.  The economy is a big thing that has inertia, and it's continuing to follow the path established under Obama.    The question is whether Trump has anything to do with it.  If the trend accelerates, then Trump should get credit (it hasn't).  If it slows down, then it would be Trump's fault (it also hasn't).  The stock market has rallied since Trump was elected, presumably in anticipation of a tax cut.  I don't think it's an indicator of economic health.
I'm new to this, but how about putting a big part of your money into an MMA? I don't know about your country, but in Germany, some online banks easily offer as much as 2.1% pa, and you can access the money daily. If you want decent profit without risk this is a great deal, much better than most saving accounts.
"&gt;Truthfully, I don't see a way out of this that doesn't involve economic upheaval on a scale that would make 2008 look like boom times.  Economic ""upheaval"" could also be considered economic ""re-formation"" and ""re-organization"".  The danger lies in the *political* sphere -- that the problems inherent in any such even will create a ""mob"" that makes demands which inevitably result in ""strong-man"" rule (i.e. a full blown ""dictator"").  Americans delude themselves that we have never had this in the past, when in fact we have, several times (most notably FDR) -- we just retained the ""forms"" of a democracy, and the euphemistic labels of a ""republic"" -- and then we got VERY lucky that the dictator died when he did, and power transitioned to someone who was a token/place-holder, and NOT party to his grand scheme, and so ""unwound"" the whole thing.  IOW, we may be headed over a *proverbial* ""cliff"", but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be an apocalyptic affair, just that it will be tough to weather and get through (though the ""agile"" will still manage, and there IS potential ""hope"" for the other side, however minimal)."
"&gt;I don't see how employing more middle class workers would accelerate, say, the microprocessor research leading to better phones.  Seriously? You don't see how more money in the hands of poor people and middle class people wouldn't accelerate a luxury commodity market? You don't see how more and more people would buy more expensive phones rather than the bare necessities if they had the means? I'm not talking exclusively about the middle class, btw, but also about the poor.  In fact the mobile phone market is a great example of this, because it's a product that people only tend to have one of. Even the richest people aren't going to consume that many, as long as they have the newest, best phones. The richest 10% is not enough to make up for the rest of the market who own used or outdated phones. Wealth redistribution would almost certainly ensure a boom in the phone market, since they'd be able to afford to upgrade their phones more often, and buy the better models when they do come out.  &gt;I also don't see how we are at a point in resource distribution that only the rich can afford things. As far as I can tell, poor people have a tremendous amount of wealth compared to the poor of 500 years ago or even 100 years ago.  For 100-500 years, you're probably right. But I'm not talking about the last 100 years, I'm talking about the last 30-40 or so. Every statistic I've seen indicates that the middle class and poor's purchasing power has stagnated severely while the rich have continued to rise, and it's put enormous economic strain on the middle and lower classes.  &gt;What would a ""stronger economy"" do? Use more fuel? Produce more knicknacks for consumers to waste money on?  Provide better quality of life for its citizens. That's the whole point of the economy. Right now it's not doing that, it's broken. That's why we need to fix it."
In Germany in our discounters very often we have such store-owned off-brand boxes which look quite bland, but the content is not rarely made in the same factory as the higher priced brand. It just looks like that to save on marketing costs.  Obviously it's not always like this but if you do some research you will find that sometimes cheaper knockoff brands even belong to the same parent company and/or are made at the same location as the premium product.
It's not even pressure, it's that it makes US investments even better because the rate of return gets boosted higher.   The second part is correct: capital inflows will create more business and thus a stronger economy with more jobs.   Will this perfectly offset the loss in tax revenue? That's a huge debate as we have to start making predictions in the future of when the growth turns into a break-even point, and as we've seen many times, even CBO estimates are often flat-out wrong.
The economy. Which has a pretty strong effect on most people's lives. You can't throw 90% of energy subsidies to one part of the industry which produces a fraction of the rest of the industry without negatively affecting consumers (everyone). Because you're idealistic and don't understand that it is basic economics.   https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/ Renewables get $15B + compared to about $4B combined for oil, coal, and natural gas, while producing only 13% of total energy.  So, you've got much larger industries in oil, especially, that receive less money for doing a more efficient job of providing energy. That means they can't lower their prices.  There's also a further $12B in subsidies for transmission or delivery.
The Fed controls the base interest rate for lending to banks. It raises this rate when the economy is doing well to limit inflation, and lowers this rate when the economy is doing poorly to encourage lending. Raising the interest rate signals that the Fed believes the economy is strong/strengthening.   Obviously it's more complicated than that but that's the basic idea.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/opinion/housing-regulations-us-economy.html) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Since the 1970s, a property-rights revolution - what critics call Nimbyism, from &amp;quot;Not in my back yard&amp;quot; - has significantly reduced the development of new housing stock, especially in cities where the economy is strongest.  &gt; The cost for the country of too-stringent housing regulations in high-wage, high-productivity cities in forgone gross domestic product is $1.4 trillion.  &gt; Because of the prohibitive cost of housing caused by these regulations, innovative companies in Silicon Valley and Boston do not grow as much as they could, and new businesses do not get created.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6yl8nt/how_local_housing_regulations_smother_the_us/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~205629 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*: **housing**^#1 **cost**^#2 **New**^#3 **regulations**^#4 **project**^#5"
I shopped in both in Germany... with the slightly different logos at the time (colors differed).  I would think the two cooperate very strongly together with logistics and specials, but I may be wrong.  It just seemed they were very similiar and iirc had the same specials at the same times.