vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/travel/tourism-united-states-international-decline.html) reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Within Europe, the tourism declines were largest in Switzerland at nearly 28 percent, Belgium at 20 percent and Britain at 15.5 percent.  &gt; &amp;quot;The international travel market is ultracompetitive, and the U.S. is falling behind,&amp;quot; said Roger Dow, the president and chief executive of the U.S. Travel Association, a nonprofit that promotes travel to and within the United States, in a statement.  &gt; The Commerce Department&amp;#039;s National Travel and Tourism Office reported a 2.5 percent increase in spending by international visitors to $83.4 billion in the first four months of the year compared to the same period in 2016.Some of the decline in first quarter results may be because of the shift of the Easter and Passover holidays, when travel usually spikes.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/715i19/international_tourism_to_the_us_declined_in_early/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~213088 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*: **travel**^#1 **percent**^#2 **States**^#3 **year**^#4 **United**^#5"
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/08/11/nuclear-fears-wipe-1-trillion-off-global-stock-markets_a_23074645/?utm_campaign=canada_newsletter) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Many world stock markets have hit record or multi-year highs in recent weeks, leaving them vulnerable to a sell-off, and the tensions over North Korea have proved the trigger.  &gt; &amp;quot;Of course, it&amp;#039;s all come at a time when share markets are due for a correction, so North Korea has provided a perfect trigger.""  &gt; A Chinese state-run newspaper said on Friday that China should make clear that it will stay neutral if North Korea launches an attack that threatens the United States, but that if the U.S. attacks first and tries to overthrow North Korea&amp;#039;s government, China will prevent it doing so.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6t2oku/nuclear_fears_wipe_1_trillion_off_global_stock/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~188781 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*: **Korea**^#1 **North**^#2 **percent**^#3 **since**^#4 **market**^#5"
From watching the hearings and reading the papers, it appears that JPMs London Office entered into a hedge-like position that was meant to hedge against a worldwide economic downturn. As far as I know, JPM corporate found this position on their own (probably alerted by the huge mark-to-market losses) and it was not found by some outside manager.  That position itself was a hedge that turned out not to be a very good hedge, and upon this finding it was determined that JPM needed to exit this hedge. Unfortunately, the position had lost a substantial amount even by this point. This, according to Dimon, was because this particular group had been very successful in previous years and was not subject to the same regulations as most other groups.  JPM has been very quiet about the details, because they don't need the position getting any more out of control than it already is. I assume some market participants have a good idea on what it is exactly, given its size, but I do not.   It is not really like LTCM, which was not hedging and were supposed to be taking arbitrage positions in the market. It is also unlike LTCM is myriad ways (being 1 major position, $8B is not the same to JPM as to LTCM, JPM will almost 100% take the full loss, etc).  I would recommend watching [this](http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/306502-102). Dimon clearly thinks the position was very unwise, and they are unwinding it, but details will be in short supply until JPM gets out of the position.
If your hope is in voting for some sort of legislative change, godspeed but it won't help. Regulations will be issued and companies will push money to safe havens in Ireland, Liechtenstein, the Caymans, etc.. to avoid them. They'll outsource more and layoff to compensate for the new expenses and generally find workarounds. Nationalized businesses to compete with those corporations is clearly the only pragmatic solution. That's how Putin was able to restore sovereignty to Russia, and my suggestion to avoid dictatorial concentrations of power like has resulted there, is to make the companies owned by the people instead of by the government. The state is the people not the government, so true nationalization would give every citizen equity. &gt;Add that to the rise of countries already benefiting from outsourcing and globalization... maybe the US market isn't so important in 20-30 years. Gives the government even less leverage on corporations. All the mega-corporations that started in America are becoming so large and influential that they outmatch any government on earth in terms of influence on the direction of global development. They are becoming international entities with no loyalties to any country, and have the sole motivation of maximum profit. This a parasitic infestation that has no moral sense of acquiring that profit and thus will continue to do so in a way that drives increasing inequality. The only potential solution is to restore economic sovereignty. For more info on what I'm getting at you can read this paper: &gt;[Abstract: In this paper we analyze one aspect of the standard thesis that **the globalization process leads towards desovereignization**. For the purposes of this paper we have adopted a narrow definition of globalization as a process of global expansion of capital, primarily financial. The classic design of sovereignty of a nation state is compromised due to the proliferation of capital, and **states are becoming less able to resist the power of multinational corporations, both in terms of taking over resources and imposing political decisions.** This fact raises the question of the subject of sovereignty: whether governments represent the interests of citizens (people) who, as the source of sovereignty, transfer the executive power to the government or governments must adjust to the interests of anonymous centres of economic power.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-21/why-wages-aren-t-growing) reduced by 93%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Although very recently some signs have emerged that wages may be set for a pickup, workers are far from getting the gains you&amp;#039;d assume the market is signaling they deserve.  &gt; In part, the problem has been caused by the globalization of the labor force, which pits workers in one country in more direct competition with workers in other countries, often with large differences in wage levels.  &gt; On top of that, the Economic Policy Institute in a 2016 research paper made the case that all workers would gain from unions, even those who aren&amp;#039;t members, because higher rates of unionization would boost wages overall by setting pay standards employers are compelled to follow.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/7268xx/why_your_wages_arent_growing/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~215757 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*: **work**^#1 **Wage**^#2 **more**^#3 **percent**^#4 **labor**^#5"
"Well again, I think you're grasping at straws to try to justify monopoly.  It's entirely possible that in a free market, there will be some rich individuals who choose to risk it all and hire a small army to attack their enemies or destroy property.  But the whole point is that their armies will be far less-powerful than the militaries governments currently have, and they won't have popular acceptance as ""legitimate"".  I'm well aware that anarchy wouldn't be a cake-walk.  The only claim I'm making is that it would be superior to what we currently have - a system whereby a monopolist extorts millions of people each year for 1/3 of their income, and educates their children for the first 18 years of their lives.  That kind of centralization of power is extremely dangerous.  &gt;Your security will have to be handled somehow. Do you think calling something a ""fee"", perhaps, changesmthe fundamental nature of the payment?  Of course not.  We believe that people should pay for their security voluntarily, just like they pay for their food and clothes.  Most people probably wouldn't even need security - just some cameras, a fence, and a small gun.  Some societies are more violent than others, naturally.  We don't expect Anarchocapitalism to spring up in a particularly violent society, as they tend to disrespect property rights anyway.  We think its genesis will happen in a first-world, atheist, non-violent country like Denmark or New Zealand.  &gt;Again, explicitly, how are you going to handle security?  I take umbrage with the way you've phrased this.  I will not be handling anything.  It is up to consumers to decide what is best for them, and entrepreneurs to experiment to determine the best way to do things.  The market is a system of trial-and-error, like the scientific process.  Here's a video of one possible way it could be done:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0"
Apple fucked up with the last set of iPhones, yet they still sold a ton.  I expect the same this time...no major innovation, will still sell a ton globally.  Why the fuck is there no major competition outside of Google/Samsung.  Oh windows? haha.  Seriously, you can see why Amazon would jump in, however stupid of them to do so (not their main business/focus)
Bull. Facebook is exploding overseas, where local knockoff flavors of Facebook have long held dominance, as they improve their internationalization. Even in the US, kids aren't giving up Facebook for other sites, but instead tieing in other sites TO facebook - you can tweet straight from your news feed, you can share your tumblr posts with your friends through facebook. Pinterest doesn't have the same utility as Facebook, but instead only serves a small portion of the features to an even smaller portion of the Facebook user base. And foursquare? Completely different market, I don't know why the author failed to realize that a location sharing app is *completely* different than a social media site. Not only that, but kids will become mayor of a place on Foursquare only so as to brag about it on Facebook!  This article makes the grievous mistake of thinking that just because people visit other sites *besides* Facebook, that this is a sign of Facebook's imminent demise. This is such an overused news subject - the death of facebook, that it's becoming a major cliche. The fact of the matter is, Facebook was grossly over valued on the expectation that they'll continue their exponential growth pattern, but they won't. Facebook will continue to grow and dominate the market because they have the best and the brightest programmers and they really understand their market. Just don't expect them growing like they have in the past five years all over again.
"Yes, but it is between State controlled crony capitalism (Trump/Republicans/Corporate Third Way Democrats under the Clintons) versus American voter controlled social democracy (under Bernie progressives). The ""free market"" has a place under Bernie progressives, but it is FREE for most Americans because a central government (fully accountable to Americans and NOT to special interests) keeps corporate cartels and profit-seeking predators at bay."
Employment is being affected by rising productivity, something that has nothing to do with the ACA.   Prices are rising because the Obama Administration is a [foe of price controls on drugs](http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/11/38-million-retirees-say-no-to-a-trade-deal-that-would-make-medicine-more-expensive.html) globally, not just in the USA. In other words, despite the fact that all the trade agreements work both ways, hurting Americans again and again, the Obama Administration is pushing to have drug prices *increased* globally.  The ACA provides a convenient cover story for employers wanting to downsize for other reasons. (technology making it possible to operate with fewer workers)
"Not really.  They didn't account for the fact that the income would first be spread out over 8 billion people.  I don't know if anyone in Keynes time was thinking about dozens of industries closed in America and moved directly to China.  Had you suggested that to them I think they would have thought it ridiculous but that is in fact what happened.  Also, theories on trade suggest that it makes everyone better off.  So if you ask any economist at any given point if more free trade is better they will probably say ""yes"".  That was all fine until about the 1980s when computer networks made it possible to globalize supply chains.  Suddenly vast CAD/CAM systems sprung up and suddenly you could pay a worker a $1 a day to do what someone in the US was getting $45 an hour to do.  The economics of it for corporations were absolutely irresistible and they lobbied hard to make sure noting got in the way (note that free trade pacts passed under both parties).  In order to mask the fact that this was happening a giant credit bubble was created in the developed world using the newfound savings of the developing world.  Living standards were temporarily maintained in developed countries by borrowing money from the people they had sent their jobs to.  The effects of this are all pretty clear.  Most developed nations are now burdened under a mountain of debt.  Central banks are having a difficult time maintaining enough liquidity to support the illusion of buying power in developed nations that is no longer present without enormous artificial support.  Many Americans alive today cannot even remember a time when America's current account deficit was not deeply in the red.  So far the only thing propping up developed nations is the use (and threat of use) of vastly superior military force.  That hasn't really changed but every day the developing nations encroach a little bit more on the resources of the world for consumption rather than just production.  As that happens the hollowed out shells of the developed world start to feel more and more pressured as they come to realize they really don't have much of value to trade.  America's biggest exports are food and services.  Food is surely important but one farmer can farm like 100,000 acres.  And services just means we can export the time of a Wall Street douchebag at a high rate of pay.  yippee."
&gt; There are over a billion cars in the world today. Should that have deterred Tesla from introducing a novel type of car?  No. But entering a market already dominated by heavy hitters is the single hardest thing to do in business.
Why has no one reported on the declining market share of whole foods? Walmart was able to strategically target their customer and go after them. You'll never hear Walmart say this, but I secretly think they are celebrating this acquisition.
&gt;There is a term as regulated free market There is no such thing as a ""regulated free market"". That's like saying ""white black"" or ""inside outside"". They are opposites. &gt;I don't think you really want to talk I don't think you want to listen. &gt;You just want to spew your ignorant libertarian viewpoints And you're spewing wildly ignorant statist bullshit. &gt;You just blindly believe the govt. is always wrong with no logic or justification, just like religious people. You're the one with religion here, and it's government you're worshiping. If government is a religion, I'm an atheist. &gt;But it is some times and it does do the right things many times Well golly gee, better blindly adhere to it then! &gt;But I don't believe like you do at all because I think for myself and reason. Sounds like you're letting government think for you, but accusing *me* of blindly following others *who I don't even give a shit about!* Stossel is a jackass, and Paul is irrelevant. &gt;I won't bother replying to you anymore Just want to spew a bunch of wild bullshit and demand that I not reply, huh? Just want to expound freely on something you know nothing about and refuse to listen when someone tries to show you how you're wrong? &gt;So you've never been taken to reason or logic like others have to you on this board. Oh my, thank you for saving me with your ""reason"" and ""logic"". Clearly I've been a fool. &gt;Look at the other replies to your posts - almost all contradict you. Popularity is not correctness. Lots of times in human history, common opinion has been fucking retarded. Flies auto-generating from rotting meat? Earth being the center of existence? Lots of people believe lots of dumb shit, just like you."
"Even if that's the case, that means he still bet half a mil on a sure thing. It seems insane to me to be bearish while also saying ""the market only goes up because..."" No one thinks QE is going to stop in our lifetimes."
The only reason the word Paris is stuck in this article is to get those manic clicks. It is completely irrelevant.  Social media tears did not close these plants. Chanting did not close these plants. Drum circles did not close these plants. The market closed them. They closed because they are no longer economically viable. They closed because their competition was simply better.  Natural gas will be what kills the coal plants in America.  Not wind, not solar, not Paris, not dreadlocked rebels. Natural gas.  Edit: Aww, you guys seem upset. I'm sorry I refuse to accept your fantasy land. Hopefully you'll learn to be objective when you're older.
"Wealth trickles up, they tend to concentrate only on a few entities. This is the nature of competition and the free market, there will be 90% losers and 10% winners who produce 90% of the world's demand. It's human nature, we tend to only buy from ""the few trusted-by-many"" producers, the ""superstar"" so-to-speak, or the ""unicorns"" as wall-street investors would like to call them.  Taxing the rich to give to the poor, those money go back to the rich! It will not do much after the initial euphoria of ""Oh hey, I have more money! Now I can buy more stuffs"" from the poor. Might give politicians some vote, but after a while, we'll be right back where we were ""should we tax the rich more ?"""
&gt;I said all that to say that you are correct in assuming I blame the socialist disproportionately, but I think this blame is justified. If they didn't have such an irrational/ignorate fear of the free market we wouldn't have such complex, unfair set of rules that tend to hurt the most disadvantaged in our society most.  There wasn't a regulation that was causing insurance companies to not cover people with pre-existing conditions. That was a decision the market made based on a strict economic basis. I think liberals are right to want to protect people that aren't profitable customers... the market isn't interested in them. That is why many liberals do not see the market as a viable solution, especially when you are talking about healthcare.
"Word salad specialist concealing communist beliefs by replacing commissars with computers.  He doesn't understand that the free market is a supercomputer where each node updates its wants and needs every day, buying or selling based on dynamic changes. He pretends its without a designer. No, it has 7 billion designers. He admits we don't have a free market, THEN BLAMES THE ""FREE MARKET"".  The parts of the market that are fucked up are precisely because of socialist redistribution which has rendered $Trillions of illegitimate transactions (i.e. welfare recipients are not legitimate customers... their money was stolen). Our culture has been driven largely by this faction, who didn't exist before the 1960s... the direct cause of cultural decline.  Without government theft (taxation), engineers, scientists and any type of *realists* would grow in power. Instead of people like Elon Musk, Sergey Brin, Jeff Bezos, etc. losing $Billions to politicians, they'd grow in wealth and ability to fund the future along high-tech lines.  I just don't get his view. The idealistic future IS possible, just when we get rid of taxation and make all service providers have voluntary customers. Those who provide the most value will then gain control over the future, and these people will inevitably be the most scientific, as long as coercive taxation and monopoly law no longer exists.  I cannot believe he calls the FDA - the undeniably ANTI-free-market agency - a market cartel creation. What a fucking liar. Just straight up liar. The FDA prevents competition by raising the cost of bringing a drug to market to over $1Billion on average. The guy is too smart to be this dumb. That means he's intentionally ruining the reputation of the non-existent, restrained free-market, and blaming ""free market"" for everything that the LACK of a free market causes."
"There you go:  *Since 2008.*  Lots of crap has been predicted ""since 2008.""  Soaring interest rates.  A collapse of the dollar.  The Yuan as the world's reserve currency.  A collapse in ""the stock market bubble,"" which is ""clearly fueled by Federal Reserve policies,"" Etc.  People like yourself continue to believe that these things will occur, despite annual evidence that it will not.  Rather than adjust your views, you are holding on to them tighter.  It reminds me of people who deny climate change - more evidence simply hardens their views against the phenomenon."
What is the difficulty is making the connection  Investors go to /r/investing where discussions are related to particular stocks and commodities and news related to that and people who fancy them selves as investors and traders  r/Economy is for things and event that effect economy, that means over a long time . .in the long run in a manner that is not obvious . .like a retarded bufoon who thinks he is going to fix taxes by not taxing the rich.  Perhaps if you spent less time peeking at other peoples opinions and formed your own you would not feel left out of a conversation that doesn't base its quality on the number of lemmings that up or down vote it.  I bet you are the kind of guy who always sneaks a peek in public urinals as well because he is so insecure . . .  seriously dude . .move on, get a life more meaningful than hanging around public places peeking
"Those ""haters"" are trying to convince you away from making a poor investment. It would honestly be unethical for us not to. Tell you what. Meet with these people in real life. Take a tour of their current operations. Do your due diligence. Ask them hard questions.  Like.  Why they need to reach out to friends for investment, rather than a venture capitalist or a bank loan?   At worst they are lying and it is fraud. At best they are in over their head with bad business sense and you're about to get sucked into it.  Just because weed in general is going to take off, does not mean YOUR weed shop is going to take off.   Example: Smartphones have taken over the world. Microsoft recently axed its windows phone because it did not work out for them.  Your weed shop could be the iphone of weed. It also could be the windows phone of weed.   I know you've gone over how he has experienced high demand. There's a saying we like here: Past performance is not indicative of future results.   Its entirely possible a large retail chain (Amazon perhaps?) could enter the market and undercut you to the point that you are making a loss."