vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Yes, asset inflation is still inflation.   Economy = consumption + investment + government - net exports.   So you increase the money supply to the wealthy what happens? Not in increase in consumption, their basic needs are met so they invest it. Everyone invests their extra money, what happens? Price goes up for stock and real estate while the yield on those investments goes down. You have people buying really expensive assets with great leverage because their is no alternative. So inflation has increased, you are just to poor to notice it.   We also live on a deflationary world. Production increases while demand remains constant. So what happens? Price goes down and marginal companies go out of business. Leading to more consolidation, lower prices due to greater market share, more companies cannot compete and the cycle continues.   The only inflation comes from overseas, where you have growing economies. Here we have almost no population or wage growth, so that is deflationary .
Have you talked with her about this? On the one hand you have a point.  Given the prenuptial agreements why should you invest in something that you can never have interest in.  However, you also live in the property.  You did not go into the arrangements but presumably you should be contributing to the upkeep of the home as otherwise you would live there for free. Additionally you did not mention it but it sounds like the prenuptial does not cover your assets.  In the event of divorce she, presumably, would own half of your 400K.  Correct? The key here is a conversation.  What is right for the two of you?  While some might be very uncomfortable with the situation, as is, you two seem to be okay with it.  Go from there, build on it.  Come up with something that is equitable for both parties and your heirs.
"I've been saying for awhile now, social media is dead. You can't make money from social media. Why anyone thought you could make money from social media is a bizarre mystery. There are only two revenue models in existence currently, subscriptions, and why would anyone pay for service when there's a thousand free sites, and advertising.  Advertising on the internet is dead, that means social media as a for-profit industry is dead.  And good riddance. Social media is _stupid_. If you want to blog, make a blog. OWN your blog. People can still ""follow"" it using this amazing technology known as RSS which has been around for a really long time.   Facebook and Twitter are both doomed. Neither one makes a dime from their core product, which is micro-blogging. Facebook only makes money because they're an umbrella company that owns a lot of other products. Twitter doesn't make money and is going to vanish in the coming years.  I hope this is a lesson to everyone. The internet is not a magical ATM machine, just because you don't know how it works. You still need to create value to create wealth."
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/348374-top-trump-economic-adviser-told-dems-only-morons-pay-the-estate-tax) reduced by 71%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Gary Cohn, the director of the National Economic Council, told a group of Senate Democrats during a meeting earlier this year that &amp;quot;Only morons pay the estate tax,&amp;quot; according to a New York Times report.  &gt; President Trump has publicly railed against the estate tax - often referred to as a &amp;quot;Death tax&amp;quot; - and has vowed to fully repeal it.  &gt; The estate tax is levied on the transfer of property for deceased individuals with an estate worth more than $5.49 million.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6xuvf3/top_trump_economic_adviser_told_dems_only_morons/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~203616 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*: **tax**^#1 **Cohn**^#2 **percent**^#3 **Trump**^#4 **Times**^#5"
Do what's outlined here. The capital asset pricing model will reveal how an asset (a stock in this instance) performed relative to the market performance for that time period. This by itself will answer your assignment's question but allowing you to traverse much deeper in the intricate details of the field. You'll learn a few interesting things on the way! Good luck :)
"I agree that this is a ""bad idea"" but I want to add in one more reason. Let's pretend your family and you are ok with all the tax ramifications and legal issues. This is still a horrid idea.  You have to deal with the What Ifs. What if you get in an accident with your car, and then a law suit comes around and they decide to seize your assets? Again the reason isn't important—what is important is your ability to pay a critical ""thing"" is going to be based off accounts and money that are not yours.  So you goof up on child support and they ""freeze"" your accounts. Guess what? Now your family members lose access to their money, because on paper it's your money. Keep in mind it doesn't have to be an irresponsible action that causes the issue. ID theft, for example, often results in a temporary account freeze while things are sorted out. So now your mom can't eat because ""your money"" is pending review.  In this situation you might even turn to your mother or father or brother for help while your accounts are frozen for 2-3 months and everything is sorted out. But now you can't because their money is tied up too.  Lastly lets assume the ID theft issue. That ID thief now has access to a big pool of money. They walk off with everyone's nest eggs—not just yours."
Tier 1 VCs will always outperform median due to access but the entire asset class will probably suck on new vintages due to too much capital chasing past returns with only so many quality startups; probably why they were in juicero in the first place.  But this shows a pretty clear break in good process for a firm of that institutional caliber
"On reflection there are financial products that do what you want, whole-life insurance policies that guarantee an annual dividend calculation on some index with a ceiling and floor.  So you will have a return within a defined minimum and maximum range.   There are a lot of opinions on the internet on this.  This Consumer Reports article is balanced These have a reputation for being bad for the consumer compared to buying term life and investing in a mutual fund separately, but if you want the guarantee (or are a ""moral hazard"" for a life insurance policy, closer to death than you appear on paper) it may be a product for you.   If you're very wealthy, there is an estate tax exploit in insurance death benefits that can make this an exceptional shield on assets for your heirs, with the market return just the gravy."
I doubt it, they never knew who those loans belonged to even a decade ago . .there is no way the underlying assets even if identifiable will be performing or marketable.  It was a simple bank fraud, where banks bundled up all their worthless shit in alphabet soup and the rating agencies rated it aaa and it blew up . . its still the same worthless shit
"Let's illustrate how typical mortgage and its insurance works, from the very beginning. few years pass You're at the last point now. The whole point of the insurance was to preserve value of bank's collateral, at least from its point of view. By making a claim you have testified that a damage has occurred and some value of the property was lost. It's only reasonable for the bank that it wants the value of the asset to be restored to the value of the loan. Or the other way around. Bank doesn't really care if your deck is repaired, it only cares to have right side equal left side in the books. By taking the mortgage you've agreed to preserve the value of the property. There are many ways out of this situation, but pocketing the money isn't one of them.  There is no need to fight the mortgage company, because they're right. Talk with them in good faith and walk through available options. If you feel that you can live with the deck as it is, then paying back part of the loan might be a good idea. You don't ""lose"" the money this way, you're still 2k ahead - just not now, but in 20 years.  Afterthought: it's possible that it would be ""enough"" to re-evaluate the house to ensure it's still worth its original value even with damaged deck (eg due to other improvements you've made over the years or general property prices rising in the area). I put quotes, because you have to count costs of reevaluation which may be too big to make it worth. AND it might turn out it's worth even less, eg if the prices dropped. Or add another collateral, but that means signing another lien which also costs money."
"Are these people making min wage dying en mass? No? Then they are supported. I don't want to sound crude, but there really isn't a profession on earth where you don't have to rough it out for a few years. Life's tough. The ""abundance"" of min wage jobs you speak of are either not as abundant as you think relative to the demand or the minimum wage is already too high relative to the demand. Either way my scenario in my previous comment holds true- do things the right way and you will be all set to make more money.   Staff and wage bloating are all a result of garunteed loans given to optimistic, short-sighted youths. Without the steady flow of these kids who can suddenly afford college there would be no bloating.   I agree on the rest, and the answer is accountability. we should start with holding people accountable to the high-interest loan they took out 4 years before they hand any income."
Its not just Citi and BoFA, even Barclays, HSBC and other large Banks are trading below book value in markets they are listed. Are there particular assets that are causing these two banks to be valued lower relative to their book values than the other banks? There no particular assets. Given the current economic situation most Banks are not making good returns, i.e. expected returns of markets are around 10-12% and the returns getting generated are around 4-6%. The overall slow down in various segments as well as regulations in most countries mean that banks have to relook at the business model in short term and generate more revenue. The market believes that Banks may loose money faster and hence the negative outlook and the trading below the book value. Note Book Value is derived in ideal conditions, i.e. when the company is healthy. If any company were to sell the assets in distress, the actual funds raised would be quite a bit less than Book Value. Its also to be noted that typically Banks would not close out and hence Book Value to an extent is just an indicator. Or is it a residual loathing based on their being the biggest losers of 2008 that are still around today? The 2008 has gone past. This is more recent. If you look most of these banks were doing quite well till last year and had recovered substantially after 2008.
Yes, you can put assets in Canadian banks.  Will it protect your wealth to a greater extent than the FDIC protection provided by the US Government? Probably not. If you do business or spend significant time in Canada, then having at least some money in Canada makes sense. Otherwise, you're trying to protect yourself against some outlying risk of a US banking collapse, while subjecting yourself to a very real currency exchange risk.
I think you're on the right track.  Keep it up. You are still relatively young, and it wont have an impact.  You have experience and you have a lot of education, both will be assets.    I can't comment on the region question because I have only ever worked in one region.  Are you asking from a purely economics/getting paid perspective?  One approach you can take is making a little spreadsheet with average trader salary divided by cost of living in that region. The issue is that trader salaries and bonuses vary SO MUCH in every region, that you can't make any generalizations.
The money is still their money, it never becomes your money. The reason is as follows, The books now look like this:  YOU: Asset: Mattress Liability: 600   THEM: Asset: 600 Liability: Mattress  Now, in their books, they mistakenly thought the mattress was returned, and therefore they returned the mattress to you. The books now look like this  YOU: Asset: Mattress Liability: 600   THEM: Asset: Mattress (incorrect) Liability: 0  As you see, their books are wrong, but yours are still correct. According to your books, you owe them $600, which you paid, but then they paid you back. You still have the liability. Why not just depreciate the mattress by 50% over two years? Then there will be no liability on your books.
I think you're missing Simon Moore's point. His point is that, due to low inflation, the returns on almost all asset classes should be less than they have been historically, so we shouldn't rebalance our portfolio or withdraw from the market and hold cash based on the assumption that stocks (or any other asset) seem to be underperforming relative to historical trends.  His last paragraph is written in case someone might misunderstand him, he is not advocating to hold cash, just that investors should not expect as good returns as has happened historically, since those happened in higher inflation environments. To explain: If the inflation rate historically has been 5% and now it's 2%, and the risk-free-market return should be about 2%, then historically the return on a risk-free asset would be 7% (2%+5%), and now it should be expected to be 4% (2%+2%). So, if you have had a portfolio over some time you might be concerned that the rate of return is worsening, but Simon's point is that before you sell off your stocks / switch investment brokers, you should try to figure out if inflation is the cause of the performance loss. On the subject  of cash: cash always loses value over time from inflation, since inflation is a measure of the increase in prices over time-- it's a part of the definition of what inflation is.  That said, cash holdings lose value more slowly when inflation is lower, so they are relatively less worse than before. The future value of cash doesn't go up in low inflation (you'd need deflation for that), it just decreases at a lower rate, that is, it becomes less expensive to hold- but there still is a price. As an addendum, unless a completely new economic paradigm is adopted by world leaders, we will always see cash holdings decrease in value over time, since modern economics holds that deflation is one of the worst things that can happen to an economy.
"The decision as to what counts as income is up to the bank. You'll need to ask them whether or not rental income can be included in the total. I can offer some anecdotal evidence: when I applied for a mortgage to buy my home, I already had a rental property with a buy-to-let mortgage on it. Initially the bank regarded that property as a liability, not an asset, because it was mortgaged! However, once I was able to show that there was a good history of receiving enough rent, they chose to ignore the property altogether -- i.e. it wasn't regarded as a liability, but it wasn't regarded as a source of income either. More generally, as AakashM says, residential mortgages are computed based on affordability, which is more than just a multiple of your salary. To answer your specific questions: Covered above; it's up to the bank. If you're married, and you don't have a written tenancy agreement, and you're not declaring the ""rent"" on your tax return, then it seems unlikely that this would be regarded as income at all. Conversely, if your partner is earning, why not put their name on the mortgage application too? Buy-to-let mortgages are treated differently. While it used to be the case that they were assessed on rental income only, nowadays lenders may ask for proof of the landlord's income from other sources. Note that a BTL cannot be used for a property you intend to live in, and a residential mortgage cannot be used for a property you intend to let to tenants -- at least, not without the bank's permission."
If on the other hand, you really want the books to represent ""the family"", then you'd need to have the family's books really look more like a partnership. This is getting a bit out of my league, but I'd imagine it'd be something like this: That is to say, the family make the sale, and has the money, and the ""shareholders"" could see it as such, but don't have any obvious direct claim to the money since there hasn't been a distribution to them yet. Any assets would just be assumed to be split three ways, if it's an equal partnership. Then, when being spent, the entity would have an Expense transaction of ""Dividend"" or the like, where it distributes the money to the shareholders so that they could do something with it. Alternatively, you'd just have the capital be contributed, And then any ""income"" would have to be handled on the individual books of the ""investors"" involved, as it would represent that they make the money, and then contributed it to the ""family books"". This approach seems much more complicated than I'd want to do myself, though."
"HR people are the clueless, and you are the typical example: not trying to counter my points, resort to personal attacks, clueless about human skills, job requirements, human relations, etc.  **It's not debatable! As an IT professional, with 100% certainty, when I just heard the idiotic things Susan said in a recent interview, I knew immediately she's a clueless idiot.** Do you doubt my assertion?  Listen! When hearing the story of Susan, the great Chief Information Security Officer at Equifax, responsible for the biggest personal data breach in the world, at least 95% know that with at least 98% certainty she got her jobs because she knows someone or someone knows her, and she has no skills or talent.  Here's, again, what the genius Susan said:  ""*Susan: “There are a lot of things to consider with that. One school of thought says that when you put corporate assets into the cloud, they are more secure because you know exactly what you have there. You have an exact inventory, you know exactly who has access to that data, and how it is controlled.*""  **This is so totally dumb, incorrect and only an clueless idiot will say such a thing.**"
"Others have already commented on the impact of anything which dissuades merchants from raising possible breaches, so I won't dwell on that. Maybe we need stronger legislation, maybe we don't, but it doesn't change today's answer. Often it works the other way around to what you might expect - rather than the merchant noticing and notifying Visa/MC/others, Visa/MC/others spot patterns of suspicious activity (example 1). I don't have any data on the relative numbers of who is being notified/notifying between merchants and payment processors, but at the point when your card is identified as compromised there's no reason to suppose that an individual merchant in the traditional sense has been compromised, let alone identified. In fact because there's a fast moving investigation it could even be a false alarm that led to your card getting cancelled. Conversely it could be a hugely complex multinational investigation which would be jeopardised. It's simply not safe to assume that simply ""brand X"" has been compromised, therefore everything ""brand X"" knows about you is also compromised: Furthermore there's no reason to assume the merchant has even admitted to, or discovered the root cause. MC/Visa/Banks, at the point at which they're cancelling cards simply can't say (at least not in a way that might expensively backfire involving lots of lawyers) because the standard of proof needed to go on record blaming someone is simply not yet met. So: yes it's common that you aren't told anything for all of the above reasons. And of course if you really want to find out more you may have some success with your local data protection legislation and formally make a subject access request (or local equivalent) to see what that brings back. Be sure to do it in writing, to the official address of both mastercard and your bank."
"Because any nation that allows real estate to become an asset class will eventually, given enough time, destroy the wealth potential and social mobility of the non-owner class. There's a reason that aristocracy used to be referred to as ""landed aristocracy"".   The solution is a progressively higher tax on second, third and fourth properties. And an elimination of tax on first properties.  But such proposals are never allowed air time as they gut the rentier class."
All that it is saying is that if you withdraw money from your account it doesn't matter whether it has come from dividends or capital gains, it is still a withdrawal. Of course you can only withdraw a capital gain if you sell part of the assets. You would only do this if it was the right time for you to sell the asset.
"Yeah...I was a libertarian until they said they want to end the Federal Reserve. I'm more of a conservative.   Your point (that a minimum wage at a major metropolitan area is often not a ""livable"" wage) is irrelevant. Wages are a  fee given to employees for their work. The way an employee earns a high wage is by providing value that is greater than that wage. If the value an employee brings to an employer is less than the wage he's paid, an employer will lay off that individual because the employee *costs* the employer money. Therefore, setting a minimum wage simply means you ban certain individuals (usually first time workers or otherwise unskilled) from the workforce because they currently do not have the skills and/or experience to justify that wage. Furthermore, the higher you set the minimum wage, the more people you deprive of jobs."
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://qz.com/851066/almost-all-the-10-million-jobs-created-since-2005-are-temporary/) reduced by 61%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Survey research conducted by economists Lawrence Katz of Harvard University and Alan Krueger at Princeton University shows that from 2005 to 2015, the proportion of Americans workers engaged in what they refer to as &amp;quot;Alternative work&amp;quot; jumped from 10.7% to 15.8%. Alternative work is characterized by being temporary or unsteady-such as work as an independent contractor or through a temporary help agency.  &gt; &amp;quot;And over 60% was due to the [the rise] of independent contractors, freelancers and contract company workers.&amp;quot; In other words, nearly all of the 10 million jobs created between 2005 and 2015 were not traditional nine-to-five employment.  &gt; Katz and Krueger found that each of the common types of alternative work increased from 2005 to 2015-with the largest changes in the number of independent contractors and workers provided by contract firms, such as janitors that work full-time at a particular office, but are paid by a janitorial services firm.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/79k7gc/almost_all_the_10_million_jobs_created_since_2005/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~237356 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 **Alternative**^#2 **job**^#3 **Krueger**^#4 **full-time**^#5"