vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
A bank is putting money on the line for you when they loan you money, which is not something they have to do. Not telling them what you intend to do with the money they are giving you, when asked, is fraud, which if you are caught will put you into very deep trouble.
They had the loans insured.  The only way they could lose is if US gov't didn't bail out AIG.  The customers may have a high risk of default, but there was little risk of the banks losing their money.  Besides, like AnythingApplied says, those are the kinds of people they can charge all sorts of fees to, they're a fucking gold mine.
Kantrowitz estimates the recovery rate would need to fall to below 50% in order for default prevention efforts to become more lucrative than defaults themselves. Not to mention: http://studentloanjustice.org/defaults-making-money.html &gt; So essentially, the Department is given a choice: Either do nothing and get nothing, or outlay cash with the knowledge that this outlay will realize a 22 percent return, ultimately (minus the governments cost of money and collection costs). From this perspective, it is clear that based solely on financial motivations, and without specific detailed knowledge of the loan (i.e. borrower characteristics, etc.), the chooser would clearly favor the default scenario, for not only the return, but perhaps the potential savings in subsidy payment as well, And don't forget the penalties accruing to the person defaulting; they will probably have to move out of the country in order to escape collection. And let's factor in the huge ROI the lender sees by creating an indentured servant class. Plus, the gov't will issue as much currency as it wants, to make *itself* whole. And how much of a loss IS the loss, when the whole of the loan amount went right back into the local economy, paying professors, janitors, landlords, grocery stores, etc.? And don't forget all THOSE taxes (income and sale) that the gov't collects. Government will collect ~30%-50% of the loan immediately as income and sales tax, plus a portion of it every time the money changes hands (I pay income tax, then use some of my after-tax money to pay you for a product or service, and you still have to pay tax on that money, and so on). So it's more complicated than having ""robbed the person holding the debt"". Banks at 30x leverage don't lose money as long as they get back 1/30th of the total amount lent out, including interest, fees, and penalties, before considering write-offs and government repayment. In fact, the point of over-leverage is so you CAN make loans that have risk attached. If you could only lend what you actually had, you would have to stay away from anything risky because it would be too easy to lose money.
Square does not care if you run a $10 transaction to test the system. They are concerned with its use to move meaningful amounts of money.    The only people who do this will be the Dunning-Kruger gang, who only think they are clever.  Because of course Square will hunt them down, sue, garnish and/or prosecute them!  But the expense of doing so is all on Square, making it a total lose.  The cheapest resolution is to not let it happen in the first place.   The ~3% cash advance fees, lack of rewards points, and the higher interest rate are not just for profiteering.  They reflect, and pay for, the higher risk of loaning money via cash advance: to put it indelicately, the risk of default.   Cash advance credit limits are often much lower than purchase limits.   If a merchant is selling himself phantom merchandise to get easy cash advances, it means he is not using regular ways of borrowing money.  Perhaps because he can't, because he has exhausted his other opportunities to borrow, risk managers have cut him off.  Square has no reason to care either way; but the issuing bank does, and through Visa etc., they will disallow this behavior.   **  PayPal Here's rate used here instead of Square's, to simplify math.
I have a loan through them. Maybe you're one of my investors. Lol. Been thinking about becoming a lender now that my finances are back in order.   The only drawback to the loan through them is that they don't let you change your payment due date. They have a grace period that you can still pay the loan by without a penalty, but after my work pushed our pay date back by 5 days, it was barely enough. And now I don't have a grace period.  Overall am happy with them tho.
Have you signed anything? If not - then tell them  you don't know who they are and have not agreed to pay. If you did sign that piece of paper at the airport, then you have probably agreed to pay. Either way, it won't go away. As you've already discovered, ignoring things doesn't make them go away. You should make an effort, as hard as it may be, and call them. Notify them that you have never asked for this card, never activated it, and in fact never had it in your possession. You should stress out that it was issued without your authorization, which is probably illegal. And you wish the account to be closed and the charge reversed. Otherwise it will just grow and make your life miserable.
I can only speak to natural gas but I imagine the answer for electricity is the same. In general, yes, it is better to lock into a fixed price contract as in the long run, natural gas prices increase over time.  However, if you locked (signed a fixed price contract) in prior to the economic downturn, most likely you were better off not doing so but the key is long-term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_prices However, do your research as fixed priced contracts vary considerably from company to company. http://www.energyshop.com/ I think it's a good time to sign a fixed-term contract right now as I don't see prices coming down much further with global economies are now recovering from the downturn. HTH
The US never *had* this...Average people have *always* been considered cogs in the machine in America.  It's a part of the twisted ethic that runs this place.  Those who lift themselves above the morass are those who are celebrated and objectified.  Those who cannot deserve their fate.  It's why we can't have nice things.
maybe it would turn into an Oligopoly on it's own, but regulation as that pervasive is what I'm trying to avoid here.  I advocate Worker Co-ops as the best examples for these firms because they actually allow a sense of welfare taken up by the workers who can self provide with actual trades (and because their co-ownership allows a voluntary loophole in minimum wage laws, you get a real chance to vindicate/prove Adam Smith's theory of flexible prices and wages based on economic activity.).  With self-provided welfare, the Government can pull out of both transfer payments as well as financial regulations because these markets have become more differentiated to a diversity of opinions, so Government can step back and focus on its more important role of Researcher and Developer, which it tends to do better at than other roles.  Firms can't do this if they are breaking even, like they would in perfect competition.
That you can't cover the cost of a doctors visit? That you can't cover the cost of the medication? In this example, a common one, historically the ""mother of the house"" would go you have a flu, have some chicken noodle soup and go to bed. That would be the end of it. Cost of care is a day's lost wages (or maybe a weeks) and a few cans of soup. However today, because we choose to, the cost of care is much higher. We go to the doctor, pay our co-pays, the insurance has to pay it's part. The doctors office has to carry the cost of the staff it takes to see you, and the staff it takes to handle the claims with the insurance company. And now your flu, cost $1,500. But again that's not exactly true either. With heath insurance and ""normal"" medical care (like sprained ankles, and colds, etc.) the insurance only really covers the cost of having insurance. In that same flu example, if you went to the doctor as a ""self pay"" (no insurance) you would often time get a much lower, and reasonable rate. Frequently, under the cost of your standard co-pay. This seems like the doctors being ""bad"" but it's not. They don't have to file a claim, they don't have to keep track of it. They get immediate payment, not payment 6 months down the line that they need to share with other businesses. With ""critical"" or ""catastrophic"" care, heath insurance is still a good thing. If you have a big, unforeseen event, then heath insurance is great at helping you avoid that risk. With chronic (long term) care, your back in the same boat as the flu. Often times you can get better, and cheaper, care as a self pay patent, then as a insured patent. That is not always the case however. So you have to measure your own circumstance, and decide if insurance is right for you. But remember insurance is about risk avoidance, and not about paying less. You will ALWAYS pay more for insurance.
Everything on Earth can go wrong. Including, god forbids, your MIL being hit by a bus the next day and your ex inheriting all of her belongings and none of her promises to you. This is a bad idea. What I would suggest doing would be for your MIL to buy your ex a cheap and simple clunker to move herself around without you being ever involved. If you still want to go into this adventure, I'd advise to do these things: A written contract with MIL that details all the terms and agreements. Cover the potential unfortunate events like the one I made up in the first sentence. A written contract with your ex about how and when she can use your car. Insurance to cover all the potential damages and liabilities she can cause, in your name, with her as additional insured. Be ready to bear all the costs associated with the car. You're not a co-signer in this scenario - you're the only signer. The dealership will come after you and you alone.
You want to bend over and take it up the ass by a bunch of tyrants you go ahead, but true patriots know that the fight to preserve our constitutional rights never ends. It certainly doesn't end on a Friday afternoon because some troll shows up and tells you it ended last week.  They are **_inalienable_** rights. That means you or anyone else cannot take them away, and they cannot be signed away. Period.  Our grandparents fought and died for this protection and you would simply throw it away without a fight. Shame on you.  All of you dissidents should spend some time to really learn what the constitution grants you, and then spend the rest of your days helping defend it against those who would try to nickle and dime it to death. You're either with us or you're against us.
This could be the worst anecdote I've seen for a while. You've used Uber once and not used Lyft.   And I don't like Uber all that much but making a decision which company to work for based on a sign in bonus seems very short sighted.
One owns bar/restaurants and is a millionaire, but claims he never used anything he learned from the degree. He is more of a COO so in a way he doesn't need to think about the economics of the business. He just needs to operate/maintain.   The other, lost his job so parents bought him a gas station.   These people never really went the corporate route so they aren't the best examples, imo.
Where do I stand with this? The money was not your's. So co-operate with the bank to get this sent back ASAP. It is good that the equipment is still with you. Yes Bank would need evidence that you were a victim and not party to this crime. Co-operate with the relevant authorities and get this resolved. It is a lesson learnt where luckily no money was lost, but quite a bit of hassle and personal time lost.
Per their merchant agreements, Visa and MasterCard say that the signature on the back of the card is the proper way to identify the card holder.  If a card is not signed, the merchant is supposed to check your ID and make you sign the card before accepting it for payment.  Merchants are not allowed the require an ID for paying with a signed card. Of course, store employees rarely know all these things.  Some will gladly accept an unsigned card.  Some will try to make you show your ID.
"I signed the checks ""JoeTaxpayer, parent"" and never had an issue with my bank. Note, I am in the US, and my experience may just be with my particular bank."
Most of these same variables are at play when you shop for actual insurance for your car or home, which is why your premiums will go up or down with the same insurer and why someone else always seems to have a better deal (pretty much every insurer can say that ""drivers who switched saved an average of $X""; of course they did, otherwise they wouldn't have switched). Thinking of it in those terms, it's easy to see how this number can vary widely based on numbers you can't see. You're free to say no, and it will cost you nothing right up until you sign something that says you agree to be penalized for saying no. While the overall amount of the payments does decrease, the PMI has gone up, and that's money you'll never see again just like interest (except you can deduct interest; not PMI). I would do the tax math; find out how much you could deduct over the next year in interest on your current loan, then on their proposed terms, and what the resulting tax bills will be from both. You may save monthly only to pay more than you saved to Uncle Sam at the end of the year. You're also free to negotiate. The worst they can do is stay firm on their offer, but they may take a second look and say ""you're right, that PMI is rather high, we'll try again and see if we can do better"". They can either negotiate with their insurer, or they can eat some of the PMI cost that they're currently passing on to you."
if in america,  actually voting out your state and national congressperson is the best start. Find a privacy bill and if they signed to erode privacy (patriot act, state consumer laws, national consumer laws) then vote the fuckers out and send them a note why. They will never be responsible until we force them to be. Congress has low ratings like between 10 and 20 percent favorability yet a 80 percent incumbent range. my Primary residence on the books is California, and I always vote against our congresspeople democrat or republican based on their votes. It just takes about 15 min of research to see if they are worthy or not.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cohn/trump-anger-at-cohn-raises-doubts-about-his-white-house-tenure-sources-idUSKCN1BJ06U) reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; BOSTON/WASHINGTON - A newly fraying relationship between U.S. President Donald Trump and top White House economic adviser Gary Cohn has raised questions about how long Cohn will stay in his job, say two people with close ties to the White House.  &gt; One source close to the White House said Trump wanted to fire Cohn.  &gt; While the interview was intended to signal that Cohn had no plans to leave the White House and planned to push ahead with his signature project, tax reform, sources said the comments upset Trump.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6yvmft/trump_anger_at_cohn_raises_doubts_about_his_white/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~206512 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*: **Cohn**^#1 **White**^#2 **Trump**^#3 **House**^#4 **source**^#5"
If you start measuring deficits as a percentage of GDP, by the time a President actually signs off on a budget, the Dems are far better at managing to reduce deficits than Republicans.  If however you count the deficits commonly left to Presidents in their first year, the dems are only moderately better at reducing deficits.
Well the Fucking Moron in the white house never had the courage to sign up, in fact he grew a pair of very convenient spurs to dodge his draft, instead a pair of man sized balls. If anything he should be ashamed of his cowardice and have more respect for the fallen and their families who had the courage to sign up to serve their nation.  And be glad for them, because were it not for them you would soon feel the beard of a taliban tickle the back of your neck as he asked you if you were enjoying what you had signed up for.
I can too which is why i'm semi wary. They're just in it to sign as much people up as possible because if they find winners they can make money.  But at the same time if you can do well you can make good money as well. It's not like they're taking my money in fees or whatnot.
I'm wondering about the statistic. I'm technically an affiliate for one of these MLM companies but chose specifically not to work the business. I signed up because I like the products and as an affiliate I get a steeper discount than I did as a customer. I know several people who do this. Are they counting us as part of the 99%? Is it really losing money if we're not actively part of the business?
I am not fit but not overweight, I never go to the gym, just eat healthy.  My co-workers all in their late 30's early 40's all are very fit, and all go to the gym at lunch time for like 1.5 hours.
"While I agree that there's no known health risk, I do appreciate disclosure.  It doesn't have to be a big deal.  Nobody's upset if the sign says ""Gala Apples"" instead of ""Apples"", so why would it be so hard to say ""Monsanto #204054 Strain Corn"" instead of ""Yellow Corn""?  I would expect-- as GMO technology improves-- we'll see bolder and bolder changes to food products, some of which might inadvertently change the allergen profile.  (conversely, we might even see it as a deliberate target-- for example, a peanut that was designed to be less allergenic)  I also think there are some non-GMO selection processes that could benefit from disclosure and name-and-shame.  The whole ""let's engineer herbicide-resistant crops"" model gives a license for carpet-bombing with herbicides, instead of judicious use.  It would not surprise me if such crops end up reaching the market with higher average levels of herbicide residue.  So make it easy for me to not buy ""Roundup Ready"" crops.  The big mistake with GMO and labelling is that the GMO industry lost control over the narrative.  They didn't hit the market with exciting products consumers would care about.  Stuff that would make them say ""the future of food will actually be better than Grandma's heirlloom crops.""  There was never a sign in the store that said ""Try our new GMO peas with 30% more vitamins!"" or ""This fresh local corn in December is made possible by a GM strain with a longer growing season!""  What we got were lukewarm products like ""it's the same crappy tomato as before but it takes three days longer to rot in the back of the fridge"".  If the benefits weren't obvious for the consumer, it became easy for the conspiracy-theorists to take hold of the story."
"&gt;It seems that the corporation was ordered to pay, no? The man does not claim he can't pay it, he claims the corporate entity that is supposed to pay it can't pay it. Exactly. Robert K (Rich Dad) established a company called Rich Global LLC. Which was sued by his partners in that company for failure to pay their agreed upon percentage of income. [From this article](http://abcnews.go.com/Business/rich-dad-poor-dad-author-files-bankruptcy/story?id=17463158#.UHhXSG_A_6M): The company had been weighed down by a lawsuit filed by Learning Annex, one of Kiyosaki's earliest backers who had helped arrange his public speaking events earlier on, Forbes reported. Bill Zanker, the founder and president of Learning Annex, sued Kiyosaki after he allegedly failed to pay a percentage of profits from his speaking engagements. A district judge in New York awarded Learning Annex $23.7 million. ""I took Kiyosaki's brand and made it bigger,"" Zanker told the New York Post. ""The deal was I would get a percentage, and he reneged. We had a signed letter of intent. The Learning Annex is his greatest promoter. We put his 'Rich Dad' brand on a stage. We truly prepared him for great fame and riches. But when it was time for him to pay up, he said 'no.' "" Robert Kiyosaki, author of the book, ""Rich Dad, Poor Dad"" filed for corporate bankruptcy through one of his companies, Rich Global LLC. A few years ago Robert K started another company called Rich Dad Co. He shifted all sales from books, seminars videos etc from his first company to the new company. It seems this was a fantastic stroke of lucky timing - or he purposefully did this while talks were souring between him and his former business partners. The former company is a shell with very little assets. That's pretty convenient. &gt;This man probably runs several businesses. Yes he does - I have provided examples of this in my previous posts.
"You get to determine who gets help and who doesn't and how much. Even if you are a perfectly benevolent person and have never shown favor to one person over another because of how you felt or any other reason. That does not mean all of your co-workers are just as benevolent. I bet you know at least one ""questionable"" person related to your office. At least one ""favor"" for a friend or a co-workers friend."
They have not. I use to be on of those people and a friend pointed it out to me.   I did not do it all the time but often enough. Now I am much more self aware.  I do know someone who does have an impossible time eating with his mouth closed. He knows this and makes sure to never eat with co-workers.
&gt; . The entire rest of the world signed on to it. So, yay 'murica and all but the rest of the world is dropping dollars on that big time.   They signed something not-binding, and they aren't dropping shit.  China and India are actually asking for money to be given to them.
Uh - yeah, and free land. Trust me. If Bezos said that he would build in Houston, or Memphis - the cities in question would immediately sign over the deed to hundreds of acres of land at no charge.    Walmart does the same shit when the open distribution centers.
You have several choices:  If you can't count on it being there every month, and there is no hope of getting it via the courts, then it appears you need to assume it never will be there.
Might not be a bad buy tomorrow morning but it won't spike back up if Amazon is just going to run them out of business, which means your money is being thrown away. It's better to invest in something that didn't just have it's death warrant drafted and signed.
&gt; If a crook standing behind me in line seems me enter my pin  Easy to prevent with a cover over your fingers.  Hey! Do you mind giving your credit card to the waiter... who takes it to the back of the restaurant... gods knows what he does with YOUR credit card. writing down the number... scanning it... copying it... I am sure the waiter has a clean background... never ever ex-criminals get hired as waiters... high standards for waiters... and then the waiter give the card back to you so you can tip him? Don't forget to sign the receipt... so the waiter also have your most recent signature.  Or, do you prefer the card in your hand, while you scan it and then enter a PIN on a mobile device you hold in your hand?  How much fraud with ATM cards versus credit cards?  &gt; If he sees me sign my name he's less likely to do that.  We already determined that nobody even care about signatures or check them.  Have you EVER have a case that your signature was questioned? No? Well, try an experiment in the next week: always sign with a totally new and made-up signature. Then, let me know if even one transaction was rejected.