vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I'm not saying they shouldn't try, and perhaps, in the very long run it might be a good idea. In fact, if they were able to fix some of their own problems, it would be a great idea. Here is my understanding of a few points to suggest as of now it's not: - Ukraine is still very corrupt. - Ukraine doesn't really have an economy that can support itself. - Ukraine had traditional ties to Russia, and these ties included economic ties.  To join the EU, a country should be in a position to foremost support itself. Not only will joining mean having huge inflation, but you're substituting one creditor and buyer for another. Problem is, you're right beside Russia, so you should be extra prepared for hard times. Most peopke I've spoken to don't necessarily agree on what's right or wrong, but economically, sticking with Russia and cleaning up the government would be the ideal. Problem is Russia exerts a less than clean influence. This is a problem, and where many people are stuck. Because just switching to EU will probably be harder on average people.
While in the UK and travelling to Europe, I heard of the FairFX euro card from the website Money Supermarket (affiliate link which waives the sign-up fee). The link also includes many other alternative prepaid euro cards which may be better suited for your uses.  The FairFX card is available in both GBP and EUR, and both products come with chip and pin. They also charge relatively little as compared to most bank cards (no currency conversion on use, $2~ withdrawal charges from ATM).  I generally had a good experience with this card, and was able to purchase items both in person as well as online using it.
Both Spain and Italy's economies are trash tier at this point.  Are you actually trying to include the UK in the EU at this point?  And then you reference countries as being high quality that have smaller populations than most US states.  Stop using irrelevant arguments.
I'm glad you have a sense of humor!  However, back to the people described in the OP. They don't have the opportunity to get a few day labor jobs in order to raise funds.  In fact, for an unfortunate number of them, their solution is to migrate to Europe in order to do exactly that.  This has caused massive problems in the European countries surrounding the Mediterranean. I'm sure you've heard about it in the media, but if not, here is an article by the BBC: [Mediterranean migrants crisis: Why is Africa silent?](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-32480410).
There is a theory that the reason this has come to pass over millenia is simply because Europe has harsh winters, whereas South America, and Africa, and most of Asia do not. The theory is that having to deal with winter - including all of the long term planning, logistics, and infrastructure that go with it - was a forcing function on society that caused Europe (and later on it's settlements) to advance more rapidly.    It has nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with seasons.
"You're right. We have only one historical example of successfully getting these types of policies changed, and that was by ""striking.""  And not just symbolic, two-days-and-we're-back type stuff. These were serious challenges to the normal government monopoly on violence. Laws were passed trying to force workers back to their jobs and/or mandate free passage across the picket line by scab workers, which put the police in the position of having to try to enforce those laws, which resulted in armed conflict between police and strikers. People on both sides died.  The result: Workplace safety laws, the end of child labor, the weekend, the 40-hour work week, and all the other stuff we now enjoy. (Or rather that Europeans enjoy, even though Americans fought just as hard and died just as much to achieve them.)"
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-italy-euro-analysis/italys-dual-currency-schemes-may-be-long-road-to-euro-exit-idUKKCN1BJ208) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; If any of their schemes are adopted with success they may convince many Italians that the economy can function without the euro, and make an eventual euro exit more likely.  &gt; They have settled on the dual currency proposal as a way of continuing to tap into widespread anti-euro sentiment in Italy while avoiding - at least for now - the huge upheaval and market turmoil that outright euro exit may trigger.  &gt; Italians were strongly pro-euro when the single currency was launched in 1999, but since then Italy has been the most sluggish euro zone economy and many blame the euro for their falling living standards and high unemployment.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6yz18c/italys_dual_currency_schemes_may_be_long_road_to/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~206798 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*: **euro**^#1 **currency**^#2 **Italy**^#3 **Italian**^#4 **proposal**^#5"
Right. It's free market when it works, and help subsidise me when it doesn't.  This tax is already paid by European airlines operating in Europe; and European airlines have to pay American taxes when they operate in the USA. The finding was that *American* airlines have to pay *European* taxes when they operate in Europe.  However you're right that *this* could be the straw that broke the camel's back, you're wrong that we need to let Americans preserve their delusions. Let it crumble, and maybe the shareholders of the survivors will assassinate the next CEO who recommends a race to the bottom.  By the way, [of course the TSA consults airlines](http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2011/1004.shtm). I can't imagine why anyone would think otherwise.
"Does anyone else find it... ""odd""... That the EU keeps spanking uber-successful American companies...  Yet, the US has never needed to do the same to any European companies?  We only go after them for such petty reasons as explicitly funding terrorism or soliciting US tax evaders as their core marketing strategy."
[2][3] The active phase of the crisis, which manifested as a liquidity crisis, can be dated from August 9, 2007, when BNP Paribas terminated withdrawals from three hedge funds citing ""a complete evaporation of liquidity"".[4] The bursting of the U.S. (United States) housing bubble, which peaked in 2006,[5] caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[6][7] The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of policies that encouraged home ownership, providing easier access to loans for (lending) borrowers, overvaluation of bundled subprime mortgages based on the theory that housing prices would continue to escalate, questionable trading practices on behalf of both buyers and sellers, compensation structures that prioritize short-term deal flow over long-term value creation, and a lack of adequate capital holdings from banks and insurance companies to back the financial commitments they were making.[8][9][10][11] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.[12] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. In the U.S., Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. (continued- thats just the first two paragraphs)"
Think of it this way, if you traveled back through time one month - with perfect knowledge of AAPL's stock price over that period - which happens to peak viciously then return to its old price at the end of the period - wouldn't you pay more for an American option? Another way to think about options is as an insurance policy.  Wouldn't you pay more for a policy that covered fire and earthquake losses as opposed to just losses from earthquakes? Lastly - and perhaps most directly - one of the more common reasons people exercise (as opposed to sell) an American option before expiration is if an unexpected dividend (larger than remaining time value of the option) was just announced that's going to be paid before the option contract expires.  Because only actual stockholders get the dividends, not options holders.  A holder of an American option has the ability to exercise in time to grab that dividend - a European option holder doesn't have that ability. Less flexibility (what you're paying for really) = lower option premium.
citation obtained from this piece: [The Mindless Harm of Economic Sanctions](https://consortiumnews.com/2017/08/27/the-mindless-harm-of-economic-sanctions/)  Russia update: [Russian GDP could grow 2%-3% in 2017 - Volodin](http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=773931)  [Visa, Boeing, Ford and other US-based giants stand against the introduction of further sanctions against Russia, CNN reported with reference to a source in US Congress.](https://np.reddit.com/r/russia/comments/6wfptm/visa_boeing_ford_and_other_usbased_giants_stand/)  [China says sanctions won't help as Trump targets Venezuela](http://www.euronews.com/2017/08/28/china-says-sanctions-wont-help-as-trump-targets-venezuela)  [The European Commission has again raised concerns over proposed US sanctions on Russia, as the bill is passed by the US House of Representatives. It is feared the ploy will damage EU energy independence.](http://www.euronews.com/2017/07/26/european-commission-concerned-as-russia-sanctions-bill-passes-in-us-congress)  [Germany's economics minister implores the US president to step up and discuss a joint approach to Russia in an exclusive commentary for Handelsblatt Global's sister publication.](https://global.handelsblatt.com/opinion/lets-talk-about-sanctions-808740)
(http://mediaroom.kbb.com/2017-02-01-New-Car-Transaction-Prices-Remain-High-Up-More-Than-3-Percent-Year-Over-Year-In-January-2017-According-To-Kelley-Blue-Book) &gt;unaffordable health care Fixable. Once Obamacare is eliminated and replaced with a more market-oriented system we should see costs come down. It's absolute insanity that people are forced to pay for insurance riders on stuff they will never use, effectively lighting money on fire. Policies will get stripped down to essentials and serve customers much better. High risk / chronic patients will go into government programs where they belong, and the vast majority of the healthy people left will see bills fall. &gt;massive government debt [High, but not really a problem.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S) Debt to GDP is perfectly fine and manageable where it is, and the government has the power to write Treasurys and sell them to willing buyers to finance spending. The dollar is the reserve currency of the world and will be for decades to come. The Euro has no chance and the international community doesn't trust China to manage the yuan well. &gt;wealth inequality that's going to explode under Trump Wealth inequality is irrelevant to market returns. Absolutely 100% irrelevant. Financial returns are generated where opportunities exist to make a financial return, not where wealth inequality is highest or lowest. However, to challenge your view, consider that some of the best returns in the last 10-20 years have come from emerging markets like the BRICs, which have the highest wealth inequality. &gt;automation That's what was said about the cotton gin, the car, the steel mill, the train, the telephone, the internet. Wrong every time, and will continue to be wrong in the future. It's pretty arrogant to think that somehow things will be ""different this time."" Human capacity for innovation is ridiculous. [You're arguing against a very strong and accelerating trend.]
But Greece is in the EU - therefore the one-armed drug addict has the means to get money from his relatives. Because most of the relatives have an alcohol problem (Spain, Portugal, Italy, France) they turn to their hard-working but slightly naive neighbours (Austria,Germany,Netherlands) for money. They believe that they´ll have to pay for just one last dose of crack cocaine and then the Greeks will kick the habit.
"No, this is not solid advice. It's a prediction with very little factual basis, since US interest rates are kept just as low and debt levels are just as high as in the Eurozone. The USD may rise or fall against the EUR, stay the same or move back and forth. Nobody can say with any certainty. However, it is not nearly as risky as ""normal forex speculation"", since that is usually very short term and highly leveraged. You're unlikely to lose more than 20-30% of your capital by just buying and holding USD. Of course, the potential gains are also limited."
&gt; Oatly said it plans to work with three more farmers to demonstrate the environmental benefits of switching from livestock to more crop production. But Arnesson says livestock farmers need government support in order to do so in large numbers.  Yes, because why would you expect a European farmer ever to conduct their business in a profitable way if they can just keep their hand up? 38 percent of the whole EU budget is still being spent on subsidising farms that should have gone bust decades ago. I'm not saying the market always knows best, or that environmentally sound farming should not be promoted somehow, but this attitude that government funding will happily keep your outdated lifestyle business alive is just pathetic.
Because there's no classes or even full on majors in English anywhere in Europe...  Edit: Thanks for the downvotes. Seems like Americans like to fuck their lives up financially until they're 60 than to look for alternatives that don't handicap them.
I'll go a step further: I think he did it not only out of investing acumen, but literally because he believed it was the right thing to do for his country. He understood how much misery could come from the collapse of such a creditor, and the risk he took was offset somewhat by the knowledge that his actions were, at worst, delaying the implosion of the US banking system, and at best preventing it.  It bled furiously for a few months, and the healing took several years, but his efforts quite literally single-handedly reduced the pain and duration of the Great Recession. It could have ended like the Great Depression, with over a decade of rebuilding, endless soup lines, and taken a greater toll than it did (which was heavy enough).
I don't buy it.  The evidence offered seems weak.  Stocks are pretty high, but debt in the US has decreased according to the Federal Reserve statistics concerning debt.  It's true there is a little inflation in prices because of low interest rates, but as the Fed starts raising rates, there will be a correction.  Not a recession.
Where's the data? You made a claim, now yiou can back it up, or you can recant.  Ad hominem attacks don't support an argument, sure, but given that /u/TrumpTaint *has actually provided evidence*, and you haven't, what are you waiting for?
When Obama came into office we were running a roughly $1.16 trillion deficit, and when he left office it was only $600 billion.  Yes, the total debt kept going up because he never got that number to zero, but he made a lot of progress.  Trump, by contrast, seems determined to blow up the deficit, just has the last Republican president did.  And the Republican before that.  And the Republican before that...  EDIT: Thanks for the gold kind stranger!
"&gt; You're the one arguing for a change away from the status quo here, to something that not only is entirely untested but requires everyone to do it at once AND everyone to think just like you do for it to 'work properly'. It's nothing but hypotheticals, yet you're saying the burden of proof is on me to 'prove' that your hypothetical scenarios won't work? I don't have to prove anything when I'm advocating for not being a part of your system. I am in no way advocating that you be forced into mine. I'm not advocating any positive action towards you, nor anyone else. Simply arguing against the status quo doesn't place a burden of proof upon me. &gt; That's not a thing you can do, you can't prove a negative. Then don't make that claim. Easy as that. I laid out how the market could deal with a court system, and you devolved into making unsupported claims. When we get back to what does make sense, we can have productive conversation. It's not productive to use baseless conjecture and unsupported claims. &gt; All i can do is say look around at all the free markets and stateless populations we have now living in perfect harmony with each other and the environment. Oh wait. They don't exist. Because they don't work in the real world. Wrong. It does not follow that because something does not exist that it does not work. &gt; Any advantage is going to be used to bludgeon the competition with until you have a monopoly/quasi-state You have no evidence to support this. Why are you reverting to this nonsense? &gt; it relies on the population being informed in and believing in the system enough to make a conscious effort to not buy the cheaper goods at the store with the bad business practices, or potentially drive further to a different store if it's the store doing the bad practice! No, it does not. This is a straw man. A voluntary society doesn't preclude the possibility of people buying bad food or something like that.
&gt;If you want to claim such nonsense then you have to prove it.   Honestly this all scans with the same naivety as the communists saying WELL IT HASN'T BEEN TRIED PROPERLY YET. I mean, it only takes to the third paragraph until you get full on tin foil saying ALL THE WARS ARE BORNE OF STATES. I mean there have been no non-states since the bloody bronze age. Great argument there. Lost my interest completely. I suppose that makes me a 'statist', are you going to call me a cuck next?  I do love the irony that you say I have no evidence or reason to support something like 2 paragraphs after you say market monopolies are a myth - I mean it's not like there aren't many historical monopolies to point at to prove you wrong. Why not the east india company for example - got a royal charter to literally do whatever the hell it wanted. Doesn't get more free market than that. Ended up fucking everything up and killing a whole bunch of people, which ultimately seems to be the measure of how badly your philosophy fucks up.   Ultimately i find this philosophy unnecessarily reductionist, it lacks the nuance and resource flexibility to deal with shocks to the system such as external invasion or environmental catastrophe i.e.what protection do you have from these private courts if someone is polluting your water supply? Your air? What defines 'your air' and 'your water'? The company that's polluting it want to use that other court which is far more lenient on pollution than the one that you'd like. They also have a lot more in the way of money &amp; resources than you - how do you resolve that?   I mean these are all hypothetical worst case scenarios; it's not like there was a complete breakdown of law an order in the old west - but it's not like it was a particularly nice place to live either. I mean, the current system is far from perfect, but all this sounds a lot like burning the house down to get rid of a spider; Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others.
While I certainly agree with you that the incentive is there, I don't see how you can claim it occurs without real evidence.   People do things that go against their rational incentives all the time, it's the whole reason behavioral econ exists.
"I guess I should explain a little in detail since you really don't seems to understand why sometimes anecdotal evidences are not useful and why sometimes they are.   It has nothing to do with economy sub or not, but rather simplw logic. Anecdotal evidences can be useful to refute universal claims theories. For example, if anyone claims that ""all swans are white"", then all it takes is one anecdotal observation of one black swan is enough to disprove this theory. There is no need to bring additional statistcally significant evidence in order to prove ""Not all swans are white"". In fact this is how lot's of theories were disproved by contracting observation.  A lot of people keep hearing things about ""anecdotal"", but never truly understood why they are not significantly important in certain situations, thus making the mistake."
"You are spreading misinformation and propaganda in the form of ""knowledge"" which is why you should provide evidence for your claims.   The argument that ammonia is ""natural"" is ridiculous.   A lot of things are natural will kill you in small amounts.   You don't go into detail for your claims other than to act like people who don't want ammonia added to their meat are dumb and uninformed. Why don't tell us how much ammonia is okay? Should we just trust these corporations that everything they do is good for us?  You can spout your opinions on food where ever you want, but you are just as big an intellectual fraud as the people who avoid gluten and don't know what it is."
What I found was the scientists had multiple studies using different approaches with solid science and similar conclusions backed by decades of data. The skeptics had cherry-picked data, specious reasoning, misrepresentation of the work of others, and often had direct financial ties to big oil. Today I know of no valid evidence that the planet is not warming or that humans are not responsible. This makes this issue into another litmus test for me. If you seek the truth then you will learn that global warming is a real and a serious threat. If someone claims its a hoax, unsettled science, not human caused, or not much danger then either that person misleading you to push an agenda or is listening to people who are. Citizen Trump called global warming a Chinese hoax several years ago but I was willing to give him a chance to surround himself with people who actually knew the science. Since becoming president he has appointed a climate change denier to head the EPA and much of his cabinet, doubled down on coal, oil, and gas mining and pipelines, pulled out of the Paris Accords, cut funding for climate studies, banned government scientists from speaking about the issue publicly, and rolled back regulations that would require or encourage reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Once again this issue shows me that President Trump is ignoring what the scientists are saying and what is best for our country long term and embracing policies that will make more money for the wealthy."
"Sure, and I made it clear in my post that I'm willing to accept that I may be wrong.  But the author does a poor job of arguing his point, his argument in the article is based on an unsubstantiated claim that a certain activity is bad. He says it ""impairs price performance"" but offers no proof that this occurs.  Now granted, I haven't had a chance to look at the data either, but as myself and other posters have mentioned, this claim is quite debatable. I need a bit more material to be convinced."
"Proof of interference please. No ""that guy/those guys said it happened"".   But an expert or authority saying: ""we have concrete proof,and *this is it*"", i.e a claim of proof backed up immediately by exposing and explaining said concrete proof.  Actual proof. Not inductive reasoning.  I'm asking because I stopped following the issue for a time, and *I want genuine proof*. I am not american, I have no stake in the issue and ***I am not saying there wasn't interference***, I just want solid proof, of which I haven't been sent any so far.  Only insults and aggression for daring to be tough to convince. That doesn't bode well for their arguments, btw."