vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The problem isn't capitalism per se, but rather a failure of regulation. (Yes, purely pedantically, that means the problem *is* capitalism, but I hate saying it that way because it comes across as suggesting that capitalism in and of itself is bad)  For capitalism to work, you *must* have regulation. When regulation fails and allows (in this case) companies to become nations unto themselves and potentially abusive, then yes - that becomes problematic.
I'll agree that some variance in wage between city and rural makes sense. The whole, more restaurants are now closing because of hikes in staff wages is pretty misleading. About 60% of hospitality ventures fail in the first three years and that's across the board before any wage change discussion. Requiring workers to be paid more, requires the employer to make adjustments to the business model. This added level of operating complexity is sure to adversly impact some folks but presenting it as a major contributing factor to increased failure rates is a stretch.
The trouble is that you're conflating crime with success. There are plenty of successful businessmen who have done absolutely nothing to you. Indeed, there are many whose only crime is that they provide goods and services that people want more than yours. Yet you would punish them as surely as any wall street banker who deliberately defrauded the people. Indeed, you would punish them with crushing taxation even whilst you fail to punish those who committed actual crimes and actually do deserve to be punished. This is why you're being ignored -- because you're attempting to disguise your greed as righteous indignation, and when someone points it out to you, you feign ignorance. I'm sorry, but we're not going to live our lives for you. You need to get a job.
"The story with most companies, Tesla, Apple, Microsoft, old GM, etc is that innovation was done by gray individuals or smaller companies and they buy their ideas or simply take those ideas without giving credit to the innovator.  Apples is a good example: the Apple II is Steve Wozniak's idea and creation, and even the iPod and iPhone were ideas and design of few people you never heard of. Steve Jobs was a total failure at anything ""designed by Apple"": the Lisa, Newton, Macintosh, Next and a long list of products of poor design.  Microsoft too: DOS was not written by them, Windows was developed by Xerox, the PC is by 2 people at IBM, Internet Explorer is a copy of Netscape, Excel is a copy of Lotus 123, etc."
"&gt;Could that be that you have been SOLD the notion that antitrust laws are a failed and discredited policy.... by those intent on protecting private cartels? (Republicans).  Republicans commonly use free market economic truths when it suits their agendas, so I can see how you might be sensitive to that possibility, but no.   &gt;Could it be that the enforcement arm of the government (like the SEC) have been weakened and captured by lobbyists in a revolving door between the private sector and the the government (facilitated by Democrats too)?  yes, by design, by those who make careers of screwing the rest of us through designing arguments that set us against one another.   &gt; In capitalism, unchecked greed leads to the destructive behavior of endless accumulation of resources at the expense of others...  No, ""greed"" is never unchecked in the free market, excess profits ultimately prevent it, unless the government enables it, of course. Monopolies are a government creation, they are the monopolists of violence after all, so I suppose it comes naturally.   &gt; How does this environment protect the small business or how does it benefit consumers?  More competition and smaller firms that result from said competition, as well as best utilization of resources is best for consumers and society as a whole. It's dynamic, that's important, much more responsive to new factors than government could ever hope to be. Politicians are really bad at adapting to voter preferences in a timely fashion apparently."
A reason that the wealth has never, and will never, trickle down is because as society goes on, the wealth transfer only happens between upper tiers of society.  It USED to be that the rich would spend their money, and many people would benefit from it in a society. Small business owners were pretty much all their were, and the only people who had monopolies were the rail and oil lines.  As time went on, more major organizations sprang up, for news, food, computers, etc. Now wealth transfers only between the top tiers and the lower tiers only get the crumbs the higher tier chooses to pay them, which is significantly less than they used to. Whereas employees used to cost a reasonable value to a company, they are now almost entirely expendable assets (exceptions made for certain portions of history).  I am of the opinion that much like history, the cycle is going to repeat shortly, the Occupy Wall Street being a precursor to another wage fight between the rich and poor. With the dissemination of knowledge being much easier, more people are getting the general idea that they're getting shafted. They want to be rich, although not necessarily because the rich are wealthy, they simply want to be able to increase their class mobility. That's been dying a slow death for the past 20 years, and quite solidified by the bank bail out.  It's unfortunate a sizable portion of the population actually sides with the 1% of people actively preventing them from moving up, gaining more mobility and improving the quality of their life. I sincerely hope that at some point in the near future people realize this before the lower class goes apeshit and starts busting heads.
&gt; That's utter stupid ignorant garbage. Why would anyone ever buy a failing business so that it loses money so they aren't taxed on the losses?  Because they have a political agenda, and they have so much money (Bezos was briefly the richest man in the world) that they don't care.  Did you get it now?  And REMEMBER! If you have a political agenda, then truth, facts and Journalism is not what are using.
"I find it really hard to feel sorry for them. For many years now the local Post Office has been a farce. Many local businesses quit using them because they'd just flat-out lose mail so consistently.   The small company I worked for (local ISP) was constantly fighting this battle since we would have customers calling up pissed off because their service got cut off when we didn't receive their payment. Now sure, you have the classic ""check's in the mail"" bit, but this happened too frequently to such a random selection of customers that it was quite obvious there was an issue. More than once I took it up personally with the local Postmaster (functioning Manager-type person) and would always get told ""Oh, it's not us, it's the Columbia branch"" and when I called to straighten it out there I was told ""Sorry, you'll have to take this up with your local office"". Funny, they never seemed to lose all that fucking junk mail that crammed up our PO or mailbox.   Hate that it got that bad, but once again sounds like a bad business model - Provide services at a loss, pay into pensions you know you can't afford, and refuse to modernize effectively and in-time."
"In his defense, the article was written by an owner of a small consulting firm and lays out some pretty loose ideas on why big consulting firms are doomed. From what I've seen, they understand this shift and are working to adapt already. I wouldn't especially use the word ""doomed"" either."
&gt; ...and remain profitable, they should be allowed to fail.  Agreed.  &gt; But that isn't acceptable because we need air travel.  I agree that we need air travel.  That demand should, in theory, create a pressure on the market to create a supply.  I think we'd see new airlines, with different business models, emerging to fix the problem.  It's not a quick fix... but the correct solutions rarely are.
I completely agree (I'm also fully on board with the principles of OWASP).   I think what makes this case interesting is that the data Equifax collects is deeply personal but also deeply relevant to their business model. So many other businesses collect much more personal data than required for their business. However in this case, Equifax is required to collect some of the most personal data in existence and failed at protecting it.   My point in the previous post was that the centralization of collected data is a systemic risk which ends in a compromise (and ultimately catastrophic failure) of the entire system.   Suppose Equifax, instead of storing all 143 million records in one database, had 143 *different* databases in 143 different locations, completely compartmentalized from each other. The risk of compromise would mean a million people's data would be exposed and not 143 million.
By your rational, Obama grew the overall wealth of the top 500 companies in the U.S. by 30% before he was able to enact any legislature. But no, Obama couldn't have done that, because he only introduced destructive economic legislature from the get-go. Therefore, the President must have no control over economic success or failure within their first year of the Presidency, before they can make use of their economic agenda. However, that would go against your entire argument you set forward in this post. Puts you in a bit of a pretzel. Sorry for the long response. It's just tough seeing someone make repeated, simple, basic, economic mistakes in the /economics subreddit. Feel free to PM me if you're looking for some good books to get you started!"
"I actually tend to disagree.  This was one of the most watched IPOs in history.  Facebook would have benefited greatly from a pop.  People would have thought ""wow, they really can do no wrong"".  Instead there are endless negative articles about how this is a horrible failure.  Sure, financially savvy people look at this and think FB did a beautiful job.  They maximized their take from the IPO.  But the price of the bad press can't be accurately measured.  The benefit in terms of publicity of being seen as a stock/company on the move UP is hard to measure too.  Suppose they had priced it at $25 and limited the number of shares they would have gotten less money but they'd also be looking at a massively successful pop on their share price.  The halo effect on their business of THAT reality seems to me to have had the potential to be significant.  So I'm not so sure, in the long term, whether it would have made more sense for them to get less money up front and get a successful IPO rather than go for the max dollars and have a PR disaster.  I think the way things turned out made FB go from an unstoppable juggernaut into a company that can fail just like any other."
"But you are oversimplifying economics.  1) Not everyone can be a geneticist, but most people are capable of being manufacturers, carpenters, electricians, etc. with the proper technical training. America is failing on this in two fronts: (a) we are not making it worth it for companies to keep manufacturing here in the States and (b) we are not giving our workforce the technical skills necessary. So many manufacturers are asking the question ""who is going to take over our retiring workforce of skilled blue collar jobs?"".   2) Even if we can get 40% of our work force into skilled blue collar, white collar, or professional jobs that means the other 60% are easily employable in what's called the non-basic sector, basically jobs like retail, services, residential real estate, etc, etc. The more we focus on how America can generate many higher tech jobs to compete globally (green technology anyone?) the higher the standard of living, the more luxuries we can afford that generate more jobs.  Nobody has to be dead weight except: (a) people who choose not to work, in which case they have no business receiving anything but basic food and shelter from society, (b) people who have disabilities, for which we should have programs in place.   We had full employment for many years even as our population grew. The only reason unemployment is so bad today is because America is losing many jobs to technology and globalization and not finding ways to compete and our work force can't handle many of the new jobs anyways."
&gt; How do you purpose that these ventures be funded?   By starting small, selling shares, using profits + money from un-secured investors.  Banks are terrible investors: untold amount of them failed because of bad investments, and many of such Banks are still around just due to bailouts.   Landfills and garbage disposal services do provide value: they earn money from a service to dispose the garbage, a necessity for anyone.
Jeebus... I don't normally agree with this guy, but he's talking sense. Regulations used as entry barriers are stopping the formation of small business. Crippling student loan debt is destroying our young workforce before it has a chance to get started. And another housing bubble is scaring first time home buyers out of the market. All so a select few can stay comfortable and add another zero to ridiculously sized balance sheets.
The market bubbled, surging after Trump's immediate election, because traders anticipated regulatory reductions (allowing companies to externalize their operating expenses) and business giveaways. Now, they're adjusting their expectations and positions, since Trump is simply not as efficient as doing the anticipated things as they would like. He's mired in scandals instead.   Of course, this goes without saying, the significant growth you have referenced is not derived from Trump's actual policies. It's derived from market reactions to his take-over. It's fairly logical that an anticipated giveaway to the business sector would facilitate quick, unsustainable growth. I'm sorry you're having to reconcile that with your belief that Donald is some kind of economic wunderkind, but he's had less time to affect things than W. had before 911 and I bet you think that security failure was really attributable to Clinton.
"And Trump said he want to help the small business more than the big business. Didn't he?  Do you realize that all those big corporate guys who left the presidential business councils is because of one reason: they hoped that they can lobby and get just what they want, the hell with the American people, and Trump said ""No!""?"
"Great, that's between you and him. I'm not arguing that point.   &gt;That being said, plenty of businesses, start-ups especially burn through more money than they make. The lack of profit doesn't necessarily make them a failure provided they are still generating revnue, which Tesla is, and a lot of it.  So Tesla, a company that has now existed for 14 years, is still considered a ""start up?""   &gt;So, if you'd like to have a discussion about whether they're making enough revenue,  That's easy. No. Income statement shows that.   &gt;or whether they're poorly re-investing the revenue they are making, and how those factors might determine whether or not they should be considered a failure, then I'd be happy to participate.  Any other arguments you want to pretend I personally made, or is that all of them?  &gt;But if you're only interested in making replies that try to condecend to me because you're too quick to jump to conclusions about what I've written, then have at it I guess. Whatever floats your boat.  It is kind of fun, considering no one seems to know how to read a fucking income statement around here."
Found the communist! Yes, it is the company's fault for not making enough money. They're so greedy for providing jobs and healthcare so it is no surprise that when healthcare prices soar through the sky that they will choose to keep paying it until it bankrupts them! Jesus Christ, get half a brain before you comment.  This is life, not every small company is going to be living like a king.
"The companies with the highest level of costumers that are able to stay under the limit for fuel will be able to draw the larger Revenue/Expense ratio (or what Obama calls it Profit to Earnings Ratio).  This will make it easy for medium size companies to make the most money.  Larger companies will still make money but will be ""pushed down"" because they have to pay that extra tax because they will reach the Cap of the Cap &amp; Trade policy.  This doesn't mean Companies with the lowest emissions will have to lowest prices. The larger companies will still have the decent prices. A company may have horrible engines but they don't fly so much they will not   hit the cap in the cap &amp; Trade so they wont have to pay that extra tax the larger companies do.  So a company may start and grow very fast but once they get big enough they will start slowing down because of the government.  Edit: last 2 paragraphs"
"Bank of America exists at this moment because the US taxpayers gave it billions (Billions with a B) to save it in the 2008 crash. And they are part of the financial sector's successful lobbying against doing anything major to prevent another ""to big to fail"" situation, and are working hard to weaken the few protections put in place after 2008.  Which means they are still too big to fail and the economy is still on the same rickety roller coaster it was a decade ago. Another crash is gonna happen, and BofA and the rest of them will have their hands out again.  Put it in escrow for when the next bailout comes."
Hoping to get these questions answered by y’all, probably geared more towards someone who has experience with a retailer:  When a store physically closes, does that effect business in that surrounding area? This is kind of a branding issue I guess. And/or do online sales noticeably decline in that area?  I got curious from this because I’ve always noticed that L Brands (operates Victoria’s Secret &amp; Bath and body Works) seems to be in many malls, even failing ones. I’ve since learned that this is actually their business model. But why? Would they have high rates of return if they were online? Increases in damages? (hard to resell shower gel and undies, even if you don’t know if they were used)  Or for specialty retailers is it important to the brand that they have a physical location for brand recognition?  Thanks to anyone for their time!
That's another model doomed to failure. Truth is people do care about their privacy. They don't seem to right now because they don't really understand how completely it's being invaded. But give it time, there's going to be a privacy rebellion on the internet, and all these companies who have built their revenue models around stealing people's personal information are going to be f***ed.
Because companies (big or small) only pay taxes on *profits* rather than *revenues*. It can't be any other way, really, because of the $5 you pay for the big mac, most of that goes to pay suppliers and employees and only perhaps $0.50 would be profit.  But that fact also opens up all sorts of loopholes. For example, a US company can license a patent from a Cayman Islands company, and make yearly payments. Thus, the US company no longer has any profits, and all of that money winds up in the Caymans.  That's a trivial example, but there's an entire industry dedicated to doing this shit. I'd be impressed if you could craft any law that banned this without also banning legitimate international commerce.
The Oligarchy does not like small business owners.  The successful ones challenge their monopolies.  They don't dislike the working class as long as they keep refusing to demand living wages. Living wages cut into not only *their* profits, but it depresses the yacht industry.  Who wants to pay taxes when you have so much income and wealth when you can leave that to the rest of us?
&gt;Actually, government bail outs are in the socialist/communist section.  Does that make George W. Bush the American Stalin?  Cronyism happens everywhere, in communism, capitalism, wherever social connections are an important influence in any decision-making.  &gt;If it were capitalism fueling it, the government should have let the companies fail, since apparently the population doesn't want to support them enough.  No, the reason the public supported it was that they'd spent the last 4 decades putting money into their 401-k and other investments like they were told to, and the investment banks threatened to 0 out all their accounts if they didn't get the money they deserved...  So that worked out fine then.
"I hate to point this out, but have you heard of this guy Trump, or Warren Buffet (although his son seems to be very competent and grounded, to some degree).   The US is also plagued with this problem where family companies remain so through leadership, they also tend to fail at greater rates than our publicly ran companies.  I suppose Samsung is public company, but why having stock on the open KRX doesn’t lead to better leadership is beyond me to understand?  EDIT:My bad for bringing Trump into this, it was meant as an example of wealth distribution which translates into capacity for business options, and he's well known. However you guys need to do some more research before throwing shade, Howard Buffet has taken over Berkshire Hathaway in a non-executive role, while also holding board positions on a multitude of companies in which BH own significant portions including coca-cola. I wasn't pointing out Warren is incompetent in any way, just he passed the reins off to family too in many ways. ""In December 2011, Warren Buffett told CBS News that he would like his son Howard to succeed him as Berkshire Hathaway's non-executive chairman.""  Apologies for lack of clarity in my statement."
&gt; Yes, you reduce your tax bill if your profits go down due to a losing business. It's not debatable.  That's utter stupid ignorant garbage. Why would anyone ever buy a failing business so that it loses money so they aren't taxed on the losses? Why the fuck would he just not buy the business? You lose the capital, only to get back a portion of the loss as tax credits.   Why are you unable to understand the stupidity of what you're saying? How have you not wandered into traffic if you're this fucking stupid?
"As an addendum to PeterK's answer, once upon a time, there were many Savings and Loan Associations (S&Ls) that acted as small banks, accepting savings deposits from people and lending money for home mortgages to local residents. Some of these S&Ls were chartered Federally with deposits insured by the FSLIC (similar to the FDIC which still insures deposits in banks) while others had State charters and used the State equivalent of FSLIC as the insurer. To induce people to save with S&Ls instead of banks, S&Ls paid higher rates of interest on their savings accounts than banks were permitted to do on bank savings accounts. Until 1980, S&Ls were not permitted to make consumer or commercial loans, have checking accounts, issue credit cards, etc., but once the US Congress in its wisdom permitted this practice, this part of the business boomed. (Note for @RonJohn: Prior to 1980, S&Ls offered NOW accounts on which ""checks"" (technically, Negotiated Orders of Withdrawal) could be written but they were not checks in the legal sense, and many S&Ls did not return these paid ""checks"" with the monthly statement as all banks did; writing a ""check"" while pressing hard created a carbon copy that could be used as proof of payment). In just a few years' time, many S&Ls crashed because they were not geared to handle the complexities of the new things that they were permitted to do, and so ran into trouble with bad loans as well as outright fraud by S&L management and boards of directors etc. After the disappearance of most S&Ls, many small banks (often with State charters only) sprang up, and that's why there are so many banks in the US. Mortgage lending is a lucrative business (if done right), and everyone wants to get into the business. Note that 4 branches of Bank of America in a Florida town is not a sign of many banks; the many different banks that the OP noticed in Maine is."