vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Are you slow or what? Under his watch, the national debt has gone down 12 billion...but yeah, Obama just increased the national debt by 9+ TRILLION dollars. I get downvoted for pointing out trump decreased it. HAHA.   http://www.businessinsider.com/national-debt-deficit-added-under-president-barack-obama-2017-1
"Right - if you want to blame the banks for the unsustainable ""NINJA"" loans they gave out, you can't turn around and slam them for not lending to people in struggling financial positions. Pick your poison.  A better solution would be for the government to step in to this gap and re-finance mortgages themselves, but the Republican party has made that politically unsustainable."
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/07/17/the-world-does-not-have-a-debt-problem-it-has-a-wealth-inequality-problem-that-must-be-tackled-now/) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; It&amp;#039;s commonplace to say that the world has a debt problem.  &gt; The result is simple: we remain in the economic doldrums at best; income growth remains poor, whilst the stock of world savings grows outrageously and governments, as the borrowers of last resort for the savings of the world&amp;#039;s wealthy, have to continue to run deficits which they say curtails their opportunity to take action to redress any of the economic issues arising.  &gt; What is to be done about it? The answer is that if the world is facing such an enormous glut of savings then they have to be taxed as fast as possible to prevent they imbalances they create.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6o8ndo/the_world_does_not_have_a_debt_problem_it_has_a/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~170541 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*: **save**^#1 **growth**^#2 **debt**^#3 **economy**^#4 **money**^#5"
"&gt;Really? I kinda thought it had something to do with losing 2.6 million jobs in 2008. Now that's a lot of revenue gone! Oh also the bush tax cuts All the more reason to keep increase spending by 5-10% a year, right? How about we create an envionment that yields more jobs rather than increasing the taxes of those left? Because that worked so well for social security originally supported by 5-10 employees per 1 receiving benefits, now it's only supported by 2 employees per 1 receiving benefits-- ultra sustainable! &gt;So almost 10% of our deficit? I'd say that's a good start. 10% of our deficit, so 1/4th the amount of DEBT INTEREST we'll pay this year? A drop in the bucket either way. Spending is the real culprit. &gt;I do agree we spend way too much on the pentagon, but pretty sure that went up a lot without our two unfunded republican wars. And now we're in a half dozen active and secret conflicts; Afganistan, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Eygpt. All the more reason for Obama to IMMEDIATELY remove us from those wars. But he hasn't he has expanded them. And our military costs keep going up. It's not about ""this isn't the right time to withdrawl"" it's about his corporate masters being the same as the Bush corporate masters telling him to continue. It's about oil/gas and the pipelines and projection of power that comes with it. Obama has continued and expanded the same policies as Bush, he cannot hide behind, ""Well Bush was worse"", he can't say that because it isnt true. Infact we're killing more peasants in other countries than ever before--- just with military industrial complex built drones. &gt;There's also the unfunded Bush Medicare prescription drug plan. Yep, that prevents the government from negotiating prices on prescriptions for a token $10 Billion rebate, but which will yield $10 Trillion in revenues over the next 15 years. Sounds like a great ROI while the costs of drugs is skyhigh in the US.
It used to be so easy when they would just cut taxes and pay for it with foreign money. In fact, they can probably still do that but the politics of exploding the deficit again are...troublesome.  In particular now, doing relatively good times, the deficit should continue to narrow and maybe even dip into surplus for a while.
"&gt; Honestly this all scans with the same naivety as the communists saying WELL IT HASN'T BEEN TRIED PROPERLY YET. No, it has the intellectual rigor of saying that if you want to claim something then you have to prove it, not parrot some propaganda that has been repeated endlessly without any proof. &gt; 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. Royal charter. Free market. You can only have one. This is the kind of nonsense I'm talking about. You can't attack the market for a fucking government-granted problem. No, that is not free market. And even if it were, it wouldn't come close to the deaths caused by states. Again, you bear the burden of proof here, not me. &gt; 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 In what way? People don't suddenly cease to have resources to deal with these things just because their resources are not forcibly centralized. That doesn't follow. &gt; 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 protection would be upholding private property rights, which is what would determine what ""your air"" and ""your water"" are. You resolve it by showing that they are polluting and that you have damages. The general population isn't going to respect a biased court that doesn't support the rights of private property against pollution. It's akin to asking what we'd do if a murderer went to his brother who supports a right to murder: you wouldn't use that court. Again, people overwhelmingly want protections against pollution and murder so there would be a market demand for courts that protect against these things. &gt; I mean these are all hypothetical worst case scenarios Then compare them to the real life worst case scenarios of governments.
"That a threat? I'm happy to show you my qualifications..MBA + CFA. You have provided ZERO backup...you keep insisting that I must be in the wrong (plus all those that downvote citing that they are retards and probably garbage men).    You don't like being challenged. You have provided exactly ZERO support for your bold claims citing an immeasurable ""get in touch with current trends"" - which is the equivalent of ""JUST GOOGLE IT IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE"" because you are in fact unable to support your position through objective evidence.   I also believe you are the one that has resorted to name calling...not the other way around.  People get them after they gain experience...which is then what helps them stand out...no where did I ever suggest not to get one, I'm attacking your advice of going right after undergrad and have zero experience.   Wonder what the people over at r/MBA would have to say about it or the countless number of recruiters or the countless number of hiring managers. You are setting this kid up for disappointment."
I read it. It's fair. But just because Mr. Buffett says that's not true, doesn't mean he's right. As you can see, he still isn't backing up claims with numbers.  &gt;Most of the evidence suggests they are semi-strong form efficient.  But that's not even the case. It doesn't say markets are 100% efficient, it says they reflect all *available* information. Which they almost always tend to do, especially ensured with HFT.  I think if you look into statistical analysis you'll find the trend 99.99% of traders lack access to any special information, making the markets effectively 100% efficient. Gains/losses are proportional to the amount of risk taken.  &gt;Now you've made a promise you can't keep, because I'm not very wrong. :)  I was a dick, I apologize. I still believe it, however. Have an upvote for the welcomed conversation, though.
On the one hand, more junior people should always give evidence to support their statements.  But otherwise everything I have heard about actually being there indicate that these principles are used hypocritically only when a junior person has a bias that contrasts with the senior person in the room.
No - we're having fun seeing how long you avoid providing a single example of something you claimed was so universal any single one should suffice. It seems you totally pulled that statement out of your ass and now are so stubborn that admitting it must impact your psyche in some amazing way. So stubborn that you both don't address your claim, admit it is wrong, and yet you call us names for asking you to back up your statement. This is fun.   You still have not listed an empire that did not purchase it's own debt. Your entire argument fails.
"i would add only -- and you alluded in this direction, but to clarify -- that barter economies rarely ever exist. if you ask an economist about the origin of money, they usually offer thus barter-to-credit story because Adam Smith hypothesized this line of development. it subsequently became ""true"", even though there was no evidence for it.   anthropology has come a long way since Smith lived, and we now know that early societies were communal, as in from each according to their means, etc. the term of art is ""gift economy"", where there are no tallies or accountings of who owes exactly what but rather a general sense of mutual obligation.  accounting, credit and debt as we think of them were a result of dealing with people you did not trust. money, being a debt, arose from this mistrust and was typically only used to settle the most serious matters -- stolen wives, murder, etc. -- in a way that could prevent deadly conflict by protecting the honor of the aggrieved. money was intended to ""replace"" the lost person.   money, debt and the rest have come in and out of fashion over the ages -- the efficiency argument is really null, if you consider a gift economy, and there have been prolonged periods since the first use of metallic money in which money has gone away. for most of the middle ages, for example, europe reverted to credit and gift economies. anthropologists believe in fact that the use of money comes to typically prevail in societies that are rife with mistrust and ""lost persons"" -- that is, societies plagued by war and slavery (slaves being historically one of the primary products of war). the rise of money usually brings the rise of a creditor class, a debtor class who approximate slaves even though not losers in war per se, and a terrific amount of social strife. and that leads often to collapse if not addressed by periodic debt jubilees."
"Right, but there were tangible reasons that made sense. That was fueled by a cycle of predatory loans and consumers being dumb enough to think that just because they got approved for a $500K house with a 500 credit score meant they should definitely take out massive loans and buy it. This was piled on by the derivative market, specifically credit default swaps, which certain people recognized as creating a liquidity issue. They didn't know *when* the crash was going to occur. They just knew that the asset bubble fueled by massive debt, with this debt being falsely rated as AAA when most of it was Junk, left banks in a position of complete insolvency when the mortgage defaults reached a certain point. When people realized the extent of the debt, (e.g. knowing with common sense that people with a 550 credit score shouldn't have 7 properties and be allowed to be that over-leveraged, let alone be rated AAA) and the amount of derivatives that would have to be paid out on top of having no cash flow due to mortgage defaults, they recognized that a bubble bursting would wreak havoc on the economy.       That had a lot of moving parts. Simply saying ""DAE OVERVALUED RECORD HIGHS CRASH COMING SOON!??!?!?!??!!??!?!?!? WHEN!??!?! HOW!!?"" is fucking stupid. Nobody knows. What evidence did OP offer? Not that he wouldn't still get laughed out because this topic is fucking annoying with thousands of people crying ""overvalued"", but he didn't even mention P/E ratio or anything. He literally came in and basically said ""when is it all gonna fall apart?"". Nobody knows the answer."
"1. You don't know what an ad hominem is and you should feel bad.   2. That comment is in response to someone calling me a trumptard. Can you even read?   3. I didn't vote for Trump.   4. I still didn't vote for Trump.   5. You're laughably uneducated about claims and data.   6. Data has to actually support the claim you're making.   7. You have to prove that polls are the way they are for the reasons you say they are.   8. They made claims without data.   9. Those claims are still unsupported.   10. The data they ""actually provided"" wasn't for the right country.   11. You could not draw a conclusion even if it was the right data.   12. It says a lot about you that you're more concerned about my opinion than the person calling people trumptards and telling them to shut the fuck up."
"If I understand, you're saying that the cause of the slow recovery is structural. That is, that our economic problems are due to to being unproductive. That's simply wrong. [There is no evidence of that.](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/the-structural-obsession/)  Moreover, there is not ""plenty of demand"" as you claim. Expected aggregate demand growth isn't what it used to be."
Forgot the /s  Not only do we have the same government, but also have large ALEC financial supporters right here in our state. We also have about 3 billion more debt, public jobs such as police and teachers fleeing the state, scrapped road maintenance, etc. etc.
Also read about [The Great Moderation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moderation). One of the causes is listed as ""Greater central bank independence, in which the Fed balanced money supply more closely with demand"". How do you propose that the money supply in an economy should be *matched* with economic growth and contractions? Letting be independent is a proven recipe for more harm than *trying* to match them. All sourced with ample data. Now you can try and argue that the Fed is not necessary, but then you'll have to explain the vast difference in boom/bust cycles seen in virtually every economy that has adopted an independent central bank that has followed reasonble monetary policy. That means covering hundreds of examples. Good luck. This is not driven by economic theories. This is historical fact. Ignoring it and similar evidence from hundreds of years over dozens of countries and economies is ignorant. &gt;Fiat money and fractional reserve banking guarantee monetary collapse More non-fiat economies crashed than fiat economies. Like pretty much every historical economy up to modern times. The majority of economies that have not crashed are fiat, so it seems you have not actually tried listing all the various economies and counted them. &gt;The idea that economics is hard science is ridiculous. No one claimed that. You're arguing against a strawman and repeating whatever phrases you think go here. &gt;In a smallish closed or partially closed system, formulas and equations can determine probable outcomes, in the infinitely complex economy of the modern world, the very idea that you can predict anything beyond general directions is absurd No one claimed that either. However the entire universe is a pretty complex system, and plenty of long term predictions are probably very accurate. &gt;And the general directions are not understandable without considering the human motivations that drive each of the billions of sentient actors involved. Also irrelevant, since no one is claiming we need that."
Au début, vous allez acquérir un salaire organisé. De toute évidence, offrir un Rachat Vehicule En Panne à des mains changées pourrait présenter une procédure au sujet de laquelle vous ne recevriez pas d'argent pendant un temps formidable. Il est particulièrement standard que le nouvel acheteur vous demandera de remettre le bit ou si rien d'autre ne tente de le mordre en morceaux
In reality, it's much more abstract than this feeble article depicts, which is why right/left winger Reddit-heroes often hop on this sub to validate their political views on the subject for themselves. Its economic ignorance to not think that how a governments taxes, and changes to those policies, affect how people &amp; businesses behave. I don't have the answer to all the economic problems but I'm not fooled by OP's nonsense propaganda piece.  My issue is with the article's false claim.   &gt;the job creation records of the 92 publicly held U.S. corporations that reported a U.S. profit every year from 2008 through 2015 and paid less than 20 percent of these earnings in federal income tax.  This study looked at 2%(the 92 profitable) of 4,333 publicly traded US companies selected based on both having turned a profit seven years running &amp; having dodged corporate taxes to make their tax payout close to 20%.   Does this sample sound like the entire US 27,900,000 total companies that comprise the domestic US economy? (That's .02% rounding up-yes the decimal is in the right spot.)  Even if this wasn't a flawed study from the start on selection bias, this isn't even quasi-experimental because there isn't a control group. Even a null conclusion would be invalidated without call for further inspection.   The source is a left-wing think tank drawing a line from the false conclusion to a motivated source. Is this the standard of information anyone should make policy based on?   This article says nothing definitive with evidence &amp; is worthless.
Question: I live in half of a duplex together with other college students. I put my rent (roughly $750 in cash) in the landlord's mailbox while he was out of town for three weeks. I told him ahead that I would do this, but he claims I never did, and he would have asked me not to. Anyway, now he claims the money was not there when he returned and I still owe $750.  Answer: Well, that's tough. It could be that the money was stolen from the mailbox. It could be that the landlord pocketed the money and is trying to scam you. Your problem is that you have no receipt, and no evidence at all that you paid the money. There's little you can do other than paying up (again) and learning from this expensive lesson.
"&gt;But there's no proof that it's a distinguishing factor or dispositive.  Correlation doesn't equal causation, etc.  Where absolute proof is not possible, rational people make determinations on the basis of where the preponderant weight of evidence falls.  In this case, while there is no ""proof,"" the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that given similar intelligence and drive, two otherwise virtually identical people will almost always end up in entirely different circumstances based on a set of random variables that can best be described as luck.  Was one born the son of a factory worker while the other was born the son of a corporate CEO?  If so, that's a matter of luck, and you cannot deny for an instant that one's father has a huge influence on what one becomes later in life.    Your entire premise is based on a flawed understanding of the matters under consideration."
no. Then there is proof that banks are actually ripping off the public using made up price index. It's basic scam.  The entire Singapore forex banking index was found to be a fraud. All of them fired and bunch of them go to jail.
"The policies he claims to support put him pretty far out of that camp.  Immigration, at least the policies hes claimed to support, trade (dropping of TPP, claiming to renegotiate NAFTA, etc), cutting financial support for global political organizations and dropping out of the Paris agreement and in general his ""America First"" platform.    Now how these actually play out is a matter of several other factors and could have just been campaign promises, but in general his formal positions put him pretty far away from globalist camps.  Although, I was specifically talking about Zuckerberg here, not so much President Trump in this situation."
"&gt;From what I've read, all the testimony has been roundly discredited.  Then you read wrong. It hasn't been discredited. The evidence is right fucking there. Read the 200 page report, read even a part of it. [Here is the evidence, maybe this will finally shut you up?](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444799904578048673157864186.html)  &gt;I'm just looking for actual evidence while you keep saying he needs to prove himself innocent instead of the accusers proving him guilty.  ITS RIGHT FUCKING THERE!!!  Do you not see why it's so frustrating to argue with people like you? You're basically a creationist saying ""Where is the evidence for evolution?"" Again, you don't have to look very fucking far to find it. Instead you're burying your head in the sand and saying ""Where is the evidence?"""
You got that from CNBC's interview with Daryl Issa, the only person who is claiming this to be the the truth, and interestingly enough, the congressman who most wants to privatize the post office, and also the only one who is holding up reform of this insane 2006 law.  It's great that you believe the one person who is pushing this the most as fact, but there's not much else to support that evidence other than Issa himself.   [Issa holding up reform]( http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/issa-blocks-fix-of-post-office-pension-prepay-time-bomb-says-robert-weiner-former-spokesman-for-us-house-govt-reform-comm-bipartisan-bill-has-229-sponsors-but-chairman-issa-pushes-privatization-159224595.html)  [Politifact rates it half true, because the pension law is true, but leaving out the fact that declining revenues in the future is also a problem, but again, the prefunded pension is rated TRUE]( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/29/save-americas-postal-service/ad-save-americas-postal-service-claims-rule-congre/)  [Time](http://business.time.com/2013/02/07/how-healthcare-expenses-cost-us-saturday-postal-delivery/)  [NYT]( http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/nocera-its-d-day-for-the-post-office.html?_r=0)  [PBS]( http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/the-u-s-postal-service/11433/)
Do you have an actual criticism of my argument to contribute to the discussion?  Do you really consider yourself a reasonable person of science and evidence, when, confronted with evidence that people here are using pseudo-scientific, unsourced blogs to justify their claims, instead of refuting that, you derail the conversation into proving that the Earth isn't flat and whether Finland exists?   You're just being facetious. You shouldn't abandon your integrity just because your arguing over the internet and see something you don't like.
"Are you saying they're all just a bunch of hacks trying to monetize fear instead of actually providing sound financial advice? Are you further suggesting that they were nowhere to be found in 07, yet now that the country is in a poor financial state, they're trying to grab headlines? Are you saying that even though they all claim they ""predicted"" the housing crisis there is no conclusive evidence suggesting that any of them actually did so?   Oh wait, I guess I said that."
I concur with the answers above - the difference is about the risk. But in this particular case I find the interest level implausible. 11% interest on deposits in USD seems very speculative and unsustainable. You can't guarantee such return on investment unless you engage in drug trade or some other illegal activity. Or it is a Ponzi scheme. So I would suspect that the bank is having liquidity problems. Which bank is it, by the way? We had a similar case in Bulgaria with one bank offering abnormal interest on deposits in EUR and USD. It went bust - the small depositors were rescued by the local version of FDIC but the large ones were destroyed.