vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"As the other commenter pointed out, the language the NRA is using is pretty specific in who they're implying is the ""enemy"".   Obama was AWESOME for gun companies. The NRA, which is a lobby started by gun companies, would say ""Quick! The boogyman is comin' fer yer Guns! Buy as much as you can NOW before it's too late!""   In business this is a scarcity tactic.   It would drum up demand as well the price of current supplies. Ammo ""shortages"" work in the same way. There'd be a rumor posted somewhere that some demon-crat did something to cause a shortage in ammo. People would rush out and buy whatever they could (even if they didn't have an immediate need) and the price on ammo would go up. All the while these Yahoo's would always say ""gosh them Democrats for causing this"" even though Democrats have nothing to gain by this.   All in all with Trump and the GOP at the helm, their boogyman has become more scarce and not as readily realized. So they're pushing the narrative that the existential ""liberal"" is out to get you!   Honestly, we're not. If anything we just want you have free healthcare and a better education without making you go bankrupt."
"This is proof that the people running the world are all insane. They are interested only in their personal gain and they are throwing the entire planet full of people under the proverbial bus in the effort to increase their bank accounts during their short lives.  The practice of banks ""inventing"" money by lending more than they actually have in their vaults should be stopped, or at the very least reigned in. During the housing collapse it was revealed that CHASE was lending money at a 50:1 ratio. That's madness. CHASE should have gone bankrupt as a result, but they received massive bailouts. A company which operates like that is literally poison in the bloodstream.  Everyone knows that financial health is the result of making rational decisions. So it leads one to wonder how it is that all of the richest people get that way by being as irrational as possible. It's no surprise that most of them lose their fortunes in disastrous catastrophes which serve as entertainment for the masses.  When it comes to building wealth I think the story of the Tortoise and the Hare offers the most wisdom of any anecdotes."
"This whole thread stinks of entitlement. The reddit hivemind has gotten into its head this misguided notion that we all *deserve* to be able to borrow money from banks, credit card companies, the government and so forth to do things we want, and that if we can't pay it off - well, so what?? They're ""big guys!"" I'm a ""little guy!"" Screw them! I should get off free!  You don't have to be an Ayn Rand-ite (and I'm not) to see how this kind of ""logic"" is insane. If you sign a contract, you have to honor it. Period. Sure, the banks that try to sell you crazy loans are annoying, but no one's sticking a gun to your head, and it's certainly not their responsibility when you come up short. Bankruptcy is a sign that you have poorly handled your finances and/or life decisions, which is precisely why it (rightly) craters your credit score. If you can't grasp why bankruptcy has different implications, and thus is handled differently, for incorporated businesses, then **(facepalm)** you don't get it.  This isn't to say that bankruptcy law, as well as consumer debt finance, couldn't be better regulated/improved. It could. But reddit loves to use this stuff as an excuse for bitching and whining about how unfair it is that we have to actually pay back student loans/mortgages/cards/etc. that we, you know, actually promised to pay back. It's fucking inane.  tl;dr: Hate credit card debt? Don't accumulate it in the first place."
We will ignore the fact that insurance companies are making record profits since the ACA, are not allowed over 10% profit, which they don't hit, and are only pulling out of markets because they want MORE money in the coffers at the end of the year, not because it will bankrupt them to stay in. You're right, lowering investments from not dumping as much dividend gains back into it, and taxing them in them will make them not lower premiums, you know, seeing as they reach that 10% anyway.
Or they had too high overhead. If you can modernize and get the same output out of three facilities instead of 4, you do it. They would not have gone bankrupt in the first place if they made more money than they spent. :)
"tl;dr:  Prosecutors probably thing they can't meet the ""reasonable doubt"" standard, and the deck is heavily stacked against lawsuits.  The whole running the company into the ground part is legal.  It's stupid, but no different than any bad boss that pits employees against each other.  Just on a much grander scale.  The real estate thing is extremely shady.  However, when you're the boss of a company, It's not considered theft to do business with another company you own.  The truth is Sears is drowning in debt.  The CEO offered an easy out.  They sell the property, and only pay reduced rent.  It also means closing stores is easier, and Sears is on the decline.  So, on its own, it's shady, but not the worst way of getting quick cash.  The fact that the CEO is responsible for that decline is what pushes things into potential legal trouble.  It's essentially a complicated form of theft.  One where if Sears goes bankrupt too early (before 2020 or so), his real estate business can't handle it and burns.  However, these sorts of executive theft are almost never prosecuted.  The best chance would be a shareholder lawsuit, but it would have to be against the entire board for supporting him.  Then you run into the issue that, while the board is ""elected"", the laws governing it allow for tricks that make the Russian election look sterling in comparison.\*  Basically, if a CEO is backed up by the board, and not doing something blatantly illegal, they can probably get away with it.  Board elections tend to be rigged to the point that having a member that cares about the company, and all the minor shareholders is laughable.  \* In addition to how the candidates are chosen, votes are cast, etc..., etc... many companies have several types of shares.  Some of which have no voting power, and some of which count for many times the vote of a normal share."
This will not bankrupt anyone. It is not like Gawker. Gawker went bankrupt due to some uniqueness i n Florida law where you had to put the money up befire being able to appeal. I can find no evidence of any such law in South Dakota. So, even if the jury fucks ABC ten ways to Sunday, it seems incredibly unlikely this survives appeal.   And, as the article points out, different circumstances as well. The comparison is misplaced.
"I disagree. My parents, boomers, and their parents, depression era, have all told me that ""social security is going bankrupt!"" has been a major political talking point right from the start. There has not yet been a generation who was in their 20s who hasn't gotten that messaging. There have always been what seemed like legitimate threats, but social security really is somewhat of a case of ""too big to fail,"" and provided the wingnut crowd doesn't get crowned ruling council of the country and gut it, there's simply no way SS will be allowed to go under. Not with what a massive political force AARP and 55+ special interest groups are in the US. They are more massive on our political landscape than most people realize.   But I digress. The idea that SS won't be around in 50 years is how it's always been."
"The complacency, apathy, and ignorance of the majority of Americans is the only reason the economic inequality in America was ever able to reach such devastating proportions. The business culture in this country is ruining average quality of life, and I fundamentally do not believe that you are okay with that. And if you are, then you're just adding to the problem by either being sympathetic towards a delusion or an active apologist for greed, and thus put yourself in the category of people to be on the receiving end of that ""fuck you""."
"That's a very good point, but advertising inevitably gets out of control and consumers end up hating it, which is why we see things like DVRs with their ""ad skipping"" technologies emerging in the marketplace and being hugely popular amongst consumers. People hate ads, even tho they want them in small amounts.  People who live ad free lives, as I do, learn about products through the recommendations of friends, or through very filtered means such as user groups where someone says ""Hey guys I found this neat widget, check it out"".  You could argue ""that's advertising"" and semantically you might be right, but we're speaking specifically about paid ads that Widget Company A pays Social Media Company B to place on their website, and similar models. All of that is going away just as fast as the technology makes it possible to eliminate it with or without the approval of either company. Consumers hate ads and love ad blockers.  To understand whats happening you need to appreciate just how young ""ad blocking"" technology is. It's only existed a very short while and has already decimated the internet to the point that various websites have gone bankrupt. Nobody as big as Facebook (yet), but large popular magazines and newspapers have been really struggling. And the tech is in it's infancy, as it matures it will cause more shake-ups."
There seems to be no such information available. What is available is that number of claims are high and the Title Insurance companies have gone bankrupt as per the wikipedia article In 2003, according to ALTA, the industry paid out about $662 million in claims, about 4.3% percent of the $15.7 billion taken in as premiums. By comparison, the boiler insurance industry, which like title insurance requires an emphasis on inspections and risk analysis, pays 25% of its premiums in claims. However, no reference to the relationship between when claims are made and when policies are issued is found. As of 2008, the top three remaining title insurers all lost money, while LandAmerica went bankrupt and sold its title business to Fidelity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_insurance#Industry_profitability The amount of premium received and claim made can be got from some of the companies balance sheet. For Fidelity its at http://www.investor.fnf.com/releasedetail.cfm?CompID=FNT&ReleaseID=363350 The article in here mentions the claims ratio as 5%. Refer http://www.federaltitle.com/blog/title-insuance-qaa
The island company was already bankrupt [link] (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-puerto-rico-power-company-20170921-story.html).  The PR government and the failed company doesn't deserve a say in who is to rebuild the power grid especially when it's US money paying for it.  Their history of corruption should exempt them from it.
"Their definition of a brand ""disappearing"" is extremely weak.  It just has to meet one of these criteria:  * a rapid fall-off in sales and steep losses; * disclosures by the parent of the brand that it might go out of business; * rapidly rising costs that are extremely unlikely to be recouped through higher prices; * companies that are sold; * companies that go into bankruptcy; * companies that have lost the great majority of their customers; or * operations with rapidly withering market share.  By that definition a brand like MySpace has ""disappeared"" in each of the last four years.  In fact, they just put Myspace on their list last year and marked it as one of the companies they correctly predicted because it was sold."
"Can't declare bankruptcy isn't the same as ""can't default"".  Bankruptcy is a specific legal process for discharging or restructuring debts.  If Illinois can't declare bankruptcy, that means it will still owe you the money for the bonds no matter what, but it doesn't guarantee that it will actually pay you what it owes. If Illinois should run out of money to pay what's due on its bonds, then it will default.  Unlike the federal government, Illinois can't print money to make the payments."
Could they is not the question, it's should they.  There is no math or methodology that can definitively answer that question. The reason they keep so much cash is the company almost died due to lack of cash. They are institutionally scared of that happening again.
Whatever you choose for a remedy (my first impulse is to suggest bankruptcy) you should protect your retirement plans.  These are immune from most collection actions, the exception being govt debts (e.g. taxes) and student loans.  The sad part is that the student loans won't go away except by paying them off.  Miss one payment and it will hound you for 10 years.  Bankruptcy will stop you from getting a home loan for only two years.  Unless you have the discipline to live like a monk for a decade it sounds like you're headed for a train wreck.  The kids will have to cut back to junior college or some other method of reducing costs and as hard as it sounds, don't cosign for any more student loans. Kids are more resilient than you think and they'll probably come up with their own solutions like scholarships, work study and off campus jobs.  I hate to keep beating the bankruptcy horse but at least that way you could still keep your house and car.  Otherwise you risk losing either or both from missed payments.  I actually hope that you can avoid bankruptcy so I suggest first you talk to a financial adviser or bankruptcy attorney to see if this is in fact right for you. But if it's just the shame of the scarlet letter B then consider that pride doesn't keep a roof over your head or food in your belly.
I got caught up with Zynga's 'Mafia Wars' for a while, but I kept having technical issues with the game, and Zynga made it damn near impossible to contact them with issues. Even when you jumped through all of their hoops they usually did nothing, or held up more hoops until you finally gave up. My wife had many of the same types of problems with 'Farmville'. Zynga's disregard for customer service killed our desire for their games. Now I couldn't care less if they go bankrupt. Seriously, customer service, will make or break a company; and since Zynga doesn't seem to care enough about their customers to provide good, responsive customer service, then they can go to hell as far as I'm concerned, they've permanently lost me as a customer. Honestly I've never known a company that was harder to contact with product, or technical issues, or received less satisfaction when I was able to contact them. It doesn't surprise me one bit that they have lost large numbers of customers. Maybe they just don't realize that the people who play their games are customers, or at least potential customers.
I have read his book(s) as well and agree with his message of identifying poor financial patterns and correcting them.  However, I don't recall the chapter about corporate bankruptcy strategies and defensive financial moves which make you impervious to lawsuits.    Maybe I glossed over that part.
"An annuity is a contract. Its contents are ""a contractual obligation from the issuing company"". If you want to evaluate how your annuity is likely to fare, you're essentially asking whether or not its issuer will honor its contract. They're legally required to honor the contract, unless they go bankrupt. (Even if they do go bankrupt, you will be a creditor and may get a portion of the assets recovered by the bankruptcy process.) Generally, the issuer will take the proceeds and invest them in the stock market (or possibly in similar instruments - e.g. Berkshire-Hathaway bought a railroad and invests some money in it directly). They invest in these places because that's where the returns are. One of the reason that annuities may have a good rate on paper is that they may end up taking some of your principal, because many are structured as some form of survivor's insurance policy. Consider: If you're 65 years old and have some retirement savings, you'd like to be able to spend them without fear of them running out because you live longer than you expected (e.g. you survive to your 90s). So, you could invest in the stock market and hope for a 7% return indefinitely and then plan to spend the returns - but if those returns don't materialize for a few years because there's a big stock market crash, you're in big trouble! Or, you could buy an annuity contract which will pay you 7% a year (or more!) until you die. Then you're guaranteed the returns unless the issuer goes bankrupt. (Sure, you lose all your principal, but you're dead, so hey, maybe you don't care.) The insurance company essentially sells risk-tolerance. Other annuities aren't structured like this, and may be marketed towards non-retirees. They're usually not such a good deal. If they appear to be such a good deal, it may be an illusion.
"Who are the losers going to be? If you can tell me for certain which firms will do worst in a bear market and can time it so that this information is not already priced into the market then you can make money. If not don't try. In a bull market stocks tend to act ""normally"" with established patterns such as correlations acting as expected and stocks more or less pricing to their fundamentals. In a bear market fear tends to overrule all of those things. You get large drops on relatively minor bad news and modest rallies on even the best news which results in stocks being undervalued against their fundamentals. In the crash itself it is quite easy to make money shorting. In an environment where stocks are undervalued, such as a bear market, you run the risk that your short, no matter how sure you are that the stock will fall, is seen as being undervalued and will rise. In fact your selling of a ""losing"" stock might cause it to hit levels where value investors already have limits set. This could bring a LOT of buyers into the market. Due to the fact that correlations break down creating portfolios with the correct risk level, which is what funds are required to do not only by their contracts but also by law to an extent, is extremely difficult. Risk management (keeping all kinds to within certain bounds) is one of the most difficult parts of a manager's job and is even difficult in abnormal market conditions. In the long run (definitions may vary) stock prices in general go up (for those companies who aren't bankrupted at least) so shorting in a bear market is not a long term strategy either and will not produce long term returns on capital. In addition to this risk you run the risk that your counterparty (such as Lehman brothers?) will file for bankruptcy and you won't be able to cover the position before the lender wants you to repay their stock to them landing you in even more problems."
Bankrupting them isn't going to help anyone. They should be kept alive and forced to provide everyone with free lifetime credit monitoring.  I actually just enrolled in their trustedid this morning for my one year trial and it SHOULD be a lifetime service I get for free.  Frozen credit files should become the norm and you should be notified via text if someone wants to access your file at which point you can text back YES or NO (much like current fraud alerts).  There is actually a lot that can and should be done. I'm worried that nothing is actually going to change because the government is moving very slowly here and people quickly forget about this stuff.
Yes. You are assuming that everything remains equal except for a decrease in revenue. More than likely what you will see happen and what is expected to happen, is a decrease in benefits along with a decrease in revenue. So rather than say, revenue of 1000 and payout of 1000, it would become something more like revenue of 750 and payout of 750, and then maybe further down the road revenue 600 and payout 600. But it is unlikely that we continue to see revenue of 750, and payout of 1000. This is a very, very simple explanation and I'm sure someone could use better numbers but I think it illustrates why we won't see social security go bankrupt
The big picture is terrible. It is beyond repair. If the FED wants to stand in front of the coming train, then goodbye to the FED. As Bernanke prints more money, credit will deflate even faster! Who would want to lend money to the US government and the US consumer who has already displayed inability to pay. Consumers consume, go into debt and go bankrupt. Only producers prosper. That is not us. Government intervention into free markets to save obsolete industries is delaying the recovery. Instead of getting further into debt, we need to re-align our economy to focus on what works. Our problem was debt to begin with and we are doing more of the same to fix the problem. It won't work. Kondratieff Winter has started!
An actual discussion question? I just wanna push fluff to get traffic on my blog! The millenials did it!!!!  In all seriousness, the housing market is all about supply and demand. Namely, there arent many housing being built across the US right now, so thats driving prices up. Cheap loans also helped diminish the supply because those who could bought up a lot of rental properties since '08. So these things have caused home prices to steadily climb, especially in desirable places to live such as large college towns, Boston, San Fran, etc.  But keeping demand in check are a few thingns too. Rates are now going up and few millenials can afford starter homes due to student debt and relatively lower income in their late 20s than their parents. Plus theyre having less kids at the moment. So thats all pushing demand down, especially in rural areas.  The wild card, IMO, will be the impending recession and the huge sell off in 10-15 years when all the Boomers start hitting their late 70s and early 80s. So theres your major volatility.
"Again massive generalisations I haven't looked at the numbers at all, so could be way off, and it will be a local issue.   If overall housing demand &gt; supply; little movement in price  If current supply = current demand; then the increase in supply should lower prices a little. I'd expect a lot of conversions to enable greater access to the housing market from first time buyers (which is generally where the growth comes from).   If current supply &gt; current demand (rare, Detroit, some ""company towns"" where the company has left etc) ; prices should already be depressed, more supply pushes them lower still. If people can keep up with mortgage payments then all okay, if not repossessions. I doubt this option is large enough to carry much risk.    I'm fairly sure any bank has people far smarter, and far more qualified,  than me looking at macro trends with actual data, so whatever shocks are coming from the boomers dying off will be well managed."