vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I don't think things will get better, anytime soon.   Globalization. Automation. None of those are under control of any President anymore. The game is rigged by Big Finance, Big Pharma, Big Agriculture, the military-industrial complex, Big Oil, fucking *Comcast*...our economy is just not healthy.   A grid-lock of regulations and established monopolies. How can any single man impact any of that? The Big Wheels will keep on turning, good jobs will become fewer and fewer, benefits will dwindle. Even the best-intentioned President can't tackle any of that, anymore.   I think there's an extremely *slim* chance we won't become a South-American style country, with 2-5% owning everything and a brutal police force keeping the poor at bay.   You can see glimpses of that possible future today. Ferguson will be an every day occurrence, and it won't be just black people anymore.    Oh well, it was a nice experiment for the 200 or so years while it lasted.
These are problems of crony capitalism.  Most of our industries, especially healthcare and military are dominated by monopolies.  More of the super wealthy have found that it is easier to make money having Republicans hand them monopolies with no regulation or oversight.  This is why we have the slowest and most expensive internet in the industrialized world (other countries with government run internet have faster and cheaper).  We have the most expensive and least effective healthcare in the industrialized world because of crony capitalism.  The U.S. does not have a free market.  It has crony capitalism.
"Wall Street: Unloading onto the muppets, BRB...  On a serious note, WF has a TBTF put on them. The shorting opportunity likely already came and went. The central banks have issued a global put on equities and real estate for about the last decade, they're unlikely to now say, ""oops, our bad, we'll retract that put starting with WF"" over this. The associated market disruption isn't worth the positive electorate optics. They'll opt to try to surgically fix the scandal; find and fire highest executives feasible, pay a fine, move on."
Cute, but 100 years of market history will show you the fundamentals have persisted for a reason. Every industry in history has tried to pull this “but this is different” thing off (oil, gold, semiconductors) and they have ALL been brought to reality in time. There is no reason to think today is any different. There will  be recessions again, there will be market crashes again, either tomorrow or 5 years from now. It always levels out.
As a fellow well-educated professional I totally agree with you. It is rational for countries and people to do exactly what they do best at the most competitive wages. Economics tell us that this increases the size of the global pie.   But it hasn't happened to us personally. reality is different vs a theoretical discussion. Sure the global pie may be getting bigger but that doesn't mean individuals aren't losing out locally. I honestly don't know what I'd do if my industry were suddenly automated or reliably outsourceable.  Sure I'd be happy to retrain but as what?   I'm interested in the next phase of human development will everyone work less? Will we have universal wages?   Tldr trade agreements, outsourcing and automation are among the  greyest of issues
LOL!!!! The stock market is reaching new heights only just because of confidence with Trump. And the economy is doing great and improving under Trump.  Remember, one wrong move or one wrong saying from Trump and the stock market goes down.  But, what goes up, must come down, and I am sure it will not be because of Trump.   It would be some messy corporate dysfunction (e.g. Saving and Loans in the past, Car companies facing bankruptcy in the past, tech bubble in the past, subprime loans, and other irresponsible economic mishandling not due to the president).  In any case, it will be a correction and not a crash, because the economy is good and improving, and will improve due to Trump.
FTA's [like TiSA ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_pPqnbXpA4)will radically change the labor market by globalizing labor flows and contracts.   Deregulation will certainly increase corporate profits and further decrease accountability. Given thats thats what triggered the GFC in 2008, its not a very wise idea to be pursuing it again through TiSA.
because a society is more than the free market and there are costs associated with businesses paying workers low wages. You can't have a society that promotes high property values and low personal income levels. That's how you get a generation of consumers that can't afford to fully participate in the market place because they're saddled with debt and the only jobs available pay low wages with little opportunity for advancement.
Just one. He did OK from it. Now, most of the dealerships are owned by people who own somewhere between 5 and 15 different dealerships. * Gas stations. I had a relative who owned a gas station. Again, just one. There were lots of these guys around. Now, most of the gas stations are owned by 2 or 3 conglomerates who own many dozens of stations. * Banks. Yes, regulation is in play here, but there used to be dozens of different banks in my region. Now there are maybe 2 regional banks and 3 national banks. Gone are the days when there was one bank that had 2-3 branches. Even credit unions are consolidating. * Hardware stores. We are down to Home Depot, Lowe's, and a regional chain that has 20-30 stores. No independent guys. * Grocery stores. My region has exactly two full-service grocery store chains, plus maybe 2 discount chains. When I was a kid, there were 10 different regional chains in the area. * Not the best example, but video stores. There used to be 10-12 different mom-and-pop stores, which consolidated into two (Blockbuster, Hollywood Video), which got crushed by Netflix. Smart TVs have allowed for there to be more players in the on-demand world, but the level of skill needed to enter this area cannot be more different between the initial mom-and-pop video store and the world of online content delivery. The list goes on and on. Consolidation is the name of the game, and when a market consolidates, the *average* person can no longer enter it. As it consolidates further, the *above-average* person can no longer enter it, and when it gets to a certain point, no one can enter it. That has harmed the economy because people have stopped ""playing the game"" because they know they can't win. They can't compete with the big boys. Now I don't know what to do about this, but my observation is that this has accelerated in the past 30 years.
"This highly editorialized headline makes no sense and suggests that the OP did not read and/or understand the article at all.  &gt;*""The decision is probably driven by Qatar’s worries over losing market share to emerging competitors like the United States, whose shale gas industry has been growing fast, and Australia. An increase in the emirate’s exports could discourage investment by would-be rivals.""*  How does anything in this piece suggest a quid pro quo deal when on the surface, the strategy is meant only to harm global LNG prices and therefore US producers?"
&gt;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. 'where's my proof? where's my proof?' 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? That's not a thing you can do, you can't prove a negative. 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. Any advantage is going to be used to bludgeon the competition with until you have a monopoly/quasi-state, and 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! &gt;Royal charter. Free market. You can only have one. So you're saying there can never be a truly free market then? Because it strikes me that companies trading without regulatory oversight (as the British, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish etc.) did is pretty much as close as we can get. They made huge, huge profits of course, but at the cost of a lot of human misery. In fact you can look at a lot of what the British did in the 19th century as semi-case studies for this as they had a proper hard on for the 'free market'.
No...it is not.  The markets are never certain. The price of oil often fluctuates and you have to take into account inflation. See the year 1980 here.  http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historical_oil_prices_table.asp  At this moment, many analysts concur that the price has dropped because demand is not high.    It is not because of a Global Financial Crisis.  Political Trouble in Europe and current low demand and high stockpiles in the USA....yes.
(And what do we call that ladies and gentlemen?.... A *government*!) &gt; Kansas You dug down into the specifics, which I appreciate. Most people just go: he didn't reduce taxes and spending *enough* and *that* is why it failed. And that is why they are now raising taxes to pay for gaping deficits. Okay, so lets say you are correct about Kansas. Lets do some apples to apples comparisons. Most people say - okay, lets compare Texas and California - our two biggest GDP states. I am fine with that, even though their GDP comes from *very* different sources. CA is a technology state, while TX is an oil state. They both have a little bit of farming on top of that. CA has one of the highest and strictest tax policies of any state in the union. TX is known for being a *business friendly* state and a *tax rebel* (although they surely don't have a zero tax policy, not having an income tax is nice while they have one of the highest real estate taxes of any state). CA currently has a [GDP growth rate of 3%](http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/dec/19/jerry-brown/are-jobs-california-growing-hell-lot-faster-texas/), and has a job growth rate that exceeds the national average. TX is has fallen below the national average on both aspects, mostly because of the oversupply of oil on the global market. And of course TX was one of the top states while oil was up, but still was CA. The point being is that their *very* different tax policies did not make or break their positions. And many would argue that tax policy can help GDP when it builds stability and infrastructure (while states like KS seem to show the opposite to be true). Lets do another comparison, and see if we can get even more apples to apples. Lets find a couple of states the sit right next to each other, have very similar economies and demographics, but very different views on taxes and infrastructure. How about: WI and MN, KS and MI, NH, and ME, and OR and ID.
Read this-   [Out of Control: The Coast-to-Coast Failures of Outsourcing Public Services to For-Profit Corporations](http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/sites/default/files/1213%20Out_of_Control.pdf)  Free trade agreements mandate a one way street to privatization of almost all public jobs and publicly procured services because it puts those jobs into play, they can then become bargaining chips in the globalization trading game. For example, US teaching jobs could be traded for national treatment in trade deals like TiSA- They could become valuable in the context of the fact that countries like India have a rapidly growing market and a surplus of people with degrees who speak perfect English. the US pharmaceutical industry might be able to trade access to those contracts for something like the curtailment of Indias policy on making cheap generic drugs. That kind of thing makes the US pharmaceutical industry see red. There has been a longstanding dispute with Australia over Australia's public health care systems' buying of drugs at a discount. The US claims thats prohibited by an FTA.  I think its the US's position is that that is unfair discrimination against corporations. Only private for-profit companies are allowed to negotiate discounts. You can probably find more here: http://www.bilaterals.org/?-US-Australia- or here http://www.italaw.com  (plug in the word Australia)  Privatization is often mostly about looting public resources for some goal that is very much against the public interest!   For example, look at the National City Lines fiasco- the reason the US went from having one of the very best to one of the worst public transit systems in the developed world - in only 30 years- is now addicted to oil and gas.
If you are the only one who puts in a large market buy order, then it would definitely push the price up. How much up would depend on how many would be willing to sell at what price point. It would also be possible that your trade will not get executed as there are no sellers. The same would be true if you put in a large sell order, with no buyers. The price would go down or trade not get executed as there aren't enough buyers.
International Trade, the exchange of goods and services between nations. “Goods” can be defined as finished products, as intermediate goods used in producing other goods, or as raw materials such as minerals, agricultural products, and other such commodities. International trade commerce enables a nation to specialize in those goods it can produce most cheaply and efficiently, and sell those that are surplus to its requirements. Trade also enables a country to consume more than it would be able to produce if it depended only on its own resources. Finally, trade encourages economic development by increasing the size of the market to which products can be sold. Trade has always been the major force behind the economic relations among nations; it is a measure of national strength.
"**Are you nuts?** &gt;*""Are you talking about TARP because that was paid back early and at 6.2% interest, the gov't made money on that bailout. The auto bailout however lost the gov't billions at the taxpayers expense and the bondholders got screwed over and the unions made out like bandits. Your title just shows how bias and uneducated you are on the subject. ""* I'm talking about the GFC/Global Financial Crisis. In 2008. -------------QUOTED TEXT-------------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308 This article is about the financial crisis that peaked in 2008. *For the global recession triggered by the financial crisis, see [Great Recession](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession).* The financial crisis of 2007–2008, also known as the Global Financial Crisis and 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[1] It resulted in the threat of total collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market also suffered, resulting in evictions, foreclosures and prolonged unemployment. The crisis played a significant role in the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in trillions of U.S. dollars, and a downturn in economic activity leading to the 2008–2012 global recession and contributing to the European sovereign-debt crisis.[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.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-global-stock-markets-hidden-juice-1506249970) reduced by 71%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Investors should be worried then that stocks are being supported by record amounts of margin debt, according to research released last week from the Bank for International Settlements, the Switzerland-based central bank for central banks.  &gt; In the U.S. at least, lending as a share of market capitalization has been relatively steady for the past four years, most recently at 2.12%. But that level is much higher than the period before 2007 and above even the dotcom-era peak of 2.05%. Swiss private banks, which have among the biggest and most international margin lending operations, have grown this business significantly.  &gt; Lending against shares is seen as less risky than mortgages because stocks can be sold more quickly than a house, so banks can hold less capital against margin loans.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/72rzat/the_global_stock_markets_hidden_juice_wsj/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~217432 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*: **Bank**^#1 **lending**^#2 **margin**^#3 **stock**^#4 **investor**^#5"
Americans want cheaper health care. They do not want one where you have to wait months for a blood test and sometimes they cut off the wrong leg (see video on Canadian health care system below).  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw  There is a medium between a monopoly market (what exists today) and a socialized one. It is called a free market.
"[There's about 10 trillion in gold](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_reserve) and about [2.8 trillion of US cash](http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/the-value-of-united-states-currency-in-circulation/) in the world. Neither of these is anywhere large enough to be used for all the transactions in the world. For example, about [4 trillion a **day**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_market) changes hands in the currency markets alone - if that were required to be cash or gold it would be impossible to do so, and you'd suffer from more poorly priced goods since markets could not adjust as quickly, so vendors would charge more premium to handle the risk.  Yes, there is not (and has not been) enough cash in circulation to run the world economy. There is also vastly too little gold, unless you want to strangle commerce due to not being enough money to trade.   &gt; ""posing as the money supply""  All money is debt, and always has been. Money is a placeholder that you can trade for goods *later* meaning someone owes you a thing. The value of that money is the debt they (or society) owes you for something you already did to get that money. So there is no posing, just most don't understand money, how it originated, why it exists, or why it works. They never ask the question ""how does money come into existance"".  &gt; Does defaulting on ones debt create inflation since that money is still in the system and not being paid off?   Probably not much. Loans are made expecting some default, so the interest others pay on their loans helps offset the defaulted ones. If loans become riskier, the interest demanded increases, so the lender still (if they do their risk analysis well and no external events break their expectations) makes money.  When you pay off a debt, that money, as you're paying it, is likely being lent in other loans, so paying it off does not do much. If you could pay off about 100 trillion in debt into the US economy in one payment you might break some things :)"
"Non-economist: ""This one irrational thing happened! How can you say market are rational?""  Economist: ""This one irrational thing happened. Perhaps markets are slightly less rational than previously thought. Or perhaps it's noise in the expected amount of irrationality. I wonder how my index funds are doing.""  Not saying markets are rational, but you need more than that. If you work in finance, weak efficiency is likely why your job is socially useful. Unless it isn't."
But the free market opted to use ssn because it was easier and available and only required 1 field versus I'd and state. Those state IDs also have variable lenghts, some have letters and others don't. If you've ever written software to handle state driver's license you know what I mean, I have and it's a mess. Theres all kinds of gotchas that you just don't have with a nationwide standard like SSN.
"This might not map well, because personal finance is not the global economy; but let's start by talking about this in terms of the cost of a loan vs the gain of an investment.   If you can buy a house with a mortgage at 3%, but make 7% on average in the stock market... You should take as *looong* as possible to pay that off, and invest every penny you can spare in the markets.  Heck, if you can take on even *more* debt at 3%, you should still do the same.  Now imagine you have the power to literally print money, *but*, doing so is effectively a form of ""loan"" to yourself.  We call the ""interest"" on that loan ""inflation"", and it comes out to roughly 2%, basically the same rate that US treasuries pay (they aren't strictly locked, but they rarely drift far apart).  So, if you can print money at 1%, you should rationally print as much money as you possibly can to buy US treasuries at 2+%.  But someone has to *take* that money off your hands - Pallets of money siting in a warehouse aren't worth any more than the paper they're made of.  There we get into trade imbalances... Whether printing money costs you 0.1% or 10% or 1000% per year depends on whether your country is, on average, making or losing money on international trade (I'm glossing over a hell of a lot there, as full disclosure), and by how much.  If you're printing money as fast as you can just to buy food to stay alive with zero exports, you're screwed; if your country exports $10 to the US (or equivalents) for every $1 you import, the rest of that is essentially ""invested"" in USD, in that you didn't need to print it yourself just to feed your people."
This is really shallow analysis.  Just because revenues are up does not mean the market is healthy.  This might indicate that a market dominating participant such as Amazon is causing prices to be aggressively driven up.  The real issue isn't so much quaint dead tree versions facing off against e-books, but who is getting the money from this trade which is getting locked down to various shiny devices.
I work in manufactoring. It's not 2% margins for us. If you're in a dying service/business with a unpopular product well that's just the market.   Who forced you to go into that industry? Free market is just that free, you shouldn't be subsidized for a product that can't compete or isn't popular.   Truth is harsh. You're angry, but your energy would be spent better finding viable alternatives rather than trying to save a sinking ship. If 5% will sink you, then you're already not doing well before these changes back to normal level tax.