vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
For aggregate demand:  we've built an economy that depended on credit to fuel demand so it should be no surprise that a correction in the market slowing down demand because its not easy to get credit as much as it used to.  Economic growth should be built on productivity and savings not endless credit.  For interest rates:  Companies are no longer expanding because they have already over expanded.  Over the past few decades companies have been enticed with cheap rates, encouraged by the fed and governments, to capitalize their productivity to supply an inflated/manipulated demand.  If it wasn't for all of this cheap rates, producers would not have incorrectly over capitalized.  For currency:  We live in a world where many of the products we buy/sell are made with imported and domestic parts.  So cheapening our currency will also increase the prices of the goods we buy at Walmart, Best Buy, Apple stores etc.  If we lived in a country/society where domestic products are truly domestic made and resourced then there would be some benefit to devalue our currency for gain of export.  Besides, like you said, I doubt other countries are just going to sit idle and watch us continue printing money to make our dollar worth less... they will respond the same way.  Regarding supply and demand, it is a circle... so supply needs to also be cheap enough to encourage people to demand it.  So giving money to people so they spend it is not going to fix anything.  For Gators:  Go Gators!
"Do not reinvent the wheel! Historical data about stock market returns and standard deviations suffer from number of issues such as past-filling and mostly survivorship bias -- that the current answers do not consider at all. I suggest to read the paper ""A Century of Global Stock Markets"" by Philippe Jorion (UC Irvine) and William Goetzmann (Yale), here. William Bernstein comments the results here, notice that rebalancing is sometimes a good option but not always, his non-obvious finding where the low SD did not favour from rebalancing:  Look at the final page of the paper,  ""geometric returns -- represent returns to a buy-and-hold strategy"" and the ""arithmetic averages -- give equal weight to each observation interval."", where you can find your asked ""historical effect of Rebalancing on Return and Standard Deviation"". The paper nicely summarizes the results to this table:  The results in the table are from the interval 1921-1996, it is not that long-time but even longer term data has its own drawbacks. The starting year 1921 is interesting choice because it is around the times of social-economical changes and depressing moments, historical context can be realized from books such as Grapes Of Wrath (short summary here, although fiction to some extent, it has some resonance to the history). The authors have had to ignore some years because of different reasons such as political unrest and wars.  Instead of delving into marketed spam as suggested by one reply, I would look into this search here. Look at the number of references and the related papers to judge their value.  P.s. I encourage people to attack my open question here, hope we can solve it!"
The reason is that China has identified a problem, has found a solution, and has realized the solution is worth billions in the new energy markets. It can solve a problem while becoming a leader in the largest industry in the world.  Meanwhile the US has politicized science and is debating if there is a problem at all.
With digital, robots, and globalization, markets have reduced the need for U.S. manufacturing ...and that's what a lot of small towns had going for them. It's gone. Sitting around and wishing for the past to come back with something like the government to legislate it is wishful thinking. &gt;I highlighted the solution: It's to move where the money is or is going. I live in NYC, not some random farm town. However, even though it's home to a lot of rich people, most people are poor and have no social mobility. Social mobility cannot be the solution for lack of social mobility, you are clearly missing steps in your proposed solution. Like I said, it really highlights the severity of the issue much more than it offers any type of solution to it. &gt;People get cranky when they have to give up a skill or trade (or hometown) they've spent 10, 20, 30 years in. I get it. I'm looking for ways to diversify my experience, even having a job in tech, because someday maybe it won't be here... or it'll be in India, China, Russia, the Philippines, Latin America, Bulgaria or any of the numerous countries where the labor is cheaper and the supply is higher. Yes this is an option. Americans have an option of ignoring reality, refusing to pursue redistribution of wealth, and allowing inequality to drive America to third-world standards. The day Americans have better job opportunities in India, China, and Russia than they do in America is the day I'll be proven 100% right for claiming that the economic system America has cannot last. &gt;It sucks, but it's also reality. If your hope is in voting for some sort of legislative change, godspeed but it won't help. Regulations will be issued and companies will push money to safe havens in Ireland, Liechtenstein, the Caymans, etc.. to avoid them. They'll outsource more and layoff to compensate for the new expenses and generally find workarounds. Nationalized businesses to compete with those corporations is clearly the only pragmatic solution.
"People in the service industry wouldn't have been able to live even nearby which is part of why it was raised. Greedy bastards almost never come off money they don't have to. There's a minimum wage because without it those bastards would pay even less. We'd have no middle class without a minimum. The ""free market"" is a myth."
Not bad. Do you do similar bullets for the future of the world economy?  To add to your Academic Bubble points:   * the black market will increase, with students simply defaulting on the debt, and getting jobs that pay cash.  * people will go back to apprenticeships to train young people more efficiently, like it's been done for centuries.  * online learning and standardized tests will replace expensive college system.
There was a market in medieval life but there were so many restrictions on it plus there were a lot of elements that undermined the market.  For one thing you were not free to pursue any line of work.  The Surfs were tied to the land and bound to surrender their work to the lords.  In the cities the guilds controlled who could work doing what.  So there was no free market for labor.  The Guilds also controlled prices so I wouldn't call it a free market in any sense.
Another reason this stock market is just one gigantic fabricated bubble. A combination of firing people (and not giving significant pay raises while making fewer employees do more work) to make profits seem higher and those buybacks.   People look at me like I'm crazy
We had that free market before and over time people went from unregulated markets to more regulated markets because it is for our own good. Govt. is just people who agreed with it, joined the govt and made it so and others agreed. If we don't agree in future, it can be changed. - There is a term as regulated free market. Unregulated free market will lead to snakeoil salesmen and generally a backwards movement to the wild west again. I don't think you really want to talk. You just want to spew your ignorant libertarian viewpoints because you've heard them somewhere without thinking much about it. You just blindly believe the govt. is always wrong with no logic or justification, just like religious people. Just think on a few points and you will see that you are wrong sometimes. Is the govt. perfect? Heck no. Is it always right? Nope. But it is some times and it does do the right things many times. It does the wrong things at times as well. But I don't believe like you do at all because I think for myself and reason. If you reason on a few points, you'll see the other viewpoint. And stop reading Stossel or Ron Paul because they're not right about govt. being always wrong either. I won't bother replying to you anymore because you're just a troll or arrogant smug guy who thinks he knows it all because your friends all think like you and blindly agree with you. So you've never been taken to reason or logic like others have to you on this board. Look at the other replies to your posts - almost all contradict you. Just think why ? Are they all wrong or perhaps you are.
"Now you're just splitting hairs on definition.  The definition of globalism and by extension globalist differs based on source and context.    Other possible definitions:  ""the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations.""  ""Globalism is a group of ideologies that advocate the concept of globalization. It tends to advocate for such policies as increases in immigration, interventionism and global governance. Economically, globalism varies between free trade and lowering tariffs to Marxist proletarian internationalism. It is typically viewed as opposite of nationalism, and has become increasingly divisive in politics in many developed countries, such as the United States.""  ""Political globalization is when governmental action takes place on a global level, where responsibilities, such as the welfare of citizens and economic growth, are acted upon by an international political body.""  Globalism in a political discourse is diametrically opposed to nationalism and has very little to do with business owning interest in other nations other than the repercussions vis-a-vis tariffs and taxes."
Studies suggest people aren't comfortable around others who are way poorer or richer than they. You sound like a rational adult. You would be surprised how weird people associate with money.   Also, if we compare to earlier period it can only account as far as the same people in question were alive e.g not a generation before. Why? Because people can't understand how it was to live differently without actual experience.   Yes, the majority of the world lives better today but we also have much higher expectations, that needs to be accounted for.   Another matter is the rising cost of living expenses. Real estate doesn't seem to be dropping and that easily adds to financial anxiety when due to globalisation and technology the job markets become unstable.
You're acting like there are still considerably fewer people in the world, the globalist haven't forced us to compete with shitty employers round the world, and that the inefficiencies of your local producer has any hope of making quality items cheaply.
"For any isolated equity market, its beta will less resemble the betas of all other interconnected equity markets.  For interconnected markets, beta is not well-dispersed, especially during a world expansion because richer nations have more wealth thus a dominant influence over smaller nations' equity markets causing a convergence.  If the world is in recession, or a country is in recession, all betas or the recessing country's beta will start to diverge, respectively.  If the world's economies diverge, their equity markets' betas will too.  If a country is having financial difficulty, its beta too will diverge. Beta is correlation against a ratio of variance, so variance or ""volatiliy"" is only half of that equation.  Correlation or ""direction"" is the other half.  The ratio of variance will give the magnitude of beta, and correlation will give the sign or ""direction"". Therefore, interconnected emerging equity markets should have higher beta magnitudes because they are more variant but should generally over time have signs that more closely resemble the rest.  A disconnected emerging equity market will improbably have average betas both by magnitude and direction."
"Well you are right about the market speaking but what you got wrong is what the market was talking about.  The market does not dictate jobs, it does dictate production and sales. If they can produce and sell without jobs then they will.  As far as coal being dead, far from it.  Here are the actual numbers for global coal use.  The unit is 1000 short tons.  1980 3,740,690  1981 3,814,908.00  1982 3,942,541.00   1983 4,051,196.00   1984 4,250,713.00   1985 4,445,314.00   1986 4,533,378.00   1987 4,692,590.00   1988 4,863,277.00   1989 4,816,369.00   1990 4,944,566.00   1991 4,778,631.00   1992 4,647,853.00   1993 4,806,460.00   1994 4,841,132.00   1995 4,938,585.00   1996 5,054,008.00   1997 4,961,120.00   1998 4,923,914.00   1999 4,989,302.00   2000 5,269,613.00   2001 5,350,284.00   2002 5,489,468.00   2003 5,917,536.00   2004 6,406,380.00  2005 6,836,650.00   2006 7,194,744.00  2007 7,560,933.00   2008 7,697,183.00   2009 7,638,344.00   2010 8,027,355.00   2011 8,438,300.00   2012 8,647,950.00   2013 8,701,070.00    As you can see the market has spoken and the conclusion is the exact opposite of what you claim. Not only is coal not ""dead"" it is surging.  At current rates of use the proven coal reserves of the world will last well over 150 years.  I suspect you will die and still be in denial about coal not being dead yet. Your kids will probably also be dead before coal dies and likely your grandkids as well."
The economy will never be the same from the perspective of the lower and middle classes. Globalization is continuing to happen and no Presisdent can do anything about it. This means an increased pool of workers (china, India, Brazil, etc) competing for the same quality of life we have.    Only way to stay ahead is get as educated as possible.
Wrong. If an industry needs 3 widget makers, and there are only 2 widget makers on Earth, their salary is going to be dramatically higher  (and thus cut into margins) than a world where 3 are needed but 30 exist.   To claim that supply and demand doesn't exist in the labor market or isn't a primary driver of wages is so fallacious that it's nothing short of retarded.
It shows that the poster of this article does not have a clue about how markets work. It also show they don't realize that the US is just about in a position to tell the rest of the world to fuck off in regards to oil. We will satisfy our own needs.
Brilliant fact-based objective reality explanation of the world currency markets.  I'm into bitcoin and physical gold investments (yeah, I know, it's like being gay and straight at the same time without being bi), may I ask you a few things later?
"No one wants this?  Um, isn't that what ""market forces"" are all about?  A bunch of new entrants into the economy making those high wages may very well offset higher food prices, which forcing a population in a society of +85% obesity to make more economically informed food choices may not be such a bad thing.  Farmers don't pay because their entire business model is based on exploitation of illegal laborers.  Remove the illegal labor and the model collapses.  This is analogous to implementing strict PED testing and player stats falling off of a cliff for the entire league."
The issue is that no one wants to be paid in Yuan.... so that leaves only those who don't want to be paid in dollars.   Will gold increase -- maybe marginally because of this. But world financial markets are doing slightly better which means that the price of gold will remain low for a bit a longer.
"The reason is that GM consistently payed out for many many years. Their grandfathers and fathers worked at GM and got their pension, and they were told it would be the same for them. Very similar to the housing market in fact. When you have been told from birth that something ""just is"" and you see the results for yourself, it is easy to just accept that it will be that way forever.  Obviously that is not the case, but I don't put all the blame on those people. I worked in michigan for a bit, and this idea, especially with the auto industry was basically part of the culture."
By all measures, the U.S. stock market is currently frothy. The apparent stability of the world financial system is superficial – financial asset prices are not real, the equilibrium is temporary, the lack of volatility is a trap, and when the whole thing goes haywire, there will truly be hell to pay.
Paper money and coins cost real resources too, but it doesn't matter much that it costs resources, except maybe for the environment.  No institutions controlling the price and supply is a good thing. I prefer a currency in which the global market decides the price and not some government I don't trust that keeps printing more and more for decades, causing the currency to lose value over time.  Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies will never replace normal currencies, but they are already competing and it's good that governments and banks  don't have an oligopoly anymore.   Bitcoin is a great mix of a currency and safehaven for longterm inflation. It's easily transactable and divisible without a third party AND because it's scarce, yet more accessible than gold, it's a great place to store value to escape an economic crisis or simply monetary inflation.  Now you'll probably say, something volatile isn't safe enough for a safehaven. But I think the higher the price and the longer it exists the less volatile the bitcoin price will be and that the longterm trend will be up, even after it surpasses the marketcap of gold.  Meanwhile, cryptocurrencies are a great way to crowdfund interesting projects and create value out of nothing, enriching young smart people whom will be able stimulate the global economy.
"&gt; Simply because there are cases of market failures, I do not therefore conclude that the market system is itself a failure.  No, but without a realistic mechanism to correct for them (especially ones with effects as broad reaching as the financial crisis) I don't see how ""free-markets"" can be compatible with liberty and justice.  If you're seeing some sort of mass organization of the public against market externalities that affect them then I'm afraid I missed that.  In my experience most people don't even understand the nature of the problems, let alone work together to mend them.  That's a shame you won't debate with people who hold opposing viewpoints, I was looking forward to the challenge of your air-tight refutation of ""collectivist systems""."
Productivity *can* increase, but it doesn't have to. Productivity can remain the same but if you've got two people competing for one job they bid wages lower since even a lower wage is better (up to a point in welfare state) to no wage at all. It's why so many jobs went to southeast Asia, they bid a wage lower than their competitors on the international market and the jobs migrated to them. Now that they're bidding their wages up that no longer applies to the same extent it once did (and it's why, for example, [Google built their new manufacturing plant in the US](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/technology/google-and-others-give-manufacturing-in-the-us-a-try.html?_r=1&amp;pagewanted=all)).
We definitely do not have a free market - never have. That's why it's all messed up and don't have an Amazon for healthcare and your insurance is through your employer (tax breaks). FDA, Medicare, Medicaid, and insurance/hospital regulations have been around for years.  The reason why all of these prices are spiking and and quality is dropping is because the Government continues to involve it self (like all other areas with high prices: education, housing, etc.).  Freedom is moral and efficient. Stealing is not.
"Don't copy that floppy!  Yes, we all remember when 'global trade' collapsed due to [Apple II locksmith and C64 ""Fast Hack'em""](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_nibbler).  3D printing isn't the 'pirate bay' equivalent; it's more like [8-track tape duplicating](https://books.google.com/books?id=jikEAAAAMBAJ&amp;pg=PA14&amp;lpg=PA14&amp;dq=Make-A-Tape+8+Track+Duplicator&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=cWrKGc-lIN&amp;sig=TRpRbQpaI5agAKxoNfoztK3DtZA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjrzoif5-PWAhWCilQKHTeoAaMQ6AEIUjAL#v=onepage&amp;q=Make-A-Tape%208%20Track%20Duplicator&amp;f=false), except the hype is the same."
Some of those could be bubbles since they violate price-rent metric.    maybe or maybe not.   People parking money is not necessarily a bubble if the money stays parked.  I look at overseas real estate and some areas will never have prices anywhere near in line with incomes because they are global markets.  locals couldn't dream to afford to own their own property.
No. They do not. The American populace, myself included, does not understand the vast complexities of the mechanisms and institutions responsible for delivering dollars to the market.   If there's debt, then it must be ok because our paychecks get bigger and we can get money from the bank.   If it was a problem, it'd be taken care of.
Not only are absolute incomes (adjusted for inflation) not increasing, but purchasing power is also decreasing. Decades ago, the salary of one middle class worker can raise a family. Nowadays, you can't even buy a home with two salaries, especially in large metro areas. There are numerous factors why this is happening:  1. Globalization. Why pay an American more when something can be done or made in Vietnam for a fraction of the cost? Prices of non-renewable resources will increase as third-world countries modernize and their populations demand the same luxuries that we have.  2. Automation. Automation has eliminated many jobs further driving income inequality. There are people with very high salaries since automation are making them much more productive and then there are jobs that have been completely eliminated because of automation. I know of factories that laid off a large fraction of their operators because the machines are now automated (but they did a hire few more engineers and technicians to increase productivity).  3. Scarcity of land. Everyone wants to live in areas where the jobs are but you can only build so much housing in one area, so house prices go up faster than wages. People with good jobs in industries where jobs are clustered in one place (biotech, software, semiconductors, finance, etc.) actually can afford less real estate than one would think based on their income just because of their location.  These issues will become even more relevant as technology continues to develop and globalization continues.
"&gt; The World Trade Organization is moving closer to eliminating country-of-origin labels and replacing them with “Made in the World” initiative labels because they say we need to “reduce public opposition to free trade” and “re-engineer global governance.”  I'm going to look for products with that ""Made on another World"" label."
Finance is more local than global. There's a few mega banks but a lot of people still prefer small banks and credit unions.  I would say Oil. OPEC has that shit locked down. They make a ton of money because they're crooks and they fix the prices.  Thanks to electric cars however, their whole industry is going to collapse in a handful of years. And good riddance. Parasites all of them. None of the people getting rich from Oil have spent any time getting their hands dirty retrieving it. They use poor people to dig the shit up and then they re-sell the shit to other poor people while collecting far too much money in transit. Parasites all of them.