vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
If you can't run a business and compensate your workers substantially better than the Chinese, your business should be closed and liquidated.  Want a low-tax paradise with few regulations? Go to Mississippi. Want a state with no teachers' unions? Welcome to Alabama, home of the worst schools in the nation.  Want to live in a high-tax hell with coddled workers? Go to Germany, which has enjoyed some of the greatest prosperity for well over a century, in spite of having a social welfare system in place since Bismarck.  I'm sympathetic to the argument that taxes and benefits will hurt the business owners, but only at much higher levels than we see today. Those who can't cut it under even the modest constraints of the minimum wage and Obamacare should not be in business anyway, because they suck. (And I'm leaving out that Obamacare will save most small-to-medium business money.)  If we must cut workers' pay and benefits to the levels of the Chinese worker, then we suck as a society and deserve a housecleaning of the dead weight in our ownership class.
Laurel is pretty nice, and centrally located to both D.C. And Baltimore, you can be downtown in either in 30 minutes, and the MART train runs through it. This would be my choice. If you're working in Laurel you could easily live in downtown Baltimore if you prefer the more cosmopolitan life.  Germantown is western Maryland. More rural, cheap, conservative. Not bad though. It's a hike to get from there to anywhere though, it's pretty remote.   Temple Hills is a D.C. suburb, and may be on the expensive side, but is pretty nice.
They're China. They won't help if it doesn't help them posture contrary to America. They will help, however, when they get to look like the benevolent and strong economic power that they want to be perceived as. Look for them to help in six months if help is still required.
The other factor in increasing disability claims is that during an up economy, someone with a disability can probably get a job doing what little they are able to.  Go through a down turn, and no employer is going to hire a worker that has a known disability that might in any way limit their productivity.  So having a disability can go from having a lower paid job, to having no job and no chance of getting one.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/need-proof-that-tax-cuts-promote-economic-growth-look-to-the-states/article/2638023) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; A new report released this week by the Tax Foundation - along with assessment of states&amp;#039; fiscal health, economic performance, and population changes - confirm that states with lower taxes and reasonable levels of government spending have stronger economies and are more attractive for businesses and individuals.  &gt; The State Business Tax Climate Index is an annual ranking of state tax systems and how well they are structured to promote economic growth.  &gt; Big-government, high-tax, reckless-spending states such as Vermont, California, New York, and New Jersey find themselves at or near the bottom of tax climate and fiscal health rankings, as well as the bottom in economic outlook.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/78j193/need_proof_that_tax_cuts_promote_economic_growth/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~234422 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*: **State**^#1 **tax**^#2 **new**^#3 **economic**^#4 **fiscal**^#5"
Yes. Sears and Walmart didn’t destroy the economy, they set the bar higher.  Let markets do their thing. Amazon eventually will show a weakness and then the innovators dilemma will take over, just like it always has.   Markets consistently consolidate and fragment. It keeps things healthy :)
Most of Scandinavia is doing well.  Though it's a capitalist socialist mix.    Socialism will probably require a post-scarcity economy with robots who can do most manual labor to work.  Because yeah, humans a lazy and greedy and our society still requires a lot of hard work to maintain.
Whether it's historically stronger or weaker isn't going to have an impact on you; the forex exposure you have is going forward if the exchange rates change you will have missed out on having more or less value by leaving it in a certain currency.   (Ignoring fees) Say you exchange €85 for $100, if while you're in the US the Euro gets stronger than it currently is, and the exchange rate changes to €8:$10; then you will lose out on €5 if you try to change it back, and the opposite is true if the euro gets weaker than it currently is you would gain money on exchanging it back.  Just look at it as though you're buying dollars like it were a commodity.  If the euro gets stronger it buys more dollars and you should've held onto it in euros, if it gets weaker it buys less dollars and you were better off having it in dollars.  You would want to use whichever currency you think will be weaker or gain the least against the dollar while you're here.
**Nazism**  National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism (), is the ideology and set of practices associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party, Nazi Germany, and other far-right groups. Usually characterized as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism, Nazism's development was influenced by German nationalism (especially Pan-Germanism), the Völkisch movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary groups that emerged during the Weimar Republic after Germany's defeat in First World War.  Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and Social Darwinism, identifying the Germans as a part of what the Nazis regarded as an Aryan or Nordic master race. It aimed to overcome social divisions and create a German homogeneous society based on racial purity which represented a people's community (Volksgemeinschaft).  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/economy/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.26
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/private-bankers_patience-wearing-thin-for-negative-interest-rates/43174886) reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Negative interest rates are the bane of the financial sector - and the longer they remain, the louder bankers cry foul.  &gt; He noted that &amp;quot;The voices criticising negative interest rates have become louder and more numerous. We no longer feel alone.&amp;quot; He added that he hoped future conditions might allow &amp;quot;Our central bank to loosen its stranglehold&amp;quot; on interest rates.  &gt; The Private Banking Day organisers even invited along German economist Hans-Werner Sinn to help them ram home the point that negative interest rates are bad. Sinn warned that the countries most likely to suffer from such monetary policy are those where house prices have risen rapidly in recent years - Switzerland, Germany and Austria.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ejahv/patience_wearing_thin_for_negative_interest_rates/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~133488 tl;drs so far."") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **bank**^#1 **interest**^#2 **rate**^#3 **Swiss**^#4 **Negative**^#5"
"Yeah that's the big global wealth redistribution scam of it. China already has hive cities like something out of Sci-Fi movies. But it's still a ""developing economy"" so doesn't have to cut any emissions apparently lol. It's no wonder they were happy to sign along with every other 3rd world nobody who loses nothing by doing so."
&gt;If banks did not have a big brother to bail them out of loans that went bust whenever they wanted, they would be a lot more careful in who they loaned money to.    That's what they became, an avenue to offload risk.  The reason those banks were making bad loans was the high demand for trading in mortgage backed securities, not because Freddie and Fannie were there. They wanted to make those loans anyway, so there'd be more paper to trade. If you could transfer half of the risk of a loan you already knew was shitty to another entity, but still keep all the profits and fuck around with the derivatives, then of course you'll take full advantage.   The intention behind them was to help that margin of people that fell just below the banks' historically very high standards for home lending. Banks seek high profits. Fannie and freddie were to operate at break even or slim profit, but serve a population toward upward economic mobility(which benefits everyone). When the banks' lending standards dropped precipitously due to repeal of glass steagall, creation of new exotic financial instruments and appalling lack of regulatory enforcement, everything kind of went to shit.  In my view, they're much more a casualty that's become a scapegoat than a causal force.
That's because the wealthy are paid for every engine stroke, and they know the car is almost out of fuel, and is heading for a cliff.  So they are making plans to bail while collecting as many resources from the car's operation before it's inevitable crash.
erm...  a) H1b applications went down over 90% in the last two years because the US does not offer anything better anymore (keep in mind, H1b means a Corp. vouchers for you and you can only stay as employee in the country, you can switch employer but you can't just start a startup or something. fired and no new employer? you get kicked out of the country. which also happens 6 years later no matter what because the visa only lasts 3+3 years and is a lottery so applying doesnt mean you actually get it. so why come in the first place?)  b) H1b visa holders must be payed appropriate.  c) if I can get hired by MS in the US, I can also work for a US office anywhere else, and they have plenty.   d) H1b means you have either 4 years university possibly with degree or you can prove that you worked 3 years for each university year and have therefore a minimum of 12 years job experience in the field you're hired. again, if Microsoft, why in the US? pay in your own country is probably better.  the whole worker visa system is doomed. they should give out IT greencards like Germany tried it many years ago to bring in foreign talent. a visa that is not chained to the employer that vouched for you but let's you open up a startup and stay for longer. h1b pretty much let's you stay in a country that takes taxes for you, you have to obey their laws but you get no benefits and 6 years later you get kicked out. if you want to come back after 6 years you have to stay out at least 1 years, then you're allowed to participate again in the yearly H1b lottery which means almost 2 years after you got kicked out you might win again and you can return to work for the company.    seriously, would you like to be in that situation? building a life in a new country with a countdown attached to it?   (I just left the US after 6 years on H1b)   edit: btw. they are already charging 8 or 12k since 2012 per application. up from 1500 - one of the explanations why applications are down.
If an investment is irreversible, uncertainty raises the value of hoarding cash and waiting to see what happens. Gauging the fog Quantifying uncertainty is a more recent sport. To measure it, Nick Bloom and Scott Baker of Stanford University and Steve Davis of the University of Chicago constructed an index. It counts how often uncertainty related to policy is mentioned in newspapers, the number of temporary provisions in the tax code and the degree to which forecasts of inflation and federal spending differ from each other. That index hit its highest in 25 years during last summer’s debt-ceiling battle and remains high (by contrast, the Vix index of stock market volatility, a conventional gauge of uncertainty, remains below its peak of 2009; see chart). A simpler index for Europe that tracks news reports of uncertainty has similarly spiked. Mr Bloom and his co-authors fed their index into a model of growth that seeks to filter out purely economic factors by controlling for interest rates and stock prices. They conclude that the rise in uncertainty between 2006 and 2011 reduced real GDP by 3.2% and cost 2.3m jobs. Such estimates should be taken with a grain of salt. They demonstrate that policy uncertainty and weaker economic growth are related, not that the first causes the second. Many radical policy actions, from the TARP bail-out programme to the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing and the Dodd-Frank law on financial reform, were responses to unprecedented economic trauma: collapsing house prices, failing financial institutions and the deepest recession since the second world war. That trauma did most of the damage to growth, not any uncertainty about the policy response. Had policymakers stood still, the result would have been less policy uncertainty but a far more damaging crisis. Clearly some policies, such as Mr Obama’s health-care reform, generate uncertainty independent of economic developments. But at least Obamacare comes with benefits as well as risks; that cannot be said for the current political brinkmanship. As the fiscal cliff draws nearer, argues Ethan Harris, Bank of America’s economist for North America, the incentive to defer hiring and investment will grow, putting pressure on the economy.
"Sigh. You need to educate yourself regarding the recent financial crisis before claiming the government had to bail out JP Morgan.   The reason I said you don't know the difference between a depository bank and an investment bank is because JP Morgan isn't even the institution that ""gambled"" nor was it the institution that needed a bail out. It's one of the institutions that bought the toxic assets, thereby assuming the risk and mitigating what would've been a global catastrophe.  Furthermore, you seemingly don't understand the concept of a bail out considering you think the TARP cost the tax payers money which is also false.  The reason I was condescending towards you is because you insulted the CEO of a bank that had nothing to do with the housing crisis, and in fact kept us from what would've resulted in an economic depression at a minimum. ""Fuck you"" to the guy who was partly responsible for keeping our economy afloat and has every right to be frustrated at this point in time is so moronic that I don't even know where to begin."
They wont let it collapse, they will devalue it over time to some effect via bailouts and borrowing.  Invest in commodities so your cash retains its value, physical gold is always strong.  Other currencies are an option but this is more of a gamble.
"Spain is THEFT and murder. Greece is MURDER and theft. Italy is murder and theft. So is Germany and Japan and the US and Africa and everyone else except me. That's how come I know I'm special.  How can you evil fuckheads defeat me?  Why should a responsible nation be forced to subsidize an irresponsible nation? Because, FUCK YOU, that's why. Apparently.  Let's get rid of the ""leaders"" and get down to the business of deciding who is the WINNER! Wouldn't you rather be DEAD than the LOSER? EZPZ! You CAN be dead if you're the loser!  Let's all square off. The Whites, the niggers, the Jews, The asians, et al...and fight it out for ULTIMATE CORRECTNESS!!"
"Great, it's the old ""no true capitalist"" argument. It's hilarious how you keep seeing this, yet when you see the exact opposite version of the same argument, namely that all communist countries have been authoritarian nightmares and that this does not necessarily reflect the true ideology of communism, then suddenly you're a commie bastard.  If we agree that there are no state bailouts in ""pure"" capitalism, then please never again in your life disregard this argument when you hear it from a socialist."
If a 08 crash and bailout happens again anytime soon I don't know if the banks will get to keep control this time around.  Their power is directly related to the amount of capital they have and there are enough in Congress that see them as not being loyal enough to front the political capital required to refill the coffers if it is needed.   I see the next bailout being the fed making a nationalization attempt.
"&gt;A lot of countries with harsher rules and higher taxes have lots of big companies that makes massive profits.   Often with price protection mandates. Did you know in Germany the same Jeans they sell in Wal-mart for $18/pair sell for $80-100/pair? Do you know why? The government set's MSRP price controls and no one can sell below that amount. The same is true for all sorts of products.  Do we really want to go down that path?   &gt;I have no sympathy for this man. Compete or die.  That's a bit unfair when you don't know the intimate details of the accounting/liabilities any changes would cost. But surely we could use a few hundred more ""for lease"" warehouse space and a few thousand more empty storefronts, right?  &gt;Obama wont change much that he already hasn't.   How much do you think it costs employers to keep 26 year old adult children on their parents healthcare + them living at home? That's ONE example. Obama is also looking at mandating higher employer medical insurance costs in general (employers having to pay a higher percentage of the costs). If somebody can avoid that by cutting payrolls or becoming ""more efficent"" with the number of employees they will do it. This is true for ANY company.  &gt;This is just a guy that in the past has bragged about his ability to affect the florida vote trying to affect it again.  And? People brag all the time, about all sorts of things. Personally I think this is less ""slimey"" than Obama gloating about killing Osama Bin laden as if death is cheap because an individual is an outsider or another religion.  &gt;Slimy bastard.  Again, you don't know all the details or the guy personally. But it's nice to know you're reserved and mature about somebody you don't even know.   From your name should I assume you like Croc shoes? Which are lame and thus making you a loser? Superficial assumptions and judgements help nobody and in many cases are not even true."
"Disclaimer: Mozilla employee here.  Not speaking for Mozilla, of course, all opinions are my own and my own alone.  And I'm not in any way connected w/ the negotiations w/ Google (or anyone else, for that matter) so I don't have any inside information about either Google or Mozilla's stance on the matter.  A lot of what you're saying here makes sense, fab13n, but there's one thing that isn't quite right in my mind.  You say that Google ""subsidized"" Firefox.  That's not at all how I'd describe the relationship.  Yes, it's to Google's advantage to have the web as the platform, and before Chrome became such a player having FF around as a competitor to IE was a good move.  But as I understand it this is a business deal, pure and simple.  FF's market share may currently be on the decline, but there is still somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000,000 (that's half a billion) Firefox users out there.  That's a lot of eyeballs seeing Google as the default search engine and the default home page.  Which means a lot of Google searches, which means a lot of Google revenue.  I don't know how much they make from that, but I'd guess it's a whole lot more than the $100,000,000/yr they've been paying for that privilege.  Now if FF no longer defaulted to Google, they wouldn't lose *all* of those users.  Some people would still switch to Google as the default, and lots of people would just type ""google.com"" in the address bar, or make it their home page.  But a lot more people just go w/ the default than you'd first guess.  I think that if Google bailed on some renewal of the deal, they'd see a noticeable dip in their traffic, w/ a resulting dip in revenue.  This relationship has never been about philanthropy, it's about the money, as usual.  For this reason I'm not gonna stress out too much about an article that seems to be little more than speculation.  Maybe I'm wrong, maybe a new deal will fall through.  But I'm going to wait until I hear that from someone who actually has inside information before I start freaking out about it."
It seems smart to me to have a profitable business with a troubled future take today's profits to pay tomorrow's biggest expense. Those pensions won't be ignored when USPS is bleeding even more profusely in the future and the Government will have to bail them out; these payments only soften the blow.   The pension payment requirement only serves to make the long-term effects of the USPS poor retirement choices apparent today rather than later.
"Which hedge fund outperforms consistently, year after year?  Hedge funds are over-rated, and few truly outperform... nor do many actually provide a hedge as they were originally intended to do.  Some funds have great years, but only because most hedge funds take much bigger risks via derivatives... and thus they have huge down years as well.  BTW being ""VERY well-funded"" is a DISadvantage, not an advantage.  It's tremendously more difficult to make large percentage gains on $1 billion than it is to make gains on $1 million."
"i dont see what's the big deal, all the banks got bailed out.  Govt printed over 7 trillion bucks, not much inflation.  govt has to help private sector.  gave plenty of freebies to the rich mother fukers in the banking sector.    or even better, govt should tax the shit out of wall street and super rich corporations and use that money to give to the students.     how do you suppose the govt ""FIX"" the economy??  wtf do u think govt is trying to do?  but they gave the money to the wrong people."
"If AIG wasn't bailed out by the US Government, Warren Buffet would be the greatest **RICHES** to **RAGS** story ever.  I can see why he promotes paying more taxes and is so willing to ""betray"" his own ""class"" on behalf of the USGov.  It's because he's in the crony capitalist class post AIG bailout and tax dollars are the only reason he isn't greeting people at WalMart."
Saying the government bailed out the entire financial system is just completely foolish and ignorant. The list of institutions (with the amount) that got bailed out is public. I will let you do the research because along the way you might gain some well needed knowledge on that matter. I'll two example of financial institution that didn't get bailed out, Berkshire Hathaway and Lehman Brothers.   Writing a letter is not my style. To show my gratitude I rather try educate people like you who do not understand the bailout program and why it was such an important decision.   PS: I'm still waiting on your answer for my two questions I asked in my previous post.   ''Intelligence is real but for some, it's just a fantasy'' =Winston Churchill
An investigation about bailout money is not an audit.   And what's wrong with a gold standard? In the 40 years since we've been off it productivity is way down and gains have evaporated from the middle class going largely to the super rich.
You are also ignoring Russia demographic population. It has a sub replacement fertility level, this will cause population decline. Now I know other countries have this to but they have benefits Russia does not have. Which is skilled workers moving there while Russia has people leaving. Also the economic freedom of Russia is very low so it will create low or no growth.