vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
When some goods are no longer available, other goods must be investigated to provide continuity in the comparisons. Otherwise you'll have me comparing the price of a horse to the price of a car since they both provide transportation, yet over time one replaces the other, and direct comparisons on $ alone does not accurately measure what one gets for their money. You cannot compare the cost of different goods purely on price alone and call that inflation. &gt;So, no, I don't think you're correct on this. Well, [since other places that track inflation](http://bpp.mit.edu/) arrive at very similar results using different methodologies, and a vastly larger pool of goods I think that you overstate that the changes did not increase accuracy of inflation measurement. &gt;This is also kind of glossing over the fact that the CPI essentially makes the bold argument that energy and transportation prices never affect inflation. CPI makes no such claim. What do you think caused inflation in the early 1970s when oil prices shot up? [Here is the most recent CPI data release from BLS](http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm) which quite clearly shows both energy and transportation changes being reflected in the CPI. I think when you make a claim you should at least look up if it matches the actual data. This is tiring trying to find evidence for/against so many dogmatic beliefs."
The issue with your claim is that slavery is completely involuntary, whereas I can't think of many cases in which one inherits debt, or could come into it in any other way than signing up for it. When a consumer takes on debt, he/she is consciously making a decision to owe somebody money. The fact that they'll likely have to work (unless they win the lottery) to pay that money back is not slavery; it's following through on a commitment. If everyone was born with $100,000 (an arbitrary amount; it could be just $1), then I think you would have a better argument, albeit still flawed.
The general population isn't going to respect a biased court that doesn't support the rights of private property against pollution. It's akin to asking what we'd do if a murderer went to his brother who supports a right to murder: you wouldn't use that court. Again, people overwhelmingly want protections against pollution and murder so there would be a market demand for courts that protect against these things. &gt; I mean these are all hypothetical worst case scenarios Then compare them to the real life worst case scenarios of governments. It won't do to use some fictitious, worst-case example that isn't based upon reason and evidence against the not-so-bad examples of government. Make an apples-to-apples comparison and tell me what evidence or reason you have to believe that hundreds of millions of people would have died in a century without governments. “Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children. In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.” - Robert Higgs"
Limited government people never liked Trump, though they may consider him a lesser evil than Hillary.  In any case, massive deficits are not a new thing, or a result of Trump's policies.  They go back to Bush's presidency, and lasted all through Obama's years. Blaming Trump for something with a decade of inertia after ten months in office, while being opposed strongly, is just partisan nonsense.  Trump got handed several wars, and a welfare state badly out of control. How is he supposed to fix that in 10 months? Why should we think Hillary would have if she was elected instead?
"&gt; Im genuinely enjoying the conversation and sorry about the name calling most of my political and economic debates happen with family where name calling is not only accepted but expected lol. Same. We can't even talk about politics anymore because it became to contentious. It is a shame, since I do enjoy talking about it. &gt; this link seems to contradict that statment. From your source: ""Kellogg School assistant professor of strategy Craig Garthwaite and his coauthors find that when the population of uninsured Americans increases, hospitals end up bearing the cost by providing uncompensated care."" And also from your source: ""Most of it is in the form of Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments, which, according to federal law, are owed to any qualified hospital that serves a large number of Medicaid and uninsured patients."" So basically, just like I said - when an uninsured or underinsured person gets treated, but then doesn't pay, the Hospitals file a claim and seek reimbursement from Medicare / Medicaid to get some of that non-payment back. The only thing is, they only get a percent of the non-payment reimbursed. How do many of these hospitals deal with this? By jacking up prices in the hopes of getting a larger chunk of the *actual* cost reimbursed. From your source: ""“The DSH payments are less than the uncompensated care that’s provided,” explains Garthwaite."" &gt; This is dangerously false. The industry isnt known for underbidding and going over budget. I think we are both looking at our respective industries through rose colored glass. I think we can agree that each of us can point out instances where industry and government have pooped the bed. You can probably spill out a dozen example of government wasted dollars, and I can tell you a dozen example of corporations that weren't efficient, that were slow, and that the government beat them at a task. I think we are both right, and that both exist in a world where they can be inefficient and wasteful, and they can also be speedy and innovative.
"No its not what's happening because trump is cutting federal support which was defined when the ACA was passed. He is actively trying to raise premiums so it will fail. This is a fact.   Why on earth would I think that? Hmm could it be... - effectively de funding the ACA to cause premiums to skyrocket that Americans can't afford so that you all can claim ""Obamacare failed""? - pushing a ""repeal now, replace later"" agenda which would have an immediate and dramatic impact on the well being of millions? - consistently wanting to remove the pre existing conditions clause / replace it with something which has been proven to be dangerous and ineffective (high risk pools)  There's nothing dramatic about it. I'm dealing in the world of facts. I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. Probably Russia? Idk"
I think we're talking across each other.  I'm saying the behavior justifies an investigation.  You're saying there's no evidence of collusion.  Fine, we're both right.  I'm glad the special prosecutor is gathering more facts.  One more piece of data....  https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/article/449376/donald-trump-jr-e-mails-proof-trump-campaign-attempted-collusion-russia  These guys do say that oppo research is not a contribution (which you also stated).  I still don't buy it.
"Yeah go ahead and try and back your claim up with a source. You aren't going to find anything to support your position, meanwhile nearly every review of who pays and who receives government assistance shows most of the south as a giant money sink.  Judging by the fact that you have negative comment karma and use such comments as ""beta cuck"" im going to assume you are legally retarded and likely require special assistance to stay alive."
From the IMF paper: &gt; This ability to generate and live with zero steady state inﬂation is an important result, because it answers the somewhat confused claim of opponents of an exclusive government monopoly on money issuance, namely that such a monetary system would be highly inﬂationary. There is nothing in our theoretical framework to support this claim. And as discussed in Section II, there is very little in the monetary history of ancient societies and Western nations to support it either.  I suppose the extensive literature on the relationship between central bank independence and inflation is to be ignored then?
"You can pontificate about how life is so hard for her because shit costs money and you're right, she can't support herself and kids. However, that doesn't change the basic economic reality that working full time at Popeyes simply DOES NOT provide enough value to her employer and there are two many people with her very low skill set that she cannot command a higher wage. No amount of government programs will change that. Robbing the tax payers through welfare, killing businesses and destroying jobs by imposing a wage that simply is infeasible is counter productive, unsustainable, and simply misguided. Don't believe me? Ask the University of Washington who have the numbers on Seattle's ever escalating minimum wage and the effect on [jobs.] (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-26/shocking-study-finds-seattle-min-wage-hikes-has-cost-works-14mm-hours-year-6700-jobs) This is, of course, assuming you care that people are being put out of work so a few can be paid a ""living wage"". Welfare is an endless tap of free money, [right?] (http://www.usdebtclock.org) The irony of your oh so well cited comment is that you didn't apply it to your own proposed solution of a minimum wage increase. [Here's](http://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/higher-fast-food-wages-higher-fast-food-prices) a great analysis of effect of this change on consumer prices, how it affects the capital side of the equation of whether to operate a restaurant at all, and how a higher minimum wage impairs the creation of entry level jobs. Succinctly, minimum wage jobs were never meant to be able to support a family of three, no matter how much you wish it could. By creating artificially higher wages you'll get higher unemployment, more substitution of labor with more capital intensive solutions (ordering kiosks, etc), and higher taxes and consumer prices.
"the whole notion that a central banker must be independent of the government force is fuking insane. No, this is precisely borne out as I posted above by dozens of economies over hundreds of years. [Here is but one study from many](people.ucsc.edu/~walshc/MyPapers/cbi_newpalgrave.pdf) demonstrating this quite clearly. Unless you have some peer reviewed evidence then let's note your opinion as such and move on.  Letting politicians dictate monetary policy has been terrible where it has been tried for the reasons I gave above: letting a politician print money makes that politician get votes, but leads to massive inflation and unemployment. Your ignorance of actual evidence and cries to ""Nationalize the FED"" will most likely work out much worse than the current system, as demonstrated many times in research including the above."
"The debt ceiling doesn't give the president permission to spend more money.  The debt ceiling gives the treasury permission to pay our bills.  Also, they shut down the government once, and tried to shut it down 2-3 times over the course of Obama's presidency.  So to say that everything was ""smooth"" is either forgetting what happened or choosing to ignore it."
"The overall standard of living in the USSR actually *increased* when compared to the previous Czarist regime.   Going from a pseudo feudal society to a full blown communist experiment, however, seems to be a rather unsustainable approach to social evolution.   In any case, all ""isms"" tried at large scale -feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism- have been proven to be systemically flawed: they all revolve around arbitrary pyramidal power structures, ignore physical reality, and utilize an abstract metric as their basis, i.e. capital/money."
&gt; Are you fucking stupid or just retarded?  no. but you are.  US debt to GDP is now where the PIIGS were when they exploded.  https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S  Yes. the war spending was a killer. (try to guess what Obama did with that war spending. Are you trying to say something?)  Just in case you miss military spending under Obama.  http://www.westernjournalism.com/no-the-military-has-not-withered-away-under-obama/  https://rogueoperator.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/obama-beats-bush-in-military-and-war-spending/
"Dutch company Mars One says it wants to send people to the Red Planet after running them through the reality TV wringer - but appears to be ill-prepared for actual spaceflight. Mars One says it wants to start selecting astronauts in 2013 and training them on a replica of the settlement out in the desert. The company says it will launch supplies in 2016, followed by the first four astronauts in 2022. The volunteer extraterrestrial settlers would all be traveling on a one-way ticket. Several questions spring up almost immediately: how wise is it to select astronauts 10 years before a mission starts through reality show casting? Is any of this technologically feasible at this point in time? Is Mars One a hoax, a media stunt capitalizing on the fact that private spaceflights are in the headlines now thanks to SpaceX, or an overreaching pipe dream? The company lists only one engineer amongst its four-person team on its website, and trumpets the endorsements of ""Big Brother"" co-creator Paul Romer as well as Nobel Prizewinner and physicist Gerard 't Hooft - though 't Hooft's expertise lies in quantum mechanics, not astronomy. A man claiming to be Mars One founder Bas Landsdorp appeared Friday on the popular website Redditto take questions on the project, and was quickly met with a storm of skepticism. Reddit users knocked Landsdorp, saying Mars One has not yet put out any concrete technical explanations of how they will get to Mars and support the proposed habitats. Some pointed out that NASA has had issues with solar panels on its Mars rovers because of dust storms that erode the panels' surfaces and block the sunlight for long periods of time, making Mars One's plans to use solar panels for energy generation unsustainable for supporting human life. But the man claiming to be Landsdorp mostly steered clear of the more scientific questions and directed users to the company's website. One user going by the handle arcanosis commented: ""This is almost certainly a publicity stunt. Your answers are nontechnical, imprecise, absurdly optimistic, even quixotic."" If Mars One turns out to be a hoax, it wouldn't be the first such stunt originating from the Netherlands in recent months.
Lazy uninformed journalism. Describing the Institute of Directors as non-political is laughable. They pop up very regularly in the media to support the most right-wing policies and bash any sign of dissent. And no chance of Spain exiting the Euro any time soon given their recent election results.
"People seem to think that Yelp serves businesses or the public. It doesn't. It serves Yelpers. Yelpers want reviews from other Yelpers – and that's it. If you don't review things frequently on Yelp, they don't care about your opinion. Sorry. Nothing personal, but this website is only interested in reviews from people who use the site frequently. You might be the most upstanding person in the world, and you might post a great review of a business, but this isn't your blog. You're not entitled to have the world see your review here. They only want the opinion of regular Yelpers. If you want to be a part of the Yelp community, keep making reviews, and they'll un-filter your reviews. There are people who say that businesses that pay Yelp get more reviews, but it's not true. The article even states that she was paying $350/month *before* these reviews got filtered out. The article also says a court case against Yelp was thrown out because there was no evidence showing bias. People who claim this are just butt-hurt and want to justify their bias by claiming that Yelp is greedy and unscrupulous. The fact of the matter is this: Yelp has a powerful community. Business owners see Yelp as possibly affecting their business. They want to have control over that, but they can't. In fact, Yelp goes out of their way to prevent that. Many business owners simply aren't mentally capable of grasping how some things work, and when things don't go their way, they get angry and make accusations. This particular woman, who is currently taking 3 hours of ""social media classes per week"" (WTF), thinks “there maybe needs to be some rules on the net that aren’t there now.” No offense lady, but you probably shouldn't be writing internet laws until you're done with your ""internet for dummies"" classes. You might think that this is not a good model for a review website. If so, don't use it.
You seem to be misinformed on a few things. Let me see if I can help.  Knowing how to run a business and run the government are two different skills. The goals of a government are completely different than the goals of a business.  &gt;In a scholarly ranking of great presidents, a 2009 survey conducted by C-Span,6 of the 10 best leaders lacked sufficient business experience to be president by Romney’s rumination. This list includes Ronald Reagan, the actor, union activist and corporate spokesman, and John F. Kennedy, the naval officer, writer and politician. There is one failed businessman on the list of great presidents, the haberdasher Harry S. Truman. - [NYT](http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/the-wrong-resume/)   [Carter was a fiscal conservative compared to Republican Icon Ronald Reagan. Who quickly ran up deficits once he was in office.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_1901-2010.png)  We got into this ditch because of George Bush and Republican mismanagement, and we're slowly working our way out of it, [with no thanks to the GOP cockblocking anything and everything](http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers). If they were more interested in helping the country than being spiteful children maybe recovery would go faster. But in reality, they don't care about the economy, because they and theirs are making more money than ever. [This is about their number one stated goal, making sure Obama is a one term president.](http://youtu.be/W-A09a_gHJc) Pure politics at the expense of the rest of the country.
1768? 1868? 1968?   Actually, the last time France stood up to the USA or UK was during the De Gaulle government, and his government was nearly toppled by the May '68 Paris uprising. Around 1972, pretty much every one in Europe is under US economic and political hegemony.
As in most anti-living wage  editorials, there is a lot of sketchiness here.  First, the workers are not minimum wage in the sense that increasing the minimum wage will not increase *their* wages.  Second, the article cites that one worker claimed to be making $2 and hour less in tips *before* the law was enacted (with wages unchanged). That seems like pretty strong evidence that tipping behavior is ultimately independent of the minimum wage.  Finally, the article cites studies that show that workers that rely on tips have higher poverty levels than those that don't.  So, while the article appears to be an editorial opposed to increasing minimum wage, a more objective look at the evidence presented suggests that the minimum wage should be increased and that Buckwalter is either a bit of an idiot or he recognizes that, as a non-minimum wage earner, he benefits from the inequality of a lower minimum wage.
Here's a wallet you can send it to: 0x52f4688802548121e1e404c26ef0e3d8a2667223 &gt; Prove it, name an example country that is now a devastated wasteland for providing decent wages alone. OK, how about the United States. Poor people get a bad education and then many of them can't get a job because it's too expensive to hire them, especially when there are more qualified people available. They could have the opportunity to go work for a company for very cheap as an unskilled helper where they could learn skills on the job that will help them in the future, but it's illegal to pay them less than the minimum wage, so we had to set up an internship exclusion that will allow people to work for free (in exchange for those valuable skills) and is overwhelmingly college students. Now a poor person not only has to excel enough to get into college but they most likely will have to take out crazy loans just to get a foot in the door. ""But wait, America hasn't been devastated!"" Oh, yes it has. We just keep getting more credit cards to pay off the old ones without actually producing anything, so it doesn't seem like it yet (depending on how you feel about income inequality). Eventually those other countries will realize that they can make products for their own people and they don't actually need us, then you will see the quality of life go up in China (If they don't squander it all lining the pockets of political party members). Without a minimum wage, we would have never lost those jobs in the first place (I know automation is taking over, so manufacturing jobs aren't coming back anyways, but this is what has lead to our crazy trade deficit). &gt; What policies would those be? I'm waiting for that ruined country. You're waiting, huh? Forgive me for not replying to your comment before you posted it. &gt; Real world example or I am going to continue to assume you live in a alt-right fantasy. Ah, there it is.
Here you go, as promised - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/sports/cycling/armstrong-stripped-of-his-7-tour-de-france-titles.html?hp  Of course, we can side with one man who has refused to provide any proof, other than his word. Or we can look at all the evidence provided by his teammates, spouses and others in the retinue.
"&gt;Provide better quality of life for its citizens. That's the whole point of the economy. Right now it's not doing that, it's broken. That's why we need to fix it.  That checks out.  &gt;For 100-500 years, you're probably right. But I'm not talking about the last 100 years, I'm talking about the last 30-40 or so. Every statistic I've seen indicates that the middle class and poor's purchasing power has stagnated severely while the rich have continued to rise, and it's put enormous economic strain on the middle and lower classes.  Average hours per worker has increased versus 30-40 years ago. That and better technology means we are more productive than ever. Production is great. Maybe it's too great?   If you slowed production, maybe you could prevent wealth from collecting in a few hands so quickly?  Wouldn't that be a ""weaker economy"" rather than a ""stronger economy""?  How exactly would you implement that, short of a rebellion?  Here's the crux of your problem. America got incredibly wealthy from WW2. This is why 30-40 years ago, there was a rich middle class that was stronger than it is today. This was not ""the economy's"" success. This was luck (or strategy, depending upon how much government planned it out)."
Well i'm not saying it will be terrible, i could have said this wrong but it might be terrible. Dollar is not the international currency just in oil but mostly everything. Different countries uses dollar to trade, this is one of the core reasons of US economy being the strongest. US should not be tolerant about this sort of stuff since if this trend continuous it could be disastrous.