vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
We have a very mixed economy.  If takeovers were all a case of a more competent organization taking over a less competent organizations then there would be no need for vetting.  But that is not the case.  We have companies that are monopolies thanks to their relationship with governments.  They are not more efficient, better run, more visionary, or more capable.  Indeed, they are often dependent on a single monopoly, in a single market.  Everything else they touch turns to crap.  They acquire other companies trying to stave off their own collapse.  Do you want to invite companies like that come into your market and link important companies, in vital markets to that house of cards?
Can't really blame them. It's bad enough just trying to stay regional much less within the US. Levi's built a manufactoring plant in Haiti and just walked away from it without making anything. I wonder if the manufacturing could take place on an oil tanker traveling back and forth from India?
Do you know what a derivative is? Did you know it is possible to own derivatives of assets that you do not own? Did you know there are derivatives of derivatives? Did you know that the derivatives market is many times larger than all the money on earth?  At some point modern markets became so many steps removed from the basic principles of business that they no longer make any sense. Most trades today are done by supercomputers with high speed connections running incredibly complex algorithms invented by the most brilliant mathematicians money can buy. All of whom are studying what each other are doing and trying to manipulate each others algorithms in such a way as to make money faster and harder than the other guy. It is way beyond what any human can comprehend let alone regulate.  Teams of the smartest people on earth can kind of grasp a tiny sliver of what is going on.
"Not so much the money.  The *productivity* has been spread around.  Productivity used to be the sole province of the ""first world"" nations.  Then things like CAD/CAM made is possible to produce almost anything anywhere.  250 million middle class Chinese people didn't just happen because a trillion dollars were airlifted into Beijing.  It happened because whole industries collapsed in the first world and moved to China.  On aggregate people are better off, on aggregate.  But if you're in, say, textiles in the US then it looks like a really shitty deal.  So ""money"" didn't go away.  Commerce didn't evaporate.  Production (and resulting productivity) moved and spread out with some areas getting hurt and others gaining."
All that is an issue with non competitive market.  My premise was that in capitalism, not in crony capitalism nor in heavily regulated so that it is non competitive or high in market barrier.   Way to solve non competitive market due to crony capitalism or too heavily regulated market usually is not more regulation.  That makes it worse. Role of regulation is to factor in extranality, promote transparency and such.  Not inflate wages of people who don't deserve it
I think you answered yourself. The rate difference is because of the base rates differences, and it's not worth moving money around because the rate conversions (even if the currency rates don't fluctuate) will eat up the difference.
In some country's even retail competitors set up a cartel like scheme and they pressure the fuck out of farmer and producers to drop prices, and obey to their promotion's.  It's like they give them the volume to expand, and now that you are in a whole other level of production cut down prices or you'll be left with perishable goods with a limited shelf life, and no one to buy them.
&gt; A developed nation that has businesses making a profit off things humans need to survive. Crazy, huh?  There are an infinite number of opportunities to monetize things that humans *don't* need to survive. So yeah. It is crazy that people insist on monetizing the things that people do need to live.
Why would exchanges self regulate? It is like asking two nfl teams to play without referees and work out the rules and penalties on their own.   You need an outside party ref - govt. to set the rules and regulations.
You have a good point, right now the way people raise money at the micro level is hitting up relatives or shmoozing the boys at the country club.  It would be cool if there were local exchanges, but I guess the reason there isn't right now is the costs to run such a thing would have to be borne by small companies and investors, and it's 'cheaper' to just raise money informally.  But with the internet revolution, seems like that would lower the costs somewhat.
It's the result of many companies now outsourcing production to the same contractors.  It's easy to see in electronics (Foxconn, Blackberry Playbook/KindleFire, etc) and happens in other industries as well.  As our communication technology increased over the last century, it became easier and easier to contract out production.  Now it is easy to choose any supplier/contractor in the globe for the production of your product.  As suppliers/contractors begin to optimize and specialize, they become the dominant solution for their sector.  This then leads to that product uniformity, which is close to working very nicely as a term.
Well i agree but companies like facebook are sort of natural monopoly. If you putted on a graph maybe it wont look like that but if you use a social account then you do not need to use another one and if you are going to choose one you ll most likely choose the biggest one? I think this applies to most internet based companies and we know america has lot of.
"&gt;the market will start to target  You think of the market as a predator, there's your problem. ""The Market"" is not some mythological beast hunting for countries.  If Greece doesn't honor its commitments it doesn't mean Portugal or Spain will be unable to enact austerity measures themselves to pay their own debts."
"1. Internet is not a regular product or service, it's a utility.  2. An unregulated utility market simply leads to regional monopolies, because the companies privately own the infrastructure.  That's exactly what we have.  The cable companies cut up the country and generally stay out of eachother's turf, because it's more profitable than competition.  This is the opposite of a capitalist market, by the way.  They are now all billionaires from providing bear minimum service and avoiding any real competition.  Instead of competing, they slowly build enough money until they can simply buy out their competitors.  Comcast has gotten so rich it bought NBC and is now looking to buy TWC.  3. Fair competition for utilities requires rules that prevent the reigning company from blocking out competitors. This is called ""[Open-Access](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_%28infrastructure%29)"", this is what they have throughout most of Europe. This doesn't happen here because the reigning monopolies use their billions to buy political influence in Washington DC via lobbyists, campaign fund raising, donations, etc...  It is so effective, that the former chair of the FCC, Michael Powell, made a PSA bashing Open-Access competition rules and praising our monopoly system, saying it has resulted in the best internet in the world, which is of course a bold-faced, demonstrable lie.  [Video used to be on youtube, can't find it anymore]  4. The root cause is an apathetic voter base who view Washington as too corrupt to even reform, which keeps the people who care about this issue the most away from the poles.  This simply strengthens the power of the corporate lobbyists to control politics even more.  5. To take on these giants, you need to be a giant yourself, with tons of money to burn and a big reason to do it even though you'll probably lose money, since it's more like charity than a great business opportunity.  The only ones who fit the bill are Google, and only because they have a vested interest in keeping the internet free, open, fast, robust and affordable.  It also helps that they spent the past decade buying up fiber optic infrastructure."
I never said it would be easy, I said it would be a better solution in that it would *actually* solve the problem.  And if TPTB want a collapsing shit-show, they're perfectly welcome to stay with the existing trading desks, and watch it all fall apart due to their own hubris and corruption. I, for one, have no problem watching arrogance morons lose their money.
&gt;I literally just told you retard.  And they're part of a global investment bank. Jeez, it's almost like the lines are a bit blurred, isn't it. It's almost like your original point doesn't make any fucking sense. Now fuck off.
Its interesting that you state they are a mess of laws. I think sometimes we in the US are the same way. I like the idea of flat regulations however so many companies spend tons of money in order to find ways via legalese to circumvent the laws.
They wouldn't exist in the first place, the government creates them.   90% of all antitrust litigation is one private firm suing another, i.g., government created/enabled cartels. Antitrust laws do exactly the opposite of what they (supposedly) intended, and they are generally a failed and discredited policy. Any surprise? Isn't that what most government intervention does?
There can also be too little liquidity to actually make it worthwhile. That's probably the most important difference.  Also, it's easy to get banned if they realise your are doing it on a significant scale (at least that's how it is in the UK).
For sure. I don't blame the EU for being a bit angry with them but I do hope they can keep the single market. As an outsider, it seems beneficial to everybody to just come to an agreement similar to what Switzerland has with the EU.
Yes, that's my point. I don't want nation-states to survive. I would much rather live in a society that respects individuality than worshiping a council of limp-dicks who decide how my money is spent.  Also, Somalia has a central government and a central bank too.
I fear that when most of the cost is overhead, very minimal marginal costs, efficiencies of scale make de facto monopolies. Mix this with compatibility, creating a new competitor in the smartphone market would be next to impossible unless they could run Android or iOS third party apps for example.
The problem is you need to take a more global and long term view.  In order for us to achieve a post-scarcity &amp; UBI enabled future we need to ensure that poverty globally is erased, and that people have a certain baseline quality of life and education.  That wont happen without globalization, and as we are seeing with Trump - it doesnt take much for you to end up on the short end of the stick, so saying 'but me!' is a really bad perspective to take.  Rather I'd advocate that when (not if) your job is automated or outsourced you consider yourself lucky that you have the option to retrain or work towards a future that enables UBI globally (which is the only way UBI works candidly).
Cute conspiratorial story.  A cabal of evil grocery store owners set up a sprawling and risky supply chain overseas so they can pay more for their products for the express purpose of paying their employees market wages for their labor?  Grocery store workers are not underpaid.  If they were, they could walk across the street and make more money at a competitor.  So if the profit margins are fat on the supplier side, somehow competition would come in there either?  You can't have it both ways.  The vast majority of food products sold in grocery stores in North America are grown, manufactured and sold right here in North America.  There's no way to explain it away - the grocery store market is viciously competitive and profit margins are slim.
That isn't stopping the market from seeking unhealthy norms:  lowest paid workers, maximum price service/product the market will bare.  Which would be fine if EVERY individual could and would stand up and fight for a livable wage.  But we are all too busy trying to make a livable wage that we don't have the time or resources to stand up and fight.
So how would you regulate the financial sector to keep one ridiculous horde or powerhouse of cash from ruling it, and keep money flowing through the whole system rather than stagnating or spiraling to a small sector?  These questions also bring to mind rivers versus blood vessels.  In rivers, you get eddies and pools.  In the circulatory system, eddies and pools lead to health issues, much like hording and enclosed loops create stagnation or poor financial health.  Just an observation.
That's because our financial sector is mainly an instrument to aggregate cash  rather than a way to foster innovation and growth. They already have so much cash in their control that other sectors are starving.  Some worthwhile endeavors are not the ones that are going to make the greatest returns, some will not show returns for a very long time. Typically these are are undertaken by the government, but the government is being reduced to a blunt object used to secure resources and markets and to protect investments.  So maybe we need a second-tier investment sector that works with longer time lines, and low immediate returns and perhaps even domestic micro-loan/grants.   /ramble
And that's how we ended up with Detroit. Someone someplace with a almost meaningless existence will always be willing to do it cheaper. Funny thing about creating a society though. Capitalism, often is very counterproductive to creating a society. Checks and balances must be put in place or it will eat itself.
If only there was some kind of balance, you know a way to provide services that are essential, and maybe even have an elected body control natural monopolies, without having to become a totalitarian regime and still maximize standard of living.
We also have companies that sell food, shelter, clothing and other necessities of life. A developed nation that has businesses making a *profit* off things humans need to *survive*. Crazy, huh? It's a real bizarro world over here isn't it? Did I explode your Canadian mind?
The economy is getting overly competitive and last one decade has been pretty notable in this direction. While the consumers are definitely at advantage through such competition which throws up price wars and more options of buying in the market.For More Info:- http://www.startupmentor.co.in/
Yes.  if it wasn't rigged before, it certainly is now.  High frequency trading and the ability to buy priority access to the exchange are the one two blows that killed it.  Honestly, the exchanges themselves should be network neutral.  It's an absolute crime that they aren't, it just takes money from normal people.
In general it's mostly inertia:   There are tons of reasons and they would vary from region to region.
in my experience, it's kind of how things are done in China, at least at the consumer level and probably a few steps above. For the most part it works surprisingly well, it's kinda like the street food vendors: even if they don't have as many health codes, it's really not in their best interest to make everyone sick. Same goes for doing business.
I have heard of Dort somehow. 'Nuff said there.  Never been to Flint in my life, either.  Far as starting a market, say, around where I lived...I'd chance it with adequate money to invest and do a decent job.  Except - where the heck would I put it?  No suitable buildings to even retrofit, as they've all been firebombed by the aforementioned homies.  So, either I spend a mil to retrofit a shell, or I spend a mil to build a cookie-cutter storefront as cheap as possible, and after that, I still gotta worry about fixtures, lighting, registers, misc equip, and after all THAT, I still have to buy adequate stock to maybe get started and stay out of Dante's Inferno on the books.  Nevermind zoning and graft and health inspectors on a refabbed building.  No way, even in perhaps 20 years, to make back your investment in those areas.  Reckon that's why you see established places hanging in here and there like little islands.
So I agree with some of your points, but title 2 puts us in a decent place until the ruling body starts to understand technology and starts passing laws to stop oligopoly tendencies we have in the market now.   Edit: deleted my other comment. Not sure why it doubled my comment.
However, if you did it to FINANCIAL flows - of which over 97% are purely speculative and not as services to the real economy - the tobin tax being an example - then you are bypassing the common economy and hitting the right target.  This also damps excessive volatility.
What you were told isn't an absolute truth, so trying to counter something fundamentally flawed won't get you anywhere.  For example: chinese midcap equities are up 20% this year, even from their high of 100%. While the BSE Sensex in India is down several percentage points on the year. Your portfolio would have lost money this year taking advice from your peers. The fluctuation in the rupees and remnibi would not have changed this fact. What you are asking is a pretty common area of research, as in several people will write their dissertation on the exact same topic every year, and you should be able to find various analysis and theories on the subject. But the macroeconomic landscape changes, a lot.
&gt; it actually equalizes the economies in the long run  Noone denies that - but those who dislike globalization **don't want** it to be equalized.  The world average income is $18,000 a year.  Compared to the current US average income of $37,000.  So this equalization means loosing half of your income.
7 billion people, a lot of unemployed/self-employed/poor who are disenchanted by corporations...  who cares if it's a ponzi scheme if it makes money? the suckers here are no different than the morons paying hundreds for iphones or canada goose coats...
Corrupt country leaders will probably rape it dry for their personal gains. Next thing you know, the secretary of state is getting $100000 loan with 1 percent interest when the country national bank lending money to its people at 25% percent interest.
The problem is the rich and powerful will harness whatever mechanisms you put in place.  If we're just supposed to handle all our problems through the court system instead of government you still win up with the rich wielding most of the power by way of their money.      The rich and powerful stay powerful now because they've already amassed most of the planets wealth in a relative handful of people. You can remove all the regulations you want and that won't significantly change the general distribution of wealth. You're simply further entrenching their wealth by removing what scant leverage the common man still has against the 1%.
If you are arguing that we need to regulate industries to promote competition, I completely agree. I would even go as far to say that reducing taxes on the worlds richest people has caused money to stagnate in the hands of the few effectively reducing the multiplier effect and truly creating this mess we are in today.  When rich people have more money, they don't turn around and spend it in VC, they look for someone who needs to borrow it and who will give them a good return, thus why debts have all increased publicly and privately throughout the world.
Democracy doesn't mean you automatically have free and efficient markets.  India has many structural and regulatory roadblocks set up for businesses and for people. India should study what China did to transform their country.    To me, it's crazy that even Indians can't buy land in their own country.  (in J&amp;K, for example.)  Or the heavy FX rules. Things like that.
It doesn't matter. A convert can be recreated by using other instruments, so it can never be removed from the market. Kind if like an Asian market which tried to remove options or futures or some exotic derivative. Investors just created synthetic positions with the same properties.
I think examining the effects and potential implications of China's involvement with the stock market may be productive. Some interesting examples would be the failed market circuit breakers and the restrictions of short-selling in 2016.  Not sure that this would qualify as a real topic, but may give you food for thought.
Uh . . . yeah.  Because if we don't have a central source of law, then we aren't a single country.  Those united laws are exactly what defines a country.  The government, however, isn't like the Death Star.  It isn't one giant entity bent on controlling the world.  Are you saying the Constitution and its method of law making, enforcement, and arbitration is bad, and should be rebuilt?
With all due respect, a market being saturated is not a marker of failure or stagnation, in fact if you look at the market for service providers you'll see that is worth an estimated $400-600 billion with the largest chunk being the offline service providers (yellow pages). This shows that there is ample space for an innovative service platform that offers a refreshing take on costumer and vendor relationship.
No need for government. Yes, and no. How long do you think that electricity would keep pumping if there was no one to regulate how much each district gets to pull? If there was no one to enforce pricing and payment? After all, if the electricity company cuts power to a house, and they just run out to the junction box and hot wire their own connection - who stops them? If there is no government, that how do we keep people paying? And when the electricity company decides that they are going to artificially jack up prices (Enron style), who keep them based in reality? Do we just wait for a violent uprising? &gt; However, ""statistics"" can't help us in this case. True. Do you have any examples of innovation in highly unregulated markets? I still haven't seen or heard of what the ""ideal"" market would look like, just lots of rhetoric about the problems with this one. &gt; There are a lot of examples like the f-35 fighter jet that cost American Taxpayers nearly $1.5 trillion. That would be a corporation that won the right to build the next evolution of the fighter jet by under bidding the cost, and having all kinds of cost overruns. Not to mention scope creep from the customer - i.e. Yes, we want it to do everything we asked for in the RFP, but we also want it to cook coffee doing Mach 5. Keep in mind, that the F-35 was a partership between government and commercial, so not a very good example about how ""government is bad at stuff"" because commercial is also involved (granted also not a good example of how government is good at stuff - there is definitely lots of examples of pork in government). And as for the $6.5 trillion, if I remember correctly it wasn't that it disappeared, it was that it wasn't recorded correctly. Much of that money is not actual money, it was double, triple, quadruple counted because the accounting error wasn't caught early. And there were thousands of people involved in this situation. But again, an example of how government isn't good at everything.
IT IS THE SAME WITH FOSSIL FUELS  oil goes in one end of pipe by 20 different suppliers,  buyers by from the other end of the pipe by 20 different buyers.  The actual oil you receive from the end of the pipe may have been put in by your competitor. Yet you are buying it at the right price,  thus helping the overall infrastructure.
That's cute. What's the gdp of those two regions? Exports is a subset of business, not the only measuring stick. Who are you, Donald Trump?  And why the fuck did you make this a racial thing? The mods should absolutely take this post down.
People in the west seriously underestimated how much wealth are in China. Vast majority of Chinese are still poor but those aren't your market. You need to targeted your products to people who can afford to pay 100% import taxes on luxury cars, there are millions of them in china.   Your products must be distinct and expensive. Expensive is the key.
Such inequalities only exist for very short periods of time, precisely because people make money exploiting them. Read up on arbitrage.