vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-16/a-crazy-stock-market-is-punishing-sellers) reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Even Richard Thaler, who won a Nobel Prize last week for explaining how irrationality drives financial markets, said on Bloomberg Television he couldn&amp;#039;t understand why stocks keep going up now.  &gt; Almost as quickly, the markets roared back and jolted investors out of their crisis-era fatalism.  &gt; The hazards of market timing were illustrated by a Bank of America Corp. study last year, which showed that missing the very end of a bull market often means missing a quarter of its gains.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/76t6ni/a_crazy_stock_market_is_punishing_sellers/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~229377 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*: **market**^#1 **investor**^#2 **More**^#3 **stock**^#4 **new**^#5"
&gt; Economists like Paul Krugman seem to believe that everything can be fixed by increasing demand, but they totally ignore the costs of production. There exists plenty of demand in the US economy right now, but the cooper has died, the barrels must be brought from China.  Out of curiosity, what is the real world equivalent to the cooper? You name none.
Because Amazon is not even close to being a monopoly. Look at Wal-Mart revenue to Amazon revenue (even with  AWS and everything else). Not even close to being the largest retailer. They are just the largest e commerce retailer. Even there, they still aren't a monopoly.  Add in the fact that a lot of amazon sales are marketplace sales (other online vendors selling through amazon), and you see that Amazon isn't even close to being a monopoly.  Amazon is just really good at retail. Being so good at something that you gain market share is not covered under anti trust law.
#####&amp;#009; ######&amp;#009; ####&amp;#009; [**Resource curse**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource%20curse): [](#sfw) --- &gt;The __resource curse__, also known as the __paradox of plenty__, refers to the [paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox) that countries and regions with an abundance of [natural resources](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_resource), specifically point-source non-renewable resources like [minerals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral) and [fuels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel), tend to have less [economic growth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth) and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources. This is hypothesized to happen for many different reasons, including a decline in the competitiveness of other economic sectors (caused by appreciation of the [real exchange rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_exchange_rate) as resource revenues enter an economy, a phenomenon known as [Dutch disease](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease)), volatility of revenues from the natural resource sector due to exposure to global commodity market swings, government mismanagement of resources, or weak, ineffectual, unstable or corrupt institutions (possibly due to the easily diverted actual or anticipated revenue stream from extractive activities).
"As everyone else has said, we're producing gasoline, not crude oil.  But since you asked, even if we did produce enough crude for our needs, we would still import if someone else can produce it more cheaply, or if our resources would be better spent elsewhere.  The classic example from economics class is a dentist hiring someone to mow his lawn.  Sure, the dentist is a healthy guy, he could mow his own grass for free.  But that would take him an hour, and he could be using that hour to be a dentist, instead.  And an hour of dentistry is worth a lot more than an hour of mowing the lawn.  This is called ""comparative advantage"" - for trade, it doesn't matter how productive you are in absolute terms, just that you can do one thing better than another."
Part of the behavior is shaped by the environment, most isnt for something that people's been doing for millenniums. People even compare things that's boxed/bagged beautifully.           Not bearish on the news because this is long expected. But the brick-and-murder of grocers has been ongoing for a long time due to their deflationary environment and the action today is quite an knee jerk reaction.      Amazon taking over the world? Maybe, sure a lot higher chances compare to Tesla taking over the auto market.
Stock market Tends to follow the DJIA and FTSE, so unlikely to see an Australia-only crash, especially while resources are doing so well. If China's growth slows before other ailing sectors improve, a downturn becomes more likely and the potential severity of the downturn increases. Economy A huge question to which I would refer you to Steve Keen: http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/ See A Fork in the Road. Housing Market It's a bubble, stupid! Seriously, it's as though the Aussies waited for the US to get done and then simply borrowed the copy book. There are a multitude of articles out there about likely outcomes from where the housing market is and where it's going. See this for a sample of what's out there: http://blogs.forbes.com/greatspeculations/2010/07/26/aussie-housing-bubble-gets-popped-with-chinese-credit-crash/ Note: All three of the areas you raise - economy, stock mkt, housing - are so intertwined that it's tricky separating them out. A lot of reading on Steve Keen's site can help.
&gt; You can't find anyone else who would pay you more, or you would have left. That's a reflection of what you have to offer the world. Your comment was thoughtful, and this last bit in particular I feel is like something that I've been wrestling with for a while. It's a very libertarian view as you probably know. It makes a lot of sense to me, but I can't help to think of some possible flaws and wonder what you think: 1. Availability of work: If somebody has a choice between no job and being grossly underpaid, wouldn't the choice be between having no money and a little money at that point? Doesn't that run the risk of exploitation? Wouldn't exploitation be working for less than what you're worth? 2. Value: Unskilled pretty much means replaceable. They don't give a shit if you come or go, and vice versa. That's not a reflection of a job's worth to the company, nor is a real reflection of how difficult it is. There's no competition for wages. Eventually workers get sick of it and leave, not expecting improved wages elsewhere but a job they can deal with for 40 hours per week. But there are always more people in need to take their place, so the company has no incentive to raise wages. Like you said, it *is* a reflection of what you have to offer to the world, in a sense that your skills are not uncommon. However, is this everything? The world *needs* unskilled labor to run. Is there something wrong with being a cashier? A doorman? A guy who unpacks the trucks that carry the things we all use? No, the world *needs* these people...should people who are needed have jobs that don't allow for them to meet basic living standards? 3.
"Eh, farmers markets arent all they are cracked up to be. Perhaps because i live in cali where our ""farms"" are literally the same manufacturing facility that stocks safeway shelves.  I want a place to buy high end products."
"Another interesting point by you.  So what's your definition of the ""right move"" then? Just let the market correct?  The reason I can't ascribe to that is because we've mucked with the market too much for it to be as self-managing as it could be. Price supports, protective regulation/taxation and things like that are creating artificial stability. We won't let anything big die, so nothing can grow into its place."
Don't you think the fact that most of the world's wealth is concentrated in that top 1% has *something* to do with that? The fact is neoliberal, supply side policy does not work in part because people horde capital. I do not blame anyone for banking money, but I do believe tax policy should reflect human behavior.
Yeah the three companies they put weren't the best examples of market irrationality and there are better ones, but I think they were the biggest targets of a short news piece.    TSLA is arguably one of the prime examples.  I also listed CMG in my original statement but there are plenty more too that are continually pumped up for no good reason at all.    Amazon is actually beginning to make some big leaps and bounds.  I used to be a doubter (still don't invest in them or anything) but I do think Amazon has a bright future, barring the possibility of a gov't split up, but with how well the gov't has received Amazon so far, I don't see that as an issue for the near term, even though Amazon is getting to become quite a monopoly is many industries.
Did you ever wonder why LightSquared is forced to use the frequencies to begin with? If we did not have auctions that priced out all competitors except the largest incumbents, we might have real competition. Simple solution, make some of the incumbents give up their hoarded spectrum.  Build a single wholesale network (instead of 4+ separate networks that are all starved for spectrum).   Fix the problem, don't kill competition
&gt;Moreover, after WW2, the USA population was half of what it is today. Same size pie, smaller slices. Pies (aka total amount of resources) don't magically change sizes when populations grow. It was for this very reason that people in the 1500s were desperate to find new land like the Americas; Europe was getting overcrowded.  GDP per capita is [higher than it's ever been.](http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-per-capita/table/by-year). Try again.  Since you didn't address any of my real points (which were labeled in bold), and are claiming bogus facts and arguing against points I didn't make (that's called a straw man argument btw), I'm now of the opinion that you're either a shill or wilfully ignorant and shan't argue more.
&gt; See where?  The grain farming regions. At least that's the kind of farming I consider enjoyable. Maybe some would rather pick apples, I guess.  &gt; Most likely they are shit at advertising their job openings  I see the jobs posted in the same places as you would expect to find other jobs. I don't see anything unique about that. However, I think you bring up a good point: People tend to search for job by area. These are not areas people tend to look in.  &gt; the potential market has transportation issues and can't get to a job not near a bus route.  I think it is simpler than that: Nobody wants to live in rural areas.  People are choosing to live in cities and then are restricting their job search to the jobs that can be done in the city they have found themselves in. Some amount of money can change minds, but I'm not convinced $35/hr. is it.
Really, I can only endorse the ones that I go to.  Also, I could insert Wendy's, Harvey's or every other fast food joint near me for being better than McDonalds in my experience.  BK only stands out for me because of how well they're run in my area.   I only commented because the article doesn't surprise me based on my experiences.  I'd like to think that consumers make choices based on experience and eventually poor quality leads to loss of market share.
Shares are tanking because:  1. Amazon is having SOME impact  2. The market for the last 10 years at least overreacts to fucking everything that happens.  3. A lot of retailers over-expanded. A large amount of the stores retailers are culling have been poor performers. Amazon is what pushed it all over the edge, but it will be fine. Brick and mortar isn't going anywhere in the long-term, a lot of people enjoy going out and shopping as well as the instant gratification of immediately getting what they paid for. There are also plenty of brick and mortar stores that give you customer service , and more importantly knowledge that Amazon can't dream of. They're just not shitty retail giants like Best Buy.   4. A lot of retailers in competitive segments, particularly things like fashion, failed to innovate fast enough. They will be replaced by other retailers that meet market desires better, which in turn may ultimately meet the same fate. The other prominent cycle in retail is the shift from malls to strip malls to outlet centers etc. It's just like fashion, to be honest.   5. I remain concerned about the future of Amazon's foundation - the review system. Gaming the review system is possible now and to be frank, I wouldn't be shocked if a leadership change at Amazon eventually compromises the integrity of the review system by getting in on it
The store near me really sucks. I'll admit I haven't been to many other Best Buys in a few years as it's not really the area of retail real estate I've been involved in, but the two in my area are always a disaster. I've had Dynex cables fail three times on me when they're basically plugged in once and and never moved, and the stores near me never have any cheap phone cables in stock, only 2/20 and it's the exorbitantly expensive 3rd party ones that nobody wants. It's not a slight against you but all of the major big box retailers are like this. Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Fry's Electronics (great deals but the worst customer service) etc
"&gt; everything looks 35 years old.  My local kmart looks like the land before time.  &gt; The reason sears/Kmart is hurt is due to their management being directed by a hedge fund.   But that hedge fund manager ""genius"" acquired all of that Sears real estate as an asset play in 2005. Makes you wonder how it's being carried on the books post crash.  edit: here's the reason for the store closings:  &gt; Sears Holdings Corp announced that for the fourth quarter of 2011, it expects consolidated adjusted EBITDA will be less than half of last year's amount.   http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/SHLD.O/key-developments/article/2456570  Ouch! That should put them in the red for the entire year! Retailers obviously depend on the holiday season, and it was dismal this year for sears. I noticed that they had been in the black solely because the always got bailed out by 4th quarter earnings. No more!"
&gt; It's like they only care about personal short term gain and care little about being in the game for the long term.  That's pretty much it. If they can't be lending (and making interest), they aren't winning.  It's funny that the banks know as well as anyone that the worst place to leave money is in a bank.
"Mortgage lending, as the article points out, has been historically weak, despite record low rates. Cash buyers (read investors looking for rental inventory) are driving sales and prices. I wouldn't exactly call that a ""thriving"" RE market."
&gt; it was never realistic to expect the tax cuts to produce enough growth to pay for themselves.  And yet, pretty much every Republican executive who tries to get these economic policies put into effect USES that argument to sell it to legislatures.
So wages for the working class are declining, young people can't find jobs and are over encumbered in school debt, unemployment is really high, yet these fools think they can find a sucker who can afford their overpriced assets?  Good Luck.
"Ya, when my buddy who is by no means a financial wizard, and paid to have his TV installed (not even wall mounted...), told me he was looking to invest in a condo, cause apparently it was ""easy"".  I think the quote from the friend who told him got broken down to, ""The market only goes up, so as long as your rent handles the interest on your mortgage you just make up the difference and gain when your value doubles!""  That is one reason I am worried for the eventual decline if all of those types of people rush for the door at the same time.  I really hope it is a case of broken telephone."
&gt; An additional problem, according to the head of an industry group, is that jewelry sellers have lost a deeper connection with their customers. &gt;“The industry has become so impersonal in many ways. We’ve lost the emotion,” Jean-Marc Lieberherr, CEO of the Diamond Producers Association,  points to retailers’ efforts to focus shopper attention on certificates that verify a diamond’s quality -- perhaps only slightly more romantic than a low-risk mutual fund.
Considering that Roku isn't even profitable I'm going to say that any increase in short term price is going to be a result of investor speculation because these rich dudes who have accounts at big wealth management divisions want to get in quick because they think it's another amazing tech company that's going to bring in billions and everyone knows that technology is always going to improve. I said the same thing about the Blue Apron IPO. They're not even profitable! Businesses exist to make a profit lol I don't get it. There's better things to actually invest in this current bull market, these tech IPOs seem to excite everyone's investor emotions.  That's just my opinion though I mean I'm just a kid lol    Edit: I should also mention my household completely got rid of cable a few months ago and picked up a few of the Roku devices. They work great so far and are cheaper than cable. It's not a terrible product in my opinion.
"That's a great point. I do happen to have heard that, but here's why I don't care to pursue that option:  - I don't ever need anything right away, maybe I'm just weird that way.  - I would still have to drive and park at Best Buy, spending at least a half hour instead of 30 seconds to complete the purchase.  - I don't like being inside a Best Buy, on a visceral level.  - Memories. Bad memories.  - I feel like I'm going to be made to feel like a conniving schemer if I actually attempt to exercise a price match, with some Simpsons character of a clerk fumbling aimlessly on a computer for 20 minutes before summoning a high school age ""manager"" to perform an ""override."""
They are not great points at all. What does this guy think happens to the money spent on stock buybacks? It just disappears?  People reinvest that money- sometimes in the stocks of other companies that *do* have good R&amp;D projects that they need to fund, sometimes in startups, sometimes in yachts, and sometimes in government bonds.   It's stupid to just expect companies to force R&amp;D spending if they cant find projects to actually work on. It's not better for the economy for a company to just go and waste a billion dollars on a ridiculous project that has no hope of actually being meaningful in the marketplace just so that this guy can feel good about R&amp;D spending as % of GDP.
"Once again the egg heads at the NYTs get it wrong.  Health care policy is ""hard"" because insurance industry float is a significant driver in capital markets.  The message to politicians is clear:  imperil premium capital in-flow at your own risk."
This article is so dumb. Passive investors should be concerned about poor corporate governance just as much as anyone else. The whole point is that active investors are more hesitant to put their money into companies like snap. Inclusion into an index could lead to technical buying. By ensuring the bare minimum standard in terms of corporate governance, S&amp;P is actually protecting passive investors.
BB put themselves in a tough spot. They need to be competitive with Amazon, but they have higher cost structure, and a less compelling shopping experience for many buyers.  Have you tried to buy a TV there? They have fewer models than Amazon, but still an overwhelming number, and no good way to sort between them. They need to cut the number of SKUs they offer and provide a reason for people to want to come in the store.
That wasn't my argument. Everybody is upset that they are so much faster and lower latency than everywhere else and that nobody else can afford it. However this misses the point that these faster speeds only affect HFT fighting HFT. HFT practitioners were already running successful strategies on the same links as the regular institutional investors; the arms race began when more HFT players entered the market and the game became saturated. It's now very hard to make money in HFT as a result of the heavy competition.
That's the problem with IPOs. Professionals are very bad at valuing companies, particularly prospectively. That's Daniel Kahneman's whole point about how no one beats the market. Yet, we expect the same types of professionals who can't beat the market to set the price for the market.
That is surprising, I can't even get them to take a Lowe's coupon.   I shop there a lot because it is closest to me and sometimes they are the only ones that have a certain thing but I don't like shopping there.
Because the current government policies, yes the ones enacted by President Obama, favor cash accumulation over capital purchases. Nothing has changed in eight years and I don't think that Donald Trump or the Republicans in congress want to change that.  It is a chicken and egg problem. Business won't increase capital until demand in the market increases and demand in the market won't increase until business increases spending.   Now then the one bright spot for the market is that the Boomers are entering the twilight of their lives. This generation accumulated a massive amount of wealth that is being inherited by their money starved children.
&gt;Other large retailers are reportedly requesting that service providers move away from AWS, the Journal said, citing technology vendors that work with retailers. Adding to the many growing conflicts of interest, Amazon has confirmed a number of retailers it competes with use AWS, for example GameStop.  This is actually a really solid point as Amazon enters literally every facet of life. It gets tougher and tougher to sell as conflicts of interest arise. It's difficult to see Amazon screw up anything, except that maybe there's a tipping point where large corporations (like say, Walmart) take extremely aggressive stances towards who it does business with.
Agreed that the CEO is lame and only in it for himself in the meantime.  But regardless what Lampert does, he has lost billions on Sears already just over time and his recent actions will just recoup a small fraction of it.  There is no way he's going to make back his investment.  What I don't see how in this economy that most of those locations would be rentable to boutiques that pay more when all it's doing is throwing more retail space onto a market deluged with retail space.  Some locations maybe, but many are old and away from the action in the meantime.  For instance, many of the closed Kmarts, part of Sears, at least five near me are either still empty after 3-5 years or occupied by something that definitely doesn't pay the same rent, like indoor storage units or indoor paintball arenas and whatnot.
Not that much money gets stuffed into mattresses, but a lot of money enters the black market and cannot be used until cleaned, a lot of money enters offshore banks to hide it, a lot of money that is intended to be trickled down to consumers for the purposes of commerce gets diverted into consolidating ownership of corporations, etc. There is definitely a tipping point at which consumers lack liquidity to participate in constant commerce, which impedes economic performance, without a doubt, depending on the extent it undermines opportunity.
"Welsh had pushed the stock about as far as one could by using GE's capital as collateral to borrow money at rates much lower than banks.  So GE was able to out bank the banks for many years.  The problems with this all came back under Immelt.  Welsh sort of shit all over the culture of technology and engineering and Immelt was never able to recover that as the capital business fell apart.  The company really hasn't been able to make good choices.  Anything they buy does worse.  They need to stick to markets with a high cost of entry and long lead development times.  This is very contrary to the ""Silicon Valley"" tech world of today, but it is where GE has remained successful (See GE Medical and GE Aviation)."