vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
You are very correct, rebalancing is basically selling off winners to buy losers. Of course the thinking is that selling a winner that has already increased 100% on the basis that it has doubled so it is likely to go down in the near future. However, just look at Apple as an example, if you bought Apple in June 2009 for $20 (adjusted price) and sold it as part of rebalancing when it rose to $40 (adjusted price) in September 2010, you would have missed out on it reaching over $95 2 years later. Similarly you look to rebalance by buying assets which have been battered (say dropped by 50%) on the basis that it has dropped so much that it should start increasing in the near future. But many times the price can fall even further. A better method would be to sell your winners when they stop being winners (i.e. their uptrend ends) and replace them with assets that are just starting their winning ways (i.e. their downtrend has ended and are now starting to Uptrend). This can be achieved by looking at price action and referring to the definitions of an uptrend and a downtrend. Definition of an uptrend - higher highs and higher lows. Definition of a downtrend - lower lows and lower highs.
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs states that: If you supply services or goods (new or second-hand) and receive other goods or services in payment, there are two separate supplies: You must account for VAT, and so must your customer if they're VAT-registered. The VAT treatment is the same as for part-exchanges. You must both account for VAT on the amounts you would each have paid for the goods or services if there had been no barter and they had been paid for with money. Searching the website of the Federal Tax Service for the Russian/Cryllic word for barter (бартер) doesn't yield any results, but that might be because even between Google Translate and the rest of the internet, I don't speak Russian. That being said, I did manage to find this (translated from the first full paragraph of the Russian, beginning with ""Налог на доходы..."": The tax on personal income is paid by citizens of the Russian Federation with all types of income received by them in the calendar year, either in cash or in kind. Since bartering would probably qualify as an in kind transaction, it would likely be taxable. The South African Revenue Service includes barter transactions in the supply of goods taxed under the VAT. The term “supply” is defined very broadly and includes all forms of supply and any derivative of the term, irrespective of where the supply is effected. The term includes performance in terms of a sale, rental agreement, instalment credit agreement or barter transaction. Look for section 3.6, Supply and Taxable Supply, found on p17 of the current version of the linked document."
Is it true there are magical boxes that you can carry around with you and communicate with each other in the US? Here we only have snakes and elephants and we shit on the street next to our payphones, which I learned today you can make international calls from.
"Sounds nice in theory, but let's be honest here.  Competition between channels is weak.  There do exist people who go on google, and search for products (though generally, these people are looking for reviews, which they will later go to Amazon to purchase) but most people go directly to Amazon, and use it as a product search engine.  Amazon owns search, they own the marketplace, they own the distribution.  And they get to look at all your data... if and when they see you got a good thing going they can choose to manipulate their listings to favor themselves, and drown you out.  It's easy to say ""yeah, being in the marketplace sucks, just don't do it"".  But if you don't participate in their marketplace, you're probably going to go out of business.  There is not a sufficient amount of competition in the other markets that are viable to go somewhere else. eBay, Sears marketplace, google shopping, they're a pittance."
This is not accurate. Amazon is not a monopoly because they don't control any  given market. It's a great use case for exploring the limitations of our current laws and regulatory apparatuses in the digital age.   A great use case and a terrifying one.   Similarly to all the data security problems coming up.   Regulation has not kept pace with how the world has changed. /is changing.
Grocery is a dog-eat-dog world. On one end you have Whole Foods which competes on a premium experience &amp; product and on the other you have Walmart/Club stores that compete on price/bulk. Everything else in the middle is just getting crushed as they can't move very far in any meaningful direction.
Thing is no-one followed the part of Glass-Steagall that everyone talks about; banks formed holding entities called bancs,banqs to do the same function. The key to the crisis was that there was no regulation of derivatives, credit scoring agencies lied, as well as the continued bailouts by Greenspan every time one of his market bubbles popped
I was looking into Walmart's acquisition of Jet. That link came up. It had a good video about that and Walmart's position vs Amazon is all.  No real 'point' specifically to say other than Wal-mart isn't likely to roll over and die simply because Amazon's increasing competition on Walmart's turf.    ..and, well, back to the original point, two isn't one and, thus, not a monopoly.. ..esp with walmart being so much larger
Ok, then competition should be singular.   &gt; IMO anti-trust needs to protect both consumers and **competition**. Without protecting **competition** it will hurt consumers in the long run. &gt; Monopolies are glaring in the tech world and some tech companies unfairly used their information flow in addition to monopoly power to crash/buyout their **competition** or to cockblock their competitors from acquisitions.
Excellent article.  &gt;it is almost impossible to make sense of the big picture without a large fall in aggregate demand.&lt;  The rich can only eat so much. This entire issue can only be explained by obscene wealth disparity.
"&gt;Do you think that someone like GM does not create any indirect jobs? GM is basically just a final assembler of components made by others.  During it's PEAK employment years, GM largely owned and manufactured the vast majority of it's own components.  Of course there were still a lot of raw materials suppliers, as well as minor component suppliers -- but the GM of 1970 was a far different (and much more vertically integrated) operation than it was just a decade or two later.  &gt;Furthermore, the comment about worldwide employment misses the mark here. The west is outsourcing our manufacturing.  Yes, but you need to dig deeper than ""cheap labor"" for the reasons WHY. A lot of it has to do with the post 1971 fiat dollar and the advent of ""leveraging everything in sight"" (in part as an absurd inflation-hedge, and in part because finance saw a way of profiteering off the sale of the ""birthright"" assets -- selling the farms out from underneath the farmers so to speak) -- and subsequently firms needed to make substantially MORE than their previous profit margins in order to cover the interest costs, etc.  &gt;We, on the other hand, are doing the opposite. We're going to end up with no middle class. The only jobs available here will be for a small number of very highly specialized skills (like hedge fund managers) and the people who mow their lawns.  No, eventually the dollar will either become so watered down (if it doesn't collapse entirely); along with an increase in the cost of overseas labor AND a rising expense of goods transport (in many ways only possible on large, bulk scales) -- will create a different scenario, one in which manufacturing (which has NOT entirely left the US by any means) will stage a comeback... but it will be a long slow climb back, and we are probably a decade (or more) before the tide turns."
Lmfao. You seriously believe one of the biggest companies in the world is making this deal in order to get into a niche area within the grocery store market...    Amazon is competing with Walmart, not Trader Joe's. One of the biggest setbacks with online retail is the cost of heavy items. This will give them the brick and mortar front in order to cut costs and compete effectively across a plethora of items.
It's not just that they are not spending; there is too much capital concentrated on the top of the high net worth set to find anyone to invest. All the investment in the world can't do anything but create supply. Supply is worthless without demand. Without a consumer base with disposable income, there is not enough demand to create anything other than lackluster growth. Supply side economics continues to exacerbate income inequality, crippling demand and thereby limiting investment opportunity. Thus, the richest have nowhere to put their mountains of capital, so it sits in govt bonds, holding rates down, or goes into various other value stores. It's not being invested or spent, but it is being removed from activity, and it certainly is not trickling down into the millions suffering under increasing prices and stagnant wages. As wealth inequality grows, the entire economy suffers. The other detrimental effect of this is the creation of market bubbles to feed the appetite of this capital glut for better returns. Bubbles aren't growth or healthy investment; they are widespread economic disasters in the making.   Redistribution of wealth, however accomplished, is the only solution to this problem. This is not a moral question. It's economics and math.
Your out-of-context argument is the thing with no basis in reality.  Other retailers do the very things I'm talking about, all while thriving.  Costco is the example that readily springs to mind.   Wal-Mart already pays below market wages anyway.  You think there's some slightly more skilled body of workers just itching to work at Wal-Mart, if only Wal-Mart would pay more?  There might be some people who could drift between Costco, Wal-Mart, Trader Joes.. what have you, but it's not like Wal-Mart workers are inherently worse.  They are just treated worse.    You ask why people 'choose' to work at Wal-Mart? Are you really that shortsighted?  Why don't all mom and pop stores just 'choose' to lower their prices to compete with Wal-mart?  Oh right, it's not feasible for them because they don't own their whole supply chain.  People don't choose to work for Wal-Mart vs other places, it's because Wal-Mart literally shuts down entire small towns mainstreets.    Nothing I'm talking about has anything to do with productivity, which really doesn't apply here.  At the retail level, all workers are essentially the same.  What, exactly, are they producing? They provide a service.  You are conflating macroeconomic theory with real world business.
Yeah this is what I don't understand. All these business mags are so hyped about this developing market but as it stands the only one in use is my stepdad's and all he does is use it to ask the weather and crack jokes to show it off to people.
There would be clear ownership if not for the state taking over these resources. There would also be a profit motive and benefits for companies to do these things. Private roads exist. Private security exists. The list goes on and on. It just doesn't follow that because the state monopolizes things that it is efficient at those things or better than the market.
"Jesus Christ dude, your entire comment. Let's start with the blatently and simply wrong.  &gt;Even Wal-Mart can't come close to matching it.  Walmart operates on a ""just in time"" basis that they operate themselves, with as many walmarts that exist around the country, you can go witness this by yourself, every day of the week 364 days a year.  &gt;Whole Foods, on the other hand, is a mess. That's why they were struggling to compete against other big supermarket chains who started offering organic foods too.  WF can't compete because their entire business model is unsustainable, it has nothing to do with logistics and everything to do with how the grocery business works. You can't lower prices when you're covering up for high losses on other parts of the store, that is why they're expensive. The only thing Amazon can bring to the equation is a system in which WF suddenly can operate at a loss and Amazon share holders simply don't care, like they haven't cared for the last 20 years amazon has made ""no money""."
Right, just like computers are only available to the upper class.  In reality, the wealthy would just be the initial market.  As their demand causes supply increases/cost innovation, prices will inevitably fall (and philanthropy almost certainly rise), which would make the enhancements available further down the economic ladder, which cycles the process again.
Good. Supply and demand! Free markets. Yada Yada yada. Pay up. This reminds me of farmers that say they can't get americans to pick apples. They could if they paid $35 and hour. Of course then the argument goes 'no one will pay $15 for a bag of apples'. Great! Then the market has spoken and apples are not in demand enough to be marketed. Just like solid gold plumbing.
"&gt; My question then is why do you espouse such simplistic nonsense when you understand that the situation is much more complex? Is it because it is easier and more psychologically comfortable to ignore these injustices than to admit that your model does not have an effective way of dealing with them?  I reject your assessment so it's impossible to answer your questions that assume it.  The position that ""Jim selling to John has nothing to do with Bob"" and the position that ""a power plant pollutes collective air possibly entitling compensation"" are independent and have no conflict.  Simply because there are cases of market failures, I do not therefore conclude that the market system is itself a failure.  Baby with the bathwater, etc.  It's not because this way of thinking is easier but because it is most accurate.  I honestly don't know what you mean by   &gt; than to admit that your model does not have an effective way of dealing with them?  so I don't know how to respond.  I stated in what I thought was plain language that my model has no effective means of dealing with them, only I insist that we must caveat that assessment with the admission that neither does a non-market model.  What you were supposed to take away was the realization that there are few market failures that could not more simply be described as systematic failures generally.  That is, a collectivist system is inherently illogical (if you want to argue this point, the discussion is over - I have no time for true socialists), yet we share a planet's resources and must decide how to best use them.  The free market's conclusion is that people will learn if their air is being abused by a power plant and they will take action to mend it.  This to a large extent has been proven in the transition from an early industrialized society to modern industry."
&gt;Russia, America, Canada, China. Those are the easy ones off the top of my head.  **Russia?** Lol. Are you serious? **America?** Not a country. **China?** Nope. You been listening to Trump too much. http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/charts/2017/06/1498096935_Capture.JPG **Canada?** 1 percent import tariff? Again you must be joking. Tax subsidy is not same as protectionism.   **And Russia?** Again, are you joking? or you been drinking Putin Trump coolaid too much?   &gt;Want more examples?   More examples of what? Poor as hell countries? or countries not under protectionism.  &gt;... So you're saying they're hunting dogs and pigeons in the streets because of phones? You're saying they're desperate and starving because of phones?  How many logical fallacies are you trying with that statement. Including Trumpers favorite cognitive dissonance.  Point was they are desperate and starving cause of stupidity of government and people to think protectionism was ever good. Imagine our economic growth if phones costed ~$2K. Welcome to Argentina with their protectionism.  Argentina GDP per capita [+] 2016 12,432$  US 57,436$ 2016 GDP per capita [+]
&gt; Walmart only concerns its self with the needs of shareholders.   All publicly traded companies concern themselves with the needs of the shareholders, they are the people that own the company, thats how publicly traded companies work... Why do you get upvoted in /r/business for saying such silly things?
I don't see it getting blocked in a world of Kraft-Heinz and WalMart, CVS, Target, etc. Then again, I could be completely freaking wrong, and the wisdom of the market has left more than a few corpses behind its wake.   EDIT: I'm a corpse, but not for the reason of blocking.
BigBOX specialty stores can't compete with Walmart and Walmart can't compete with Amazon and Amazon won't be able to compete with China's Alibaba and Alibaba Express. Let Walmart and Amazon fold and you will see the rise of the independent retailers... we have to start producing our own products and taxing Chinese imports to level the playing field for American businesses. This is one MONOPOLY everyone in congress seems to NOT  recognize.
"&gt;We need effective price controls on pharmaceuticals. Why are US made drugs cheaper in Europe?   Because single payer/universal healthcare gives more leverage to the pharma buyer.  Instead of raising the prices as much as the market will bear, the government can say ""this is what we are offering, or else you lose on millions of potential customers""."
Wal-Mart? How are they going to compete with this monster. Grocery shopping is also a kind of social experience that it seems humans need. I'm no fan of walyworld taking out almost every small grocery store they can. Don't know,might get interesting. Hopefully get a price war going and then the customer will benefit.
&gt;Ok give me which countries.  Russia, America, Canada, China. Those are the easy ones off the top of my head. I live in Canada, we have protectionist policies and openly favor and endorse Canadian industry. We even pay taxes to support them. Want more examples?   &gt; I can tell you whole supply chain of phones were massive failure in Argentina because of protectionism.  ... So you're saying they're hunting dogs and pigeons in the streets because of phones? You're saying they're desperate and starving because of phones?
I don't see the reason for this response. It seems the only logical conclusion since the following factors aren't explanatory:       I) resources;       II) environment (excluding Earth natural resources);       III) landlocking;       IV) historical circumstances (excluding evolutionary environ; cf. Clark, 2008);       V) colonial legacy (it's actually predictive of greater success, not less);       VI) badly-drawn borders;       &amp;c. All explanations drawn from common equalitarian tropes seem to fall flat and counter-examples abound. What's more, other differences with a more biological, evolutionary basis are; A) more sensible, and; B) more explanatory.
&gt; It’s like an octopus spreading its tentacles across different markets  ..until Amazon is the dominating company by far in each of these market segments and basically defines industry standards that especially smaller companies cannot compete with due to lack of resources and power. That makes Amazon a quasi monopoly.
Because our entire economy is based on the stuff to keep going and every ounce has to be pulled out of the ground from somewhere.  Microsoft and Apple couldn't exist without oil to create the plastic and other components that go into computer hardware let alone getting employees to their campuses via car or bus.
&gt; No thanks EU, I think China, Canada, Japan, South Korea, these are our trade partners. Go wither in your own vine.  The EU is our #1 trading partner:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States  Japan and Korea combined don't make 1/3 of our business with the EU. We do more with the EU than we do China or Canada. We *need* the EU.
**Here's a sneak peek of /r/AskEconomics using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/top/?sort=top&amp;t=year) of the year!**  \#1: [As an economic system, why does capitalism require constant growth?](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/5e3qc5/as_an_economic_system_why_does_capitalism_require/)   \#2: [Is there even one economist in here that thinks Trump's protectionist agenda will result in welfare gains for the American people?](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/5p5lpe/is_there_even_one_economist_in_here_that_thinks/)   \#3: [/r/memenomics posts aside, is Ben Bernanke really a hero? Did the Fed save us from something much worse during the recession? How bad would it have been if the Fed acted as poorly and lamely as it did before/during the Great Depression?](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/5ijtls/rmemenomics_posts_aside_is_ben_bernanke_really_a/)  ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/6l7i0m/blacklist/)
"Isn't this effectively saying that the market responds principally to itself, and not to either economic fundamentals, or the profitability of the underlying companies.  If so, the market as a ""price discovery mechanism"" is broken, and investors would be wise to do their own research."
I ignored nothing. Click the Wikipedia link I provided, sort by UN R/P 10%, in descending order. Now look at the top 30. Overlap with the top 30 on the [HDI](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index)? Zero.  As for your anecdote... the fact that you try to justify a sweeping statement about *international economics throughout history* - and one that happens to contradict just about every piece of data in existence - by talking about your own, personal experiences gives me the distinct impression that talking economics with you might just be a waste of time.
A target date fund is NOT a world market index. There is no requirement that it be weighted based on the weights of the various world stock markets. If anything, historically (since the invention of target date funds), a 2:1 ratio is actually pretty low. 6:1 is, or was, probably more common. Just a token amount to non-US investments.
Ma Bell was monopolistic because they controlled the pipes; there could realistically, be no competition.  It's hard to call WalMart a monopoly as long as Target, Sears, KMart, Safeway, Amazon, etc etc all still exist.    Just because you dislike a model, does not make it a monopoly.
&gt; All of the products that are replacing them by this analysis are more expensive, which indicates they're probably capturing a different sector of the market.  They're probably segmenting the market, not capturing a different market.  When I would have gone to Burger King in the past, I now go to a gourmet burger joint.
Oh surprise, surprise.  The problem forcing the world towards another Great Depression - is that he's not making enough money.  And, the only way to avert disaster - is to do things that will make him even more powerful and wealthy.  What a freaking shock...