vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
That would make it pretty impossible for teenagers to get first jobs.  Whole swathes of the economy  would have to be shit down as they were no longer viable. Still more would have to drastically automate to remain viable.  Jobs and employment would suffer.   I'm not sure who that would help.
The thing is simply this, if it were not for Israeli control of America's economy, the Fed the Treasury . . .America would not be arming Israel and spending billions of dollars in Military Aid.   The Palestinians, can't even get water and medical supplies because Israel has been blockading them for the last decade.  As America's economy fails and Military power wanes and its opinion is no longer of any importance and the world comes to openly admit that Israel is the root cause of terrorism and the facilitator, financier and operator of Groups like ISIS, things will change. While you may not be disarmed, it will indeed be fun to watch brave Israeli forces fight an armed Palestinian force with the ability to hit back meaningfully.  I am sure Middle east peace will find you a lot quicker
Left out, of course, is the fact that this is Argentina's eighth default, because its policymakers are complete nincompoops, and the fact that, instead of not paying anybody by complying with the ruling, it could probably have struck a deal with NML to pay them the principal and interest (or a bit less, if they were decent negotiators) by waiting until December when a bond clause expires that states Argentina can't willingly pay less to some creditors than others. The blame isn't all Argentina's, but there's a reason why this sort of stuff doesn't happen in literally any other country in Latin America on such a regular basis.
I am curious what will happen when the Baby Boomers, with all their choice vacation homes that they got or inherited when houses were significantly less expensive, all begin to die off and move to assisted living.  There is an bubble there I don't see discussed.
[Responsibility to the Poor](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA)|[+2](https://www.reddit.com/r/economy/comments/6v5nrj/_/dly9xcd?context=10#dly9xcd) - To me that's a failure on a collective level. I'd say it's more of a failure on a personal level. Without the mass of wealth that exists due to capitalism and free trade, there would be nothing to support anyone with. We wouldn't have to worry abou... (1) [Fake Begger Makes $100,000 year - The Real way to earn money Panhandling!](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPH4jl5kGp4) (2) [How Much Money I Made As A Panhandler - Confessions #4](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLc7VCznliU)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/economy/comments/6v5nrj/_/dlyyfc9?context=10#dlyyfc9) - When you only other choice is OR DIE, it's pretty much slavery. Getting to choose your master, oh I'm sorry, ""career path"" is just mincing words. What do you think would happen if there were no other humans around? You'd have to work or die. You ... I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can.
&gt; I don't know how the middle class with survive without them.   They wouldn't. Which is why the unionization re-revolution won't happen here. It will start in China and move back to our shores. That, or we'll see the dirty commies unionizing and redouble our hatred for them, finally bringing serfdom-fiefdom back into fashion.
I wonder this myself.  If an economic apocalypse actually came to pass, owning a bunch of gold bars - or shares in gold bars held somewhere else - isn't going to help you eat, or keep you from freezing to death.  The most valuable goods will be those with some utility - food, water, clothing, medicine, ammunition.  I think the financiers and their pornographers at WSJ forget that their entire world - and everything of value, power, and consequence within it - will cease to exist if the power goes out.
&gt; they will just leave instead of paying.   Great.   The rich are rich because they own things that leech money from our economies.  We can tax them wherever they are by taxing the mechanisms by which they earn money from us.  Having them all leave would be the best thing, because it would dispel the illusion that helping the rich helps America.   &gt; The rich already pay the vast majority of taxes.  Only if you ignore most of the taxes the rest of us pay.
Lol...going on a real tangent here, but  why not.  1st: Do we send them aid? If so is it food, currency, or something else? Food MIGHT make sense as long as we are making sure it goes to people who are literally starving (and it doesn't get withheld by the government), currency would most likely not make sense because it would just directly support the regime. In the long run though, respecting property rights wouldn't hurt them at all and could only help, but they have many other issues in that country that need to be fixed as well. The whole reason I brought up the example of Zimbabwe is because Mugabe confiscated the lands of all white ppl (this was a pretty populist policy), who tended to be farmers, gave it to his cronies, and then because the land wasn't being farmed a famine and hyperinflation ensued.
The US spends more on its military than the next 8 countries combined. This level of expenditure is insane and completely unnecessary. Mostly as a result of the relevant businesses buying off politicians.   Europe will never spend such amounts because it's just stupid to do so
OP wants to do something very honourable, applause for that. Being a Greek I have insider knowledge about the impact of various organisations. Fact is, for people from abroad what is the most highly recommended action would be to support organisations of an international network (red cross, doctors w/out borders etc), because the health system is suffering seriously nowadays -or access to it-, and providing redundancy in that respect can certainly make a difference, via global health efforts. The next best thing you can do, to yourself and others, is basically to take a vacation in Greece and visit both a big city (here's where the problems will be visible) and an island (here's where you'll realise that you are in a place of stunning natural beauty). By taking this action you achieve two things: you put the economy in motion - a small vote, yet it counts - and you actually are a first-person observer. Enough is enough with victimisation via the news coming from inside or outside Greece! People need get the whole respective.
At some point, there will even be non wealthy nations with better healthcare.       Anyone who is well travelled, or from another country knows how horrific the US healthcare system is.   The media talks about poor people, but it's awful for the middle to upper middle class too in comparison to alternatives.        It constantly shocks me this is not a bigger public issue.  If only the general population realized what the alternative looks like.  Not perfect by any means, but so much better.
"I personally think the ACA will be left alone until it collapses. Nobody from either party wants their name associated with it or anything like it.  Depending on the ""deal"" that you get (based off of income or provided by employer) the ACA collapsing will be a great thing or an awful thing. Regardless of how you feel, its financially unsustainable.   From an NYTimes article from June 9th, 2017: &gt; For the First Time, 45 Counties Could Have &gt; No Insurer in the Obamacare Marketplaces  also &gt; 1,388 counties with one insurer  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/us/counties-with-one-or-no-obamacare-insurer.html  In addition to all of this I also think that the whole thing was a ploy to boil everything down to a 'single' insurer and therefore have single payer insurance by default.  Before you downvote me for serving up a Failure Burger (ACA) wrapped in Failure (GOP not acting on it) please respond with an argument as to why this is financially sustainable. I get that it helps poor people and *""wont somebody think of the children""* but this timeless ploy of feigning consideration for the old and infirm is about to have the whole country careening off into the great unknown.  Also, shame on Obama for passing this to begin with and shame on Obama for being at war *every single day of his two terms*."
You're an idiot. Apple is another company on his list.  You're laughing now but in a few years no jobs will be in the U.S. You'll be shoving burgers down your throat and helping pay for foreign countries infrastructure and school systems.
&gt; The seven banks that founded Bankia be left out of the shareholders of the entity and the State will be made with one hundred percent of the group's parent  Are you fucking kidding me? Europe is highly socialist, and Spain is one of the most socialist of all. The **state** controls the bank now. Did you even read the fucking article?  Spew more bullshit about the evils of capitalism on an article about nationalization, you're one sharp tool in the box aren't you.
Who do you think the Missile defense system is supposed to protect? South Korea. You would think they would help flip the bill instead of American tax payers. I would be ok if we drew our entire military presence from SK.
My suggestions would only save the country money and prevent at least 84,500 people - almost certainly much more from dying unnecessarily each year  (due to mortality amenable to health care) if the US had healthcare that was available to everybody and affordable *like almost all other developed countries do.*  They all literally think we are barbarians you know, largely because of people with opinions like your own.
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:  - [/r/ethtrader] [Unicorns aren't Real (x-post r\/finance)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/6r9hxt/unicorns_arent_real_xpost_rfinance/)  [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*  [](#bot)
"Um Rich people invested in his company. From the article ""60 investors, and in our seed round we had six, so that gives you an idea of how many no’s you had to get to the six yes’s,” he says. For the first million."
Steve Keen says otherwise, he says Banks CAN create a Quadrillion dollars, as long as there are willing borrowers.  :  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc_fpGfyqGE.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sSfPkIUHPk&amp;feature=share  why does m2 seem like exponential?  how can fractional reserve do something like that?  unpossible.   seems like only an explosive growth in either productivity or profits through slave labor globalization or speculative derivatives can do something like that.
They don't care much as to what. The underwriter may overprice the stock, as that maximizes their return. If they can convince enough people to overpay, they don't care that the stock falls the day after that. All their marketing effort is to try to achieve that result. They want you to believe that your $20 purchase will go up to $30 the next day. But it might not. These numbers may not be accurate. Obviously the $20 stock price is made up. But the 4% and 7% numbers may also be inaccurate. Modern online brokers are very competitive and may charge a flat fee rather than a percentage. The book may be giving you older numbers that were correct in 1983 (or whatever year). The buyer's commission could also be lower than 4%, as the seller also may be charged a commission. If each pays 2%, that's about 4% total but split between a buyer's commission and a seller's commission."
"You could call it ""multiple streams of income"" a la Robert Allen and others. Or you could call it ""Do once, sell many"" or something like that."
Spam. OPs post history shows that he is affiliated with this website. In fact, he started a thread asking about how to increase traffic to a personal finance website geared towards millennials. My guess is it is this site. Post history shows he regularly posts links to this site on different financial subreddits.   OP--This is not the type of finance this sub discusses.
&gt;it does nothing to challenge hanauers argument, as hanauer acknowledges this tenet  No, you are wrong. the link directly contradicts you: &gt;On Wall Street and corporate boards, buybacks are often lauded as a way to “return capital” to shareholders. That, according to Hanauer, is one big lie.  &gt;That the whole thing was just a lie; it's a story that rich people told poor people so that they could steal from them. It's just terrible.  &gt;Stock buybacks are very nefarious things. They are a practice that creates no social or economic utility, other than enriching the super rich.  &gt;In a more sensibly organized economy, it would be illegal to do it  So yeah, you don't know what you're talking about, as usual.
How can they reduce the number of shares I hold? They may have purchased them.  You don't say what stock it is, so we can only speculate.  Let's say that the stock is called PENNY.  So they may have taken your 1600 PENNY shares and renamed them to 1600 PENNYOLD shares.  Then they created a new $5 PENNY share and gave you .2357 shares of that in exchange for your 1600 PENNYOLD shares.  This suggests that your old shares were worth $1.1785 or less than a tenth of a cent each.   As an example, MYLAN did this in 2015 as part of their tax inversion (moved official headquarters from the US to Europe).  They did not change the number of shares at that time, but MYLAN is not a penny stock.   This is the kind of thing that might happen in a bankruptcy.   A reverse split (where they give you one share in exchange for more than one share) is also possible, although you received an odd amount for a reverse split.  Usually those produce rounder numbers.  A number like .2357 sounds more like a market price, as those can be bizarre.
Yes, theoretically you can flip the shares you agreed to buy and make a profit, but you're banking on the market behaving in some very precise and potentially unlikely ways. In practice it's very tricky for you to successfully navigate paying arbitrarily more for a stock than it's currently listed for, and selling it back again for enough to cover the difference. Yes, the price could drop to $28, but it could just as easily drop to $27.73 (or further) and now you're hurting, before even taking into account the potentially hefty commissions involved. Another way to think about it is to recognize that an option transaction is a bet; the buyer is betting a small amount of money that a stock will move in the direction they expect, the seller is betting a large amount of money that the same stock will not. One of you has to lose. And unless you've some reason to be solidly confident in your predictive powers the loser, long term, is quite likely to be you. Now that said, it is possible (particularly when selling puts) to create win-win scenarios for yourself, where you're betting one direction, but you'd be perfectly happy with the alternative(s). Here's an example. Suppose, unrelated to the option chain, you've come to the conclusion that you'd be happy paying $28 for BBY. It's currently (June 2011) at ~$31, so you can't buy it on the open market for a price you'd be happy with. But you could sell a $28 put, promising to buy it at that price should someone want to sell it (presumably, because the price is now below $28). Either the put expires worthless and you pocket a few bucks and you're basically no worse off because the stock is still overpriced by your estimates, or the option is executed, and you receive 100 shares of BBY at a price you previously decided you were willing to pay. Even if the list price is now lower, long term you expect the stock to be worth more than $28. Conceptually, this makes selling a put very similar to being paid to place a limit order to buy the stock itself.
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:  - [/r/talkbusiness] [Ad Industry Insiders Profited From An Ad Fraud Scheme That Researchers Say Stole Millions Of Dollars](https://np.reddit.com/r/talkbusiness/comments/781val/ad_industry_insiders_profited_from_an_ad_fraud/)  [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*  [](#bot)
"Sounds like a Ponzi scheme, amplified by social media. Ponzi schemes always rely on some ""winners"" to say they are winners, so they can grow the pot. If you put in $100 and got out $120, that's the $20 the operator pays so that the next guy who puts in $100 gets back... zero."
"If any one thing says ""big move,"" it's that' AAPL is approaching $100 (approximately a split and dividend adjusted all-time high).  Stocks act weird around big numbers - but if you could count on just a few things in trading, it's that if AAPL moves past $100, it won't just move a couple more bucks - it will move convincingly higher."
I didn't say you can't do whatever you want, I say it's a waste to society.   You and your friends spend your entire lives trying to beat each other at an imaginary game and you take home billions of dollars.  That money comes from somewhere - namely all the other people who didn't make quite as much on each trade.    How do you not see this?
You mean sites like prosper.com? I see that they are growing but is this really substainable when the novely wears off?  Also I find the low volatility claim interesting since I thought low vol portfolios would be a hard sell. How have you experienced this?
&gt; They expected more. Anyone with Asian parents would understand.  Even though you're making a joke, yes, you're exactly right. Investors always speculate, and stock prices reflect expectations. Look at Tesla's stock. It's bleeding cash, yet its stock is flying high, because people think it is the future. There isn't even anything concrete to say that it will stay the market leader. Could happen, but no one knows for sure.
Are there other examples of this happening and records of stock prices and behaviors after these types of buyouts?   Could it be possible that KKR is getting the shit end of the stick? Or is this a smart move for KKR to consolidate these entities?
From what you have written, it could be a boiler room company. These operate with fancy website and have proper book keeping systems but are elaborate scams. How did you find about this broker. If there was a seller when you purchased the shares, there is no reason you can't be seller
Yahoo's primary business isn't providing mutual fund performance data.  They aim to be convenient, but often leave something to be desired in terms of completeness. Try Morningstar instead.  Their mission is investment research. Here's a link to Morningstar's data for the fund you specified.  If you scroll down, you'll see:
A single fund that reflects the local currency would be an index fund in the country. Look for mutual funds which provide for investing on the local stock index. The fund managers would handle all the portfolio balancing for you.
"You probably want to think about pools of money separately if they have separate time horizons or are otherwise not interchangeable. A classic example is your emergency fund (which has a potentially-immediate time horizon) vs. your retirement savings. The emergency fund would be all in cash or very short-term bonds, and would not count in your retirement asset allocation. Since the emergency fund usually has a capped value (a certain amount of money you want to have for emergencies) rather than a percentage of net worth value, this especially makes sense; you have to treat the emergency fund separately or you'd have to keep changing your asset allocation percentages as your net worth rises (hopefully) with respect to the capped emergency amount. Similarly, say you are saving for a car in 3 years; you'd probably invest that money very conservatively. Also, it could not go in tax-deferred retirement accounts, and when you buy the car the account will go to zero. So probably worth treating this separately. On the other hand, say you have some savings in tax-deferred retirement accounts and some in taxable accounts, but in both cases you're expecting to use the money for retirement. In that case, you have the same time horizon and goals, and it can pay to think about the taxable and nontaxable accounts as a whole. In particular you can use ""asset location"" (put less-tax-efficient assets in tax-deferred accounts). In this case maybe you would end up with mostly bonds in the tax-deferred accounts and mostly equities in the taxable accounts, for tax reasons; the asset allocation would only make sense considering all the accounts, since the taxable account would be too equity-heavy and the tax-deferred one too bond-heavy. There can be practical reasons to treat each account separately, too, though. For example if your broker has a convenient automatic rebalancing tool on their website, it probably only works within an account. Treating each account by itself would let you use the automatic rebalancing feature on the website, while a more complicated asset location strategy where you rebalance across multiple accounts might be too hard and in practice you wouldn't get around to it.
You'll likely see several more scary market events before your autumn years. Ahhh, everyone has an opinion on this so here is mine :) If you are constrained to picking canned mutual fund products then I would target something with decent yield for two points. The third is to keep some in cash for an 'event'.   I would say 65/35 at this point so invest 65% and have some liquidity for an 'opportunity'.  Because the next crisis is right around the corner. But stay invested.
Meh. Seems like splitting hairs to me. I've tried to get Vanguard to open fossil-free index funds as Barclays has (and to which I moved heaping helpings of my Vanguard money) so maybe I'm part of the problem.   By the by, those fossil free funds have been outperforming their fossilized index counterparts.
Yes, the larger number of ETFs will have a greater chance of enhancing the effect you observe. It's beyond a simple discussion, but the bottom line is that by carving out the different market segments your rebalancing will have greater impact.
Longing the short ETF will give you better returns than shorting the long etf.  The reason is that as the price gets the smaller the absolute price change gets a lot smaller. So you would rather have upward price exposure than downward.  A good case is SPXU and UPRO
First I would be very careful using a short ETF.  There could be some serious tracking error, especially if its levered.  Second, when it comes to forex you are in the world of PIPS and high leverage.  You would need to have significant capital to be able to hold out the swings as banks do their interventions.  Plenty of people have been short waiting, and waiting, and waiting, unless you think you know something the market doesn't this seems like a pretty high risk strategy.  I'd suggest buying options instead, but they will be expensive given the volatility.
I would buy an ETF (or maybe a couple) in stable, blue chip companies with a decent yield (~3%) and then I'd play a conservative covered call strategy on the stock selling a new position about once a month. That's just me.
I guess I wasn't clear. I want to modestly leverage (3-4x) my portfolio using options. I believe long deep-in-the-money calls would be the best way to do this? (Let me know if not.)  It's important to me that the covariance matrix from the equity portfolio scales up but doesn't fundamentally change. (I liken it to systemic change as opposed to idiosyncratic change.)   This is what I was thinking:  * For the same expiry date, find each positions lowest lambda. * Match all option to the the highest of the lowest lambda. * Adjust number of contracts to compensate for higher leverage.  I don't think this will work because if I matched the lowest lambda of options on bond etfs to my equity options they would be out-of-the-money.  By the way, thanks for your time.