vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"&gt; You mean, like how the lower classes all over the world - billions of people - have been lifted out of poverty by countries adopting economic liberalizations and rollback of government intervention?  1) [You have it backward](https://niskanencenter.org/blog/quality-government-not-size-key-freedom-prosperity/).  2) [Looking at income and liberalizations/interventions is way too myopic](http://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995).  &gt; They DO NOT have the right to have the government steal some of my money because they didn't plan properly.  Ah yes, there is the core Republican narrative that all people are autonomous, independent beings with total freewill and the tools to function normally. Therefore it is not only good but morally required for people to bear the full brunt of their irresponsible behavior.  The older I get, the more I realize how misguided this view is. We are very much products of our environment doing the best we can with what we have.  Your attitude at best maintains inequality and at worst punishes the victim.  &gt; That infrastructure is already paid for. His success creates no additional burden or obligation.  ""We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.""  &gt; In fact, the healthcare market would grow so rapidly...  If you say so."
Well, the headline is kind of true. Open boarders make all developed country labor much cheaper so the trend of the rich getting richer and every other native poorer (especially when considering externalities) would be exacerbated. What makes this article true, for The Economist, is that for The Economist 'The West' means the 'Rich People of The West Who Read The Economist'.
&gt; It's still free money from US to build a system for THEM so they can sell the power back to us at a profit.  Sure, because otherwise they can't make a profit and thus wouldn't build the system.  That's the point in subsidises.
"sorry, my response was supposed to be to the above comment, not yours. My main point was that colonizing in Africa, where there was already a large population did not require bringing in people (which you would need to incentivize to move to, hence offering the ""free"" carrot of property rights to settlers of NA) to extract resources. Instead the British (and other European powers) just used the local populace to extract the resources. The main reason the US and Canada are well off is that property rights were established very early on and this encouraged people to ""invest"" and produce more because the higher production accrued to the producer and the producer would have legal recourse should a negative ""externality"" be put upon them by someone else. Obviously there were other reasons as well, but property rights are huge (this is true globally now) in encouraging people to ""grow"" their assets. Part of the reason Africa is still so screwed up is that many of their institutions and governments are too corrupt to protect their citizens' property rights, thereby discouraging investment and production."
Well thats a fucking surprise . . .Banks win an everybody else gets fucked  But how is that possible?  The Banks were the ones with all the bad debt, the CDOs, the SIVs and what not that was dragging them under, the Fed bought up that shit at AAA valuations even though there was no Market. The Fed dropped interest rates to 0% so these assholes could borrow emergency funds from the Fed even after the bailouts.  They kept rolling the debt over for the last decade while it sat there on the Feds balance sheet.   Now that the Fed is about to write off 4.5 Trillion dollars of this debt  Banks win . .because they got a free lunch with no consequences  This has to be the Bank Heist of the Millennium   Lets give them a bonus for their great performance
Subsidies are provided for a purpose. As long as that purpose is met, it shouldn't matter who else is benefitting. To be honest, a company like Tesla succeeding is good for the economy. They made autonomous cars a reality. Even Google wasn't able to, even though they have been working on it for several years more.
he said the government is subsidizing the koch brothers, that suggests a flow of money from government to them.  i assure you the flow is the opposite.  the people being subsidized by government are the ones receiving transfer payments like welfare, which i would BET he receives truth be told.
"A bit surprising that this happened during the ""I love everyone"" Obama era.   BTW, it's the CIA job to do exactly this. Most other countries such as China, Russia (USSR), Iran have programs to do the same thing.  Destabilize your direct and indirect rivals/enemies and support governments sympathetic to the us."
Humans are not innately evil and manipulative creatures that try to screw others over. We just happen to live in an economic system that disproportionately rewards those willing to do those behaviors with money and power. People using the human nature argument are just trying to make themselves feel better for supporting an exploitative economic system. A form of self validation.
Inequality is good for everyone. It's extreme inequality and extreme equality that snuff mobility and growth. The sides are strong because they're the height of financial/democratic power. So to support either side means taking from the weaker center. And it's the center that holds the house together.
"So this has been true... Forever. I mean can we agree that there is enough corruption to be the dividing line between the 1% and the rest of society? The system is built to protect the rich and grow the wealth of the already wealthy. The middle and lower class are being farmed like animals while food quality is disgusting due to FDA ""failure,"" medicine is becoming a periodical subscription because modern disease is trending towards ""lifelong"" sicknesses, health insurance is a for profit business that now has more investments than banks and while millions suffer and are bled dry of any savings. Keeping the middle east in turmoil is how we get cheap oil. Peace means they have the right to negotiate their exports. While desperate, we basically take it for free. EVERYTHING. IS. BASED. ON. MONEY.    Everytime I use quotes, just think: What if this is designed? I mean follow the MONEY. Medicine benefits if you're just sick enough to pay up every month and not die. The FDA approves all kinds of sickness inducing trash. Why? Isn't that their one job? To say oh this isn't healthy. It causes cancer. We will not allow it. Apparently not. What big pharma paid the FDA to allow crap food. The reason it's crap is because it's cheap. The food industry like McDonald's wants cheap food so they can become global billionaires... I mean c'mon."
Having trouble understanding currency arbitrage for one example. Conditions: US 3% interest per 6 months Germany 3.6% interest per 6 months Spot rate is $1.09/euro 6-month Forward is $1.04/euro  How do I make this into an arbitrage opportunity?  There is supposed to be a profit but I keep getting negatives. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
&gt; Meaning if the were allowed to opt out of this monopoly service provider they would.  They can do so at any time.  Since they are rich they can afford a plane ticket to any country of their choosing.  Oh, they are staying?  Then they have chosen this government.
We sure could. I think a much more concise way of addressing this is that the reason any nation is technologically superior to another, especially in an age where nations were extremely homogenous would directly mean that they were a more intelligent group of people.
And so what was the logical alternative?  How does Hank Paulson:  1.   Get $150-300 billion dollars into the hands of individual taxpayers so that they don't default on their home mortgages and wipe out the banking system?  2.  Make sure the $150-300 B is going to individuals who actually need the capital, weren't bad actors in taking on too much debt and causing everyone else significant harm by engaging in risky borrowing?  3.  Sufficiently protect the $150-300 B in loans so that the US Gov't can get paid back and not have it be some massive giveaway of taxpayer dollars?    And all this had to be done within a matter of days.  Ontop of which, why aren't you railing against the irresponsible automakers who didn't pay back their TARP loans and instead were forgiven, while the banks paid back their loans in full with interest and a profit to the US Taxpayer?  The automakers and the unions basically got free money (after Obama came into office and under his direction) on the back of the taxpayer.  Isn't that crony capitalism when unions who are Democratic sympathizing voters get loans that are ultimately forgiven by the federal government?  The whining you make about private entities like Berkshire, who did nothing to create the crisis and merely took advantage of it, with little to no help from the federal government is remarkable.  It's like straight out of a socialist playbook.
"I wouldn't go so far as to call them victims.  US airlines have most certainly benefitted from the ""enhanced security screenings"" that make it impossible to sell/trade ""non-refundable"" tickets, force people to show up an hour earlier, and kick anyone off a plane (without a refund or credit) ""for security reasons"".  As a result, US airlines have fewer complaints, and face less backlash as they reduce the quality of service.  With how much benefit its had to the bottom line, US airlines would be *stupid* to not support these bullshit security measures.  Here's a fun fact: At many airports, flying first (or even just business) means you get your own security line. At some airports you don't get scanned or questioned, and at least *one* airport you can walk *around* the metal detector in the security line.  Whether they actually *created* these measures or not isn't an entirely different beast: When 9/11 happened, I'm sure the US state department asked the airlines *what can we do* to stop this from happening, and I'm sure that *all* of these measures were cleared by top airlines, but then I think most new legislation is cleared by lobbyists, and etc. The debate isn't whether this happens, but as always, it's whether lobbyists and corporate rights benefit Americans."
I'm not surprised in the least bit. That is how they were able to increase revenue. Save money by avoiding the cost related to paying people at least minimum wage. When you go overseas, people are clamoring for the Americanized jobs so much that you can pay them just about anything. Companies would rather save money than reserve those jobs for the American citizens they claim to care about.
"I think that all that money big donors are making from drugs, services and especially gas, which they will soon be selling for top dollar, three to five times what they get for it now- must figure. Insurance alone is an *extra* quarter to a third of a million dollars per person over their lifetimes.   And then [if we want to stop say the TTIP energy deal](http://action.sierraclub.org/site/DocServer/Analysis_of_EU_Energy_Proposal_TTIP.pdf), say the huge energy price increases are killing jobs, we'll have to pay again, too, right?   Because of the extremely controversial *""ISDS""* scheme of giving multinational corporations special rights to countries *unchanged* markets?  They have everything figured out."
"No offense but how is it inspiring given it took the socialization of risk markets (bailouts, tens of trillions in liability guarantees, wholesale changes in mark-to-market accounting rules, QE which continues to this day) and undermining of our judicial process (pretending no fraud was truly prosecutable) - all to the outsized benefit of the ultimate insider and anti-competition specialist Buffett?  I traded before, during and after the crisis and any of my losses were 100% my own while guys down the Avenue had their bonuses guaranteed by TARP and I am supposed to be inspired?  Buffett sure did ""bet on America"", it just isn't what most people like to think it is."
What exactly does Russia get from us, if anything, that they can't get somewhere else? And if they get something I guarantee Putin has found a substitute source. He knows if you can't keep bellys full he will have a revolution on his hands.  IMHO this is not as bad as the media wants you to believe.
Government has been providing entitlements for 300 years in our shared Commonwealth heritage. Government is accountable, made of Individuals, and has made real gains in providing access to the American dream since 1929. You're defense of this neoliberalism or Whatever is not supported by comparative history or data and is pure ideology, much like your interpretation of Christianity.   https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/521541/
Who gives a shit? The government is actually giving an incentive to innovate and be a world leader.. They're not taxing, they're not regulating, they're just promoting a form of energy that doesn't require money to go to hostile states such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, West Virginia, or Venezuela
Are you kidding? Subsidized loans is effectively free money. Of course they're going to avail themselves.  The real reason is prbably that Bernanke didn't want to be playing favorites (which he was). The level and quality of collateral required for these loans varied wildly, with very little explanation.  Also, 16 trillion is a LOT of money to be given out as a subsidized loan, even if the quality of the collateral was high and the duration was short (which is NOT true for at least a trillion of that money).
With every loser there is a winner on trades like that.  There were some other large hedge funds that figured out what they were doing, and basically just added fuel to the fire and are now making great money as a result.   Had the bet reversed, JPM would have been the winner.  Check [THIS](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/business/how-boaz-weinstein-and-hedge-funds-outsmarted-jpmorgan.html?pagewanted=all) out.
And with their complete and utter control of the US economy via the Fed and the Treasury and banks, they can squeeze America's balls when ever they feel like and drag them into their fake wars  And America gets Taxes and loses health care and is forced to survive on food stamps, and the 1% sucks the fat of all the wealth via goobly gook financial products and rapes the economy when it goes bad.   Every American politician must first get his asshole examined by AIPAC before he can even contemplate running, yet the Jews don't even make up 1 % of the vote.  Its as if the Popular vote does not matter, its who the Jews choose . . it wasn't Russia that hacked the election, it was the Jews who rigged it and then used liddle Jew Zuckerberg to implicate the Russians.  And now we have a Jew bitch as a president who has spent his entire life in debt to the Banks and that evil gargoyle Nathanyahu perpetually perched on his shoulder braying into his ear about war and millions of dollars being spent on investigating Russian posts on Face book, and under the chaos, the Jews have started to unwind the Fed with the first $4 billion of non-existent mortgages.
&gt; why are some people so pleased to see another major market monopoly?  Because Amazon is their friend today. They won't regret it until it's too late. Amazon Key being met by a significant portion of people with a warm reception is evidence enough that we keep pushing the line of what's inacceptable back further.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/israel-maintains-robust-arms-trade-rogue-regimes-171022100816302.html) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The issue of Israel&amp;#039;s trade with rogue regimes has been thrust into the spotlight again after revelations that it is sending weapons to Myanmar, in defiance of a US and European arms embargo.  &gt; &amp;quot;Many Western states sell arms, but what&amp;#039;s unique about Israel is that, wherever war crimes and crimes against humanity are being committed, you find Israel is present,&amp;quot; Mack told Al Jazeera.  &gt; &amp;quot;The benefits for Israel are not just measured in money. Often even more important are the diplomatic and strategic alliances Israel can gain from this arms trade.""   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/7879bm/israel_maintains_robust_arms_trade_with_rogue/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~233436 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*: **Israel**^#1 **arms**^#2 **Israeli**^#3 **Myanmar**^#4 **weapons**^#5"
"They acquired the debt from the VZ Central Bank. Providing the Central Bank with dollars will help them control inflation. The argument against the deal is colossally stupid, and basically rests on the idea that the world community just needs to let VZ get as shitty and miserable as possible so the people will overthrow the government. Anything that eases the pain, like injecting US Dollars into the central bank, is therefore seen as ""propping up the government"""
"He thinks he can ""get a deal"" now that SK really needs NK in the wake of the hostilities lately. Also, government disruptions cause predictable market responses, so the deals he's making help himself and the rest of the 1%. Imagine as a business leader you know this, and now imagine you have the power to do it at will.   I don't think that's cynical. Some who's lived their entire adult life finding ways to turn every situation into personal profit isn't going to stop when he's the president."
"The point is that government controlled institutions could do the lending instead. Right now banks are able to lend and create money out of ""thin air"" by loaning more than they have. These banks make lots of money doing this. What if that money was used to lower taxes instead of line the pockets of old banking families?  It is not totally ludicrous"
&gt; Destabilize your direct and indirect rivals/enemies and support governments sympathetic to the us.  destabilizing Iran was for the benefit of a British oil company - who wanted their oil.  destabilizing Guatemala was for the benefit on an American fruit company - who wanted their bananas.  why buy, when you can install US-puppets and get it for free ? /s
"the Yen is *the source* of **""carry trades""**. It means whichever savvy people with means who want to borrow money to invest on a leveraged basis anywhere in the world, come running to borrow in yen. Why? Because (1) Japan is an advanced economy whose currency is freely convertible to many many currencies/countries who are happy to convert yen back and forth. (2) Japanese interest rates are low, lower than in the west b/c of their earlier deflationary crises due to too much debt and due to west requiring Yen to be too strong after the Plaza accords; so it's cheap to borrow there.  So a lot of investment around the world has, in origin, come from borrowing in japan.  As long as that investment is ""on"", the loan to japan remains outstanding. But the investor earns the ""carry"": the rate of difference between the cost of borrowing in Yen, and earning the return from whatever investment it is.   When scary things happen (like war, disaster, coups etc) the big money bags/investors pull their money out of their investments and put it in their banks.  This means they sell their investments, wherever they are, convert some of that money back into yent ( BUY YEN ) to return their yen loans. yen goes up."
"&gt;with the help of its auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Caterpillar had devised a way to shift billions in profit to Switzerland to avoid U.S. taxes.  it seems like the system is broken  edit:  whats the fucking point of having an ""auditor"" if this is how its played in the big leagues?  or is ""auditor"" the new inside-joke sarcastic term for ""co conspirator"" and I'm just slow on the draw here"
"&gt; ...the only justification for the existence of a state is the protection of your rights and freedoms from others.  Okay, why?  &gt; Capitalism is based on...respect for each other's property.  That is not enough.  We have seen that corporations will push limits regularly which shows little respect for the law or other people's property.  Without the concept of corporate person-hood, a impartial judicial system to settle disagreements, and enforcement significantly more powerful than all actors, corporations would have little reason to heed claims of property.  Ownership would become a question of what you can control, not what you made/traded for.  The word to describe when institutions control the land, people, and product by force: feudalism, the precursor to capitalism.  &gt; Every other system can be defined as a restriction to capitalism.  Don't agree.  Once again I think your arguments just assume that capitalism and its effects are ""correct"".  &gt; However mandatory public healthcare is not.  You're just repeating your claim.  Tell me why.  &gt; The driving force behind all the benefits of capitalism is competition...  Competition is important in capitalism but it doesn't solve the problem of how the money sucks money to the top.  Instead of all the money going to one person it would now all go to a small group, just enough to meet the competition requirements.   &gt; ...redistribution of wealth won't stop its formation.  Redistribution of wealth isn't about preventing monopolies.  It is about reversing the trend of money moving up towards the wealthy in a capitalist system."
The US didn't care about full employment, full employment was a handy side effect of the total war we needed to wage in order to win, and the economic devastation wrought in Europe and Japan in which we earned serious cash helping them out. The US cared about 1) shooting as many Japanese people as it could and 2) maintaining the global balance of power
&gt;Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more.   So at about $2k per year (x10 for the Nigerian bonus listed in the article) x200MM for Nigeria's population, we end up with an approximately $4 trillion annual boost to the US economy by putting all of Nigeria into the United States. Shit! Why haven't we been doing this before?  Favorite line from the article: &gt;If something seems too good to be true, it probably is not actually true.
It's so wonderful.  Through the magic of fractional reserve banking, a bank the vast majority of the time is loaning out money they created from thin air.  And if you don't pay the obligation, they get a yacht, personal jet, or racehorse in return!  Now, of course having to repossess something might be undesirable in an accounting context, but it still beggars belief that basically the entire economy and money supply of the developed world is based on obligations backed by nothing, by private parties, created out of thin air.
"&gt;An Empire with different ethnic, linguistic, racial and national origin groups spread out over a large area can only redistribute wealth by stealing it with force  This is not strictly true.  In place of ""force"", fraud can be used.  Our current society uses a combination of both, but really the ""fraud"" of the monetary/banking system is far larger and of more importance than the ""force"" part (though the latter obviously backs up the former)."
US centric view here, and keeping in mind that we're talking about the Federal budget:  I'd start off by cutting the military budget to equal what the next three biggest spenders (China, Russia, UK) devote to their military. This would be more than enough for actual defensive needs vs. being the world's policeman. Close up foreign military bases and come home.  Then cut all other discretionary spending so that it's dwarfed by defense. Adjust Social Security, government pensions, and military benefits down to a sustainable level.  Why? Because we're going broke and can't keep the promises we've already made.  Moving forward, let the states handle social programs. That way we can try 50 different things to see what works instead of waging a winner-take-all battle at the Federal level.