vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
&gt;I am not sure why you think that the USA is in such a great position. The american dream is faultering if you're just starting out in life. Just ask any number of recent college grads who are increasingly living with parents, not getting married and can't find jobs. I don't think asking my local college grad is a good way of determining the USA's macro-economic situation. You're absolutely right that there is a major major disparity of wealth problem. But the gold standard isn't the reason for that. Unemployment Insurance and Welfare are also comically small portions of the budget. If you wanna talk about cutting spending, Defense and Medicare are where it's at. And you don't even have to hurt old people or soldiers to fix them.
&gt;The Austrians are certainly on some of the shakiest ground in my view. At least Keynes' work was rigorous. So was Marx's for that matter. That stands in stark contrasts to the Austrians and their ilk.  Care to elaborate? (I'm not familiar with the inner workings of Austrian economics nor why it's such a sharp contrast to Keynesian or Friedmanian economics. Other than its worship of the free market and hatred of government, of course.)
Sure, Walmart is doing fine; at their size and buying power, if they weren't, it'd be a sign that we're in more economic trouble than we thought.  Some things I've noticed each time I've shopped at Sears in recent years (usually because I needed certain things quicker than the Internet could provide): there's usually no one around to help, their product choice is rather limited, and their prices can be surprisingly high compared to competitors even in the same mall.
California has a GDP 60% larger than that of Texas, and this is only one quarter, so I really don't think cherry picked data for a 3 month time span proves dick.  And why don't we look at Kansas' growth, the real dream of supply side economics (while the state is being crushed by debt and an inability to raise funds). The point being if a state is run so poorly that it can't even provide basic services its only a matter of time before businesses leave to go to states that can provide things like roads and other infrastructure.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/10/next-recession-prepared/544391/) reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The economy has had three jobless recoveries following the last three recessions, and the next recession would likely prompt a fourth.  &gt; &amp;quot;Right now, one in four unemployed workers are receiving benefits. There are 15 states out there where the share of workers is less than one in five. In the southeast, the cuts have been so deep there&amp;#039;s barely an unemployment-insurance program there.&amp;quot; In the event of another recession, without strong and swift federal and state intervention, many Americans would face far less help from unemployment insurance than they did last time around, he said.  &gt; In terms of global circumstances, political will, and fiscal and monetary firepower the next recession seems in some ways more difficult to fight than the last.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/79xzco/the_us_isnt_prepared_for_the_next_recession/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~238467 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*: **recession**^#1 **last**^#2 **state**^#3 **work**^#4 **economy**^#5"
"&gt; Just as we are seeing the repercussion's of Obamas 8 years now.  What repercussions? Economy is doing pretty damn good.  &gt; Some of it I agree with but I don't think Trump will make the ""american century"" obsolete.  I am pretty sure if we bad mouth our friends, piss off our Allies and emboldened our adversaries, the America Century will come to an end real quick. Plus, if Trump pushes isolationism, doesn't that mean he is trying to end the American Century? What is the point of an American Century if we don't come to the defense of our Allies and protect the world order?  &gt; That is a vast overstatement with very little evidence to back it up.  Ask any economist what they say about getting ride of trade or going back to the days of protectionism. You won't find any economists that say stifling trade is good for the economy."
Using GDP as a proxy for economic well-being was ok, though not great, when GDP growth seemed to be linked with other measures like average salary, purchasing power, national debt and employment.  I had really hoped that the split in these different measures during and since the recession would mean that people started to look for more nuanced reporting of the stats but sadly it seems that now GDP is on the up and employment is back below 7% everything is fine in the world of newspaper publishing.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41779341) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The growth extended the robust activity reported in the previous quarter, when US GDP grew at an annual pace of 3.1%. Analysts had been expecting a sharp slowdown after back-to-back hurricanes battered several states in the quarter.  &gt; Consumer spending, which increased at a hearty 3.3% rate in the second quarter, slowed to 2.4% growth - a deceleration probably caused by the hurricanes.  &gt; The price index for consumer spending, a closely-watched measure of inflation, increased at 1.3% in the third quarter, excluding food and energy.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/79b8a9/us_growth_faster_than_expected/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~236790 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*: **GDP**^#1 **quarter**^#2 **growth**^#3 **President**^#4 **Department**^#5"
Thanks for German links but the text makes my point to 100 %?? It says criminal acts from foreigners stayed the same right wing attacks are on the rise and make up for the majority of the attacks .... so why did you send me this ???
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-01/america-s-superstar-companies-are-a-drag-on-growth) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Anyway, as a result of this increased market power, the big superstar companies have been raising their prices and cutting their wages.  &gt; In the past few years, researchers have found that industrial concentration - measured by the market share of the four biggest companies in an industry - has indeed been increasing in most parts of the U.S. economy.  &gt; Basic theory suggests that when top companies get more market power, they invest less in their businesses as they restrict output and raise prices.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6xtfdw/americas_superstar_companies_are_a_drag_on_growth/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~203487 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*: **company**^#1 **more**^#2 **paper**^#3 **market**^#4 **increased**^#5"
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-idUSKBN18M1GP) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; WASHINGTON The U.S. economy slowed less than initially thought in the first quarter, but softening business investment and moderate consumer spending are clouding expectations of a sharp acceleration in the second quarter.  &gt; Gross domestic product increased at a 1.2 percent annual rate instead of the 0.7 percent pace reported last month, the Commerce Department said on Friday in its second GDP estimate for the first three months of the year.  &gt; Spending on equipment rose at a 7.2 percent rate in the first quarter rather than the 9.1 percent reported last month.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ejclq/us_economy_grows_at_tepid_12_percent/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~133541 tl;drs so far."") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **percent**^#1 **rate**^#2 **spend**^#3 **quarter**^#4 **growth**^#5"
Except for the fact that China is currently industrializing, urbanizing, and is seeing rapidly rising wages among its leading industrial zones.  The China of 1890-1911 was still run by the inept government that couldn't find its collective ass with all of the hands in China.  There is simply no comparison.
After reading your back and forth with geerussell, its interesting seeing you bring up WWII, where the concern was full output and employment, just as he is suggesting. If the government wants to, it can take a country mired in depression, with women mostly out of the work force and men unemployed in great numbers, and have near full employment and the addition of women in the work force in a few short years. *And they were shipping a lot of their best laborers and much of their output overseas to be simply destroyed.*
This might be a question better suited for r/askeconomics or just r/economics. Ben Bernanke is an excellent source on the Great Depression, however, and he's very good if you want to understand these crises from an economic point of view.
"Economics is not hard science.   Economics is really just a study of what people do and why. The best book to read to understand why people protect their wealth when the government threatens it is ""[Human Action](http://mises.org/document/3250)"" by Ludwig von Mises. Check it out. It will answer all of your questions with a lot more logic than research. Economic research on macro subjects can prove any preconceived theorem, therefore it is worse than logic because it purports to ""prove"" what are, in the end, only opinions."
Hmm, i know ive read that consumer spending stimulates an economy more than investment somewhere, and that it is the weak middle class and lower consumer spending that is causing our sluggish economy.  Ill have to find it.  Also, youhave the theory that decreasing the income gap helps society in many other ways, lowers crime, mental illness, increases hapiness for the poor AND the rich of the country...  http://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies-Stronger/dp/1608193411
There may be a 3-5% correction in the near future, but earnings are strong, the job market is strong, and this is all happening with little help from pro business legislation.  Don't see anything more than a business cycle anytime soon
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://news.azpm.org/p/news-articles/2017/8/9/115113-remittances-to-mexico-continue-growth-to-record-high/) reduced by 56%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; MEXICO CITY - Remittances in Mexico have hit a record high, and the American economy and politics played a key role in the increase.  &gt; He said remittances have been increasing in the past few years as the American economy continues to grow and Mexicans continue to migrate to the U.S. &amp;quot;The job market in the U.S. has recovered from the unemployment rate generated by the 2007-2008 crisis. This has allowed Mexican immigrants to send more money to our country, not only nowadays, but in the past few years,&amp;quot; de la Cruz said.  &gt; &amp;quot;Some immigrants are sending part of their savings in the U.S. to Mexico to avoid losing them in case they get deported; however, we need to keep in mind that remittances have been increasing since, at least, a year and a half,&amp;quot; De la Cruz said.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6uralu/remittances_to_mexico_continue_growth_to_record/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~194663 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*: **Remittances**^#1 **immigrants**^#2 **U.S.**^#3 **Mexican**^#4 **Cruz**^#5"
The US did the same during/after WW2. Look up the T-Force.  Its likely manufacturing will return to the US due to highly advanced automation.  Its difficult to find sympathy for Western corporations when they are doing everything to pay as little tax as possible and to bribe/'lobby' politicians. Even Google is now censoring free speech, so how are they different to a Chinese company?
Zimbabwe was a fine place to live when it was Rhodesia. Zambia, which is welcoming back a number of Whites, is doing better now as well, where the same cannot be as well said for Zimbabwe.       Material resources are not the source of most country's wealth anyway, or we would not see countries like Hong Kong, Singapore, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, or Switzerland develop. And yet, we do. The common thread between them is simple: freedom and intelligence - things Africa lacks and cannot hope to create unless what most would call a tragedy were to occur.      I wouldn't kid yourself, really. Many countries have had exceptionally long histories with many a chance to develop and yet they have not done so well as those with brighter populations. Many have had very short histories, with little chance to develop and yet they have done exceptionally. As stated above, there are common threads and that's what Faber is clearly referencing, not some mixed-blessing of resources or somesuch.    Don't be foolish. There are no other sufficient explanations after properly interrogating the issue.
&gt; The United States has more Nobel prize winners than any other country by a long shot. We also have the third largest population in the world, and the highest GDP in the world by far. We spend more on defense then the next 7 countries together. We spend more on [health care per capita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita) than any other nation in the world. We also have the [highest expenditures as a percent of GDP](http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true) than any other nation. Needless to say we spend a LOT on health care also. The point being if we *DIDN'T* have the most nobel peace prize winners, with all the money we spend on R&amp;D, then there would be some serious issues. &gt; We have arguably (in spite of the fda) the best medical services in the world. Again, you need to travel. While, yes, we spend more on health care than any other nation, and we do have arguably the best health care services in the world... that is mostly only true if you are very wealthy. When you break it down on results per dollar spent, the US doesn't even break the top 20. When you break it down on infant mortality, and life expectancy, we have been on a backward slide for a while now (although those rates improved for the short while that the ACA has been in effect, as have the net increase in costs). At the end of the day, the cost of health care has grown 3X faster than inflation, and 20X faster than the average income for over 30 years now. So, no, [health care in this country is not the best to the average person](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/). And yes, Space X has been able to estimate a savings of $300M less...
Roughly speaking, if it was low the last few periods, you can expect it to be low the next period. Same thing if it's high. Then, the reason we care about growth right now: if you have too many periods of low growth, pretty soon the average ""over the long term"" growth will be pulled down -- and then quality of life can't be higher in the future (which quickly becomes someone's ""present""). The paper above makes this point with a very simple model. Of course, none of this touches on distributional issues, which are another issue entirely. With respect to, ""The economy needs to grow to just keep up with its debt repayments,"" I think the answer is along the lines of, ""sometimes countries get into debt expecting that growth will increase their resources in the future, and thus they can pay back their debt."" That strategy is, of course, the strategy that anyone borrowing (""taking out a loan"") should be employing -- you should expect that your future income will be enough to pay back your interest+principle on a loan you took. Otherwise you're irresponsible. At the aggregate level, production is the nation's ""income"" -- it is what you have, all that you have (as a nation) to pay back any debt you've incurred at the national level."
&gt; I can't believe no one has mentioned Detroit yet!  There's a reason for that: Detroit's lags far behind the competition.  &gt; University of Michigan.... The state is filled with good schools...  As far as educational attainment is concerned, metro Detroit is underwhelming. Many companies around here also have difficulty recruiting people to the area.   &gt;Detroit has an exploding urban core but also lots of space for new development right downtown.   Detroit is still well behind the curve in terms of development. I guess open land might be considered a mild positive, but Amazon would build in a suburb somewhere if that were the only concern.   &gt;It has a quickly diversifying economy  I've seen people make this assertion before, but I have yet to see even a shred of evidence supporting it. This city still lives and dies by auto.
"Yeah raising taxes while devaluing the currency is a winning strategy to spur consumer spending and increase economic growth...Oh wait Japanese citizens are by and large broke (like Americans and Europeans)... so they won't be spending additional money they don't have. Oh yeah and the tax hikes only serve to eat into economic growth as it diverts existing consumption away from the greater economy towards the government. Brilliant!  Abenomics was all talk and no substance from the get go when he pounded his chest about it. I just rolled my eyes as I read the article thinking this wasn't going to end well. The fact that his ""strategy"" ended up including shaming companies publicly for not giving pay raises was ridiculous. Apparently Abe is ignorant of the fact that South Korea and China among other competitors are out competing Japanese businesses... which is a strong disincentive for them to add on additional wage costs for no reason, despite Abe's politically motivated school yard bullying."
Is the government really spending your money in such a good way that you want to give them more of it? They spend huge proportion of tax money on fighting wars and imprisoning people. I'd rather have my money. But if you're really convinced that taxes are such a great idea then convince me. Show me some evidence.
"Trade was an indispensable factor in making the 20th century the American century. Trump is doing an amazing job making that obsolete with his trade agreements. Our economic growth may not be stifled in the next couple of years but we will see the repercussions of these ""deals"" later on."
"In that example, ""creating money"" could be used interchangeably with ""making promises"".  There's no inflation, and no problem, so long as everyone keeps their promises. Which sounds like a horrifying thing to say about the foundations of the economy, but the remarkable thing is that people mostly do."
They wouldn't do that if you foreign countries didnt make it stupid easy for them to hide their profits outside the states.  You are not addressing the problem, only defending a corporations attempts to pay negative taxes while enjoying all the infrastructure and protections of that country.  They feel they can milk the people and we should be grateful to them for it.
&gt; They'd literally have to invade and plunder other nations on a regular basis.   Which is what they do. The plundering is done by the mining companies and oil companies and engineering firms that follow them in though. Not them directly.
"I always find comments like this to be funny rather than offensive. Because people like this guy love to use America as the standard for white greatness, but they will completely ignore any third world country in Europe because then suddenly ""it's different."""
Interesting article. I know that this might not be a popular opinion here but here goes....  It can be argued that retarding the economy was a major goal of the Fed in the first place. To prevent the unrestrained runs that 1913-1929 saw which resulted in thousands of investors losing everything.   Its true that JP saved the day before the Fed existed but having a government institution do so is an attempt to prevent favoritism from occurring in times of crisis.  Yes it could be argued that even in this last crisis favoritism existed as firms like Lehman and Bear were left to die while others were backstopped but I think that has more to do with the interrelationships of those in politics with those in banking.    Our global banking system relies on the assumption that not every depositor will want to want to withdraw their funds at the same time. Having a depositor of last resort (the Fed) ensures that even when the population at large panics and withdraws funds the loans that those deposits funded will continue to exist and the broader funding of the businesses that drive the economy will continue.   Yes the governance is not always perfect and I would agree that on some level the Fed's policies are capable of handicapping the economy but by and large I think the institution has been a success as evidenced by the continued functioning of our banking system despite a large swath of the population losing wealth in the housing market.
"&gt;&gt;Government has been providing entitlements for 300 years in our shared Commonwealth heritage.   Magnitude is important, to say that entitlements to the current degree have been going in for 300 years contiguously is just wrong. Also, note the family's legal obligation to provide care first in one of the examples they expanded upon.   &gt;&gt; Government is accountable, made of Individuals, and has made real gains in providing access to the American dream since 1929.  Hows that accountability working out for ya? So you can just ignore the first 150 years or so? Thank God FDR saved us from ourselves with the new deal.   &gt;&gt;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.  Pure ideology? If you can't even name that ideology ""or whatever"" and then proceed to characterize me as an idealougue is simply laughable. Lol"