corpus.jsonl

{"text": "Market capitalization is one way to represent the value of the company. So if a company has 10 million shares, which are each worth $100, then the company's market capitalization is 1 billion. Large cap companies tend to be larger and more stable. Small cap companies are smaller, which indicates higher volatility. So if you want more aggressive investments then you may want to invest in small cap companies while if you lean on the side of caution then big cap companies may be your friend.", "title": "", "_id": "460230"}
{"text": "\"I think that all else being equal, if more people have solar panels on our roof, we keep our military in FEWER countries, instead of planning on RAMPING up the number (see: Nigeria). Furthermore, the initial question wasn't whether installing solar panels is going to stop the action. **The conversation started by being about whether solar is actually cheaper when you factor in the amount used to subsidize both sources of energy. Not whether switching to solar would stop subsidies to oil.** What you did is called \"\"moving the goalposts\"\".  The word 2016 doesn't show up in the article or in the study it cites. That was a typo. I understand it was about 2013, I was trying to saying that it was about the same year as yours. That was my bad. I read the whole thing originally, and I even read the study. I accept responsibility for the typo though.  ANYWAYS, neither set of data is manipulated, my study just includes more things, like foreign tax credits, cleanup subsidies for both coal and oil, tar sands exemption from cleanup funds, Power Africa (a five year, 7 billion dollar program that was only ANNOUNCED in 2013). That overseas stuff that goes on is a HUGE part of the equation.   And okay, so they aren't equivalent. Then your point is moot. Yes, both sides have off the book subsidies, but one side's off the book subsidies are so unfathomably bigger that it's laughable to even put them in the same category. Not to mention the costs of war in the middle east stretch beyond money (think lives), and recycling programs actually come with benefits (think smaller landfills).\"", "title": "", "_id": "257122"}
{"text": "\">Correct me if I'm wrong,   You're wrong.  >but weren't taxes much higher from the 50's through the 70's?  Only on the high end of the scale (the TOP tax rate was higher).   But for lower and middle income people, taxes were tremendously LOWER in those decades, and became significantly higher, to wit:  * [FICA increased from the original 1% in circa 1937-49, to over 15% in 1990](http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html) -- and that is taken right out your GROSS paycheck, no deductions, etc.  * Things like State Sales Taxes (which are known to be heavily regressive) were either non-existent or minimal (at say 1% and often more of a \"\"luxury\"\" tax) prior to the 1960's; and they have been steadily increasing since then.  * Many other taxes (property, excise, tobacco & other \"\"sin\"\" taxes, etc) have increased (some many-fold) -- and virtually ALL of them are regressive in nature (being made more regressive with every increase).  But probably the most egregious thing... is that the public has been successfully indoctrinated into believing the EXACT opposite of what really happened (and *both* political parties are to blame).\"", "title": "", "_id": "120306"}
{"text": "\"What do you think the problem is? I notice you edited your post after I read it.   >The \"\"value\"\" of HUMAN labor is determined by supply and demand, right? I hire people right now because they are the cheapest supercomputers with arms available for me right now.  No, you hire people because they have skills to do tasks with their labor. We will *always* think of new ways to be useful, new things to do, that people will want done, will value being done, and will purchase labor to get done.   When we stopped using horses & buggies, all the people in those industries didn't just throw up their hands and walk away from work. *They figured out new ways to create value with their labor*, and the world went on.\"", "title": "", "_id": "35856"}
{"text": "Flowers are a great way to say thank you or to tell people how much you care about them. If you need a flower arrangement for any occasion, All Flowers and Gifts provides Calgary florists that can help you with everything that you need for your next flower arrangement.", "title": "", "_id": "214079"}
{"text": "I've got a small position at Lending Club and it's doing really well. It's been easy to use, good (not excellent) interface, easy to track the loans you've made & does a good job with notifications. Not much there for doing anything advanced with the portfolio math--I've used a separate spreadsheet to track things *as well as* use their reporting.    The one catch with them I find is that when you put an order in you have to wait longer than you might expect for the process to complete--that is, even after the loan is *funded*, it still has to be *reviewed*, so the lead time before your money begins earning interest might be 2 weeks + 1 week of review time.", "title": "", "_id": "316535"}
{"text": "\"I've considered simply moving my funds to an Australian bank to \"\"lock-in\"\" the current rate, but I worry that this will put me at risk of a substantial loss (due to exchange rates, transfer fees, etc) when I move my funds back into the US in 6 months.  Why move funds back?  If you want to lock in current exchange rates, figure out how much money you are likely to spend in Australia for the next six months.  Move just enough funds to cover that to an Australian bank.  Leave the remainder in the United States (US), as your future expenses will be in US dollars.   So long as you don't find some major, unanticipated purchase, this covers you.  You have enough money for the next six months with no exchange rate worries.   At the end of the six months, if you fall slightly short, cover with your credit card as you are doing now.  You'll take a loss, but on a small amount of money.  If you have a slight excess and you were right about the exchange rate, you'll make a little profit at the end.  If you were wrong, you'll take a small loss.   The key here is that you should be able to budget for your six months.  You can lock in current exchange rates just for that amount of money.   Moving all your funds to Australia is a gamble.  You can certainly do that if you want, but rather than gambling, it may be better to take the sure thing.  You know you need six months expenses, so just move that.  You will definitely be spending six months money in Australia, so you are immune to exchange rate fluctuations for that period.  The remainder of your money can stay in the US, as that's where you plan to spend it.   However, recent political events back in the States have me (and, I'm sure, every currency speculator and foreign investor) worried that this advantage will not last for much longer.  If currency speculators expect exchange rates to fall, then they'd have already bid down the rates.  I.e. they'd keep speculating until the rates did fall.  So the speculators expect the current rates are correct, otherwise they'd move them.   Donald Trump's state goal is to increase exports relative to imports.  If he's successful, this could cause the US dollar to fall to make exports cheaper and imports more expensive.  However, if his policies fail, then the opposite is likely to happen.  Most of his announced trade policies are more likely to increase the value of the dollar than to decrease it.  In particular, that is the likely result of increased tariffs.   If you are worried about Trump failing, then you should worry about a strong dollar.  That's more in line with actual speculation since the election.   I don't know that I'd make a strong bet in either direction.  Hedging makes more sense to me, as it simply locks in the current situation, which you apparently find favorable.  Not hedging at all might produce some profit if the dollar goes up.  Gambling all your funds might produce some profit if the dollar goes down.  The middle path of hedging just what you're spending is the safest if least likely to produce profit.   My recommendation is to hedge the six months expenses and enjoy your time abroad.  Why worry about political events that you can't control?  Enjoy your working (studying) vacation.\"", "title": "", "_id": "511432"}
{"text": "You can lookup SWIFT codes here.  Based on the search I conducted on March 30, 2015, PayPay US's SWIFT is PPALUS66, and PayPal Europe's SWIFT is PPLXLULL.  Since they have two listed, it would be safe to contact PayPal directly and ask which SWIFT they would like to be used.", "title": "", "_id": "78297"}
{"text": "\">Mike Pence Sums up Trumpcare Perfectly: \"\"No Money, No Healthcare\"\"  He never fucking said that.  Here's his actual tweet:  >Before summer\u2019s out, we'll repeal/replace Obamacare w/ system based on personal responsibility, free-market competition & state-based reform  If you want to draw \"\"No Money, No Healthcare\"\" as a conclusion, fine, but you can't assign it as a quotation to Mike Pence if he never said it. I have no love for Mike Pence, but I do respect the laws of punctuation and basic journalistic integrity.  If someone is really that bad, which he likely is, then you should be able to damn him for what he actually says or does. You shouldn't have to resort to simply making shit up.\"", "title": "", "_id": "182744"}
{"text": "\"Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too.  There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year.  You can trade with no fees at two \"\"windows\"\" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas.  Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash.  There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account.\"", "title": "", "_id": "281423"}