Interesting and Humour - page 2971
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
In order to create their own ideological foundation for the subordinates within the monopoly. Written to order. Like many fundamental economic works and theories in history, appearing at certain times for certain purposes, and pushed by certain people.
So neither is good. Any extreme, imbalance is a road to hell - I've written before.
Going back to the book - there are no good ones there - neither in monopolies, nor in supposedly thirsty free competition, nor in caterers of the good. There are a few positive heroes and characters in between. Naively so, but still relevant today.
But in the USSR I ate buns for three kopecks, and now those buns cost 10 rubles. An appreciation of33333.33%))))
And if you calculate by the corresponding dollar rates: they cost 2 cents and now they cost 15 cents))
I don't know which is better - the USSR or capitalism, and which capitalism. I actively dislike both.
Let's put it another way - from what I have seen, I dislike the USSR considerably less. I would rather live in the USSR.
I don't know which is better - the USSR or capitalism, and which capitalism. I actively dislike both.
Put another way - from what I have seen, I dislike the USSR considerably less. I would rather live in the USSR.
It's unlikely that today's millionaires/billionaires would agree with you)
But Soviet sausage was definitely tastier)
So both are not good. Any extreme, imbalance is a road to hell - I've written before.
Returning to the book - there are no good ones, neither in monopolies, nor in those who allegedly crave free competition, nor in those who care about the good. There are a few positive heroes and characters in between. Naively so, but still relevant today.
This is the first part as I understand it, where specific characters are described.
Even from that part about the characters in the book that entered, including selective stages of human development, you can make a Judas Christ. Exaggerating of course, but still. Since the characters are real, you can learn more about them, how it was, at what time, with what sacrifices, and so on. The same Ford, by the way, can be judged as a near-perfect example of development from start to finish in the business of technology and company creation. On the other hand, he eventually sponsored a number of very dubious businesses, including the book industry, which eventually helped to degenerate into quite a certain ideology in a certain place on the globe. And this is just one example. Why he did it and whether his company would still exist today if he was not so loyal to some necessary for someone ideas is a big question.
And by the way, it is a very important part of history, which eventually led to lagging behind in development and technologies for many years, which allowed to stay ahead of those, who is sitting there now.
I do not know what is positive there.
I still do not understand the answers. (From that post).
I don't think today's millionaires/billionaires would agree with you.)
But soviet sausage was definitely tastier.)
Yes, it does taste better. But apart from Moscow, it was nowhere to be found. Now it's everywhere, but you can't eat it anymore. :)
As for the LV, of course they don't agree. But who are they? That's an interesting question, isn't it? Especially if you read Khodorkovsky's biography. :) - The father of Russian democracy.
This is the first part, as I understand it, where specific characters are described.
And by the way, it is a very important piece of history that eventually led to a lag in development and technology for many years, which allowed those who are now sitting there to hold on and get ahead.
What is positive there, I can not understand.
So far I have read 1.5 books. Let's see what happens next. I've already said it's a bit naive for our time.
Ford can be judged in different ways, I mean, from different angles. He's a human being too, you shouldn't idealise him, I agree. But do we know what Ford was thinking? - Maybe he always wanted one thing, did another, and got a third thing that he himself did not expect. We already know the sequence.
All right, let's call them protagonists, not positive ones - so far they are not tainted by anything, except a somewhat strange outlook (but let's take into account the 47th of the 1st edition).
The point is different - "And sago, consumed inappropriately, can cause harm." And where is the measure? - The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions (c). It is already a suggestion to speak on white and black, because it may be paved with any intentions, as well as it may not be paved with any intentions. And in general it is implied that it is clearly known what is hell and good intentions, which are also subjective. All is a game of terms, which can be played endlessly, in order to push your own thoughts through as a result of paradoxical stupor, as if they were brighter.
It is like a question about the meaning of life, about the concept of good and evil. These things are subjective. Someone can make something out of the subjectivity of those things long ago, deciding not to speculate about them, and to accept that the measure is there - where I myself decide. The main thing is that you can not only decide for yourself what is good and what is not, but also make that decision for others. Then you can get more out of it for a long time. This is what makes everything fall apart. On the desire to push the decision for others.
And here the main principle of democracy itself comes into play, individual freedom is restricted where it interferes with other people's freedom. An idea as just and utopian as ideal socialism.
And no one would say a word against it, when imposing it on others, if the idea itself worked for those who imposed it. It would not be just a screen in certain hands, which use it for completely different purposes, often even the opposite of the idea itself.
It's like the question of the meaning of life, the concept of what is good and evil. These things are subjective. Someone may have gained something from the subjectivity of these things long ago, by deciding not to speculate on them, and to accept that the measure is where I decide. The main thing is that you can not only decide for yourself what is good and what is not, but also make that decision for others. Then you can get more out of it for a long time.
Absolutely.
Against the background of you and me agreeing on this part. Don't you think it's strange that this book appeared where it does (in terms of usurping the right to make decisions not only for oneself but for others)
as an excuse for everything that's going on, and to convince others that there's nothing wrong with it.
And to do whatever I want, because I can, is taking humanity back to the Stone Age. Where power decides everything.
I liked Pelevin's in that respect. The power is not where the truth is, it is the truth that creeps in where the power is (the power itself decides what is true and what is not). And this paradigm that was chosen for me is not very pleasant for me, even if it came from my country, and it is not only not pleasant but also "hungry" for my fellow citizens.
Against the background of you and me agreeing on this part. Don't you think it's strange that this book appeared where it does (in terms of usurping the right to make decisions not only for oneself but for others)
as an excuse for everything that's going on, and to convince others that there's nothing wrong with it.
And to do whatever I want, because I can, is taking humanity back to the Stone Age. Where power decides everything.
I liked Pelevin's in that respect. The power is not where the truth is, it is the truth that creeps in where the power is (the power itself decides what is true and what is not). And this paradigm which was chosen for me is not pleasant at all, even if it comes from my state, and as it is not only not pleasant but also "hungry" for my fellow citizens.
I don't think so. That is the main motif of the book. There's also '47 - socialist camp + rampant socialist sentiment everywhere. What was going on in the USA in those years, if only by M. Wilson's book "Life with Lightning". It seems to me that a work of fiction doesn't have to be one-sided. But generally speaking, we don't have much of a choice: either one or the other. Both are wrong. Where is the middle ground? It seems to me like a ball at the top of a mountain. The equilibrium is highly unstable.
You're not surprised that Pelevin's Omon Ra was printed under the Soviet regime.