Interesting and Humour - page 3175
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
And may I counter with a question: what are you doing on a website whose main purpose is subordinated to the very mercantile idea of enrichment in the financial markets?
Let's not get into personalities.
Here's the metaquotes have built a temple. It's called MT4/MT5. Are they making money? I think enough not only to not quit, but to develop. Metakwots have made history with their terminals, not the money they make. And from the "MT4/MT5" underwater tray, they're not going anywhere.
But if those with stomachs instead of brains are at the helm, as soon as the conductor collects the money, they grab the cash, drop the wheel and get away in their lacy knickers.... And everyone who was in the vehicle with them will be thrown with the words "Bolivar can't carry two".
The former should not be allowed to be at the helm, ever. Not even the right to vote should be given. Why do they need rights at all? Sellers.... with the tags...
Let's not get into personalities.
Here's the metaquotes have built a temple. It's called MT4/MT5. Are they making money? I think enough not only to not quit, but to develop. Metakwots have made history with their terminals, not the money they make. And from the "MT4/MT5" underwater tray, they're not going anywhere.
But if those with stomachs instead of brains are at the helm, as soon as the conductor collects the money, they'll grab the cash, throw the wheel and get away in their lacy knickers....
The former should not be allowed to be at the helm, ever. Not even the right to vote should be given. What do they need rights for anyway? Baleful.... with tags...
)))) So in creating MT4/MT5 the authors were not guided by a desire to make money but by some lofty idea???
Oy-wey.....
The first one doesn't care whether he builds or destroys. He will do whatever he wants for an altar.
The second doesn't care what to build: a temple wall or a prison. There is no goal
...but the first mustn't even be given a vote.
and why should the first ones be given the right to vote? paid the money, voted -- a completely manipulable person, voiceless, thoughtless, indifferent
Why give the second ones the right to vote if they don't care?
if giving only third parties the right to vote, it would mean that the third parties have paid money to the first to convince the second to vote for them.
Of course, both the first and the second will be complaining that their opinion has not been taken into account--have they had an opinion that should have been taken into account?
Parable
At a construction site they ask the workers what they are doing:
One. I earn money.
The second. I lay bricks.
The third. I'm building a temple.
The first one doesn't care if he builds or destroys. He'll do whatever you want for an altar.
The second one does not care what to build: a temple wall or a prison. There is no aim.
It is very easy to direct the first one in any direction. It is more difficult with the second one because he needs bricks. But it is impossible to do anything with the third one: he will go in only one direction - to build a temple.
And what if the first one manages the state?
A harmonious state requires all three, only the first must not even be given the right to vote.
...
Here are the meta-quotas built...
Go to a McDonald's and hold a "people's director election" during rush hour ....
And have you never encountered a collective demanding, by majority vote, to change the director of their stand-alone unit and the higher management actually dealt with the issue? I have.
For a private enterprise with a legal owner?
"Met" in 1917.
For a private enterprise with a legal owner?
"Met" in 1917.
Have you ever met a team member who demanded by a majority vote to change the director of his subdivision and the superior management actually dealt with the issue? I have.
The heads of the two departments will be replaced and they will immediately start analysing the cause of the problem and immediately tighten the screws.
There are other options for solving the problem - to dissolve the unit altogether, to create another, even to change the department. Everything has been thought of long ago.
For a private one. I met this in 2008. Sometimes it is easier to replace one person at the head of a unit than all the people in the unit.
Private businesses are driven by notions of profitability, not simplicity.
Don't be stupid.