Market theory - page 5
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
A couple more hours of hard work and common knowledge such as the Demand Curve, the Supply Curve, the Law of Supply and Demand and the Equilibrium Price will be rediscovered..........
Well, everyone wants to invent their own bicycle, even with square wheels.))
a couple more hours of hard work and such well-known concepts as the Demand Curve, the Supply Curve, the Law of Supply and Demand and the Equilibrium Price will be rediscovered..........
It seems that he should know these basics here he writes about himself Candidate of Technical Sciences, Associate Professor of Economics and Entrepreneurship https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/250.
I think if he was a candidate of economic sciences, he would be more careful in their "theories" and terms, and then you can easily get under examination of the dissertation, and along with this by the dissertation council...
I'm all for any new, even crazy ideas, so I'm always ready to support the innovators).
Physics joke - Stage 1: "Well, that's heresy!
Stage 2 - "There's something in it..." Stage 3 - "Well, who doesn't know that!"
I don't think it's necessary to try to understand yet. It's the first stage. Just throwing in beautiful words, terms - scientific stuff in general...
Yes, I'm leaning towards that view too, somehow.
Now it's not quite clear to me what the author is suggesting at all. "The important thing is the "dry residue" - what kind of patterns the author found and whether it is worth listening to (to buy his know-how, if it is worthwhile). So far I have only seen the statement that "the market has no chance to make a systematic profit". A comparison with the realities of life shows that this is not the case.
And where do they teach such "basics"?
You did not say anything about Kashi, you did not give a link, can you tell me where you get this nonsense from?
And this scientific phrase of yours is fascinating .... i think the market price is clear (although God only knows what exactly you understand by this term), but what is the optimal price, I think even God does not know, but you seem to know it and even know how to calculate it :-) ? ? Enlighten the forum participants what the "optimal price" is or are you going to shut up again?
Forgiving you too aggressive, I answer, the best price is:
1. At the Institute of Economics and Trade of the Tajik State University of Commerce. We can enrol you as a privileged student.
1. I kept silent about Cauchy so as not to expose your ignorance in this field, even a fifth-grader knows that it is easy to transform Cauchy inequality into Cauchy difference, as already pointed out by one of the participants.
3.. The only true price that ensures maximum profit for a participant in a normal (competitive) market and minimum loss for a participant in a monopolistic market. So, monopolists have an opportunity to minimise their losses when selling off goods.
A couple more hours of hard work and the well-known concepts of the Demand Curve, the Supply Curve, the Law of Supply and Demand and the Equilibrium Price will be rediscovered..........
The way I see it: you go to the market to sell a bucket of potatoes and you don't know what price to sell them at. If the price is too high, no one will buy them, so you won't make a profit. If the price is too low, you won't even recoup your expenses, and you won't make a profit. So there is an optimal price at which there is demand, so you are guaranteed to sell and make a profit. But how to correctly calculate such a price - it must somehow be proved.
Yes, I'm leaning towards that view as well.
Now it's not quite clear to me what the author is suggesting at all. "The important thing is the "dry residue" - what patterns the author has found and whether it is worth listening to (buying his know-how, if it is worthwhile). So far I have only seen the statement that "the market offers no chance of systematic profit-making". A comparison with the realities of life shows that this is not the case.
What am I wrong about?
That: "1. Theory is created to understand the processes occurring in the object under study."? From your cited phrase "... Our interest in this problem is purely scientific", it follows that scientists study "transformations of atoms" in order to understand the processes occurring during these transformations. In other words, they create a theory describing processes of transformation of atoms.
Or maybe my misconception is that: "2. understanding is needed to predict the behaviour of the object under study in the future, i.e. predicting behaviour."? So if we stay within the framework of atomic physics, the construction of the "Large Hadron Collider" was the purpose - to test ideas and theories.
Your statement about theoretical physicists: "theoretical physicists develop their theories and do not think about whether it will ever be used in practice or not" is far from the truth. They are engaged in knowledge of surrounding world, and knowledge is applied in practice. For example, the splitting of the atomic nucleus was put into practice in the atomic bomb!
You are wrong in that you want the theory to have an immediate effect in practice. As only then is there any point in discussing it.
I cited Rutherford to prove that theorists themselves do not always understand whether their research will be used for practical purposes.
It seems that he should know these basics here he writes about himself Candidate of Technical Sciences, Associate Professor of Economics and Entrepreneurship https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/250.
I think if he were a candidate of economic sciences, he would be more careful in his "theories" and terms, and then you can easily get under the control of the dissertation, and the dissertation council too...