A man has become a billionaire. What is his purpose in life now? - page 25
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
Giving choice, not money to make children. CHOICE, Carl. If you have enough allowance to live on, it is your problem if you want to do nothing and live on your allowance and have 6 children,
Who has to give it to you? A businessman who has earned it by his own hard work and diligence? Does he have to pay into the budget to give you an allowance?
Who should give it to you? A businessman who has earned it by his own hard work and diligence? Does he have to pay into the budget to give you an allowance?
Who has to give it to you? The businessman who earned it with his own hard work and diligence? does he have to pay into the budget so that you can get the benefit?
This brainwashing from the zombie TV again. Any citizen has the right to a share of the country's gross product without having to beg for it from some bureaucrats under the guise of a poor man's allowance.
Just like any shareholder is entitled to dividends in a commercial corporation. It's already been discussed, what's not to understand...
This brainwashing from the zombie TV again. Any citizen has a right to a share of the country's gross product without having to beg for it from some officials under the guise of welfare for the poor.
Just as any shareholder has the right to dividends in a commercial corporation. It has already been discussed, what is unclear here...
Quite right, which is why the 20/80 ratio is called the law of society, not the rule. The rich will not voluntarily give part of their profits to the poor, which is why a progressive taxation scale was invented, up to 60% of their profits to the income of the society in which the billionaire coexists.
And the billionaire's further purpose we, not even being cent or penny millionaires, do not know and have no moral right to give him advice. Only he himself knows what to do or not to do with these billions, what further goal to set for himself. Such questions arise from unjustified, albeit white, envy.
Quite right, which is why the 20/80 ratio is called the law of society, not the rule. The rich will not voluntarily transfer part of their profits to the poor, which is why a progressive tax scale has been devised, up to 60 per cent of profits to the income of the society in which this billionaire coexists.
The capitalist must be happy that society buys his products and not his competitor's.
There is no question of any voluntary transfer of profits. The capitalist may decide to sell without profit and even at a loss to himself in order to stay afloat and be able to exist.
If there is real competition under capitalism, the price will always tend towards the cost of production, but there is nothing wrong with that if society has social guarantees.
Recently I read in the news, an English firm that has a fairly well-known luxury brand has destroyed unsold finished products for several milliards of US greenbacks. And this is the practice of many manufacturers of luxury products because what they have sold many times covers the loss from the fact that they destroyed unsold products instead of selling them at cost price.
If you start selling products at cost, it will lead to those who could have bought them at a higher price not doing so. As a result, the firm's losses from selling at cost will increase.
It is easy to give an example when the demand is such that it is more profitable to destroy some products than to sell them at a reduced price. If you can segment the market and prevent "rich" customers from buying the product "cheaply", then yes, it makes sense to sell the product cheaper, and even at a loss. But segmenting the market is not always possible. So you have to destroy what you have produced. It would have been better not to produce it at all, but it has already been produced, and it is not always profitable to produce a smaller quantity.
If you start selling products at cost, it will lead to those who could have bought them at a higher price not doing so. As a result, the firm's losses from selling at cost will increase.
It is easy to give an example where the demand is such that it is more profitable to destroy some of the product than to sell it at a lower price. If you manage to segment the market and prevent "rich" customers from buying products "cheaply", then, yes, it makes sense to sell products cheaper, and even at a loss. But segmenting the market is not always possible. So you have to destroy what you have produced. It would have been better not to produce it at all, but it has already been produced, and it is not always profitable to produce a smaller quantity.
That is exactly what I am suggesting. It turns out that by buying a well-promoted brand the buyer overpays a lot.
Russia's richest celebrities named
Forbes magazine has published its annual ranking of Russian celebritiesin show business and sports, based on their income, number of media mentions and popularity of search queries.
Hockey player Alexander Ovechkintoppedthe listwith an annual income of $14.5 million. Musicians Sergei Shnurov ($13.9 million) and Filipp Kirkorov ($8.9 million) are also in the top three.
Singer Grigori Leps ($8.2m) and TV host Ivan Urgant (with $8.5m, he was second to Leps in the polls) are next to Kirkorov.
Also in the top ten are singer and TV presenter Olga Buzova, singer Dima Bilan, hockey player Yevgeny Malkin, singer Stas Mikhailov and former Russian presidential candidate Ksenia Sobchak.
Earlier Forbespublished a list of hundreds of financially successful celebrities. Hollywood actor George Clooney became the world's highest-paid actor, earning $239 million last year.
PS.
These and others like them - got their wealth by HIS labor based on the talent given at birth + luck in life. These people work 24 hours a day and luck is not inherited.
The rest are common thugs who have taken money from other citizens who have been driven by the social order to the shearing stall and for meat for the benefit of these same thugs. There are exceptions, such as Mavrodi, translated into English as Ilon Musk.
This brainwashing from the zombie TV again. Any citizen has a right to a share of the country's gross product without having to beg for it from some officials under the guise of welfare for the poor.
Just like any shareholder is entitled to a dividend in a commercial corporation. It's already been discussed, what's not to understand...
which official? The taxpayers.
There is no public money, only taxpayers' money.