The future of the Forex industry - page 8
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
These are functions of past, present and future times that describe any process, including currency trading. The P function finds any dependency in a number series, as long as it is there. The price series is no exception. It turns out that it is not a case of "come, see, win". More or less distinct dependence is found when analyzing a sample of 300 daily bars or 10 000 one-hour bars. The search for the optimal sample continues, but the order is something like this.
Uh... sounds good... a function that predicts any process... maybe there's a formula too?
The rich should pay more and feed the poor? - But what is the point of that? - It's incentivising the losers and discouraging the successful ones...
Besides, why should it be the less successful who claim to share the income of the more successful? Is this called justice?
Pareto'slaw of incomedistribution, 80/20, etc. -- not because "capitalists rob ordinary working people" -- but because the more successful people always outnumber the average person and the underdogs.
This alleged equality is a tired Marxist myth that justifies "divide and conquer" ...
The more successful should be rewarded more.
Taxes and blood is a learned archaism, repeated thoughtlessly... People do not even think about the fact that it is possible to do otherwise, while aggressively implemented templates make them fiercely defend "state interests", forgetting that the state is not its own value, and that the only purpose of state association (as well as any society) = increasing the well-being of the united, otherwise the meaning of maintaining this structure? Modern states take too much upon themselves...
And in those countries where taxes go up to 60% - the rich people just run away, changing tax residence and / or citizenship (examples are known!) And who got better from it?
If only on the basis of formal logic and cold-blooded calculation, yes, you may draw such conclusions as you did. However, when solving such questions, one should not only rely on reason but also listen to what your heart and soul are telling you. And heart and soul tell us that the state is like a big family. And if there are weak and infirm in the family, they should be assisted by the strong and healthy ones.
It is not necessary to redistribute means of wealthy at all in favour of those who are healthy, but lazy and therefore earn little. But I think it is justified to use the money raised from the tax on the rich to help families with many children, people with disabilities, and to pay for expensive operations that people are unable to pay for. And it is not necessary to make the tax rate 50-60%, as in some countries, the increase can be quite moderate. As far as I know it is supposed to be like that. I don't think a rich person will feel too bad if they don't buy another diamond ring or super expensive watch to add to their collection because of the tax increase.
Uh... sounds good... a function predicting any process... and maybe there's a formula?
There ishttps://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/361109/page5#comment_20376536,https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/359299
Undoubtedly so
if each component is non-stationary, then any sum of them will also be non-stationary (except very special cases of cointegration)
though the sum as a portfolio may have locally lower volatility than if you open the whole volume of one instrument
Beautiful wrapping can hardly hide the unpredictable regularity of natural phenomena and human factors.
As it is, everything is good and beautiful even in a portfolio.
It just seems so.))))))))))
If you rely only on formal logic and cold-blooded calculation, then yes, you can draw such conclusions as you did. However, when deciding such questions, one should not only rely on reason, but also listen to what your heart and soul are telling you. And heart and soul tell us that the state is like a big family. If there are weak and infirm in the family, the strong and healthy should help them.
I agree that there should be a fund for emergencies, emergency services, student aid and so on... But it should not turn into a redistribution-equalization in favor of the poor... it is very important that the system does not encourage people to sit on welfare and create poverty... for example, families with many children... it's kind of their own fault they did it... So if poor people have a dozen children, they have to pay for it to the better-off?😁
It is not necessary to redistribute funds from the rich to those who are healthy but lazy and therefore earn little. But to use the money raised from the tax on the rich to benefit large families, people with disabilities and to pay for expensive operations that a person cannot afford to pay, I think it is quite justified. And it is not necessary to make the tax rate 50-60%, as in some countries, the increase can be quite moderate. As far as I know this is the intention.
There is a common misconception that if you take away some of the wealth from the richest stratum then you can feed all the needy, but that is not true, there is not enough money...
I think the rich won't feel bad if they don't buy another diamond ring or super expensive watch to add to their collection because of increased taxation.
Arguing that a poor person needs money more than a rich person needs money is categorically contrary to the principles of freedom and justice - because it is, in fact, coercion and seizure of property - and after all, anything can be justified in this way - if you put the interests of some above others ...
The richer person may voluntarily sacrifice some of the surplus, but coercion is not allowed.
There arehttps://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/361109/page5#comment_20376536,https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/359299
There's a lot of exclamation points and pathos... a new era in trading is announced... cool...
yeah i see the formula... but what does it have to do with actual trading and forecasting?
I agree that there should be an emergency fund, emergency services, student aid and the like... But it should not become a redistribution-equalisation in favour of the poor... it is very important that the system does not encourage people to sit on welfare and create poverty... for example, families with many children... it's kind of their own fault they did it... So if poor people have a dozen children, they have to ask better-off citizens to pay for it? 😁
There is a common misconception that if you take away some of their wealth from the richest stratum then you can feed all the needy, but this is wrong, that money is still not enough...
Arguing that the poor need the money more than the rich categorically contradicts the principles of freedom and justice, because it effectively means coercion and dispossession - and anything can be justified in this way - by putting the interests of some above the others...
The richer may voluntarily donate some of the surplus, but coercion is not allowed.
There is a fallacy. A very serious one.
Where did the rich man get more money than the one who produces the goods for the rich man.
How???
There is a common misconception that if you take away some of their wealth from the richest stratum you can feed everyone in need, but that's not true, there's not enough money anyway...
No, there's no misconception, there's enough.
The misconception is that it will help. even if you force an equalization of capital, it will begin to flow and eventually return to the same distribution, except maybe with a smaller ratio.
There is a misconception. A very serious one.
Where did the rich man get more money than the man who produces goods for the rich man.
From where???
The origin of wealth is totally irrelevant - as long as it was obtained legally and on the basis of voluntary exchange
It's not decent to count other people's money 😁 So we could go back to socialism and again "take it and divide it" 😄
Where from? -suddenly...
because he has better skills/knowledge or talent and is a better planner
Because he is not afraid to take a risk and start his own business rather than going to the factory steadily
It is a fallacy to think that the rich person owes something to the poor - on the contrary, they should thank him for being able to participate/work in his business - otherwise they would still be sitting on their asses...
No, there is no misconception that this is enough.
The misconception is that it will help. even if we force capital to be equalized, it will start to flow and eventually return to the same distribution, except maybe with a smaller ratio.
And if capital flows into one hands, the king will be the only king and he will rule the world. Now there will be one king on the globe. It seems to be inevitable. 20 years and that's it. The rest will be slaves and managers. The managers, mind you, will be few and far between. There won't be enough room for all the managers.