The future of the Forex industry - page 9
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
No, there is no misconception that this is enough.
The misconception is that it will help. Even if you force an equalization of capital, it will start to flow and eventually return to the same distribution, except maybe with a smaller coefficient.
Of course, you can always take the percentile of rich to equalize, if you want to...
In general, for each distribution you can define redistribution function so that in the end everyone has the same income (or wealth)
But the question is:On what basis is property taken away from some and given to others?
So there are richer people, so what? - Why do they have to pay for the expenses of the poor?
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, it means that better-off citizens have to pay for their expenses? 😁
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 person may voluntarily donate some of the surplus, but coercion is not allowed.
Your profile states the country where you live in the USA, while I live in Russia and everything I write applies to that country. Without the support of large families and birth rate incentives, Russia will never get out of the demographic hole. Russia is a big country and in order for it to develop and master its vast territory, it needs people. They are also needed to defend their country from those who want to take a bite out of it.
Nowhere did I say that the wealthy need the money from the tax hikes to feed the poor or the needy. You can reread my post. You make absurd assumptions and then refute them.
And if capital flows into one hands, there will only be one king and he will rule the world. Now there will be one king on the globe. It seems 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 rulers.
Against czars, there's revolution.
And against monopolies, there's anti-trust law.
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 "take it and divide it" again 😄
Where from? -suddenly...
because he has better skills/knowledge or talent and is a better planner
Because he is not afraid to take risks 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 owe him thanks for being able to participate/work in his business, otherwise they would still be sitting on their asses...
All wealth can be built on the slave labour and poverty of others. By deception and advanced technology of deception.
So there are richer people, so what? - Why should they have to pay the expenses of the poor?
success tax )
I would love to hear the answer myself.
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've created an indicator based on them which, among other things, manages trading of 34 instruments in one account simultaneously. So far, it is doing its job well.
Your profile shows your country of residence as the USA, but I live in Russia and everything I write applies to that country. Without supporting large families and encouraging the birth rate, Russia will never get out of the demographic hole. Russia is a big country and in order for it to develop and master its vast territory, it needs people. They are also needed to defend their country from those who want to take a bite out of it.
The country does not matter, the laws of economics and ethics are independent of geography and circumstances.
It's also a huge misconception that you need more people... No... more does not mean better, especially for countries with low levels of productive forces and low value added per unit of raw material... more people = more hungry mouths, and if you don't compensate for that by growing the social product faster, it will only get worse... that should be obvious
We do not need people but new technologies and management methodologies + deep economic reforms to help people earn, not waiting for handouts from the state...
Also, from a long-term perspective, when robots become more economically efficient than biorobots, a large population will only be a problem.
The human factor has already altered the planet drastically, so where else are we going to get more people?
Fortunately the prognoses of population growth are not so dismal after all and there will be a slowdown and decline: https://www.interfax.ru/world/717498
I have not written anywhere that the wealthy should have the money from the tax increase to feed the poor or all the needy. You can reread my post. You make up absurd assumptions and then refute them.
OK, let's assume that I am reading it wrong, because it does formally follow from your words that the richer individualist capitalists must pay for the expenses of the large poor, since you support the redistribution of income (right? It's either one or the other).
All wealth can be built on the slave labour and poverty of others. Through deception and advanced technologies of deception.
Excessive wealth results from an inadequate wage gap between owners and managers on the one hand and rank-and-file employees on the other. Business owners, taking advantage of the shortage of jobs, dictate the wages of rank-and-file employees. In my opinion, the wage gap between rank-and-file employees and owners should not exceed 10 times. Anything higher is simply a robbery of the rank and file. Unfortunately, at present this gap can be 1,000 times or more.
I will speak out in support of Drimmer so that he doesn't feel he is alone. I think so too.
All wealth can be built on the slave labour and poverty of others. By deception and advanced technologies of deception.
Wealth for some does not necessarily mean slave labour and deception, you are deliberately trying to treat some extreme extreme extreme case as if from a Soviet textbook
There are two good phrases I'd like to quote for you here:
You are not entitled to someone else's hard-earned income
Rich people are not responsible for your financial prosperity - you are