The future of the Forex industry - page 17
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 who decides that it is possible to steal 10 times but not 1,000 times?
Why, if a person is very rich, do you think he must have stolen?
It can be decided by law. Let's say an entrepreneur should be forbidden to spend more than 10 times the average salary of his company for personal consumption.
He stole, but not in the literal sense. He simply underestimated the labour costs of his employees, which is not criminally punishable, but unfair.
It can be solved by legislation.
There are many things that can be legislated and there are examples of absurdly cruel inadequate laws in various countries...
It's not about the ability to put anything into law, it's about the reasons (logical or if you like ethical reasons) why it should be done, do you feel the difference?
Let's say an entrepreneur should be forbidden to spend more than 10 average salaries in his company for personal purposes.
Ahaha..... Well then how will people buy flats, eh? You are writing nonsense...
Moreover, the entrepreneur and can not take the cash out of the enterprise for personal needs as if it was his own pocket, he can do it only when the undistributed profit goes into his ownership and there is a corresponding transfer to the account of an individual, and then he can do anything and without restrictions ...
Or do you think he takes directly from the cash register? 😆😅🤣
Why you need to limit how you spend your profits - you can't give an answer for several pages 😁 (nor can you)
Stole, but not in the literal sense. He simply undervalued the labour of his employees and it's not criminal, but it's unfair
But that's not true, he pays them a normal average market wage, adequate for their qualifications, read carefully what I wrote earlier...
So you can not justify in any way your thesis, why you can not earn and spend a lot ...
Nor can you prove that the factory workers are disadvantaged, because they are not cheated and the work contract was obtained under conditions of full information and without coercion...
How long before we start comparing salaries of footballers and cleaners?
But if you remember how much creative people and athletes earn, some people will be shocked and envious...
And if we go back to factories, the Shapiro-Stiglitz model says that workers are actually overpaid...
This, however, does not prevent them from subjectively thinking that they are underpaid if they compare themselves to entrepreneurs and footballers...
I wonder how people with extreme sensitivity to social equality issues can be interested in trading as it is a non-labour income...
There are many things that can be legislated and there are examples of absurdly cruel inadequate laws in various countries...
It's not about the ability to write anything into law, it's about the reasons (logical or if you like ethical reasons) why it should be done, do you feel the difference?
Ahaha..... well then how will people buy flats, eh? well you are writing absurdity...
Moreover, the entrepreneur cannot take the cash out of the company for personal use like out of his pocket, he can do it only when the undistributed profits become his property and a corresponding transfer to the account of an individual, and then he can do anything and without any restrictions ...
Or do you think he takes directly from the cash register? 😆😅🤣
Why you need to limit how you spend your profits - you can't give an answer already
several pages 😁 (nor can you)
But it's not true, he pays them a normal average market salary, adequate for their qualifications, carefully re-read what I wrote earlier...
So you can not justify in any way your thesis, why you can not earn and spend a lot ...
Nor canyou prove that the factory workers are disadvantaged, because they are not cheated and the employment contract was obtained under conditions of full information and without coercion...
Well, perhaps I misspoke. Not to spend, but to receive for personal use an income in excess of 10 average salaries...
The labor cost of one person cannot be equal to the labor cost of, say, 1,000 people. It is unrealistic that this person would do anything to produce a product a thousand times over. It is simply the income an entrepreneur earns because of an incorrect estimate of the value of his own labor and that of his employees.
That is the point: it is not normal, if he, by misjudging the value of the labor of all those involved in production, makes 1000 times as much. Only by undervaluing the wages of his employees he can afford it. And the fact that the average wage is so low in the country, it is because the wage is undervalued by everyone, including the state.
Workers simply have to accept low wages because they are low everywhere. The state only protects against absolute poverty by introducing a minimum wage. And it only raises it by the rate of inflation. There is no one to defend workers because the trade unions don't function, and there is no point in people protesting individually, because the one who isn't satisfied will be fired immediately. In essence total disenfranchisement under conditions of brutal exploitation. And the state is also inactive, in effect encouraging exploitation as it itself exploits mercilessly by paying low wages to its employees.
And if an entrepreneur creates jobs, then yes, the benefit to the country is undeniable. But he does this not for any good reason, but to create a trough for himself and make super profits by exploiting his workers.You're trying to change the mind of an alcoholic and a pensioner. For the sake of art? Not that I don't like your posts, just curious.
Do you think all pensioners are idiots or what? Are you not going to live to that age yourself? Vasily Smyslov, as a pensioner, was national chess champion. I also play on chess websites. Though I haven't managed to get above the Level 1 level. Useful for unwinding the brain, by the way. I recommend it to everybody.
I agree with every word)
Thank you for your support. Our regiment has arrived).
You are going to extremes here, even someone has to die, but what about humanism? Without humanism there would be a gulag. I think there should be an unconditional income so that people do not have to work at all. Enough for food and shelter, but not excess. And who wants excess, goes to work, and just who is interested. The unconditional income is paid mainly from the profits of the monopoly super corporations. Plus, you have to control the corporations. No copyright, no patents, no closed software licenses. And the threshold, when a business is considered large, only it pays an additional tax. No more taxes, except a tax from the price in the shop(though maybe even that's unnecessary). Well, common sense is needed in everything. The main problem is that states are not interested in building society at all, and do not want to seek justice. They are for preservation of inequality and personal enrichment. This is a problem of people's culture in general. What is needed is enlightenment. After all, it is obvious to the developed person that everyone will benefit from a progressive society, and this benefit is much greater than being privileged to any degree.
Well there shouldn't be equality and I agree with the Dreamer on that. There should not be excessive and monstrous inequality. And active and intelligent people should be rewarded withmore material wealth. This encourages people to be active.