The future of the Forex industry - page 53
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
You are again referring to the current situation. If it is like that now, it does not mean that it cannot or cannot be changed.
How can it not exist?
Small businesses are often owned by the same owner.
And by the terms of the problem in the example.
Are you a god to make such an unquestioning statement? From the capitalist's point of view, all workers are idlers and freeloaders and get paid for nothing. You better ask them whether their wages are normal or not.
No, I have nothing to do with it, the market has priced them that way and I'm not going to pay more if it costs less on average, that would just be stupid.
What's more - they agreed to that salary - what's the complaint now?
The entrepreneur's personal consumption comes from his own net profit, and the workers have nothing to do with it, they don't need to look at other people's money.
Again you are referring to the current situation, it's ridiculous. I am proposing a change in the situation and you tell me that it is the way it is now. I know it is, but I don't agree with it and propose to change it.
Yeah, I'm to blame for your hunger).
No, I had nothing to do with it, everyone is to blame for their own misfortunes, but in the case of the USSR it was certainly difficult to live with, but you could have probably jumped to the French.
I know your position. If you don't use hired labour, then everything you have earned is yours and no one will count your money. But if you use hired labour, then you have to count it so that workers get a fair wage for their labour.
They are getting a fair wage considering how the market has turned out and it is fair.
Your notions of fairness are terribly skewed.
You think someone owes you a decent living.
That's not how it works.
How is a non-existent one?
Small businesses are often owned by the same owner.
And by the terms of the problem in the example, they are.
Where did you find the word "non-existent"?
In a thief's gang, if someone is a thief, he gets a finka in the ribs. I allow moderate ratting on the part of the entrepreneur, but 1,000 times is too much, for that he may one day be hoisted by the workers to a pitchfork, like in 17).
So there is no ratting, you are at it again.
Since the company is owned by its owner, the entire net profit is his.
The workers have nothing to do with it, they got theirs anyway.
The owner has the absolute right to take the lion's share or even all the net profit! - It already belongs to him - that is what you do not understand.
You need to realise that you are trying to pick someone else's pocket.Again you are referring to the current situation, it's ridiculous. I am suggesting a change in the situation and you tell me it is the way it is at the moment. I know it is, but I don't agree with it and suggest it should be changed.
So why change what is already working well?
My situation is an existing and accepted one and you are talking about one that does not exist.
Where did you find the word "non-existent"?
We seem to be already confused...
Anyway, I'll repeat that
You alone are responsible for your own wellbeing, no one has to feed you for free.
Yeah, it's my fault for making you hungry).
Making yourself look like an innocent victim of evil capitalists is also a typical socialist ploy.
To sum up: