The future of the Forex industry - page 59
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
Knowing how the payroll system works does not breed envy.) At McDonald's, everyone knows who gets how much in their café.
At Jobs, it seems that in groups, people knew the salaries of group employees (except for the salary of the group leader) and were unaware of the salaries in neighbouring groups. Apparently this makes sense. But Jobs was a great motivator, and he used more than just salaries in his payroll.
It really does, believe me from my experience!
Wild anguish over money starts to create a toxic atmosphere, people are constantly thinking they are undervalued, a totally unhealthy situation.
And Jobs had a lot of resentment along these lines, I can't find the link right now, I might find it later, there were conflicts there...
Valeriy Yastremskiy:
Nah, such a normal stupor))) I would start with the target state of society and then move backwards, i.e. laws/taxes/economics/education. But so far I do not see that anyone has defined the target state.)
You start talking about it - you're the one who has to answer for it! 😁
You said it should be brought up properly, but you didn't name any specific principles, and what should be considered right in general.
Describe your target state of society.
No, suffering is eternal. You cannot get rid of it. You have to accept it to be able to find happiness.)
Happiness as the absence of suffering, a model of abolitionism, dissolving into paranirvana?
Don't speculate for me) It's your speculation.) It is necessary to pay with dignity and fairness, according to the social understanding of fairness in this society, at this moment.)
And what is decent and fair in the currentsocial understanding - can you clearly explain?
You can list them through descriptions of specific benefits if you like.
It's not obvious. There are enough other opinions in the world. Although, you have a description of such far-sighted egoism) That I should have peaceful and well-off relatives, neighbours, employees). This is a very rare kind of egoism)
Public comfort is only one aspect of it.
Now let's put it this way. Do you consider yourself a non selfish person? Why did you decide to become one? Why did you take this path? For what reason?
Was it so that your inner self wouldn't be disturbed? Is it so that you feel better on the inside from a sense of righteousness/truthfulness?
Thus, by acting non-selfishly, you are still acting selfishly in order to maintain a sense of inner purity/honesty, to maintain the image of your inner self.
Now it should be obvious that any attempt to act non-selfishly is deeply selfish in nature.
But what to do with Raskolnikov? He has spent his whole life helping others, has been good, has done a great deal of good, and here, his grandmother, who has only a week to live, has driven him to it, and he has taken her life. What to do with him? To judge him as a good man who did a bad deed or as a bad man who did good deeds all his life).
Regardless of the circumstances a person has inalienable rights.
Raskolnikov violated those rights, committing murder on the grounds that his interests are above others, he needs the money.
No matter what he thought, murder is murder, therefore he deserves to be condemned.
The principles of utilitarianism should not violate basic human rights and dignity.
It would be more interesting to consider Queen v Dudley and Stevens, a unique historical precedent (easily googled). Jung was killed and eaten to save the other sailors. Is that admissible? Obviously Junga's rights were violated, never mind that he was already in death.
Тогда этот вопрос надо оставить историкам-экономистам, сейчас на практике он не имеет особой ценности. Не знаю что тут сказать, попробуйте изменить мир например... 😉Why. The trend is that in a few decades, 99% of the earth's wealth will belong to the 0.1% of the earth. And that was the question Mr Ma was asking. What to do? The situation is precarious. Gates and his ilk have suggested that as much as 50% of the fortune should not be given to children, but to foundations that belong to society. They are farsighted egoists) They take care of their children... their own)
Well, 99% of the earth's wealth will belong to 0.1% of the land - so what?
They will not eat it all up 😀 but will develop more global projects and the example of Gates shows it, he does not care about money for a long time.
You tell that to the taxman)
Tax optimisation is a normal practice.
But it's not about taxes, it's about inequality, you're worried about inequality, I'm saying it's a perfectly natural thing, and it would be stupid to say that people are all equal, well of course they have equal basic rights, that's understandable, but otherwise they are all different, and they have different qualities/talents/abilities/skill/luck/etc and so it makes perfect sense that the best get more.
So it turns out that Mr Ma is more astute and fortunate than millions of others, well...
And no one is potentially stopping you from becoming like Mr. Ma, you can build your own business and grow it.
And how do you do it) You immediately find something to latch on to) There is a lack of responsibility in power in the world, not only in ours).
But what exactly are you suggesting when you talk about accountability?
Earlier I talked about the shift from shareholder capitalism model to stakeholdercapitalism- a kind of compromise, some call it a left turn, many large companies have long since adopted SRI/GRC practices of responsible investing and public reporting, and this directly relates to the previously discussed issues of selfishness and non-selfishness, only now on a global scale.
It should be obvious that a large corporation evaluating its long-term prospects and future has to consider not only financial indicators, but also the whole range of factors, including social ones, and the way the company is perceived in society.
The social image of a corporation becomes important, including for the continuation of profit generation, because if consumers feel negative about the company, they will avoid interaction with it.
By supporting social initiatives a corporation promotes a positive image and thus acts also for the benefit of itself and its shareholders, and employees as well.
Thus, we can see that there is no contradiction between egoism and non-egoism on a higher level, but there is a balance of interests, achievement of which is what the new economic research is about, and this balance of interests will coincide with the long-term maximum of capitalisation and total discounted income of the corporation.
What's there to read. That rationality is reason. I see. I've brought it up as I understand it. Rational actions are similar to rational optimal actions. There's a certain sluggishness and dogmatism in your judgement.)
Maybe then you think all sorts of molluscs and even prokaryotes are rational? 😁😂🤣
They don't have a mind obviously, but they act optimally to survive and reproduce.
Don't confuse optimality and rationality.