The future of the Forex industry - page 179
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
I might have poured, but ...
no liquid seeping through the wires
;)
Well done! My school.
So I've been in agreement all along. Show me where I wrote thatentrepreneurs and more active people in general should not be paid markedly more. The only question here is how much more - 10, 100 or 1000 times the minimum wage? That's what I think the government should determine. So that there is no monstrous disparity in the incomes of citizens.
In general I would even partly agree with you, Mr. Khorosh, because statistics show that the countries with the highest disparity in distribution are usually the most disadvantaged (Africa and the rest of the losers).
So your words aside and look globally, it makes sense that the extreme inequality is a brake on economic development.
This is difficult to deny.
At the same time too flat equality is not good either, because it discourages top entrepreneurs and makes them leave, especially those who have assets tied to land.
At the same time, it stimulates the freeloaders, who receive part of the benefits from the upper quintiles of the distribution through indirect budgetary redistribution.
Ultimately society must ask itself the question - why feed them?
Gini's above 40 in income are the lamest countries, but below that there may be different strategies and countries decide on their own.
Another thing to keep in mind is that income distribution is not the same as wealth distribution and Sweden is a prime example.
In any case a healthy economy must contain inequalities and in one way or another the poor will be.
Because poverty is a relative concept.
In that case he would only be paid as a biorobot - i.e. markedly lower than other more valuable employees - should that be clear?
You are sorely mistaken: there are poor countries in themselves in absolute terms of gross product and per capita - and it is foolish to deny it.
Take Burundi/CAR/Sudan/Somali -- and even if divided equally by everyone it comes out to less than $1000 per year per person, you get the idea?
Mr. Khorosh... You just... Just sat in the puddle objectively again.
😁😂🤣
Give another example of some natives living somewhere in the Amazon basin jungle? They don't know what money is at all there Don't need to get creative with hyperbole. This is not a literary contest. We are talking about developed countries. The minimum level, of course, varies in developed countries as well. But the state should define the basket of goods so as not to make the man with a job a pauper, and to do so it should limit the super-rich.
Give me another example of some natives living somewhere in the Amazon rainforest?
The middle class in RB would be considered poor somewhere in Belgium or Switzerland and rich compared to those mentioned above. Is that closer to the body?
Give me another example of some natives living somewhere in the Amazon rainforest? They don't know what money is at all. You don't have to be hyperbolic. This is not a literary contest. We are talking about developed countries. The minimum level, of course, varies in developed countries as well. But the government should define the basket of goods so as not to make the working poor, and in order to do that it should limit the super-rich.
You are missing the point, Mr. Khorosh, different countries have different aggregate wealth.
If a country is poor then no matter how you divide it, it will be bad.
The example of Africa was just a prime example.
Northern Eurasia is not Africa, but it is not yet in the high league of the category of countries you are talking about, so we will have to be patient.
Just look at the GDP per capita.
In fact, I would even partly agree with you, Mr. Khorosh, because statistics say that the countries with the highest disparity of distribution are usually the most disadvantaged (Africa and the rest of the losers).
So your words aside and look globally, it makes sense that the extreme inequality is a brake on economic development.
This is difficult to deny.
At the same time too flat equality is not good either, because it discourages top entrepreneurs and makes them leave, especially those who have assets tied to land.
At the same time, it stimulates the freeloaders, who receive part of the benefits from the upper quintiles of the distribution through indirect budgetary redistribution.
Ultimately society must ask itself the question - why feed them?
Gini's above 40 in income are the lamest countries, but below that there may be different strategies and countries decide on their own.
Another thing to keep in mind is that income distribution is not the same as wealth distribution and Sweden is a prime example.
In any case a healthy economy must contain inequalities and in one way or another the poor will be.
Because poverty is a relative concept.
There we go, we are finally starting to understand each other, I agree on almost everything. We can stop there.
But the state should define the consumption basket in such a way that it does not make a person with a job a pauper, it should limit the super-rich to have super-wealthy incomes.
But I remind you that not so long ago, Northern Eurasia reported very low levels of poverty (extreme poverty).
If you compare it with the New Roman Empire across the Atlantic Ocean - there is noticeably more poverty.
So I don't understand what you're complaining about at all!
You're living a good life.
You just have to work harder to become richer than others.
Now we are finally starting to understand each other, I agree on almost everything. We can stop there.
What's all the fuss about then?
If you accept that poverty is a relative phenomenon, then it is up to you to provide for your own well-being, rather than complaining about low wages.
Visual capitalism and inequality
impressive interactive chart
it's a shame the last few years aren't there, but it's still revealing...
Need more inequality and more capitalism! 😁
https://jackblun.github.io/Globalinc/html/fig_2014.html
hover over and you can see all countries
Visual capitalism and inequality
impressive interactive chart
it's a shame the last few years aren't there, but it's still revealing...
Need more inequality and more capitalism! 😁
https://jackblun.github.io/Globalinc/html/fig_2014.html
So and so every year the difference between inequality and capitalism in other words
between the poor and the super-rich, is growing exponentially !
At this rate, in 20 years, 99.9% of the world's population will be living like in Ethiopia)))