The future of the Forex industry - page 26
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
What is the selfishness and immorality, can you explain clearly? should we have paid the cleaner as lead developer or as architect of business solutions? 😂😂🤣
In that common people are always hostages to the structure of society. And if it's accepted in society that all members of society should earn an income that provides not only sustenance but also children's education and a decent life, then fine. But there are other cases. And it's not their issue. They certainly won't solve it.
Do you think society should incentivise the useless and the beggarly?
Of course not, it should strive to have as few of them as possible. And provide a standard of living for all workers, regardless of profession.) And the cleaner must live too, because it is impossible to live without her) All labor must be paid decently, it's like not only the Soviet slogan).
I like teasing, yes, but it's not sophistry here, it's all true.
I can see that) And that's part of the sophistry.)
Other than that I would like to note that it's a typical excuse and an attempt to shift the blame for your personal failures onto society, like I'm poor and I'm a hostage of this social order, so give me some money...
The whole point of socialist discourse boils down to this 😁
Everyone is born with the same basic rights and everyone can choose what to do and how to do it, adopt whatever life strategies (as long as they don't violate other people's interests)
Some become more successful, some less so - and always will be.
A society based on humanism and democracy will of course help the poorest, but it does not have to equalize income levels, thereby encouraging freeloaders.
The cleaner in that old office of ours was not disadvantaged and she was paid a normal salary (she was probably paid even more than elsewhere) but it would be wild and strange to pay her for her contributions as key developers and seals.
Understand the essence of meritocracy, everyone should get paid in proportion to their contribution to the common cause (the firm/enterprise is like a small joint stock company in miniature) and there is absolutely no reason to pay a big salary to the cleaner.
All economies are partly appropriationist and partly productionist.
Obviously you are referring to resource extraction? - I would partly agree, but we have to consider that modern mining is impossible without technological means and developed industry, which means that the appropriation of natural resources is already a productive economy, while pure appropriation was only possible in primitive times.
In part, any animal "produces" - it protects its food plot and obtains food.
That's right, and considers the plot as its own property.
The only question is the ratio in the final price of the product between payment for resources and payment for labour. The main recent trend is to decrease the share of natural resources, but at the same time the cost of ownership of these resources is always increasing (the ownership of any private property is always a cost).
I think it is all natural, and the civilization of intelligent insect-mushrooms on Yuggot would move in the same way.
When the cost of owning private property exceeds the income from it, the mere pleasure of owning it may no longer suffice as a motivation)
I presume you mean the cost of maintaining the property? - Keeping it in good condition? - Because there is no cost of pure ownership (unless property taxes are meant as an expense)
All I can say is that it will make less and less economic sense. It wasn't that long ago that they were even stealing laundry from ropes, worn out shoes, etc.
I don't see the connection between stealing and giving up private property, really... like they didn't steal 100 years ago? Or 1000 years ago?
I remember M. Zoshchenko's comic strip where instead of recycling spoiled goods it was just a matter of letting anyone steal them) It's a common approach now and in some countries it is starting to be regulated by law. It's quite understandable that this will eventually (in a hundred years) lead to a simple distribution of any food.
Right now it seems they're distributing stale food in the Dixie/Pyatochka stores... and soon socialists will be complaining about why they are handing out stale and not fresh food 🤣
Because, this is a thing of the distant future, in which (as I tried to argue above) there will be practically no private property, it will not be about ownership, but about responsibility for the results of actions (something like a guardianship institution)
If there is no private property, who would benefit from maintaining it? Cities would fall into decay, there would be rubbish and decay everywhere.
Sometimes quite open information is unexpectedly put together into such intricate puzzles, against which the wildest conspiracy science begins to look like dull dull muttering)
Generally in theory of course cyber-communism is possible if the level of productivity will in principle exceed all material human needs, like Gianni Rodari on the planet of Christmas trees, but it will be only a temporary phenomenon, because in some time we will discard the human form and our interests will be quite different, surely more ambitious.
Aren't you tired of this demagoguery yet?
Take your mind off the demagoguery.
Listen, it will be educational for you:
The World After the End. What the terminal crisis of capitalism means. A. Fursov
- 10 May 2021.
.
Otherwise, I would like to point out that this is a typical excuse and an attempt to shift the blame for your personal failures onto society, like I am poor and I am a hostage of this social order, so give me some money...
The whole point of socialist discourse boils down to this 😁
Everyone is born with the same basic rights and everyone can choose what to do and how to do it, adopt whatever life strategies (as long as they don't violate other people's interests)
Some become more successful, some less so - and always will be.
A society based on humanism and democracy will of course help the poorest, but it does not have to equalize income levels, thereby encouraging freeloaders.
The cleaner in that old office of ours was not disadvantaged and she was paid a normal salary (she was probably paid even more than elsewhere) but it would be wild and strange to pay her for her contributions as key developers and seals.
Understand the essence of meritocracy, everyone should get paid in proportion to their contribution to the common cause (the firm/enterprise is like a small joint stock company in miniature) and there is absolutely no reason to pay a big Salary to the cleaner.
Yes, there should not be a level playing field, but the minimum wage should be such that all human needs are met while respecting the principle of reasonable sufficiency. If the salaries of janitors and cleaners are miserable, they will all, as you suggest, start to study and acquire a more qualified profession. But then the city will be covered in rubbish and waste, and the offices will be suffocating with dust.
But then the city will be covered in rubbish and waste, and offices will be suffocating with dust.
No, it's just that when the janitors become scarce, their wages will go up - it's as simple as that, or they'll be replaced by cleaning machines
Yes, there should be no egalitarianism, but the minimum wage should be such that all human needs are met while respecting the principle of reasonable sufficiency. If the wages of janitors and cleaners are miserable, they will all, as you advise, start to study and get a more qualified profession. But then the city will be covered in rubbish and waste, and offices will be choked with dust.
But their salaries are already low, and there is nothing like that: janitors and cleaners are available, no one is drowning or suffocating in anything. To go to school and get a qualification, you need to have some resources, well banal to pay for training, to have a place to live and something to eat. If you do not have that, what kind of study is there? And if a man is 30 +, 40 +, and his education is nine grades with C's? The only thing left is to work for food, a vicious circle.
1. Salaries and pensions should be decent.
2. Taxes should be fair.
3. education and medicine are free!?
No?
Aren't you tired of this demagoguery yet?
Take your mind off the demagoguery.
Listen, it will be educational for you:
The World After the End. What the terminal crisis of capitalism means. A. Fursov
- 10 May 2021.
.
Fursov is known as 1. a fantasist and conspiracy theorist, 2. a socialist who gets a kick out of the Western model of society
so even though he is a strong historian it is impossible to take him seriously.
and they have been repeating this mantra for years about the crisis of capitalism and that the west is about to collapse. you just need to push it 🤣😃😄
1. Salaries and pensions should be decent.
2. Taxes should be fair.
3. education and medicine are free!?
No?
Exactly.