The future of the Forex industry - page 50
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 above average performance) Or does the neural net help in the trance state?
Good training in speed, ethics of insulting/stalking/disorienting. And the rhetoric isn't forgotten either).
I have had to practice rhetoric intensively due to the nature of my work, and the general conclusion is this: all life is a constant conflict, for the purpose of presentation, it is important to devalue one thesis to show that something else is better, and when it happens in the form of live communication, it is necessary to knock the opponent off balance, to make unflattering comparisons, to intercept the initiative, to affect the painful points of the opponent Sometimes it is necessary to underline the opponent's inconsistency/primitiveness, to create dissonance by putting him into an unusual context, sometimes it is necessary to attack emotions instead of reason, to discredit his final goal and values, to calculate his line of argumentation in advance, sometimes to overload the brain so that the person boils over, etc., etc.
Just in case I want to say that I love everyone here, I have no reason to quarrel with anyone here, it's just rhetoric for fun.
It's nice, but it's not a big deal.)
No, that's what we're arguing about, customs first, money later. The tribal and communal system. There were only two acts of payment, a wedding and a funeral. Debt relations were there, money was not there. Money in tribal and communal life is a theory / myth of A. Smith's grandfather, although he was not the first to express it. Money started with taxes / taxes to pay for wars. I am more sympathetic to this theory. It has been proven that tribes did not have money when researching extant tribes.
Customs in general and legal customs are probably not the same thing, it is one thing to worship religion and another to actively trade in something, and a debt can be expressed easily in kind and without money, nevertheless primeval money is not a myth, it is a proven fact, even the Latin word moneypecunia comes from pecus = cattle, i.e. in ancient times they changed value in exchange and payment with cattle, it is also well known that Indians and islanders used shells, how could they not know that?
You say it is proven that there was no primitive money and you give no proof, but I give you the example of tsiprei-kauri, which was reliably used as money even in ancient China, India, and oh my god! - Even in Central Asia and Siberia, they even reached coinless Russia, all of a sudden.
Also carefully study this very coinless period in Russia - a mute reproach to your poor erudition, and read what a hryvnia is.
Congratulations, you have successfully failed again. 🤣😂😃
For enterprise yes. For a state, too narrow. Keep secret the salaries of very important professionals for the enterprise, maybe casteism has a place in the enterprise too)
I think that you have to educate properly at school, and things may turn out well at the fifth generation. Motivating laws and corrections are always a correction to the current situation and errors in the organization of society).
What is there to educate? And what is right? 🤣
Suffering is too big a topic, without it one cannot achieve happiness, and certainly on the subject of happiness from money how many copies are broken) I agree about one thing, demotivation of work for results in larger than MOSH amounts leads to social unrest)
Suffering is necessary for people to work at the plant otherwise they will leave the plant and to avoid unrest they need to be arranged so that they feel their lives are gradually improving.
We have no disagreement on this point. Except as with you, there must always be a layer of sufferers in society, for the motivation and development of society,
Suffering is also needed as an anti-example to scare working people, otherwise all/many if they become flat downshifters and start meditating and spending frugally, capitalism will suffer.
If you pay the little useful too decently, your state will collapse, because the more deserving people will feel the injustice and simply leave your state, or revolt.
In your theses it slips out that an individual's selfishness is primary and he must not care about anyone but himself and possibly those close to him, and those whom he does not know, he can ignore and never take part in their lives. An example according to your theses.
Of course egoism is primary, it seems obvious, but taking care of others does not contradict egoism, as you suggest, on the contrary, it is from egoism and for the purpose of making life better for everyone including yourself that people just take care-respect and other collective things in order to be more comfortable in society, so as you see, egoism is primary even here.
As a captain, I wouldn't act rationally. I would rob the richest, take my friends and crew to the rescue. Someone has to work on the boat. What if I don't know any of the passengers?)
Does your behaviour depend on whether you have witnesses or not?
In general I like another choice, what to do with Raskolnikov, in the form of, all his life he did good deeds to grannies, but here one got to him and he took her life. Is he good or bad, and what to do with him after everything?
There are no good and bad people, there are their deeds that may or may not violate someone else's rights.
They breathe our air and are useless. It is rational to reduce air consumption by minimising the unhelpful ones)
If one imagines this happening on a space station or underwater, and it just so happens that air is extremely scarce, then air will have to be paid for, or it will become a major currency.
Otherwise overconsumption, if it doesn't violate anyone's rights, is not something unconditionally bad, as the envious socialists think.
Lan, we're on a different plane of discussion) Legitimate for its time. In later times, many early methods of enrichment were considered criminal.
Then this question should be left to economic historians, it is of little value in practice now.
It is Mr. Ma, and indeed Bezos and Gates, who are also affected. Soon they will have nowhere to live (land on a plane more accurately), Ma said. Not me.
I am only concerned about the imperfection of the world and its instability, which can inadvertently hurt. And times of change are getting on my nerves.)
I don't know what to say, try changing the world for instance... 😉
Counting other people's money is a bad habit and harmful even.
Again, there are a lot of terms. There are not many good and useful terms.
Yes, accountability is in short supply even now.
Wolf laws imply ruthlessness under the law. And people are angry, anger breeds lawlessness.
The example of Sparta shows the flaw of this approach at the level of statehood. They did not last long)
So what are we going to do? Lack of responsibility? You can start with yourself and give yourself extra responsibility. 😆
Do you think that Professor Preobrazhensky's salary should not be more than an order of magnitude higher than that of his housekeeper? Otherwise it amounts to robbery and is unfair?
It's a slightly different case, just as in the case of Tom Cruise and his cloakroom attendant. It's not an enterprise and they're not jointly producing any product. I'm only looking at enterprises where the owner of the enterprise uses the wage labour of multiple workers and gains excessive profits through the unfair distribution of surplus value.
Rationality is innate, intelligence, speech, skills acquired. We are not in agreement about rationality with you)
Read what is rationality then, now you have colossal problems with the terms.
It does not matter what colour they are) Thomas was wrong. He did not know about genotype.)
Genotype does not determine intelligence, at least not directly, what matters is individual development, you have failed again. 🤣
Yes. Nature is rational. Organisms, just like humans, optimise consumption and expenditure. This must be news to you). It has nothing to do with intelligence) Question. Does memory have anything to do with intelligence, and is it an innate or acquired quality / ability.
This statement is about nothing... So you could say the cosmos is rational or Russell's kettle is rational.
Adaptability of organisms is neither intelligence nor rationality, you're stringing the terms together in whatever way you can. 😁
Memory is both an inherent property/ability and a skill that can be pumped up.
Go to the library and go back to capitalism. 😀
I hope rationality is not a broad term you used. that's how tautology gets, there's intelligence, there's reason. I prefer to think of rationality as behaviour similar to reason in terms of optimising actions for a better result. It is more correct and understandable that way.
Otherwise for animals, cage, quark we will have to invent another term. There is optimization there too, and often not achievable by man. It does not mean that animals are smarter than humans.
Recently an unusual creationist showed up in one sect, well more precisely he was sitting there before, but today he made a cameo out, and here he declared that consciousness/mind is something created, not arising from the evolutionary process.
And in general there are many different marginal theories, such as the quantum consciousness hypothesis in the Bose-Einstein condensate, Penrose's objective collapses and coherent flows, but all very far from being accepted in science.
There are also versions of the absolute fundamentality of consciousness as a property of physical reality, in which the very existence of physical reality turns out to depend on conscious observation of the latter, but there is no way to verify this either.
Returning to capitalism and markets, it cannot be overlooked that the rational investor hypothesis has failed, due to its simplicity.
Most importantly, it will be different from its native community. Just as a wolf raised by sheep will be different from wolves. And if Mowgli from the tribe gets to the Rothschilds and is accepted and brought up by them, he too will be different from his tribesmen. Your example is not correct).
The example is just fine, let me remind you that the example with real Mowgli clearly shows that higher activity, intelligence - depends on the environment of upbringing and is not given to everyone initially, just like with Tarzan - it is a fiction, real Tarzan would only seek food and a female, so it completely ruins your thesis.😁
What a complete breakdown. You build a chain of logic then. My logic, humans often cannot replicate what animals do precisely in terms of optimising their actions, intelligence is lacking and innate skills are lacking. I.e. animal actions are often more rational/optimised than humans. A penguin has less strength than a human, but repeat after him.... And they don't go extinct ) Rationality is a kind of reason, it is a term. The sense is in optimality of decisions and actions.
What exactly may not a human being repeat? Or is it sophistry again? Or is it rationality that you have the ability to jump on trees?
And finally read what rationality means!
You sat in a puddle and instead of getting out of it you keep splashing about in it 😆
You don't have to make up some ridiculous argument, and the trousers aren't the same colour or a certain percentage, but 1000%. Think about it, 1000%! Yes + stock dividends + the opportunity to raise revenues by creating other new businesses. So there is actually no ceiling.
It is you who are making up ridiculous arguments (or rather you simply don't have them, only emotional appeals instead) that a cap on the maximum personal income should be imposed.
You haven't been able to give a reason why it should be done (other than the obvious one that you're just jealous that someone earns more than you do).
The trousers example is perfect because it is a reference to Kin Dza Dza and mocks the evils of socialism.
If I unselfishly like to collect money and society imposes silly restrictions, it is an attack on my freedom.
I agree, I am encroaching on the entrepreneur's freedom to rob his workers and take their honestly earned money.
Come on! - No one is taking their wages from them! - They earned it honestly and they got it.
You are picking the entrepreneur's pocket again, in order to take away their net profit.
I urge you to realize that you do not own the factory, you have not invested in its creation, so the profits are not yours.
No one will give it to you anyway 😉 .
The existing wage level does not correspond to what the employees actually earn - it is tantamount to robbing them.
They actually earn their wages, there is no contradiction and there is no robbery.
This is what allows the entrepreneur to make super profits. A limit of 10 average salaries for his workers would create an opportunity to make the average salary decent and fair.
You again are repeating these far-fetched Marxist myths, you're an adult, and you're repeating learned mantras from Soviet textbooks. In reality no one is robbing anyone, and super profits come not from savings on wages and other costs, but from the growth of the revenue curve ahead of the cost curve, how can you not understand that?
Read about ABC-analysis, read something so you don't embarrass yourself like that anymore.
Even school kids now know that millionaires become millionaires through effective sales of some highly sought after product/service, not through cost savings of FTE.
It saddens me to see that in 2021 there are still people who mindlessly repeat nonsense.
After all, it's not hard to see that as sales volumes increase, with positive product margins, profits go up?
Finally go back to that example with the plants and carefully analyse the figures, I believe you can do the job.
Plant A:
revenue 100M
costas 50M
including FOT 25M
including SS and others: 25M
net profit 50M
Plant B:
revenue 55M
costes 50M
including FOT: 25M
including SS and others: 25M
net profit 5M
The first entrepreneur's profit is 10 times higher than the second one - because he has figured out a more effective way to sell a more interesting product for the public, and the costs are the same, because they have the same everything there according to the conditions of the problem.
Again I remind you that you have not defined the terms fair and decent pay, and as usual you are juggling with vague terms.
You rub it in to teachers and medical staff and then don't be surprised that the doctor suddenly expects to get a few notes before he sends you for an operation.
What's wrong with that? Or do you think someone should treat you for free?
There you go. So separating the entrepreneur from the capitalist is not the main thing. But thinking/dreaming that entrepreneurs can become the elite of society and an elitist democracy will come into being is the main thing) Something new. He certainly did this (calling entrepreneurs the elite of society and calling democracy elitist) first, but it is certainly not the main thing. I do not know how you read it) Just a couple of books, but I got to the end. I regret that I did not have enough time/effort to read the history of analysis and the theory of development.
You've probably read Schumpeter very selectively...
I actually wrote that he separatedthe innovator entrepreneur from the financial capitalist, apparently you didn't notice.
But the theme of elitist democracy is one of his key ideas, and don't try to deny it.
You'd better remember that Schumpeter shocked his readers by endorsing socialism, approved of Marx's ideas, and even rejoiced at the revolution in Russia - see, I even help you with your shaky argument 😉