The future of the Forex industry - page 61
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
The coronavirus mutates to become more contagious and less dangerous. It's rational. Does the virus have intelligence?
It can hardly be called intelligence, rather it is a property of all living things to adapt to their environment.
It can hardly be called intelligence, rather it is a property of all living things to adapt to their environment.
If the organism they occupy dies, they die and leave no offspring. Those which do not kill the organism continue to live longer and produce more offspring. It is natural selection.
My beginnings of study included Duty: the first 5000 years of history, the anarchist Graeber, and, well, a pretty good study by Mantessori in Food of the Gods.
A near-scientific read with references to scientific sources)
There was no natural exchange within the tribe) Tell me more about shoemakers and barbers working for wages in commodity terms. The tribe lived as a single unit.
And the cases of innovation advancement, well, that only began with the manufactories. I told you, the cases of recent years))) Well, about 200-300 years)
Your problem is apparently that you have not learned to critically perceive what you read.
If you look carefully at what this Greber of yours writes, you will notice that he juggles and redefines terms.
This is linguistic quackery andGreber first tries to separate the concept of debt from the concept of obligation in general, explaining that debt can always be calculated.
Then he equates money and debt, which is categorically wrong.
But money is not necessarily a debt contract, and after all, most economists accept that money can exist outside the credit/debt relationship.
And Greber perversely substitutes the principle of free exchange for violent exchange, from which he then derives wars of conquest and slavery.
What can you say? - A sick anarchist or just an unscrupulous researcher who makes the reader believe in speculative reasoning.
Marx did exactly the same thing through an incorrect definition of surplus value and it is clear why - to convince the workers that they are being robbed, just for that purpose.
As we all well remember, his labour theory of value and the law of diminishing returns successfully failed.
Graeber goes a different way, but with the same goal: to stimulate a sense of injustice in the reader in order to raise a rebellion.
We all remember that Graeber is a key member of the Occupy movement.
How can a stung left-wing anarchist be taken seriously?
Especially since Greber isn't even an economist (like Marx by the way, he was a journalist and made his living writing).
Greber completely ignores the importance of money to the economy, instead slipping the reader historical anecdotes and his own myths.
Now would you think that money did not arise as a consequence of the inconvenience of commodity exchange? - After all, even a schoolboy can understand that.
Surely everyone remembers how we exchanged gum wrappers, postage stamps and stickers as children?
The way Greber blatantly screws up in his little book can be seen even by the fact that he confuses the names of economic doctrines (post-Keynesianism and neo-Keynesianism).
Graeber tries to present a purely one-sided view of the nature of money, selectively quoting only those predecessor scholars he likes.
Serious economists and bankers would have already thrown Graeber's book in the bin after this deliberate selectivity.
Also, Graeber doesn't mention the function of money - the payment function - getting stuck entirely on debt in chapter 3 - and this shows how badly Graeber is at economics.
Even Greber fails to formulate his concept of debt adequately, in chapter 2 he separates debt from obligation, in chapter 5 he says that debt is something very specific.
Nevertheless, it is from his murky debt that Greber tries to deduce the inequality of people, as if they themselves have not freely entered into a debt contract?
The blatant wretchedness of this way of reasoning makes it impossible to see Graeber as a normal unbiased researcher.
Cherry-picking in its entirety, only those ideas and quotes are selected that fit better with his mana-theory.
Then he introduces his fantastic new terms, such as 'human economics'...
His main focus is money in relation to the slave trade, as if other uses of money instantly disappeared? - nonsense.
Graeber's leitmotif is to equate: debt = money = violence = slavery.
It's all regrettable, as well as regrettable for the readers who read it.
Throughout the text Greber constantly confuses the different functions of money, making himself look like a dilettante, and keeps introducing new terms (social money, economic money).
Then he introduces one more new term, virtual money, actually talking about credit, for God's sake! - What a degree of idiocy!
Graeber insists on the idea that the emergence of market institutions and the state (and violence) happened simultaneously, which is ridiculous for professional economists and historians.
Graeber ignores the question of the role of payment systems, which are important for understanding the role of money, which also shows one-sidedness.
Graeber attacks Adam Smith apparently because he does not know that his ideas were already present in his predecessors, and that too is amusing.
Perhaps Adam Smith is just like a red rag to him, the embodiment of the start of British capitalism?
Adam Smith was also a social philosopher.
When Graeber describes IMF loans, he completely ignores the terms of the loans, but boldly and vehemently shouts about the robbery of the population.
An adequate economist would focus on the substance of such a loan contract, its terms of issue-renewal- repayment, but Greber doesn't bother with the details at all.
The charlatan Graeber claims to be writing a scholarly book, but provides no precise references.
And in some places he cites blatantly unreliable and incomparable data, e.g. in chapter 10.
For example he compares tax revenues for Egypt in 200 B.C. and the Abassidic state in 850 B.C. - A difference of almost a thousand years! - How does it feel?
Not to mention that measuring prosperity through just one indicator (tax collection in silver) is mega dumb.
On Graeber's snags even the references! - He simply has no reference to the source of the data in this chapter in his list of references!
What more corroboration do you need to know that Graeber is a cheap fakodrum?
The number of jams in this book is off the charts, he mixes up different eras, peoples, types of societies.
It is clear that the naive reader, incapable of critical thinking, will not notice this and will swallow it for granted and believe in this nonsense.
And Graeber's main goal is to understand the Occupy Wall Street riots - to rip off the rich and successful - there is no other goal for this little book.
There was no natural exchange within the tribe)
I have really bad news for you, really bad news... 😌
It's not logical, and they won't start)
If they don't start, then let them starve - that's their problem.
The target state of golden periods is not that simple. I agree with the reasonable motivation of the marginally useful. But that's just the beggarly salary might not work)
It is very unreasonable to waste valuable community resources to feed useless freeloaders.
What would such an approach do over the long term? The emergence of harlems maybe. Instead of the goal of socialising the largest percentage of individuals, your proposal could increase the percentage of asocialised. And their suffering will do nothing for society)
Any modern harlem will give many times the average comfort level of a couple or three centuries ago, realise that.
And prince-barons in the Middle Ages in general lived like bums without hot water supply, without normal heating, only with a fireplace and without other convenient nuthin'.
Everything is never enough for man and he compares himself to others.
All your socialist brouhaha is just because someone lives better than you. 😁
The misery of beggars is very important, firstly it stimulates them to move, secondly there are metaphysical reasons 😋
I hope that we will have no hard feelings towards each other after our polemics and that we will be guided by the advice of an ancient philosopher: "...write offence in the sand and carve forgiveness in the marble". :-)
What can be offence here.
The main thing is not to encroach on other people's profits.
There can be no hard feelings.
The main thing is not to encroach on other people's profits.
Are you afraid to respond to my comments?
It can hardly be called intelligence, rather it is a property of all living things to adapt to their environment.
My point is, intelligence has nothing to do with properties acquired through (natural) selection.
A heated discussion in the pages of this thread clearly demonstrated that the format of distance learning is not applicable to the teaching of such an important subject as love for the Motherland. Only face-to-face interaction between a student and a team of experienced educators will enable them to become aware of their mistakes and misconceptions and to begin to correct them promptly. Only sensitive guidance in the form of wise mentors within educational, labour, military and corrections teams is capable of setting one on the right path and pointing the way in such an important science as the ability to love one's homeland.
Well yes, it's like religion, if you don't forcibly hammer it into people's heads, no one will believe all that naive romantic nonsense.
"If religion were true - its followers wouldn't forcibly hammer it into children's heads..." - G.F. Lovecraft.
🔱