A topic for traders. - page 220
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
You're starting to contradict yourself)))) Compliance is cool of course, like the means must match the ends, but it's close to Jesuit Lajolet - the end defines, not, justifies the means.
No, I'm not contradicting, these are modern trends, of course they are secondary to profits, because without profits there would be nothing at all, but it should be clear anyway.
Responsibility is a good word in slogans, beautiful and little understood. And ecology is a tricky subject, so the end justifies the means, and a beautiful slogan will justify everything)...
So offer your model, you haven't done that. 😃 Go to another WEF to deliver your new approach to world capitalism. 😉
Of course it's better not to lead to mine accidents, or other cataclysms, and is this only understood by business owners, or by all Most sane non-owners too?
Of course, a collective mutual interest. We do not mine sulphur with our bare hands.
That's why it's more correct to abolish the institution of inheritance.
🙄😲😖 That's flawed... Imagine this: you save and save to provide for your children's future, and then bam, no way. Your motivation to rebuild, or your economic incentives will fall, well why should you earn more after a while? And most importantly, you will increase the propensity to consume, you will want to spend it all, so as not to go to the state / society / freeloaders. It's obvious.
An unsubstantiated assertion.
Most likely you are mentally appealing to the dramatic sharp social literature of the last century, which shows social contrasts and episodes like drawn-out capitalists squeezing the maximum opportunity, crossing all boundaries...
Probably from Theodore Dreiser, the image of Frank Cowperwood projected onto the world. 😄
How's that... The Communist Party Manifesto was put into practice, although not all points were implemented, but the consequences of the policy of group indentity and discrimination were disastrous, up to and including famine and terror, and China killed the most in numbers it seems.
This is just technology from rhetoric 😄 purely for fun...
But it would be interesting to consider the figure of the distressed false prophet Isersky in this context: is he worthy of any compensation or help to get out of hopeless poverty? I think not, as it would be more effective for society to support promising students, effective progressive people-creators, start-up entrepreneurs, while the ineffective ones should die out. 😍
So is yours that all capitals are honest. But the fact that some of the savings are obtained in violation of the law is sort of axiomatic. In addition there is evidence of dishonesty in many of the world's savings. The same ethylene gasoline, until lead was found in the Pacific Ocean, the question was not even raised, and the UN environmental representative was on the payroll of the office with the gasoline. And how do they feel about it. They were saved by the legacy institution.
I don't need to be drawn to the Communist Party. Better without it, what do you like about the legacy institution that you advocate for it so much?
So is yours that all capital is honest. But it is kind of axiomatic that some of the savings were obtained in violation of the law.
Be careful with such assertions. Tomorrow someone will write that it is axiomatic that Yastremsky is a thief. Smart people did not invent the definition of "presumption of innocence" for nothing.
So is yours that all capital is honest. But it is kind of axiomatic that some of the savings were obtained in violation of the law. In addition, there is evidence of dishonesty in many of the world's accumulations. The same ethylene gasoline, until lead was found in the Pacific Ocean, the question was not even raised, and the UN environmental representative was on the payroll of the office with the gasoline. And how do they feel about it. They were saved by the legacy institution.
I don't need to be drawn to the Communist Party. Better without it, what do you like about the legacy institution that you advocate for it so much?
I did not say that everyone is honest, but I put a lot of doubt that the dominant part of capitalists are thieves, well it's kind of stupid to think so, at some point who are they going to start stealing from? - From themselves?
Please familiarise yourself with the concept of "axiom"... and what you are talking about is only your perception, not an axiom.
I am pointing out the point that most often the common belief that the rich person = thief is a collective irrational projection of consciousness of the poor, who find it more profitable, more comfortable, more peaceful to think like that, justifying their poverty by saying that, well, capitalists stole everything, can't help it...
Be careful with such assertions. Tomorrow someone will write that it is axiomatic that Yastremsky is a thief. Smart people didn't invent the definition of "presumption of innocence" for nothing.
Good point.
I agree with that.
Didn't work efficiently? - Let them go to the factory.
I also find the thinking of some managers laughable: - Oh, oh, you can't stop this enterprise, because otherwise so many people will lose their jobs. Fools. They are burying the economy in the ground themselves, making it inefficient in the long run.
As for "it's not the manager's fault" - I assure you, he's the first to lose his bonuses in a normal company, and his options are burned out if market performance drops, so... stop thinking in soviet terms... however I don't deny that many state dominated companies probably still do.
I only spice things up a bit to keep the discussion interesting, I don't really call for a naked market and ancap, but I strongly disagree when they start donating to useless, hopeless members of society, under the guise of moral principles. That's just plain stupid.
We're talking about infringement of rights, what's that got to do with performance?
The ethical issues of keeping employees on payroll are usually handled by the people who take the company out of the loss zone, but they have nothing to do with it. An enterprise doesn't die in a second.
And so yes, it's not the Manager's fault - that phrase is an excuse for talentless / insane management usually, I don't know why that is, but it is.
It can be varied for the sake of spice))))
I've told you about waves and patterns many times before. I've received reproaches and a lot of dirt in return. I've had enough of it.
If anyone is interested, I propose to discuss this topic in a private channel. MetaQuotes Ltd has made it possible to do so. Please write in private.
The listeners in the open threads are too exuberant and have managed to crap so much that I don't have to explain it for everyone.
sorry here, but all your explanations boil down to1. It's a completely different, simpler and more perfect markup.
2. You can use a zigzag, but it is less convenient to use.
My wave cutter can be used with one click in a wide range of prices.
And we're here to socialise. You've planted the seed for communication, but it's not sprouting.
So 1: how is your markup different? What's its superiority?
2: I don't understand ZZ at all, but I know that some people make money on it. Just as some people earn on Mashka, I only see it as a drain. But my gut tells me that ZZ is a reflection of waves, but the principle of making ZZ is different from my understanding of making waves, as I understand yours. But I cannot explain my vision, that is why I do not use it, but I look at it half-eye without using it in my TS in any way. But you grish so much about your vision, but never explained it (at least in an open forum). And the topic was created for general discussion, and there's nothing to discuss, so we discuss what we see.
I, for more than 20 years on the Forex market, have experienced a lot - at the start I even bought a "gold" turkey for a lot of money. The purchase turned out to be absolutely useless (in terms of trading - if anyone is interested I will tell - I am not ashamed), but it gave me invaluable knowledge and this knowledge was explained in that letter, to which I got your answer and to which I am now continuing the discussion.
Be careful with such assertions. Tomorrow someone will write that it is axiomatic that Yastremsky is a thief. Smart people did not invent the definition of "presumption of innocence" for nothing.
And lead in the Pacific Ocean is an invention according to you. But the family still rules the world. And I do not care who writes what about me, time will always judge everything if you live up to that point))))
The presumption has not been invented, go through the law school curriculum a little...
And lead in the pacific ocean is a fantasy according to you. But the family still rules the world. And I do not care who writes what about me, time will always judge everything, if you live up to that moment, of course)))
The presumption hasn't been invented, go to law school for a while...
Well, there are a lot of things in the ocean, so what?
If someone can be called a thief "by axiom" why cannot he be imprisoned by this axiom? And at the time of sentencing tell him not to worry - time will judge everything. Why?
And how did the presumption of innocence come about - was it mined in a mine or did angels come down from heaven?
We are talking about rights violations, what does performance have to do with it?
What do you see as a rights violation?
Work was inefficient - they fired everyone - a normal working situation.
The ethical issues of keeping employees on payroll are usually handled by the people who take the company out of the loss zone, but they have nothing to do with it. A company does not go bust in a second.
It depends, and sometimes it does if it is a weak and worthless enterprise.
And there is no ethics in wages at all, it would be ridiculous to say that wages have anything to do with moral and ethical aspects at all, it is purely economics.
And yes, it's not the manager's fault - that's the phrase justifying talentless / insane management usually, I don't know why that is, but it is.
You can spice it up for the sake of spice.))
So I was just saying that in a normal "capitalist" relationship the manager would get his/her ass kicked first for failing to meet targets.
Even at a micro level you can meet this, for example: you're involved in an implementation project, the goal is to deliver functionality by a certain date, the project fails, the PM gets screwed from all sides and deprived of bonuses, and you as a team leader or as a centre of expertise - sit back and don't give a shit - because it's not your personal fault, and your bonuses are fine.