A topic for traders. - page 238
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
Well yes, I meant don't feed the useless members of society.
Giving subsistence-level allowances to marginalised people who don't want to work is useful because it reduces crime to some extent. It is as if society is paying tribute to them, so that they do not go out to steal, rob and kill. We spend money on keeping various animals, such as dogs, cats, birds, and reptiles. They are kind of useless, too. And these, though flawed, but still people).
The granting of subsistence benefits to marginalised people who do not want to work is useful, because it reduces crime to a certain extent. It is as if society is paying tribute to them, so that they do not steal, rob and kill. We spend money on keeping various animals, such as dogs, cats, birds, and reptiles. They are kind of useless, too. And these, though flawed, but still human beings).
This leads to an interesting economic problem - which is more profitable: shooting or feeding 😄
Spontaneous market processes create zoning of different classes, this is in all countries and cities probably.
I think this is very useful as it is an investment in potentially better people.
But unrestricted expansion of welfare is a potentially harmful practice - because the talentless beggars from the lower strata will begin to breed new talentless beggars at a catastrophic rate, worsening the quality of the population as a whole.
Lomonosov was also a pauper... The only way to inherit is for the golden youth who are in positions of power by descent, not by merit, preventing more progressive beggars from taking these positions, thereby hindering development. This form of inheritance leads to revolutions, which are inevitable because the heir does not lose the inheritance but pulls the plug without striving to develop the "inheritance". It is the case when the top does not want to and the bottom cannot. But sooner or later comes the revolutionary moment when the inherited and undeveloped area can no longer exist and is inevitably liquidated with the sudden appearance of an alternative with more modern technology - the result is abandoned businesses and crowds of unclaimed (obsolete) specialists.
Lomonosov was also the son of a beggar... And HE only for the sake of HE is the destiny of golden youth who take the positions of power by blood, not by merit, not allowing more progressive beggars to occupy these positions and this way they hamper development. This form of inheritance leads to revolutions, which are inevitable because the heir does not throw away the inheritance but simply bears the burden without striving to develop the "inheritance". It is a case where the top does not want to and the bottom cannot. But sooner or later comes the revolutionary moment when the inherited and undeveloped area can no longer exist and is inevitably liquidated with the sudden appearance of an alternative with more modern technology - the result is abandoned businesses and crowds of unclaimed (obsolete) specialists.Lomonosov was the son of a well-to-do man by those standards.
Well, if you leave out the royal lineage version...
Lomonosov was the son of a well-to-do man by those standards.
Well, if you leave out the royal lineage version...
Lomonosov was also a poor man... And HE only for the sake of HE is the destiny of golden youth, who take up positions of power by descent, and not by merit, not allowing more progressive beggars to occupy these positions, thus hindering development. This form of inheritance leads to revolutions, which are inevitable because the heir does not throw away the inheritance but simply bears the burden without striving to develop the "inheritance". It is the case when the top does not want to and the bottom cannot. But sooner or later comes the revolutionary moment when the inherited and undeveloped area can no longer exist and is inevitably liquidated with the sudden appearance of an alternative with more modern technology - the result is abandoned businesses and crowds of unclaimed (obsolete) specialists.Very often Lomonosov is cited as a strictly positive example of how a man from the "backwoods people" rose to science and became a brilliant scientist, but as noted above, he was not a pauper, that is one, and his scientific work is not all recognized, Especially in history, he screwed up badly, for example, now no one seriously takes the hypothesis of the origin of the Russ from the Ruxolans, it was purely a topic for state action, as opposed to Normanism, this is two, although in the natural sciences Lomonosov undoubtedly had progressive ideas.
In general, there is an image of Lomonosov that departs from reality, he was not even a breakthrough scientist, but rather an educator and popularizer of science. It is also interesting that the main critic of German domination in Russian science, got German education in Marburg University and married a German. 😁
And the rise of his career started with his eulogies to the Empress and then jumped into the patriotic anti-Normanist trend, including ugly things like Lomonosov twisting his translation of Miller and laying out his criticism with political labels and scolding, so the usual... 😉
Another thing to keep in mind is that the northerners were noticeably richer and freer than the rest of Russia, and if born in another province, you might have ploughed through life in the fields. The environment is important for development.
The granting of subsistence benefits to marginalised people who do not want to work is useful, because it reduces crime to a certain extent. It is as if society is paying tribute to them, so that they do not steal, rob and kill. We spend money on keeping various animals, such as dogs, cats, birds, and reptiles. They are kind of useless, too. And these, though flawed, but still people.)
An analogy: - where badly organized collection and keeping in kennels of stray dogs, they gather in packs, attack people, sometimes gnawing to death. Shooting is cheaper, of course, but this is not an acceptable solution in a civilised society. Not even dogs, let alone people.
An analogy: where there are poorly organised kennels for stray dogs, they gather in packs and attack people, sometimes gnawing them to death. Shooting is cheaper, of course, but this is not an acceptable solution in a civilised society. Not even dogs, let alone people.
There are humane methods of getting rid of the unfit - banishment - practiced since antiquity.
Now of course it is much more difficult to do, either special zones for the displaced will have to be legitimised, or simply deprivation of the right to be in cities, to use the infrastructure, and that will require a system of social ratings, China is kind of actively on that path.
Although this has been criticised as a bad discriminatory practice, I still even find useful aspects in ridding cities of substandard characters, although the practice of social rankings itself is disgusting.
All in all, it's a tricky question of what to do with mismatching people.
So far, the solution is spontaneous in the form of economic discrimination with money, which is only natural; the financial barrier stops unpleasant characters from entering more prosperous areas.
The granting of subsistence benefits to marginalised people who do not want to work is useful, because it reduces crime to a certain extent. It is as if society is paying tribute to them, so that they do not steal, rob and kill. We spend money on keeping various animals, such as dogs, cats, birds, and reptiles. They are kind of useless, too. And these are people, even though they are defective).
Every person is important for the state, even if they are invalids or criminals.
Every person in the country is a consumer. Without the consumer there is no producer.
It is so simple.))
Every person is important to the state, even if they are disabled or criminals.
Every person in the country is a consumer. Without the consumer there is no producer.
It's as simple as that.)
Amazing stupidity.
It is certainly wrong.
Now would equate drug addicts and criminals with lawyers, surgeons, managers, programmers, etc.
Only someone who mentally classifies himself as one of the "worst" strata can say that, given the personality of the author of the post it's even understandable. 😕
Also, increased consumption in itself is not necessarily a good thing.