Interesting and Humour - page 3862
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 if on the merits of the article, at least once without the anti-Soviet banter? Or does anti-Sovietism deprive you of any consideration at all?
In essence - I have already said in essence.
There are very bad forecasters in the USSR/Russia, even among scientists, as life shows. Why? Because they do not determine the future, but are always trying to "catch up and overtake".
In general, I do not understand what is the point of reading, watching and listening to them? All the same, both in the world and in Russia, everything will be quite different from what they have waxed and waned about.
"The current generation of Soviet people will live under communism" (c) - and other tales from the post-Soviet space.
Record efficiency of silicon solar panels broken
New solar panels collect maximum energy from the solar spectrumFor 3 days in Denmark solar + wind provided about 100 % of electricity consumption.
Green world. Chinese record
Smart petrol station. Wind-solar
California breaks records
And lastly, a modern day "prognosticator":
This does not invalidate the concept that some people have a lot and others have not enough. If you distribute it all, it will be reasonable sufficiency, or something a little like that (I am not talking about taking everything and dividing it)). When everybody has a surplus, that's a mess. But in fact it is not so. Some have a surplus, and others have huge disadvantages. And those few who, deciding whom to bring a little closer (not even half as much) to affluence and whom much further away, redistribute thereby the balance of sufficiency between the minority and the majority.
While instilling in the rest the false notion that scarcity is normal. And when those in surplus begin to behave in a very brazen way, a revolution takes place.
And if we are talking about what and for whom it is enough, moreover, mixing psychology, then everything is blurred here.
That to one it is enough to live in a hut, in it he has a rush, and the other has exactly the same rush from realization of a desire to fly on the moon. For one it is enough for one, for another it is enough for many times more. Why one wants one thing and the other wants another is another question.
This is called the 20/80 law. It works and is enforced regardless of the wishes of the rich (20%) or the poor (80%).
A supplement needs to be made:
20% of the rich have 80% of the money and 80% of the poor have 20% of the money. But to be more precise, there are figures of 10/90
came across a Lithuanian film, Zero 3)))Reminds me of us in the 90s and sometimes even now.
A supplement needs to be made:
20% of the rich have 80% of the money and 80% of the poor have 20% of the money. But to be more precise, the numbers are 10/90
This is called the 20/80 law. It works and is enforced regardless of the wishes of the rich (20%) or the poor (80%). It is an ominous law of capitalist society, but unfortunately nothing better has been invented and is unlikely to be invented.
It was invented, but no matter how it turns out, those at the top are the ones who turn out, and they do not tolerate any other concept. Humanity is still green in this respect, everything comes with experience.
That the 20 always stand out from the 80 or so, that has always been the case. The question is what common goals these 20 and 80 have. The bigger the gap, the sadder. The question is when both will work together to close the gap. So far, some don't think about this gap at all, and others don't need to think about it.
This is called the 20/80 law. It works and is enforced regardless of the wishes of the rich (20%) or the poor (80%). It is a sinister law of capitalist society, but unfortunately nothing better has been invented and is unlikely to be invented.
If the measure of man is wealth/poverty, then you are right.
And read the history of mankind, from all times. Is there a rich/poor one there? Well, Socrates, lived in a barrel. We wonder if he was rich/poor? Or Napoleon? If we take historical figures, we are not at all interested in their property status. The whole history of mankind is a history of science, culture, just interesting thought.
How could it be?
And here it's all doughboys, doughboys,... maybe people are all wretched? With a stomach instead of a brain? And there's nothing else in their stomachs?
And people who consider dough to be secondary, or maybe even harmful, are the majority on our planet. For example, Christians believe that at conception, God gives a soul to a fetus. And afterwards man has only one duty: to turn the diamond (soul) into a diamond and give that diamond back to God. This is the way all believing people are set up. Just the terminology is different. But all are one: despise wealth.
PS.
By the way, Christians have only obligations - they are not interested in rights. Moreover, rights result from the most terrible of mortal sins - arrogance.
The states have a lot of stupid laws and if they were applied to all inhabitants of the earth, it would be madness.
You should link to the original law or there are few anecdotes in the law.
PS.
By the way, Christians have only obligations - they are not interested in rights. Moreover, rights stem from the worst of the deadly sins - pride.
Considering that Christianity emerged as a "religion of slaves" it is not surprising ))))))))
Affluence is when the income is faster than the wife :)
Is there such a thing?