A man has become a billionaire. What is his purpose in life now? - page 21
![MQL5 - Language of trade strategies built-in the MetaTrader 5 client terminal](https://c.mql5.com/i/registerlandings/logo-2.png)
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
Not a fact, if a bright future comes everyone will be billionaires. ))
After all, ordinary people now have a standard of living which 500 years ago was available only to kings.
Not a fact, if a bright future comes everyone will be billionaires. ))
you can get 5% annual dividends from capital. for a billion, it is 5 million a month.
does Buffett even live on 5 million a month? he has a simple house, a used Honda, and eats at McDonald's.
the average american lives on 5,000 a month.
I don't even know how you can live on 5 million a month. what to spend the money on.
let's say everything is rented and not bought.
what kind of house can you rent for a million a month?
what kind of car can you rent for a million a month / yacht / plane? that's their full VALUE, not rent.
Why do people want more money than they have?
If people around you don't want more money, you won't want it either.
This is just a positive example to save people from servitude to capitalists.
become a capitalist yourself.) Capitalists also used to be ordinary people.
Oh, how bad capitalists are! They exploit the working class!)
If there were no jobs, common people would have starved to death.
If you don't want to - don't work for the capitalist.
If they disappeared altogether - where would the money be taken from the budget for benefits?
But he does not have true freedom. I can ride the tram myself, go to the supermarket, go to a cafe or a cinema, go fishing.
He carries an armoured jacket with him everywhere, sleeps with it, and is likely to be restless and restricted in movement among people, following a well-trodden path. Life is like in a bunker, but with a billion, and with thoughts of how not to lose it, but to increase it.
In the C.I.S. it is like this. In the U.S. billionaires walk like ordinary people.
You can do that without having a billion. I think the goal should be charity. "You have to cleanse yourself of your sins. Wealth is earned through the unfair distribution of profits from the products produced. Naturally, the organizer and owner of the business should have more from business than a simple worker, but within reasonable limits, at times (maximum 5 times), but not in tens, hundreds or thousands of times.
who will set these rates? a bureaucrat?
You want a flat in the centre, a car, travel, a private jet and so on. A billionaire has it all. He's got this, he's got that.
What does he want now? What does he want, what's his goal in life?
become a capitalist yourself.) capitalists also used to be ordinary people.
oh what bad capitalists! exploiting the working class!)
so capitalists give ordinary people jobs, an opportunity to at least earn their living. if there were no jobs, ordinary people would starve to death.
don't want to work for a capitalist.
and if they disappeared, where would the money come from in the budget for these benefits?
Not so, where would the money be taken for everything else that most ordinary citizens don't need to create and maintain a good life for all.
The state, with its revenues and expenditures as a corporate organisation, belongs to the shareholders, i.e. all citizens.
So the capitalists should be subcontractors to do the work ordered, they should not be allowed to run the state corporation so as not to create a conflict of interest where all shareholders would suffer.And who will set these times? An official?
This should be set by law. That is, both minimum and maximum wages and their ratio should be legally defined. And verified by an annual audit.
oh what bad capitalists! exploiting the working class!)
If there were no jobs people would have starved to death.
If you don't want to - don't work for the capitalist.
And if they disappeared altogether - where would the money be taken from the budget for these benefits?
If you think back to ancient times, people managed without money and had fewer needs :) And the state was formed because it was necessary to defend themselves against other tribes. But not everybody could be a warrior. And warriors, to the detriment of their duties, could not take care of necessary goods. Therefore, those who were not warriors were charged a "tax" to support the warriors. There were also the chieftains. A privileged class of warriors and their chieftains appeared. When the "traders" (ordinary citizens who worked well and had some surplus material goods to exchange, the future oligarchs) emerged, another class grew who could have privileges by exchanging their accumulated material goods for these same privileges from the chiefs. With the growth of wealth these traders could no longer work themselves and could hire other members of society for a fee. With the emergence of a system where the chief was elected by the tribe (a kind of democracy) and not appointed by right of the strongest, the future oligarchs were able to get into power. So it turns out that if everyone around was peaceful and did not lay claim to the material goods of others, there would be no need for a state and everyone would work only for themselves. :)
If you think back to ancient times, people managed without money and had fewer needs :) And the state was formed because it was necessary to defend themselves against other tribes. But not everybody could be a warrior. And warriors, to the detriment of their duties, could not take care of necessary goods. Therefore, those who were not warriors were charged a "tax" to support the warriors. There were also the chieftains. A privileged class of warriors and their chieftains appeared. When the "traders" appeared (ordinary citizens who worked well and had some surplus material goods to exchange, future oligarchs) another class grew who could have privileges by exchanging their accumulated material goods for these same privileges from the chiefs. With the growth of wealth these traders could no longer work themselves and could hire other members of society for a fee. With the emergence of a system where the chief was elected by the tribe (a kind of democracy) and not appointed by right of the strongest, the future oligarchs were able to get into power. So it turns out that if everyone around was peaceful and did not lay claim to the material goods of others, there would be no need for a state and everyone would work only for themselves. :)
The need for a state will never disappear, because its functions are much broader and are not limited to defending against an external enemy.
The need for a state will never disappear, as its functions are much broader than defending against an external enemy.
This is understandable. I wrote this in jest, but initially people united precisely because it was easier to survive together. First along kinship lines, then along territorial lines. It's easier to kill a mammoth in a crowd than alone :)
That's understandable. I wrote this in jest, but initially people united precisely because it was easier to survive together. First along kinship lines, then along territorial lines. It's easier to kill a mammoth in a crowd than alone.)
That's right - the theory of violence in the origins of the state. (Gumplowicz, Kautsky). Now it's more just the angle of defence has shifted not from the external enemy, but the internal protection of "peaceful citizens" This can be seen when the state is weakened--the 1990s. Strong and aggressive guys (crooks) are coming out of the woods again and tell a peaceful farmer (a civilian, an entrepreneur) to give him money, not that ..... They make the same agreement as in the olden days - they share (taxes) and are not touched. That's why the state is for the peaceful weak-minded philistines)
That's right -- the theory of violence in the origins of the state. (Gumplowicz, Kautsky). Now it is only the angle of defence that has shifted, not from the external enemy, but the internal protection of "peaceful citizens" This can be seen when the state is weakened -- the 1990s. Strong and aggressive guys (crooks) are coming out of the woods again and tell a peaceful farmer (a common person, an entrepreneur) to give him money, not that ..... They make the same agreement as in old times - they share (taxes) and are not touched. That's why the state is for the peaceful, weak philistines).
Only now, the state protects the ordinary people from evil, aggressive men and taxes them, while before or when the state was weakened, it was taxed by the right of the strong.