The future of the Forex industry - page 15
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
I've told you everything. You can go deeper if you are capable enough. It's in a harsh way, but without being nerdy.
So just get off the subject and stop making excuses... I don't care...
after all your hurtful shouting and rather tawdry attempts at harassment anyway... and who! - Drimmer himself! 😄😃😆
This is categorically untrue - and it is easy to see if you separate the employees from the enterprise. Can they then continue to produce on their own and without the conditions given to them by the owner of the enterprise? - Certainly not - and so, it is clear that the employees do not make the products, but the enterprise as a whole and the staff is mostly just the service staff, or you can go and see the way it is run in a real factory...
It was not ordinary employees who bought equipment with their own money, ordinary employees did not calculate the production chain / conversion, not ordinary employees made costing and efficiency evaluation, they just worked there for payroll ...
But most importantly, the owner has thought through the business idea and brought it to life, the owner has found financing and picked up location, the owner has found lawyers and marketing experts, that's what unfortunately some people can not understand and think it does not cost anything...
That's what he should get for personal consumption ten times more than the average wage in the company, but not a thousand times. If he gets 1000 times as much for personal consumption, he is only able to do that because he has saved on his employees' wages.
If it is a question, the host should put a question mark at the end of the sentence. Or did the drunken docent forget to put a question mark at the end of the sentence?
Here too, why are you picking on a trivial matter? everyone can already see that you are resentful of all intellectuals, better not make it worse... 😉
Such a sharply orthodox market appeal... Well, 90 percent of wealth already belongs to the 1 percent of the population. Ma has even voiced fears about this, that soon there won't be a piece of land where this one percent will be safe...
In general the Schumpeterian doctrine is closer to me, and the anarchist book Debt is 5000 years of history. Schumpeter gives a pretty good idea of entrepreneurial activity and what follows from it.
By the way, everyone here is arguing in principle for the same thing, that with their views the development of society will be better.
But it is obvious, if the institution of inheritance is cancelled, then equal conditions for starting development of children will lead to faster development of society...))
And let's not forget what is the difference between Roman and Byzantine law, and in general in addition to economics there is also law))))
... Or you could go to a real production facility to see how it works...
The main question is why should he pay them a lot for their trivial manual labor? What have they created that would allow them to receive compensation along with the owner and partners of the business?
I started my career at a computer factory. I was a radio engineer by training. I worked as a computer tuner, punchcard input device, onboard computer. Then I worked in design bureau, developed device for automatic control of assembly by means of computer. Then I also worked at the computer centre of the same plant as a supervisor of ES-1022 machine. Everywhere the salary was abjectly low, despite the fact that I was a highly-trained specialist and not, as you put it, a worker of trivial manual labor. Back then, the state underpaid, now the state and the owners of private companies do the same. Often, machinists earned more than qualified engineers. Nowadays engineers seem to be more appreciated, it is a pity that my working life ended much earlier.
Don't forget, not alongside, but 10 times less. And the wages are not those of muscle workers, but the average wage of a company's employees. You keep exaggerating and taking the meaning of my ideas to the point of absurdity.
Yes, and a slave, by the way, also became a free choice, either death or slave))))
SZZ You're only to blame if I'm hungry ))))
This is a very good and fertile topic for reflection, I adhere to the idea that the laws of development are invariant in relation to territory, the market is invariant too, even if it takes distorted forms, but it is a market (remember that there was a black market for example) and social stratification is somehow present regardless of what flags are covered on the territory, the elite is in any society, no matter what it is called, historical socialism is rather an extreme and utterly anti-social form of capitalism with the most pronounced gap (between the elite and the elite).
I would even suggest that the main struggles are between the ruling groups, who obey the same exact logic of striving for domination as millennia ago, it does not matter that the level of technology has changed, but the psychology of people +/- the same.
But I wouldn't set up an opposition between financial capital and industrial capital - I don't see a particularly good reason for that...
One of the outward signs of their opposition is considered to be a much greater desire for globalisation by financiers compared to industrialists. For example, Trump is seen as a supporter of industrial capital and under him many globalist initiatives have been subverted. They are now beginning to 'thaw')
I consider them "opposing" each other about as the upper jaw opposes the lower jaw, or even, rather, as the right leg opposes the left leg). Nevertheless, the topic is quite popular in Russia, especially in the light of recent events. I don't know about the rest of the world.
The answer was here.
I am not against entrepreneurs per se and am aware of their usefulness. I am not against private enterprise as the main difference between capitalism and socialism. I just don't agree on how the profits from the sale of the product produced by the enterprise are divided. When the lion's share of profits is appropriated by the upper class, headed by the owner.
Well, okay, let's assume that these are evil owners who withhold wages from workers, running dubious schemes in the 90's, forcing them to sign unfavorable terms, reselling equipment under corrupt schemes to the detriment of the business - that's really unfair and it is an evil for society ...
But that is not what we are discussing - we are discussing a normal honest entrepreneur who pays an honest average market wage to his employees - so what is the problem?
Apparently the only problem is that this entrepreneur is more successful than others in the industry and earns more - so what?
Why should you not appropriate your honestly earned profits?
Let us look at the following example:
Plant A:
revenue 100M
costas 50M
including payroll 25M
including SS and other: 25M
net profit 50M
Plant B:
revenue 55M
costas 50M
including FOT: 25M
including SS and others: 25M
net profit 5M
that means that plant A is much more efficient than plant B, but the number of employees is equal and their qualifications are exactly the same, they work the same working week and have the same working conditions
it is just that the product of plant A is more in demand than that of B
Attention to the question - should the owner of Plant A increase wages to his workers and why? The workers of both plants do exactly the same job - so why should the workers of Plant A be paid more? - Isn't this unfair to the workers at Factory B? - They work the same way, don't they?
Hint: undistributed profits are not the basis for transferring them to the payroll, it is at the discretion of the managers/shareholders!
And the payroll is not a dividend... but the workers themselves can also become shareholders in their plant, as an option...
Generally it seems logical and decent to slightly increase the salary for workers at plant A to retain them and bonus them as such an easy success fee, but there is absolutely no reason to distribute all 50M of net profit to them - and why should they? - how do they deserve it? - why exactly? - what is the reason for paying them more? - because the business owner is more successful and has earned more?
I hope the example leads to good thoughts... in western practice the transition to such socially-oriented capitalism has long been planned, so that no one is offended, and the key concept now is maximizing value in the broadest sense, but the Friedman model still seems primary, because without a profit all this talk is empty, and the profit for the company is primary, otherwise the whole point is lost...
So, socially responsible investing (SRI), green investments, negative screening are all just a superstructure over the economic basis...
In the long term, investing in your employees is useful - if they carry intellectual capital (in the case of an ordinary factory usually not) - and this is also in line with the company's goals, but these are already more global issues, beyond the conventional example...
While many big-name capitalists, including the chairman of JPMorgan and Davos regulars, proclaim the new capitalism, I think they are being disingenuous - it all only works for their own benefit - what they really want is social efficiency for their personal world, just as a medieval feudal lord wants peace and prosperity in his country...
For a long time no one has sucked the blood of workers as some here write who are a bit stuck in the last century (or maybe they really write from the last century???) it is no longer fashionable and it hurts the reputation of business, no one will do so...
I believe that the personal income that the owner must have should not exceed more than 10 times the average salary of the company's employees. I think that 10 times is enough.
Why? What's the reason for that?
Isn't it enough for the owner to live 10 times better than his employees?
But this is very perverse defective logic, and then you could say to someone: here you have two kidneys, you can live with one, can't you? - That would be enough!
Or even better: a homeless man at the train station comes and says: "Look, you are in such an expensive suit, you have income 100 times greater than mine, give me half of what you have?
How do you like that?
Of course I am not talking about money that the entrepreneur spends on production or infrastructure. I am only referring to the money he spends on personal consumption.
And why do you think you have the right to limit someone else's personal consumption/expenditures?
For what reason do you decide that you can declare such things?
You could be a millionaire and not have to work in a factory, but you would feel as if you were in the deepest collapsed coal mine next to an open-hearth furnace.
Have you tried any of that yourself?
That is why he should be paid ten times the average wage in the company for personal consumption, but not a thousand times it. If he gets 1,000 times as much for personal consumption, he is only able to do so because he has saved money on the salaries of his employees.
And who decides that he can save 10 times, but not 1000 times?
Why do you think that if a person is very rich, he has necessarily stolen?