The future of the Forex industry - page 33
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
Defining the market through its function of aggregation, regulating anything, is a description of the market states of society. And it is also a complication of terminology and logic. In other words, if something in society does not correspond to this definition, one of the properties is absent, or vice versa, it is no longer a market? It's surprising, finally, that something that was obvious was written down in the definition for students.
In economics, definitions are often made with functions, and if something satisfies these functions, it is money. - formally, it fulfils almost all the functions of usual money, but with certain limitations in practice (for now).
The market is of course buying selling, but not everywhere there is buying selling there is a market. Also, one of the reasons the USSR lagged behind was that the market conditions for society were not respected. Social competition could not replace market motivation, and the lack of real market responsibility further aggravated the situation of society in the USSR. China, on the contrary, has accelerated its development (of course, not without external help) by adding prison sentences and deprivation of life to market responsibility, in the form of bankruptcy.)
The Soviet Union had its own market too, but it was unhealthy and two-tiered, where prices differed markedly, and in fact the market is everywhere, and even the most backward savages have their primitive market, and even extreme cases of monopoly/monopsony are also called a market.
Well the term Wolf Market is sort of irrelevant to our conversation at all))) Under uncertainty, deals always get shorter. It's not a wolf market, it's a crow market, grab it and be glad to be alive) Not a good term.
Why were you talking about wolves in the first place? - To make an unflattering association for the market mechanism? - Humans, by the way, are far more evil creatures than wolves.
Every word carries a meaning. Why don't you want to answer in substance, Market relations are based on animal instincts,
That would be a new word in economics 😀
By reasoning this way you will inevitably come to the conclusion that everything is based on animalinstincts in general.
But analogies with the animal world and the market have certainly been made, for example: https://bcs-express.ru/novosti-i-analitika/zoopark-finansista-o-lemmingakh-strausakh-i-mnogikh-drugikh-zhivotnykh
And yes rational behaviour and optimality is a consequence of animal instincts, not a property acquired after the birth of an individual. Don't stray from the subject)
You frankly disappoint me...
Now would think that rationality/intelligence/higher mental activity is genotypic rather than phenotypic!
(sure some animals are capable of counting and puzzles but that's all just incomparably low)
To put you on the spot, I will refer you to pheral children, aka Mowgli, who have never had human contact and have not developed into fully human beings, they don't even speak or walk on 4 limbs.
Only being in an appropriate cultural environment creates rationality.
Make an urgent trip to the library and then to the factory. 😉
Market mechanisms are derivatives of market states. Some states of society that have market differences from other states of society.
Cosmic mechanismsare derived from cosmic states. Some states of the cosmos in which there are cosmic differences from other states of the cosmos. 😁
And so the wolf pack has market properties. Not all of them, just the initial ones.
But you do read the definition of market 😉 and maybe wolves also have money? 🙄🤩😆
It's about conquering the product and preserving it, and doing so with cost optimality and rational behaviour)
Ants also conquer aphids for example... Do ants have a market too then? 🤣😃😂
The market is not a property - it's a state of society. I agree, any society, not necessarily people. Market algorithms can be prescribed in models too, but for some reason such models can't recreate the human community yet.
You are shown an intravenous macroeconomics course, very urgently! 😂
You put me down as a socialist and a quasi)))) Didn't expect it)
According to Richard Patterson's function and obviousness test 😀
Of course Schumpeter is an ardent market economist and I like his ideas. You take private things out of his writings, about elitist democracy and the division of society it was an assumption in later writings as a reflection on the future that he didn't finish writing. Therefore this supposition should not be taken seriously.
But he had it, it's a fact, and you are trying to dissect old man Schumpeter and take from him what you like, throwing out what you don't like, which means you turn out to be a cherrypicker too! 🤣
We are having an argument about what is primary, laws, or economic models. You argue vehemently that economic models are primary without providing evidence. I, that the legal structure of society is primary, and further under strictly defined legal conditions some economic models may not fall apart) And Schumpeter proved it.
It should be obvious that the economy was with the primitive savages when there were no laws yet, well, as if legal positivism has long been irrelevant in view of the recognition of ius naturale anyway.
I don't even need to assert it, as it is an acknowledged fact, but you on the contrary need to prove it as soon as you are against it.
It is also a new question, whether the common people are responsible for their ability to earn, or it is a question of the state and not of them. My point of view. Ordinary people do not have responsibility for their livelihood. He is always a hostage of circumstances. Formulate your point of view)
I don't really want to offend anyone, I just want to make two points in my usual ironic way:
I was not equating crisis with evolution, I was saying that evolutionary movement is most often uneven and in crisis.
Well, the EVOLUTIONAL movement was not mentioned as such. That is another topic of conversation and has nothing to do with crises and revolutions. There has always been and will always be an evolutionary movement. And crisis-revolutionary tendencies often slow it down rather than speed it up.
I can see that you are intelligent and know a lot, unlike me, a clumsy old man). I want an answer to a question I cannot answer myself. I am under the impression of the latest terrorist attack in Kazan. I am not a specialist in safety and security, but I kind of understand that this terrorist attack could have been prevented and I think that many people realise that.
After a similar terrorist attack in Kerch, the following measures should have been implemented in all schools for security:
The question is why these activities have not been carried out? Or maybe some of them have, but in this case they have not.
I cannot understand, is it really because of money savings? But children are the most expensive thing we have. Why spend them on something else if we cannot protect our children? Maybe there are some other reasons, I rack my brain and find no answer. It is hard to see how our children are dying because of us adults who failed to protect them.( That is why I am asking you and all forum members for help.
You are suggesting that educational institutions should be turned into secure facilities in order to slightly increase the slim chance of preventing such situations.
Unrealistic and pointless.
I can see that you are intelligent and know a lot, unlike me, a clumsy old man). I want an answer to a question I cannot answer myself. I am under the impression of the latest terrorist attack in Kazan. I am not a specialist in safety and security, but I kind of understand that this terrorist attack could have been prevented and I think that many people realise that.
After a similar terrorist attack in Kerch, the following measures should have been implemented in all schools for security:
The question is why these activities have not been carried out? Or maybe some of them have, but in this case they have not.
I cannot understand, is it really because of money saving? But children are the most expensive thing we have. Why spend them on something else if we cannot protect our children? Maybe there are some other reasons, I rack my brain and find no answer. It is difficult to see how our children are dying because of the fault of the adults who failed to protect them( That is why I am asking you and all the other forum users for help.
I can only assume that these questions should be addressed to the organisation that is in charge of licensing security guards and checking that they comply with the proper rules. If those rules are bad, then we need to approach the relevant legislature with suggestions for amendments to those rules.
You are suggesting that educational institutions should be turned into secure facilities in order to slightly increase the slim chance of preventing such situations.
Unrealistic and pointless.
People are willing to lay down their lives for the sake of their children's lives and you are so indifferent. What if your children were there?
Labels are the easiest thing to pin down.
Tell me what you have done in this direction and what success you have had, apart from posting here, since you accuse me of indifference