The future of the Forex industry - page 49
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, properties, attributes, all that... but in economics it's common to say "market functions", "money functions" etc.
"without real responsibility for the result." --- the main factor of decay
Do wolf laws mean - by lawlessness? - Or what?
Killing the worst is certainly overkill, and Kant's categorical imperative does not allow that, but then Sparta must have decided that a radically utilitarian approach is better for them.
Again, there are many terms. There are not many good and useful terms.
Yes, accountability is still lacking.
Wolf laws imply ruthlessness under the law. And people are vicious, viciousness breeds lawlessness.
The example of Sparta shows the flaw of this approach at the level of statehood. They did not last long).
In the beginning, subordination is based on the principle of who is the strongest, and then intelligence becomes more and more important.
Intellect is not an innate quality, you are born as a computer without an operating system, and gradually software is downloaded to you, or rather it is written there in the process, and if there is no suitable environment, there will be no intellect either.
Rationality is innate, intelligence, speech and skills are acquired. We do not agree on rationality with you).
It does not matter what colour they are) Thomas was wrong. He did not know about genotype.)
Yes. Nature is rational. Organisms, like humans, optimize their consumption and expenditure. This must be news to you.) It has nothing to do with intelligence) Question. Does memory have anything to do with intelligence, and is it an innate or acquired quality/ability.
You are too far away, come back at least once in a while. Everything of course can be measured... apparently)
I hope you didn't use rationality in a broad sense. that's how tautology gets, there's intelligence, there's reason. I prefer by rationality to understand a behavior similar to rationality in the sense of optimization of actions for the best result. It is more correct and understandable that way.
Otherwise for animals, cage, quark we will have to invent another term. There is optimization there too, and often not achievable by man. It does not mean that animals are smarter than humans.
The main thing is that it will be different from its native community. Just as a wolf raised by sheep will be different from wolves. And if Mowgli from tribe will get to Rothschild and will be accepted and brought up by them, he will be different from his tribesmen. Your example is not correct).
What a way to run out. You must build a chain of logic. I have logic, a man often cannot repeat what animals do exactly in terms of optimizing their actions, they lack intelligence and innate skills. I.e. animal actions are often more rational/optimised than humans. A penguin has less strength than a human, but repeat after him.... And they don't go extinct ) Rationality is a kind of reason, it is a term. The point is in optimality of decisions and actions.
But you should always start with propaedeutics, and for philosophy it is logic and the history of philosophy. By the way, it would be good to introduce on a forum compulsory training in bases of logic)
Who on philosophy of Kant will not be able to answer - that to bid do not allow - to freeze means - and send to the Factory!
However, you have done to Marx what he did to Hegel - turned it upside down) The material relations which form the basis have become only a pale reflection of its eidos - the Factory. It is high time to go back to the roots - to Plato! Aristotle is our friend, but the truth of Plato is dearer! At the same time, as Engels taught in his Anti-Dühring, there is no return to the original position in the repeated negation: "the negation of X is -X, and the negation of -X is already X^2". Indeed, your Plant is not at all Hegelian Absolute Spirit, rather it is even Absolute Soullessness (or Absolute Body). I wonder if we can assume that the Plant is trying to know itself, just as Absolute Spirit was assumed by Hegel to aspire to self-knowledge...
Inversion, yes.
By analogy it turns out that if the Plant is the realm of material forms, then there must be a realm of spirit and it is also the realm of the Grail.
Of course the figure of 10 is subjective, it is my opinion. A more objective figure would be determined by a council of expert economists when creating a new law on the subject. With this figure I have simply estimated the entrepreneur's contribution to the production of the product in the enterprise. I believe that on top of this he should also receive a dividend, as the biggest shareholder in the company. But there must also be a ceiling of some sort - let's say five times the country's official inflation rate for the money he invested when setting up the company.
It's not about the figure, why do you even think it's possible to limit other people's profits in principle?
Why should there be some kind of ceiling?
It's no different than requiring people to wear the same colour trousers
(so that the shade of fabric doesn't deviate more than a certain percentage from the average).
Realise that you are encroaching on freedom.
Of course the figure of 10 is subjective, it is my opinion. A more objective figure would be determined by a council of expert economists when creating a new law on the subject. With this figure I have simply estimated the entrepreneur's contribution to the production of the product in the enterprise. I believe that on top of this he should also receive dividends as the biggest shareholder in the company. But there must also be a limit, let us say five times the country's official inflation rate for the money he invested in setting up the company.
To be on the safe side, it should also go like this:
if I happen to make more than ten times your income, that doesn't mean your rights are violated,
You just need to work more efficiently.
It's not about the figure, why do you even think it's possible to limit other people's profits in principle?
Why should there be a ceiling?
It's no different from demanding that people wear the same colour trousers
(so that the shade of fabric doesn't deviate more than a certain percentage from the average).
Realize that you are encroaching on freedom.
Don't make up some ridiculous argument, and trousers are not the same colour and not a certain percentage, but 1000%. Think about it, 1000%! Yes + dividends on shares + the ability to still raise income by creating other new businesses. So there is effectively no ceiling.
I agree, I am encroaching on the entrepreneur's freedom to rob his employees and take their honestly earned money from them. The current wage level does not match what the workers actually earn - it is tantamount to robbing them. This is what allows the entrepreneur to make super profits. A limit of 10 average salaries for his workers would create an opportunity to make the average salary decent and fair.
You just need to work more efficiently.
You rub it in to teachers and medical staff and don't be surprised later that the doctor suddenly expects to get a few notes before he sends you for an operation.
That's why I wrote - a quasi-socialist 😆 is a socialist who tells everyone he's not a socialist but supports socialist ideas.
The test is interesting. What is quasi clear, it is not clear for what! like I didn't call, didn't participate, didn't join! For what! We have a difference of opinion about something else.)
There you go. I.e. separating the entrepreneur from the capitalist is not the point. And thoughts / dreams that entrepreneurs may become the elite of society and an elitist democracy will come into being - that's new. He certainly did this (calling entrepreneurs the elite of society and calling democracy elitist) first, but it is certainly not the main thing. I do not know how you read it) just a couple of books, but I got to the end. I regret that I did not have enough time/effort for the history of analysis and development theory.
And yes. In Isms, elitism is a secondary idea, although he was the first to put it forward) The main thing in my opinion is that he defined the notion of innovation, the entrepreneur and separated him from the capitalist. This explained a lot of things, including the scrapping of outdated businesses and development and crises, for fuck's sake).
I have no aim to put you in a puddle)
From the end. Never did economics precede law in pre-state times. And the thesis that unregulated innovations emerge first and only then does the state pay attention to them does not stand up to criticism. besides, these are the situations of recent years only.
Paleoeconomics deals with cases from an economic point of view, often without considering the law. But that does not mean that economics is primary to rights. In addition, the works you have cited and their supplements are not the benchmark today. And the fact that scientists made a conclusion that when the man started to cook his own food and called it a revolution, there are many theories of transition from hunters to farmers. Especially in recent times. And some of it doesn't make no sense. But it's not economics.
Schumpeter didn't look at tribal periods. He has a later period in his analysis.
And the waxworks... You know, I couldn't resist, deja vu. A long time ago a fighter/Afghan with legal education told me that jurisprudence is the queen and foundation of all sciences.) It was useless to argue).
To understand a function, you must send it to infinity) So what is the point of your statement that the little helpers should not be helped? Where does this lead to in the end of course? The motivational part of the thesis is understood. But I would like to know all the consequences)
I agree, I am encroaching on the entrepreneur's freedom to rob his workers and take away their honestly earned money. The current wage level does not match what the workers actually earn - it is tantamount to robbing them. This is what allows the entrepreneur to make super profits. A limit of 10 average salaries for his workers would create an opportunity to make the average salary decent and fair.
Do you think that Professor Preobrazhensky's salary should not be more than an order of magnitude higher than that of his housekeeper? Otherwise it amounts to robbery and is unfair?