The future of the Forex industry - page 51
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
Come on! - No one is taking their wages from them! - They earned it honestly and received it.
You are picking the entrepreneur's pocket again in order to take away his net profit.
I urge you to realize that you do not own the factory, you have not invested in its creation, so the profits are not yours.
No one will give it to you anyway 😉 .
They actually earn their salary, there is no contradiction and there is no robbery.
Again you repeat these made-up Marxist myths, you are an adult, and you repeat the learned mantras from Soviet textbooks, in fact no one is robbing anyone, and super profits come not from savings on wages and other costs, but from the rapid growth of the revenue curve over the cost curve, how can you not understand it?
Read about ABC-analysis, read something so you don't embarrass yourself like that anymore.
Even school kids now know that millionaires become millionaires through effective sales of some highly sought after product/service, not through cost savings in FTE.
It saddens me to see that in 2021 there are still people who mindlessly repeat nonsense.
After all, it's not hard to see that as sales volumes increase, with positive product margins, profits go up?
Finally go back to that example with the factories and carefully analyse the figures, I believe you can do the job.
Plant A:
revenue 100M
costas 50M
including FOT 25M
including SS and others: 25M
net profit 50M
Plant B:
revenue 55M
costes 50M
including FOT: 25M
including SS and others: 25M
net profit 5M
The first entrepreneur's profit is 10 times higher than the second one - because he has figured out a more effective way to sell a more interesting product for the public, and the costs are the same because they have the same everything there according to the conditions of the problem.
Again I remind you that you haven't defined the terms fair and decent pay, and as usual are juggling fuzzy terms.
So what does this example of two factories tell you? I didn't make the suggestion that the average wage should be the same in all factories. Of course the average wage should be higher in the first factory. What I am suggesting is a reasonable ratio of the entrepreneur's salary to the average salary in his company. If the efficiency of an enterprise increases, the entrepreneur's salary and the average salary of his employees must increase. It is all reasonable and fair. Why should the improvement in the performance of the enterprise be felt only by the owner in his pocket? The employees have also contributed and should also get their share.
Then every worker would also be motivated to work better, because he knows that his good work will earn the company more and he will get a higher wage.
From the end. Never did economics precede law in pre-state times.
Again a dogmatic unsubstantiated assertion, how many times can you say that? Anything to back it up? Where's the proof, Billy?
I have already shown you what to read, which authors, and the history of Russia including a clear confirmation that the legal tradition precedes the law.
And now would deny the natural exchange of primitive peoples!
Aren't you ashamed yet? - To expose yourself in such a way?
The thesis that first the innovations which are not regulated by law appear and only then the state pays attention to them does not stand up to criticism. Besides these are only the situations of the last years.
No, this has happened and is happening all the time, the history of the USA is an example, first they invent fractional separation and trade not only paraffin, but also gasoline, integrate production, and then the government notices that a whole industry has grown here.
Paleoeconomics looks at cases from an economic point of view, with law often overlooked. But that does not mean that economics is primary to rights. In addition, the works you 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.
So what documents of primitive law are you prepared to present, hmm?
Congratulations, you've sat in the puddle again.... 🤣
You constantly twist common terminology and then wonder why you have a fiasco...
To understand a function, you have to send it to infinity) So what is the point of your assertion that the marginally useful 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.)
Those of little use should dramatically begin to evolve on their own,
you can help them in the basics, so they don't starve, you can even make some discounts, preferential rates...
But dragging them by the hand and paying them for a "decent life" is categorically not!
If they have nothing worthy to offer to society, there is no reason to pay them decently, is it not logical?
Let them suffer!
This is a slightly different case, just as it is in the case of Tom Cruise and his wardrobe maker. This is not an enterprise and they are not jointly producing any product. I'm only looking at enterprises where the owner of the enterprise employs the wage labour of multiple workers and gains excessive profits through the unfair distribution of surplus value.
Here's even on the term palaver!
Surplus value is from Marx.
Nowadays normal economists don't say that, they say added value.
Now we know for a fact that Mr Khorosh is a socialist/communist.
Well you can see that socialists/communists constantly want to put their hand into other people's richer pockets, hiding behind ideas of equality and fairness.
So what does this example with the two factories tell you? I did not make the suggestion that the average wage should be the same in all factories. Of course the average wage should be higher in the first factory. What I am suggesting is a reasonable ratio of the entrepreneur's salary to the average salary in his company. If the efficiency of an enterprise increases, the entrepreneur's salary and the average salary of his employees must increase. Everything is reasonable and fair. Then each employee is motivated to do better, knowing that his good work will bring the company more money, and he will receive a higher salary.
Why would the first factory pay more?
Just recall from the original post: the number of employees is the same and their qualifications are exactly the same, they work the same working week and the conditions are the same, the workers in both plants do exactly the same job.
So why should plant A workers be paid more? - Wouldn't that be unfair to the workers at factory B? - They are working just as hard, aren't they?
The higher profits of factory A are due to a better strategy of entrepreneur A, a better designed product, and better sales.
And the socialist (Khorosh) just wants to take and loot the more successful entrepreneur!
He hasn't invested in Plant A, but he wants to go in and get rich...
This clearly shows the whole essence and abnormality of socialist logic.
In fact, employees of a more successful plant can receive additional incentives - but only with the consent of the plant owner!
They can also buy shares in their factory and receive dividends on legal terms.
Here's even on the term palaver!
Value added is from Marx.
Nowadays, normal economists don't say that, they say added value.
Now we know for a fact that Mr Khorosh is a socialist/communist.
Well you can see that socialists/communists constantly want to put their hand into other people's richer pockets, under the guise of ideas of equality and justice.
I am not and never have been a member of any party. Tenfold is a far cry from equality. At least remember your high school algebra course, or you're making a complete fool of yourself. And as for the terms, it is a minor matter, economists can make up a lot of things. What matters is the meaning, not the terms. People cling to terms when they cannot find a convincing argument.
I am not and have never been a member of any party. Ten times is a far cry from equality. Remember at least your high school algebra course, or you're making a complete fool of yourself. And as for the terms, it is a minor matter, economists can make up a lot of things. What matters is the meaning, not the terms. People cling to terms when they can't find a convincing argument.
I see, you're a non-partisan socialist, you juggle inaccurate terms (sometimes even confusing income and profit), you can't define the criteria for fair exchange, but only want someone richer to pay for your life without giving a decent adequate contribution to the business of the Factory in return.
That's the whole point of socialists: they always want everything for free, hiding behind ideas of supposedly fairness.
But in fact you yourself understand that life puts everything in its place, and if your income is low, in fact you yourself are to blame for it, and it does not depend on what flags are fashionable to wave these days.
I am not and have never been a member of any party. Ten times is a far cry from equality. Remember at least your high school algebra course, or you're making a complete fool of yourself. And as for the terms, it is a minor matter, economists can make up a lot of things. What matters is the meaning, not the terms. People cling to terms when they cannot find a convincing argument.
Just in case I will repeat this point again:
You alone are responsible for your own well-being, no one has to feed you for free.
Why would the first factory pay more?
Recall from the original post: the number of employees is the same and their qualifications are exactly the same and they work the same working week and have the same conditions, the workers in both plants do exactly the same work.
So why should plant A workers be paid more? - Wouldn't that be unfair to the workers at factory B? - They are working just as hard, aren't they?
The higher profits of factory A are due to a better strategy of entrepreneur A, a better designed product, and better sales.
And the socialist (Khorosh) just wants to take and loot the more successful entrepreneur!
He hasn't invested in Plant A, but he wants to go in and get rich...
Thus the whole essence and abnormality of socialist logic is clearly shown.
Actually this is a far-fetched example. In real life, with such a big difference in efficiency the second factory would instantly go bankrupt if the entrepreneur could not rearrange production to produce other products.
Well, with the proposed wage system, bankruptcy will happen even faster, because the low wages will cause an outflow of labor to those enterprises where the wages are more acceptable.
I wrote that the entrepreneur has a good share of the plant and receives dividends from it because he invested in it. I don't understand, do you read my post all at once? It's about the ratio of salaries. If the average employee's salary is 10 times less than the salary of an entrepreneur, does that mean that the employees are living? And if the entrepreneur gets 1000 times the average employee's salary, he is not living. Here is a prime example of capitalist Drimmer's preconceived notions.)))