The future of the Forex industry - page 56
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
Why should wages suddenly rise as production efficiency increases? Let's say there was a longshoreman who used to carry
and carrying boxes and sacks with his hands and on his back, and suddenly he was given a trolley. His work became easier, so his
his wages go down. Such is life. And it has been observed for a long time, since the days of developed socialism.
True!
Distribution of sale proceeds is never done anywhere, open any financial statement, the net profit after all taxes and interest on loans is distributed, and distributed as a dividend, proportionate to the proportion of shares held.
OK, you've summed it up, I've answered. We should wrap it up. There's no point in going around in circles. I'll only answer on the distribution, where you're making a fool of me. Of course I was not referring to the allocation between owner and staff salary costs, but to the allocation between all cost items. You haven't yet mentioned depreciation costs of capital assets, costs of raw materials and supplies, costs of production development, infrastructure and landscaping, and probably some other costs that economists know.
I wish you success in exploiting your employees and pounding the pennies out of them).
Why should wages suddenly rise as production efficiency increases? Let's say there was a longshoreman who used to carry
and carrying boxes and sacks with his hands and on his back, and suddenly he was given a trolley. His work became easier, so his
his wages go down. Such is life. And it's been observed for a long time, since the days of developed socialism.
per unit of goods is going down, and in the long term there has to be an increase, otherwise the factory can't provide the work and has to change it
I have had to practice rhetoric intensively due to the nature of my work, and the general conclusion is this: All life is a constant conflict; for presentation purposes, it is important to devalue one thesis to show that something else is better, and when this happens in the form of live communication, it is necessary to knock the opponent off balance, to make unflattering comparisons, to intercept the initiative, to influence the opponent's pain points, Sometimes it is necessary to underline the inconsistency/primitiveness of opponents' positions, to create dissonance by putting them into an unusual context, sometimes it is necessary to attack emotions instead of reason, to discredit the opponent's final goal and values, to calculate his line of argumentation in advance, sometimes to overload the brain so that the person boils over, etc., etc.
Just in case I want to say that I love everyone here, I have no reason to clash with anyone here, it's just rhetoric for fun.
Yes, the footstep and undercutting are also done in this way, to achieve victory) Good level.) The only logical line is not always flawless, but it is apparently a flaw in the approach itself, when there is a change of tones, it is difficult to maintain logic)
I am not taking cult customs, I do not understand what you are thinking about them, they started to have something to do with law much later (although shamans were protected at the level of law). I mean interpersonal customs. And this is a matter of organising life in a tribe. Everything begins with the subordination of one individual to another. Law is originally designed on the one hand on the subordination, and on the other hand on the preservation of that subordination. And in essence and in terms of instruments, these are opposing tasks. Primitive money is of course a myth, the 9-11th centuries in Europe and Asia are not primitive times. Law started 10 thousand years B.C. This is the city of Nevala-Chori, I do not remember, I think there was a city.
The fact that the word money is derived from the word cattle has an explanation, a bride was paid in cattle (and is still paid in the extant tribes). There was no commodity-money exchange in the tribe. It is a big mistake and a myth voiced by Adam Smith that money took the place of commodity relations.
It is an opinion, unsupported by any fact. Shells, stones found don't prove anything. It has always been an assumption. But today's studies of tribes in the forests of Brazil, which have remained clear of the outside world, prove that in the tribe everyone is fed and punished for misdeeds. And this is done on the basis of interpersonal customs, or laws.
I've always disliked this theory, by the way, since high school. Too many assumptions.
Your mistake is that you do not start from the beginning of the question of what is primary, economics or law. It should start with the beginning of the development of human communities. And in the beginning it was tribes of hunters who then became farmers, to put it very simply. The reasons for the emergence of full-fledged speech have not yet been fully proven. So there is an opinion that speech was already among hunters and there is an opinion that hunters had speech on the level of commands / warnings, and the need to pass on recipes and the science of crop production gave rise to speech (and psilocybin helped, I like the Montessori version). There was no economy then.
Knowing how the pay-for-performance system works does not breed envy) At McDonald's, everyone knows who gets how much at their cafe.
With S.Jobs it seems that in groups people knew salaries of employees of the group (except for a salary of the head of the group) and didn't know about salaries in the neighboring groups. Apparently this makes sense. But Jobs was a great motivator, and he used not only salaries in his payroll.
No, well, such a normal stupor)))) This is exactly one of the main issues of social structure) I would start with the target state of society, and then move backwards, i.e. laws/taxes/economics/education. But so far, I do not see that anyone has defined the target state))))
No, suffering is eternal. There is no getting rid of it. It has to be accepted so that there is a possibility of happiness)
Don't speculate for me. That's your speculation.) You have to pay with dignity and justice, in the public understanding of justice in a given society, at a given moment).
Not obviously. There are enough other opinions in the world. Although you describe such far-sighted egoism) I should have peaceful and well-off relatives, neighbours and workers). This is a very rare kind of egoism.)
That's the only way to save yourself in the task.) No, of course not.)
True) But what about Raskolnikov? He spent his whole life helping others, he was good, he did a lot of good, and then his grandmother, who has one week to live, drove him to it, and he took her life. What to do with him? To judge him as a good man who did a bad deed or as a bad man who did good things all his life).
Тогда этот вопрос надо оставить историкам-экономистам, сейчас на практике он не имеет особой ценности. Не знаю что тут сказать, попробуйте изменить мир например... 😉Why. The trend is that in a few decades 99% of the earth's wealth will belong to the 0.1% of the earth. And that was the question Mr Ma was asking. What to do? The situation is precarious. Gates and his ilk have suggested that as much as 50% of the fortune should not be given to children, but to foundations that belong to society. They are farsighted egoists) They take care of their children... their own)
You tell that to the taxman)
What are we going to do? Not enough responsibility? You can start with yourself and give yourself extra responsibility. 😆
And how do you do it) You find something to latch on to immediately) There is a lack of responsibility in the world, not only in ours)
Read what rationality is then, now you have enormous problems with the terms.
Genotype does not determine intelligence, at least not directly, what matters is individual development, you have failed again. 🤣
This statement is about nothing... So you could say the cosmos is rational or Russell's kettle is rational.
Adaptability of organisms is neither intelligence nor rationality, you're stringing the terms together in whatever way you can. 😁
Memory is both an inherent property/ability and a skill that can be pumped up.
Go to the library and go back to capitalism. 😀
What's there to read. That rationality is intelligence. I see. Brought it up as I understand it. Rational actions are similar to rational optimal actions. There's a certain sluggishness and dogmatism in your judgement.)
Genotype of course does not determine the skills acquired, but the speed of perception and learning does. There is no tabula rasa in newborns. They are already individuals, already after the 7th month they are individuals. And it determines the genotype.
The cosmos is of course rational. It's all in a straight line there)
It's not an arbitrary use of terms, it's logical.
So also intelligence is initially both a property and an ability and it can be developed)
Sometimes at least come back to the sinful one, here though there is stagnation, but not eternal))))
Going back to capitalism and markets, the rational investor hypothesis has failed, due to its simplicity.
Well, the market is much more complex; simple optimisation will not win it over, understand it or ride it.)
The example is just fine, let me remind you that the example with the real Mowgli clearly shows that higher activity, intelligence - depends on the upbringing environment, not given to everyone initially, just like with Tarzan - it is a fiction, a real Tarzan would only seek food and a female, so it completely ruins your thesis.😁
What exactly is it that a human cannot replicate? Or is it your sophism going on again? Or is it rationality that you use to climb trees?
And finally read what rationality is!
You sat in a puddle and instead of getting out of it you keep splashing about in it.
No, I'm not. What's so great about it. To show that intelligence doesn't develop on its own in an alien environment? Yeah. It won't. It depends on the environment. But if it gets to more advanced aliens, it might develop. This example is a special case of the general. An individual, even in a foreign group, acquires the skills of that foreign group. Intellect is an acquired and developed property of an individual. What is the point of the example? Except that Mowgli will not become educated and intelligent in the jungle. And by the way, it is not a fact that if he has to calculate flight paths or something, he will probably do it better than some other intelligent people).
A human won't be able to swim 50km for food and deliver it to his kid. Yes, penguins have these innate skills, but they are rational.
Or maybe in your opinion a penguin's behaviour is not rational and if it could count it would survive?
You've probably read Schumpeter very selectively...
I actually wrote that he separatedthe innovator entrepreneur from the financier capitalist, which you probably didn't notice.
But the theme of elitist democracy is one of his key ideas, and don't try to deny it.
You'd better remember that Schumpeter shocked his readers by endorsing socialism, approved of Marx's ideas, and even rejoiced at the revolution in Russia - see, I even help you in your shaky argumentation 😉
I don't know. Read from beginning to end. I get the idea of cycles, innovation, entrepreneur. But about elitist democracy, thought it was Josef's dream.
Very interesting, where in Isms and D it is. There have been moments in life. But in his main work he has a rather pejorative and in some ways regretful attitude towards Marx. In his words (not accurately) he is not a penitent man who was even expelled from his homeland, or his homeland could not accept him. And he goes through Capital quite harshly, on the irrelevance of surplus value, the incorrect division of society into classes and incomplete... You're taking out the individual cases to suit your own interests ))))
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, what authors, and the history of Russia including a clear confirmation that the legal custom 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?
No, it has happened and is happening all the time, the history of the USA is an example of that, first they invent the fractional division and trade not only paraffin, but also gasoline, integrate productions, and then the government notices that the whole industry has grown here.
So what documents of primeval law are you prepared to present, hmm?
Congratulations, you have sat in the puddle again.... 🤣
You constantly twist commonly accepted terminology and then wonder why you have a fiasco...
My beginnings of study included Duty: the first 5000 years of history, the anarchist Graeber, well and a pretty good study of Mantessori in Food of the Gods.
A near-scientific read with references to scientific sources)
There was no natural exchange within the tribe) Tell me more about shoemakers and barbers working for wages in commodity terms. The tribe lived as a single unit.
And the cases of innovation advancement, well, that only began with the manufactories. I told you, the cases of recent years))) Well, about 200-300 years)