The future of the Forex industry - page 58
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
Yes, the footwork and undercutting are also done that way, to achieve victory) Good level). The only logical line is not always flawless, but it's probably the flaws of the approach itself, when there is a change of tones, it is difficult to maintain logic)
Sometimes I go to extremes to make it more fun, but all the same, the logic and facts are clear, and my theses are supported by examples and references, unlike your invented theses that are hanging in the air, and it is easy to see it after rereading the previous posts. 😉
Sometimes I go to extremes to make it more fun, but still the logic and facts are clear, and my theses are supported by examples and references, unlike your invented theses which hang in the air, and you can easily see it by re-reading previous posts. 😉
This is a true representative of capitalist society, where self-promotion and self-presentation plays no small part).
The main purpose and point of growth of a company is that as volumes increase, revenues (and profits) grow faster than costs - otherwise there is no point in expanding.
Workers' wages can (and often do) grow, but they do not have to grow at the same rate as revenues (and/or profits).
In fact, if a longshoreman does the same job without increasing his value, what reason is there to pay him more?
many factors, seniority (reliability) a number of other reasons
I myself worked at a factory for several years as a worker, then a higher position (in the office and moving around town), now I work in it(factories).
if you are going to work in a factory, i will give you a recommendation))
I don't take cult customs, [...].
I mean interpersonal customs. And this is a question of the organization of life in the tribe. It all starts with the subordination of one individual to another. Law is originally structured on the one hand on subordination, and on the other hand on the preservation of that subordination.
Legal custom, clearly, but it's not yet law and it's not yet the state.
And it is obvious that the aborigines are trading, without laws and they have no state.
Law began to emerge 10,000 years before Christ.
What normative documents of this law can you name? 😁
Primeval money is of course a myth...
I have already given you an example of non-monetary primitive communal money, it is an established fact, but you persist in denying history and historiography.
They also used animal skins, cocoa beans, pepper, tobacco and salt as money.
The period of use of cowrie shells phenomenally spans from the XXXVIth century BC to the early 20th century
You stubbornly continue to sit in a puddle... 😀
The fact that the word money is derived from the word cattle has an explanation, cattle were paid (and are still paid in extant tribes) for a bride. There was no commodity-money exchange in the tribe, nor was there any commodity exchange. It is a big mistake and a myth voiced by Adam Smith that money took the place of commodity relations.
I didn't say anything about Adam Smith.
And to deny natural exchange is simply silly, as it is confirmed by archaeological data, see the so-called warehouse trade among others.
This is an opinion, not supported by anything. Shells and 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 everyone in the tribe is fed, and punished for misdeeds. And this is done on the basis of interpersonal customs, or laws.
Clearly you have nothing to prove 😁
and how those shells got inland certainly doesn't prove anything either.
and how the Greek goods got deep into the Scythian areas proves nothing either.
attributes of caring for one's fellows are evident even in monkeys... So what?
I see, I see. You're a typical denier of mainstream science.
I've always disliked this theory, by the way, since school.
That's the key phrase 😆
that explains it.
Your mistake is that you do not start from the beginning with the question of what is primary, economics or law. It should be started at the beginning of the development of human communities. And in the beginning it was tribes of hunters who later 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 back then.
So will there be corroborated examples of primitive law documents or not?
When you find evidence of full-fledged laws, then we'll talk 😉
To equate peoples/community customs with legislation is too much.
Although in some ways I agree that primitive potestal authority and taboos is a kind of law, you could say.
But it's not statehood yet, and the primitive economy is already there.
It's silly to even argue about it.