The future of the Forex industry - page 135
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
To me it's selling the hope of profiteering to those who don't understand. Yes it is immoral) And just as immoral is non-productive profiteering from financial/insurance manipulation, even in compliance with the law of sovereign states.
Buffett has only repeated the truth. Don't make money where you don't fully understand everything)
But they will still go and do it, there is no stopping them, they will entrust their money even less worthy than us! - and that's even worse!
So our sacred mission is to intercept them with the money 😁
To me it's selling the hope of profiteering to those who don't understand. Yes it is immoral) And just as immoral is non-productive profiteering from financial/insurance manipulation, even in compliance with the law of sovereign states.
Buffett has only repeated the truth. Don't make money where you don't fully understand everything)
Very interesting point about this profiteering thing...
What is profiteering? is it something bad? and why?
blatant manipulation is suppressed by the state, there are laws on joint-stock companies, on the securities market...
No of course not. There are no unconditional unacceptable concepts / actions for the good. Lajola the Jesuit has shown this convincingly, as unfortunate as it is to realise. The task of a hundred passengers can be made even worse. there are two sons in the boat and you're an old man, and only one will make it. Someone has to be taken to the bottom. It's just that the Jesuits' aims were faith, so their rationality is not rational.
The wagon experience is too simple.
What if one healthy patient had to be slaughtered to save 10 patients?
A radical utilitarian would say it's OK?
The time criticality of the situation always justifies the speed of even slightly below average decisions.
Disaster, Fallout, only a million people have to be taken to the ark, the rest have to die, and who decides who gets taken?
Consensus is impossible, everyone will drag for themselves.
Here Khorosh is already afraid that the elite will survive in the bunkers, apparently it would be easier for him to have everyone die evenly on the same day 😀
In some special way it can be said that it would be fair if people who were originally in equal positions got equal conditions and information.
Sometimes this is just not possible.
Exchanges carry, of course. But this about voluntariness is too much. The only way to enter the world market is there. and it is a forced situation. But inside, in prison, everything is voluntary).
Derivatives and other derivatives blunt vigilance, that is their main danger. And vigilance in business is very critical to ruin.
What's the compulsion?
You want to trade/invest - and you don't want to don't trade/invest.
About blunting: there's always that text warning of high risks, and if you don't read it - you're a fool - as they say.
It's silly to ban it, like the Central Bank is doing now, for some reason, like it cares that people don't drain.
Or maybe they want to drain, they can't sleep...
2008 entirely a crisis of over-insurance and reduced entrepreneurial initiative (by Schumpeter))))
I would say that risk ratings played a key role there.
I don't think Schumpeter had anything to do with it at all.
I'm closer to 84. Although Animal Farm is good) There's no screen adaptation for some reason.)
Animal Farm seems to be a comedy only.
In general, no one has probably disparaged communism/USSR as much as Orwell did. 😀
There's a brilliant adaptation of 1984 with the same title.
To me, it's selling the hope of profit to those who don't understand. Yes it is immoral) And just as immoral is non-productive profiteering from financial/insurance manipulation, even in compliance with the law of sovereign states.
Buffett has only repeated the truth. Don't make money where you don't fully understand everything)
Probably in some more sincere society of the future (if at all possible) it would not be possible to sell contracts like now with opaque risks to the customer, because to take it to the absurd, you could sell poison with an obscure name in Latin in a pharmacy and the customer would drink it, i.e. some basic foolproofing should be in place.
But in finance/investment/trading it is not like that yet, and the thing is that the experts themselves are far from understanding what is going on 😀 and so we can say that some are on equal footing with clients (or almost on equal footing)
Sometimes the client can even earn 😁😂😃
A conscientious company won't have a conflict of interest with clients, but doesn't have to lead him by the hand of course, there are of course risks for both participants, but DM assumes that the risks are predominantly with the investor, it is a sacred canon, no less sacred than the inviolability of net profit from quasi-socialist encroachment.
In a sense, the whole industry of course vamps out ordinary people and partly the entire producing economy... well that's fine, what can you do... but how do vampires live...
Of course yes there is synchronisation across traditional asset types, but I was referring to something else, the position of the financial sector over the economy and this kind of privileged position to create value almost out of a vacuum, because it is financiers who have the right to define/rate elements of the real sector and assign risk categories, even entire sectors and countries, and higher business mobility, easier ability to change jurisdiction and not be dependent on assets tied to land, mode of production, etc... sosss...
It's been said before that finances are not geo-linked) And the fact that production seems to be primary, but finances are secondary, it's a paradox, but it's reality and has to be reckoned with. Gold without bread is lifeless, bread without gold can give life. But it is easier to live with gold)
Life in general changes, especially on innovations) But after the law, it's essentially the same. From hunters to farmers, tribes, cities, states, at that stage, societies changed, but the law appeared and, laws are the same in general part motivated. Preservation of power, and for preservation of just and morally justified postulates. Nothing has changed)
International contracts are more of a problem but getting to know the signatories of those contracts in bed is a reality))) They caught the IMF director naked while making love to a hotelier.) Everybody's human and nothing human is alien to them.)
Yes, and in the factory, gaining experience, after, or combining, or within the factory can achieve something. And this is a more numerous option, brilliant ideas that snapped up is usually a temporary demand, and it is few and short-lived. The element of chance is great.
Glam is a business of entertainment. And it's serious business when all is well. Now the glamour business has faded)). Generally intelligible speech, wording, the right goals voiced at the right time! has always been fascinating, convincing and enticing for business, not just production)))). But not everyone has the right attitude).
If the person/specialist is happy with everything, there's no problem...
What's in the picture? How does it prove the importance of the middle stratum on self-determination or self-organisation? Cities of the middle stratum may be said to be Great Novgorod and Carthage in their time. There, by the way, there was the least inequality towards neighbours....
Yes, the psychosomatics of man has not changed, respectively the motivations are the same) It's been like that for ten thousand years, or more.)
This is your private unconvincing opinion) His definitions of innovation and the division between capitalist and entrepreneur are still relevant today. And yes, entrepreneurs are the elite of business and society, because they develop it (society). And elitist democracy is an unfortunate term from his reasoning, which, by the way, he did not substantiate. They are written that perhaps this is one of the best ways of development of the society. At this point he was wrong with you, as he put economics before the law.
Too great an element of chance to end up in a weak group) The times are certainly unique, but I wish the change would end sooner)))) And the expression - are you so?, stable without change, is perceived as a successful average life, like stability is valued today) Not a good trend)
But if you imagine for a second that all the factories are economically combined into one super-factory.
then the finance industry as a whole is a meta-factory that has to suck up the dough faster than others to make a profit
to have a positive effect (given the loss of purchasing power of money still)
and it's a phenomenal vampire capitalist factory
What a beauty indeed.
😈
It has already been said before that finances are not geo-bound) And the fact that production seems to be primary, but is ruled by secondary finances, is a paradox, but it is a reality that has to be reckoned with and that is all. Gold without bread is lifeless, bread without gold can give life. But it is easier to live with gold)
After all, banks and investment companies exist for a reason, but because there is a need, otherwise they wouldn't exist, so they create something after all? 😉