The future of the Forex industry - page 16
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
OK, let's say it's the evil owners who hold back workers' wages, run dubious schemes like in the 90s, trick workers into signing unprofitable terms, resell equipment through corrupt schemes to the detriment of business - that's really dishonest and evil to society as a whole...
But that is not what we are discussing - we are discussing a normal honest entrepreneur who pays an honest average market wage to his employees - so what is the problem?
Apparently the only problem is that this entrepreneur is more successful than others in the industry and earns more - so what?
Why should you not appropriate your honestly earned profits?
Let us look at the following example:
Plant A:
revenue 100M
costas 50M
including payroll 25M
including SS and other: 25M
net profit 50M
Plant A:
revenue 55M
costes 50M
including FOT: 25M
including SS and others: 25M
net profit 5M
that means that plant A is much more efficient than plant B, but the number of employees is equal and their qualifications are exactly the same, they work the same working week and have the same working conditions
it is just that the product of plant A is more in demand than that of B
Attention to the question - should the owner of Plant A increase wages to his workers and why? The workers of both plants do exactly the same job - so why should the workers of Plant A be paid more? - Isn't this unfair to the workers at Factory B? - They work the same way, don't they?
Hint: undistributed profits are not the basis for transferring them to the payroll, it is at the discretion of the managers/shareholders!
And the payroll is not a dividend... but the workers themselves can also become shareholders in their plant, as an option...
Generally it seems logical and decent to slightly increase the salary for workers at plant A to retain them and bonus them as such an easy success fee, but there is absolutely no reason to distribute all 50M of net profit to them - and why should they? - how do they deserve it? - why exactly? - what is the reason for paying them more? - because the business owner is more successful and has earned more?
I hope the example leads to good thoughts... in western practice the transition to such socially-oriented capitalism has long been planned, so that no one is offended, and the key concept now is maximizing value in the broadest sense, but the Friedman model still seems primary, because without a profit all this talk is empty, and the profit for the company is primary, otherwise the whole point is lost...
So, socially responsible investing (SRI), green investments, negative screening are all just a superstructure over the economic basis...
In the long term, investing in your employees is useful - if they carry intellectual capital (in the case of an ordinary factory usually not) - and this is also in line with the company's goals, but these are already more global issues, beyond the conventional example...
While many big-name capitalists, including the chairman of JPMorgan and Davos regulars, proclaim the new capitalism, I think they are being disingenuous - it all only works for their own benefit - what they really want is social efficiency for their personal world, just as a medieval feudal lord wants peace and prosperity in his country...
For a long time no one has sucked the blood of workers as some here write who are a bit stuck in the last century (or maybe they really write from the last century???) now it is no longer fashionable and it hurts the reputation of business, no one will do so...
Why? what reason is there to think so?
But this is very twisted defective logic, and then you could say to someone: here you have two kidneys, you can live with one, can't you? - That's enough!
Or even better: a homeless man at the train station comes and says: "Look, you wear such an expensive suit, you have income 100 times greater than mine, give me half of what you have?
How do you like that?
And why do you think you have the right to limit someone else's personal consumption/expenses?
For what reason do you decide that you can declare such a thing?
You have both plants - A.
you are now trying to change the mind of an alcoholic and a pensioner. for the sake of art? it's not that i don't like your posts - just curious
Andrei, you are degrading.
You have both plants - A.
apologies! damned copypaste! will fix that now.... 😣
corrected byYes, and a slave, by the way, also became a free choice, either death or slave))))
SZY You're only to blame if I'm hungry ))))
Heh, yes, true, sometimes it was more profitable to be a slave to the master than to go free into the unknown without land or property... but it's a different time now...
you are now trying to change the mind of an alcoholic and a pensioner. for the sake of art? not that I don't like your posts - just curious
You could consider it a form of marginal art 😉
Sometimes it's fun to write stuff like that
One of the outward signs of their opposition is considered to be a much greater desire for globalisation on the part of financiers compared to industrialists. For example, Trump is seen as a supporter of industrial capital and under him many globalist initiatives have been submerged. They are now beginning to 'thaw')
I consider them "opposing" each other about as the upper jaw opposes the lower jaw, or even, rather, as the right leg opposes the left leg). Nevertheless, the topic is quite popular in Russia, especially in the light of recent events. About the rest of the world I don't know.
Yes I have my suspicions too that the financiers are sort of bunching up, and Trump, but maybe it's just a coincidence or just some very personal interests were...
It will be interesting to see how we experience cryptocurrencies next... And whether it becomes a new digital slavery 😄
Anyway, I would like to stress that the most successful and the most deserving are usually better rewarded and it does not depend on who is at the helm or what flags are waved, i.e. it is a kind of general universal law like social Darwinism in a narrow sense, market mechanisms are universal and invariant, the only thing spoiling the picture is cyclical, but the old Keynes told us what to do long ago...
You need the right social structure for such a market. Otherwise one can argue that only the best live better in North Korea. or in countries with weak laws the rich criminals are called decent and successful members of society)
Heh, yes, true, sometimes being a slave to a master was more profitable than going free into the unknown without land or property... but it's a different time now...
I don't think it's a different time. The psychosomatics +- remain the same. You have noted it yourself. And the social orientation of business is first and foremost determined by the profitability for business. without this benefit there would never have been socialism.
Already Aristotle argued that one must either accept the idea of God as a prime cause, or put up with an endless recursion of ever more prime causes. Apparently, this is a fundamental limitation of human cognitive abilities which cannot be circumvented (unless one deludes oneself).
This is a question we discuss in very secret sects at night with multiple encrypted traffic... We're trying to figure out if it's possible to escape Plato's Cave and get rid of the power of the Universals... This is all very important for trading 😊 and in general the concept of God/the One - I'm not afraid to express such blasphemy - is the simplest thing one could think of - well really - imagining that everything boils down to one beginning is the most natural thought and even primitive, like a pyramid the most primitive kind of architecture though insanely monumental, and one could say that all brilliant things are simple and nature must gravitate to the simplest forms, the most generalized, but there are horrifying, shuddering things in the foundations of mathematics itself, e.g. 26 sporadic symmetry groups and 18 infinite families - how can they be explained? - isn't it monstrous? - it's very strange to say the least... and the existence of Conway's monster group... as if it were some kind of mockery... The building blocks for one of the most fundamental ideas in mathematics/geometry is a set/group whose order is an unthinkable monster number, which in addition is related to series expansion in the domain of modular forms and elliptic functions and other coincidences have been found, which are now officially called monster phenomena and behind the monster moiety lies algebra of vertex operators and strings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monstrous_moonshine which means that being is not necessarily attracted to simple forms... and now it's time for a wild orgy...