The future of the Forex industry - page 21
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
Power has nothing to do with it at all, it's a normal economy and market that worked exactly the same way (well almost) even in the absence of the state -- just no one will pay much for inefficient labour -- and if you want to get more then become unique and create something new of your own...
😵
You tell me. What is the effective labour of a footballer and what is the paltry labour of a cleaner.
And who, my dear one, is more useful to society???)) What about the contribution to the countries GDP?
Well, well, well. And how many machines have produced a footballer, an artist, an artist in the end what is the difference between them and a cleaner?
They don't produce anything, they only consume))))))))
Talent?
So it turns out not everyone is equal in declaration anymore))))))
Oh, yes. Singers produce singing.)) That's why their labour is more expensive than the cleaners.
I'm kidding. But it's something to think about before you say otherwise.
Thank you for your understanding and support. As for the Fibonacci pattern, these patterns relate to the series itself and do not describe other series, which price series, for example, belong to. This is a property of the Fibonacci series itself. First you need to find out if the series in question belongs to the Fibonacci series or not? Surely, no. For example, the Sum of the numbers in a natural series is n(n-1)/2 and this is a property of the series itself. As soon as any other number is added to the series, this property will not be fulfilled! All the more so, a price series that has no clear regularities. Nevertheless, people try to apply other people's regularities in this case as well. Random coincidences are presented as regularities. That's my attitude to this mass delusion of traders.
By the way, I was always surprised that the market chart, unlike other natural processes' charts, is "out of the Fibonacci series". There are clear relationships in the series, like Fibonacci relationships (it couldn't be otherwise), but the "numbers" themselves are different. MT4 has an opportunity to change numbers in the "Fibo:" tool, I do not know if this useful for trading except for me. I have never seen any attempts to do so on the forum, it seems that faith is strong. Although, it quickly becomes evident that market quotes do not fit in the Fibo series. But nevertheless they try to do their best. Instead of trying to find "their" Fibo that is more suitable to the market reality.
So why can't income over 10 average wages be put to personal use?
If the entrepreneur does not use hired labour, all profits are his. And whatever it is, there should be no claims against him. It is different when he uses hired labour. The enterprise's profit must be distributed fairly, there must not be such a monstrous disproportion as 1:1000 or more. This is only because no laws have been created to regulate the distribution of profits in an equitable manner. An entrepreneur should not be allowed to essentially rob his employees, taking the lion's share of the enterprise's profits. The state should create laws to prevent this. I don't think it is too difficult to objectively calculate the labour contribution of each participant in the production of a product and distribute income taking into account that labour contribution.
Why can't it? Why is it unrealistic? Why such dogmatic judgements?
Because he is not a genie. He does not have the fantastic physical or mental capacity to make such a contribution to the production of a product that is 1000 or more times the average contribution of his employee.
Why wrong assessment? I wrote above that he pays his employees an adequate average wage in the market, or even higher than the average, you are stubbornly ignoring it.
You keep referring to the national average salary of a specialist. And you think it's adequate. Well, that's only from your point of view. I think it's inadequate. And its level is precisely because there are no laws for the fair distribution of profits and underestimation of the wage fund in enterprises. This is the only way for the owner of an enterprise to make more profit.
An entrepreneur sees an opportunity and creates a new product/service/logistic chain and it turns out to be effective, he gets a salary 1000 times greater than the factory's, and it is a reward for his effectiveness, for not wasting time and money and creating something new.
A salary of 10 times the average salary for his creativity may well be a sufficient reward. Such a ratio may well stimulate a person's creativity.
Why abnormal? And what is normal then?
Let me repeat thathe pays his employees an adequate average salary in the market, or even higher than the average.
He gets 1000 times more because the company is efficient and the product / service was in demand, and it is his legitimate right to collect the profit, and that is how one becomes a millionaire, understand it.
All employees are involved in the production of the product and they should be paid a fair and decent wage.
Typical Marxist socialist myth, and you are probably saying all this because you have no entrepreneurial/project management experience.
Realize that the added value (and net profit) can be obtained not only by extreme cost optimization, but also by improving other indicators, or rather their ratios, for example a trivial revenue growth, when an expensive but demanded product/service is created and the costs are highly inelastic to the volume, that is, with the growth of revenues costs grow much slower than revenues - can you imagine that? And employee salaries are not affected in any way, but profits fly into space, and the shareholders/owners legitimately receive them.
Only Marx defined surplus value solely as an increase inthe value of the labour force of workers, but now even a schoolboy probably understands that Marx's deductions are a marginal dogmatic doctrine, aimed exclusively at a marginal audience, to justify their class struggle, and this doctrine was not confirmed in practice, I remind that the theory of labour cost does not work, and the law of lowering the profit norm does not work in reality, and the recognized great economists such as Keynes are very unlikely.
But it's not the fault of the individual entrepreneur that the labour market is like this, is it?
I agree. But if you create laws for fair wages, then the labour market will change, and of course not to the benefit of the entrepreneur and he will no longer be able to have an exorbitant personal income.
Basically you are now complaining that wages are low everywhere and demanding the distribution of business profits to yourself 😁 on completely incomprehensible grounds.
Not for yourself, but for people. I'm retired.
Congratulations, you are a dangerous Marxist socialist and need to be isolated urgently 😆😄😅 (no offence)
Actually the market decides, and for a certain kind of labour the salary will always be low, unless it's smart labour related to intellectual capital, so there's only one way for a worker to start developing themselves to qualify for more...
If you want to earn more, you have to be unique.
I agree that salaries should be different, but fair.
This is quite enough, more than that, it is up to people to find ways to improve their own wellbeing.
It would be deeply wrong if welfare is given for nothing.
So who is to blame if workers are such helpless rabbits and cannot cooperate on their own?
There are, by the way, wonderful examples of synchronized mass strikes in history.
The market decides... if they don't protest it means the conditions are acceptable - understand that... it's very simple... It's one or the other: if people feel that it's too much and they can't stand it, they take their pitchforks in their hands, and if they don't, it's not so bad.
No need to be dramatic, you do not work 20 hours a day with no days off in a room without ventilation, with chemical vapors, with columns of dust, with hot steam, with 40 people in a room?
That's another Marxist word for exploitation... and if I come to the shop, do I exploit the clerk?
No, not you. He's being exploited by the shopkeeper if he doesn't pay him a fair wage.
I highly recommend you to give up this style and way of thinking, otherwise you are like from the beginning of the last century straight out of the factory 😃🤣😂
The state does not and should not have the task of making you rich.
Agreed. But the state should create laws for fair pay.
The state's job is to make sure laws are enforced equally for all, courts work adequately, police catch bandits, + disaster support, collective defense, etc.
And the entrepreneur must act as an angel, not seeking profit, right?
What is wrong with making a "trough"? (better to use the phrase "profit generation" in a decent society).
And it should be understood that the employees themselves can share in the profits of the company if they buy shares in their factory.
I don't think we can ever reach a consensus, so I see no point in further debate).
I don't think we can ever come to a consensus, so I don't see the point in further debate).
Petrovich, I give you three fives and lots of pluses.
P.s.
Correction.
Five stars and lots of pluses. +++.
that would be correct.
Petrovich, I give you three fives and lots of pluses.
P.s.
Correction.
Five stars and lots of pluses. +++...
that would be correct.
Thank you for your support.
If anyone else is interested in the topic of the thread.
Information from the trade like a pro website
New investor inflows have dropped sharply since the start of the year, judging by the chart of active accounts, which sagged by 4% during the reporting quarter. Some analysts claim that PAMM investors are withdrawing funds to invest directly in cryptocurrencies as well as stocks. Some securities and digital assets show hundreds of percent returns, which can be achieved with a simple Buy&Hold strategy.
And a chart from alps
Radicalism is about unconditional application and apparently invariance.
Radicalism is when direct violence is assumed, I think so, but I haven't intended to take life directly 😂 and the market in a sense is invariant because it lives everywhere even under socialism, like plantain across asphalt, like juniper on rocks, it is a universal dynamic structure (although it has flaws as Keynes pointed out)
Wolves have market relations too.
Not really, it's just intraspecific competition, after all wolves don't seem to sell anything to anyone?
Market relations are often detrimental, and not detrimental only under strictly defined conditions.
The market digests everything, it is a universal mechanism, and if markets for drugs/guns/prostitution/children/organs/whatever form, the problem is not with the market mechanism itself, but whether it is legal to sell or not, and the market itself is not evil, not pernicious, but it certainly has its drawbacks too, especially in that markets have a painful cyclicality, inability to quickly overcome the dead loop of low demand and unemployment and recession, inability to quickly overcome stagflation, and so the market needs to be helped by pushing it in a favorable direction by monetary or other means, but in itself market relations are a thing that has existed since ancient times and can hardly be abandoned, and furthermore, the market is the minimum guarantor of ethics in the exchange of goods, provided the transaction occurs at or near fair value.
(I like Schumpeter, so I answer according to him).
He incidentally wrote about destructive creativity, when something comes in new and breaks the old, which means someone will inevitably get hurt 😉 and recall that Schumpeter explicitly said that this destructive competition, fierce competition for markets, and even restrictions in the form of patents/licences and dominance in advertising - does not slow down, but rather accelerates the long term development process 😋 - what do we do about it?
You don't want to give your money away. Well that can be ensured in a non-market relationship too.
Ahahahaha, it sounds like a socialist walking up to a capitalist and telling him: - you don't want to share nicely, then we'll have a revolution now! 😂🤣😅 - non-legal methods you promote-s!
And where is the connection, paying by efficiency and not wanting to pay for anyone else. There is no connection.
Didn't quite get the question, or rather didn't get it at all... I just do not want to share profits with those who have nothing to do with my profits - like I say normal things?
Or maybe the church told you to, not God? 😁
Don't blaspheme, it's not just one religion)))
So all religions are made up of the same parts and are essentially the same thing.
It's a good move, though). The answer was about associations, your answer is delightful. Good school)
Thanks for the compliment.
What is my slyness? Explain yourself! And look at the example of two plants again and no one is forcing anyone...
The trick is that the example from an economics textbook has nothing to do with real life) And does not take into account issues of law, power and possible coercion.
Well I made up an example right on the fly, make up your own then... I remind you that I showed two plants with exactly the same cost structure, the same personnel, everything is the same except the product and the product of plant A is markedly more in demand than plant B and therefore plant A has the highest profitability and net profit is much higher than plant B, and the question was why the owner of plant A must share the net profit with his workers beyond the wages they already receive...
Define your terms "honestly" and "earned" for starters 🙄 it's a typical socialist sophism to say that "those rich people stole everything!"... not nice... 🤨 I certainly don't exclude that there are corrupt schemes but that does not mean that everyone does just that...
Now, I didn't say that, it's your assertion that's fair game. It's your assertion.) Therefore your sophism)
You said:"I hope you're not saying that 90% of the land's capital owned by 1% of the population is EARNED to be honest. " - which implies the accusation that the most successful capitalists have stolen from the rest of the population, but have not provided any evidence of this, just a matter of fact saying "well since rich is a thief" - do you see how that looks? 😉
This is a deep misconception, it's not the labour that pays but the effect, otherwise I would have taken to spoon digging a vegetable garden and demanded a substantial payment for myself, after all I worked so hard when I did it 🤣 feel the point here? you can work hard but inefficiently and that deserves neither respect nor a big payment...
No argument, I agree. Replace labour with the result of labour.
And herein lies the tricky part, because if it is the result of labor that is paid and not the labor itself, then obviously more valuable results should be paid more than less valuable ones, as long as it is logical? - Let's continue: if payment depends on the value of the result, then the evaluation of the result itself is necessary, and how can this be done except by trying to estimate fair value? - What is fair value? - it is a price that both the buyer and seller agree to pay, when there is no coercion, when the parties are well informed and so on, without fraud or deceit, and it has been done many times, and everyone understands - right? - So what is the deception according to you?
But better give the difference between entrepreneurial activity and hired labour) ))
Hire is when you don't risk your money, you don't devise a new business, you don't care about financial planning, and you simply sell your time for money but you are not entitled to profit from the venture. But entrepreneurship is when you risk your money or your partners' money, devise your business, you care about financial planning and you don't sell yourself but you pay others to work and you take a profit from your business.
Power has nothing to do with it, it's a normal economy and market that worked exactly the same way (well, almost) even without a government -- no one would pay a lot for inefficient labor -- and if you want to get more, you have to be unique and create something new of your own...
Fundamentally wrong. I could suggest that you go into business in North Korea.
You'd be surprised, but this miserable totalitarian country has private business, with its own peculiarities of course 😊 https://www.rbc.ru/opinions/business/09/03/2016/56dfcb759a79471986698f73
Power and laws are always involved. And the development of society depends on them much more than the entrepreneur's unwillingness to pay for someone else. And unfortunately society is not one level.
Э... I didn't say that the government has no control over anything... I said the economy and the market are primary... the state can support them or kill them like the Bolsheviks did before the NEP and then cleaned it up...
I did not say that the entrepreneur is above the rest in the universal sense, but the entrepreneur is not a profession, it is the one who undertakes, that is the entrepreneur can be a doctor and a teacher and even a carpenter, and scary to say - even a Forex trader! (provided he has the appropriate set of skills).
Schumpeter said just the opposite) and defined why entrepreneurship is a driver of development and why the entrepreneur is entitled to more income).
He separated the financier from the entrepreneur, but that is particular, apparently he wanted to identify the function of the innovator, who either significantly changes the industry or does something better locally here and now, but in fact that is the basis for any effective entrepreneurship, I see no contradiction, in fact the entrepreneur is always an innovator, for which he gets his income, so now you have to agree with my theses, as they coincide with the ideasof Schumpeter 😋
I'm no expert in sewing but I think mittens are easier to make, I think so, in any case he who makes mittens has no right to claim the proceeds from a fur coat 😉
Mittens can be harder to sew) And the main point in the problem is that a coat without mittens is NOT for sale) And if there are no mittens, the coat won't be bought.)
Not sure, but let's say, and then what is your conclusion? besides I have never seen fur coats sold/bought exclusively with mittens 😃
I'll be honest - I don't care - small income problems are their own personal problems... But I guess the job of a cleaner is always a temporary and very low skilled job, more like a part time job, so for me it would look crazy if a cleaner would claim a comparable salary as a firm's lawyer or a lead developer or a sales manager, I guess it should be obvious? -- but that doesn't change the human attitude to the cleaning lady -- I remember being in an office slavery in a consulting plant and having a cleaning lady, who was probably paid a pittance, but we considered her part of the team and she was present at corporate events as a full-fledged employee...
That's very selfish), unethical and immoral. It's the same problem about the fur coat and the mittens. Without cleaners, the enterprise can't function fully).
What is selfish and immoral about, can you explain clearly? should we have paid the cleaners as lead developer or as architect of business solutions? 😂😂🤣
Just think about what you are saying.... Think about it - a cleaner can easily be replaced by another, but a lead developer or architect can hardly be replaced as easily
Of course it is their own issue -- and if they think they don't get enough -- then they need to start evolving to provide society with something more valuable than swinging a broom -- and it should be obvious that in any society regardless of its structure (except maybe slave-owning) everyone gets exactly what they deserve and the best/performers are automatically valued and rewarded more for their services than others
It is fundamentally wrong. The structure of society is not a question of common people)
Why is it wrong? can you argue? (or the usual?) 😁
Do you think society should incentivise the useless and paupers?
But you give me a head start on sophistry, it's not until the second reading that I realise the catch)
I like to poke fun, yes, but it's not sophistry, it's all true.
You tell me. How effective the work of a football player is and how miserable the work of a cleaner is.
I say - can a cleaner do the same to defend the honour of the region/country and also so that thousands/millions of people stare at her with admiration and discuss and re-watch every shot of her movement, hmm?
And who, my dear, is more useful to society?) How's the contribution to the countries GDP????
That's kind of an empty question... Be more specific... everyone knows that consultants and traders are the biggest contributors - obviously 😉
Well, well, well. And how many machines has a footballer, artist, painter produced in the end how are they different from a cleaner?
Some kind of bend in thinking too... why would a footballer produce machines? how many machines have you produced yourself, eh? - There you go. 🤩
They don't produce anything, they just consume))))))))
So when you come home from the factory and turn on TV or YouTube or watch a movie or listen to music, do you think it took no effort to create all these works of art, right? - after all actors, musicians, poets and athletes - they only consume, yeah... I'm shocked of course at the narrowness of such thinking... 😯
Talent?
Suddenly yes! bingo!
You pay the one who can
and who can't, doesn't get paid
talent is very expensive and talent management policy is an important part of any modern enterprise
so it turns out not everyone is equal in declaration))))))
Shocker! We found out that people are unequal! That's the news! I'll call Interfax and tell them 😄
Oh, yeah. Singers produce singing.)) That's why their labour is more expensive than the cleaners.
I'm kidding, of course. But something to think about before claiming otherwise.
Yeah, I get it, I'm post-ironic too... in fact we all realise that the market tends to greatly overvalue some creative people...
By the way, it has always been surprising that the market chart, unlike the charts of other natural processes, is "out of step" with the Fibonacci series. There are clear relationships in the series, similar to Fibonacci relationships (it couldn't be otherwise), but the "numbers" themselves are different. MT4 has an opportunity to change numbers in "Fibo:" tool, I do not know if this useful for trading except for me. I have never seen any attempts to do so on the forum, it seems that faith is strong. Although, it quickly becomes evident that market quotes do not fit in the Fibo series. But nevertheless they try to do their best. Instead of trying to find "their" Fibo that is more suitable to the market reality.
Fibo is just a popular myth, you can draw any lines and it will seem to bounce. In one sect it even come to the point that they downloaded the indicator from some trash and one prophet began to think that supposedly the chart bounces from the slope lines, but when they looked at the code it turned out that there is a hardcoded fixed increment number prescribed 😀 but the prophet still believes in the validity of these lines 😄.