The future of the Forex industry - page 24
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
Radicalism is when direct violence is assumed, I think so, but I haven't intended to directly take anyone's life yet 😂 and the market is invariant in a sense 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)
.
universal mechanism, and if markets for drugs/guns/prostitution/children/origin/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 flaws too, especially in that markets have a painful cyclicality, inability to quickly break the dead-end of low demand and unemployment and recession, inability toand therefore the market should be helped by pushing it in a favorable direction by monetary or other means, but the market relations themselves are a thing that has existed since the ancient times and can hardly be abandoned, and furthermore the market is the minimum guarantor of ethics in the exchange of goods, provided that the transaction takes place at or near a fair value.
How simple it is for you. But it is not. And market relations is just a term that is based on other more comprehensive terms. Animal instinct, innate survival and other animal and human psychosomatics. This is why the market without rules brings society back to the animals.
He incidentally wrote about destructive creation, 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/licenses and dominance in advertising - does not slow down but rather accelerates the long-term development process 😋 - what do we do about it?
it is obvious that technology change and innovation are killing old technologies and the businesses that consume them. Kodak, nokia with the fact that even Collins included them in his list of old only confirm it) And that's not his main point, which you are ignoring for some reason.
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! 😂🤣😅 - not legal methods you promote-s!
Not like that at all. You're the one who's ignoring the right for some reason simply. And I'm hinting that without regard to the legal structure of society the market generates slavery) and besides sharing one's profits has really nothing to do with the market, it's determined by law, not the market.
Well, I made up an example right on the fly, make up your own then... I remind you that I showed two factories with exactly the same cost structure, the same personnel, everything is the same except the product and the product of Factory A is in much higher demand than Factory B, and therefore Factory A has the highest profitability and net profit is much higher than Factory B, and the question was why the owner of Factory A must share the net profit with its workers besides the salary they already receive...
A bad example, and the claim that income depended on One Man's contribution is utopian. The owner can take his profit, not the market, but the law, which, by the way, was written by Schumpeter).
You just said: "I hope you're not saying that 90 percent of the land's capital owned by 1 percent of the population is EARNED to be earned honestly. " - 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? 😉
Interesting interpretation, and for some reason radical again (in my mind). There is not even a hint in my statement about the methods of enriching the most successful capitalists. That's your speculation)
And here lies the subtlety, 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, so it makes sense, right? - 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 deception, and it has been done many times, and everyone understands - right? - So what is the cheating according to you?
It is not logical that payment by results will give justice and growth. Prove it or give proof. This point precisely has not been proven by anyone, not by the Austrian school, nor by Marx, nor by the same Schumpeter. I do not even take the earlier ones, they did not come to this question. Further you have echoes of the ideal market, well it is ideality which does not exist and will not exist ever) Though it is a target condition of market relations.
Hire is when you don't risk your money, you don't devise a new business, you don't strain yourself with financial planning, and you simply sell your time for money, but you are not entitled to take a profit from the venture. Entrepreneurship is when you risk your or your partners' money, devise your business, strain yourself with a financial plan and you don't sell yourself, but you pay others to work, and you take a profit from your venture.
It's easy at the level of a student or high school student and your explanation is at that level. Schumpeter's explanation seems to be different and I think you know it) From Schumpeter's your explanation is just CONSTRUCTING your business) I even like the stress of a financial plan))))
He separated financier from entrepreneur, but nothing special, maybe he wanted to identify the function of the innovator, which either significantly changes the industry or does something better here and now, but in fact this is the basis for 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 thesis, as long as it coincides with the ideas of Schumpeter 😋
In fact he was one of the first to define innovation and the effect it has, and he also thought about cycles of development, but he did it in different polities. I do not agree with your thesis, because the statement that the market itself will straighten everything out is false. You need conditions for a normal stable market where you don't have to share your profits.
Э... I didn't say it was up to the government... I said the economy and the market are primary... The state can support them or kill them as the Bolsheviks did before the NEP and then cleaned up the mess...
On the contrary. Law is primary. Especially Roman or Byzantine. Examples abound. Why such persistence)
What is selfish and immoral, can you explain clearly? should we have paid the cleaner as the lead developer or as the architect of business solutions? 😂😂🤣
In that common people are always hostages to the structure of society. And if it's accepted in society that all members of society should earn an income that provides not only sustenance but also children's education and a decent life, then fine. But there are other cases. And it's not their issue. They certainly won't solve it.
Do you think society should incentivise the useless and the beggarly?
Of course not, it should strive to have as few of them as possible. And provide a standard of living for all workers, regardless of profession.) And the cleaner must also live because it is impossible to live without her) All labor must be paid decently, it's like not only the Soviet slogan).
I like teasing, yes, but it's not sophistry here, it's all true.
I can see that) And that's part of the sophistry.)
In a producing economy, private ownership is even more necessary; in fact, the types of land ownership (communal and private) emerged only with the emergence of a producing economy.
Any economy is partly appropriating and partly producing. In part, any animal 'produces' - protects its feeding ground and forages for food. The only question is the ratio in the final price of the product between payment for resources and payment for labour. The main recent trend is that the share of natural resources is decreasing, but the cost of owning these resources is increasing all the time (the ownership of any private property is always a cost). When the cost of owning private property exceeds the income from it, the mere pleasure of owning it may no longer suffice as a motivation).
This is only a very special case, and caused by exceptional circumstances, I do not see any reason to give up private property, and it would be inconvenient, that's how you imagine it would be then? I can go into any house and take everything I want?
All I can say is that it will make less and less economic sense. Not so long ago, even laundry was being stolen from ropes, worn-out shoes, etc.
I remember M. Zoshchenko's humor story where instead of disposing of spoiled food, it was simply allowed to be stolen by anyone who wanted it) This is now quite a common approach and in some countries it is beginning to be regulated by laws. It is quite understandable that this will eventually (in a hundred years) lead to a simple distribution of any foodstuffs.
Manifestations of progressive humanism have been around since the Roman Empire and even the Greeks (the East is worse) but it is more interesting to think what will happen to ownership of robots and artificial consciousness if it is allowed, it is possible that slave law will return and intelligent androids will be subject to law (or maybe not).
Because this is a distant future, in which (as I tried to assert above) the private property will be practically absent, we will speak not about the property, but about the responsibility for the results of the actions (something like a guardianship institution).
There are crises constantly raging in the world, but humanity is extremely resistant to them, I don't think they are generally manageable crises, although the starting causes may well be man-made, more a combination of an evil randomness factor and someone else's will.
Sometimes quite open information is suddenly put together into such intricate puzzles that the wildest conspiracy science begins to seem like dull dull mumbling)
Radicalism is a kind of extreme measures or views and violence is not radicalism, violence can be a consequence of radical measures, but not always. You can take away the house and that is also radical. Or to declare that any market without regulation is always a good thing (which is what you claim) is also extreme in judgement).
You can't take it out of context and twist it,
taking the house away if the person doesn't pay out after buying it is common normal practice - let them move to cheaper housing - that's fair enough,
I did not say anywhere that the naked market is good without corrections, read carefully, I wrote about, among other things, the shortcomings of the market, it needs to be nudged by monetary and other methods.
Not really, it's just intraspecific competition, since wolves don't seem to be selling anything to anyone, do they?
And here we are picking on the terminology. The market without laws is intraspecific competition, or the struggle for life, and then evolution, survival is one of the pillars of evolution as it were).
Only competition is common between the market and wolves, but it would be strange to call a wolf pack a market, besides why do you need a market without laws?
The market digests everything, it is a the market is auniversal mechanism, and if markets for drugs/guns/prostitution/children/orphans/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 harmful, but it certainly has its weak points too, especially in that markets are painfully cyclical, unable to quickly break the dead-end of low demand and unemployment and economic recession, unable toand therefore the market should be helped by pushing it in a favorable direction by monetary or other means, but the market relations themselves are a thing that has existed since the ancient times and can hardly be abandoned, and furthermore, the market is the minimum guarantor of ethics in the exchange of goods, provided that the transaction takes place at or near a fair value.
How simple it is for you. But it is not. And market relations is just a term that is based on other more comprehensive terms. Animal instinct, innate survival and other animal and human psychosomatics. This is why a market without rules reverts society back to animals.
This is sophistry and then you can say anything-anything is just a term thatis based on other more complete terms, you are getting away from the subject of the conversation 😀
Market mechanism, market laws - this is a property of group dynamics of systems satisfying certain properties - whether humans or robots trade - it is not directly related to survival - but related to what is called optimality or rational behaviour in pursuit of the best price - or rather the best revenue per volume or minimum cost per volume - and you can drop humans/animals/psychosomatics from consideration - the essence of market will not change - think how algorithms trade in a stock exchange for example...
Humans are just a special case in economics, when the next better race (hehehe😀) comes instead of humans - economics and markets will still work.
it is normal practice to take away the house if the person does not pay after the purchase - let them move to a cheaper place - that is fair,
By the way, he wrote about destructive creativity, when something comes new and breaks the old, which means that someone will inevitably suffer 😉 and recall that Schumpeter directly said that this destructive competition, fierce competition for markets, and even restrictions in the form of patents/licenses and dominance in advertising - does not slow down but rather accelerates the long-term development process 😋 - what should we do about it?
it is obvious that technology change and innovation are killing old technologies and the businesses that consume them. Kodak, Nokia, even Collins included them in his list of the old ones just confirm it) And that's not his main point, which you are ignoring for some reason.
But still he wrote about it and you can't deny it,
it turns out that you refer to Schumpeter to support quasi-socialist ideas, and it turns out that he is far from it,
Furthermore, Schumpeter advocated an elitist democracy, which implies a division of society into the best and the worst, the elite and the masses/crowds,
so what do you say now? - It turns out you are breaking down your own line of argument 😁
What about force majeure in this case?
Insurance.
Insurance.
So it is insurance for the people, but the state has to help the firms, apart from insurance?
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! 😂🤣😅 - not legal methods you promote-s!
Not like that at all. You're the one who's ignoring the right for some reason simply. And I'm hinting that without the legal structure of society, the market breeds slavery) and besides, sharing one's profits has really nothing to do with the market, it's determined by law, not the market.
You then deigned to write: "And the fact that you don't want to give your money away. Well, you can provide that in a non-market relationship as well." -- That sounds like a threat, one, it sounds like an incitement to change the social order in a way that makes relations non-market, two.
So you look like a socialist extremist.
Nevertheless there are questions: why should I give my money away? and why do you oppose the market to the law? 😁
Also I note that for at least 3-4-5 millennia (depending on the region) humanity has existed with a legal order, so your calls for a legal order of society are a bit overdue...or maybe you are writing us here from the Neolithic era 😋