The future of the Forex industry - page 25
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
So, insurance is for the people, but the state has to help the firms in addition to insurance?
Insurance for all, I wrote about it, re-read it carefully, state funds are the same insurance, the funds are collected from the contributions of all participants.
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 noticeably more in demand than that of plant B, and therefore plant A has the highest profitability and a much higher net profit 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...
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).
Come up with your own example, you haven't done that...
The success of a business depends on its management, which is always in the minority, I hope you won't argue with that?
The number of managers does not matter, 1 or 10 or 100, in my example was 1, make up your own example, in essence nothing will change.
Executives (partners/owners) no matter how many there are - are entitled to profit of their company - and it will depend on how successful their plant is.
There are special methods of withdrawing profits in accounting, such as dividends, and there are relevant articles in the Companies Act.
I don't understand why you are trying to deny something that has actually existed for a long time.
You said: "I hope you're not claiming that 90 per cent of the capital land owned by 1 per cent of the population is EARNED by fair means" - which implies the accusation that the most successful capitalists have stolen from the rest of the population, but you haven't provided any evidence of that. " - 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 factual statement of "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)
To repeat your words:"I hope you're not claiming that 90% of the earth's capital owned by 1% of the population is EARNED by fair means."
That implies that 90% of the planet's property has probably or undoubtedly been unfairly earned, doesn't it?
Now prove why it wasn't earned honestly 😆
This is where the subtlety lies, because if it is the result of the work that is paid, not the work itself, then obviously more valuable results should be paid more than less valuable ones, so it makes sense? - 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 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, but this is an ideal that does not exist and will never exist) Although this is the target state of market relations.
Why is it illogical? Are you suggesting payment by labour? I would then come to your factory and work hard and inefficiently and demand payment by labour.
For example I could offer to build a raw iron furnace and forge iron with a hand hammer or for example to till a field with a plough - will it be a lot of work? - So, pay me a higher wage.
I hope it is clear now that your offer is absurd.
The market provides an incentive to invent new efficient methods and rewards this generously.
Well, that's easy, wage labor is when you don't risk your money, invent a new business, don't stress about financial planning, and just sell your time for money, but you're not entitled to profit from the enterprise, while entrepreneurship is when you risk your own or partners' money, invent your business, stress about financial planning, and don't sell yourself, but you pay others to work, and take profit from your enterprise.
It's easy at the level of a student or high school student and your explanation is at that level. Schumpeter's is different and I think you know about it) From Schumpeter's your explanation is just CONSTRUCTING your business) I even liked straining with the financial plan))))
I don't have to repeat Schumpeter, do I? I deliberately write it in simple words to make it fun to read, but it's basically correct.
What is your problem with my definition of an entrepreneur and a working man who works for a living?
He separated the financier from the entrepreneur, but this is particular, apparently he wanted to distinguish the function of the innovator, which either significantly changes the industry or does something better locally here and now, but in fact this is the basis of 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 long as they coincide with Schumpeter's ideas 😋
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.
That's very good, I'm happy for Schumpeter, good man 😀
But you are again attributing statements to me that I haven't written anywhere, I didn't write that the market itself will effectively straighten everything out, it didn't happen, it's not nice of you! 😫
On the contrary, I wrote that Keynes showed that the market balance is just a special case, and the market needs to be adjusted by pushing in the right direction, read carefully before you answer.
Э... I didn't say that the government has no control over anything... I was saying that the economy and the market are primary... the state can support it or kill it like the Bolsheviks did before the NEP and then cleaned it up...
On the contrary. Law is primary. Especially Roman or Byzantine. Examples abound. Why such persistence)
You obviously don't know much about ancient history...
You would be surprised to learn that people traded long before kings-states, traded between tribes, communities, clans...
Anthropology has shown conclusively that the most primitive tribes of the Amazon and the savages of Guinea and the Aborigines of Australia traded with each other.
You can read Charles Letourneau as well as Gordon Childe, John Graham Clarke if you don't believe me...
Savages already have the rudiments of a monetary system in the form of circulation of rare shells, stones, etc.
Ancient historians such as Herodotus described the customs of barbarians living as tribes and there was already trade.
I am sad to see such a low level of erudition in 2021! 😐 urgently go to the library! 🤣 (and then to the factory!)
What is the selfishness and immorality, can you explain clearly? should we have paid the cleaner as lead developer or as architect of business solutions? 😂😂🤣
In that common people are always hostages to the structure of society. And if it is 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 this is not their issue. they are certainly not going to solve it.
This is typical demagogy... if a person has failed in self-development and has only become a janitor - it is his and only his personal problem.
The richer people should not pay him extra by compensating him to the level of the rest - it is nonsense.
Moreover - it would be unfair to those who have spent years studying, practicing in their field to become a top-notch professional or entrepreneur.
After all, one could just become a pauper janitor and get the same. Bullshit.
The flaw of the socialist trend is exactly that - artificial equalisation.
I'll repeat my question again: should we have paid the caretaker as a lead developer or as an architect of business solutions? 😂😂🤣