The future of the Forex industry - page 32
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
As always, inside. I think it's time to stop arguing, it's not going to be helpful. Everyone has stated their position and that's fine.
Yes I understand that you are decidedly unprepared to accept economic knowledge, which you personally dislike... in any case it was a useful discussion...
It's your opinion, and I'm not thinking about myself, I'm thinking about future generations,
Capitalists also think about the future, I assure you...
and would like Russia to develop in the right direction, to be stable and strong.
In the right direction is it in what direction? 😁 but for now anyway, without deep reforms it is impossible to see how we can achieve sustainable growth, and the tsar is obviously afraid of reforms... however! - i have said many times that in russia you can and should be successful and rich, and only weaklings berate the government instead of doing business.
I only have 78 years to live and I have diabetes. So I personally do not need anything, my pension is quite enough.
Health to you, all the best, take care of the virus, exercise, lead a healthy lifestyle and you can still go to work! 😉
Plus my son got rich on cryptocurrency, he became a millionaire. Can always help. Recently he gave me 50 000 rubles for my laptop, though I didn't ask for it, my old laptop is still working.
There you go, a shining example of successful capitalism, all is well.
For the second time, we are not talking about the personal salary of an individual, and the minimum wage in general.
Well it depends on many factors and the wealth of the region as a whole, in some Africa / Guinea is nothing at all, many Asian countries live much more modestly than Russia, the labor market reflects the ability to pay the appropriate skill level, nothing can be done but to develop and become more unique.
With a fair system of distribution of enterprise income, this minimum level could be raised to a decent level.
You never named the criteria of fairness, but in any case what you are proposing is unfair to owner-entrepreneurs.
And you haven't named a decent level either, and no one will pay employees for nothing if they don't provide a decent contribution to the overall value of the company.
Don't exaggerate, no one demands to pay everyone like Tupolev. No, I never realise that and I will not change my position. For society to be stable, laws must be created to regulate the equitable distribution of company profits.
Again you use the phrase "fair distribution" without defining it 😄 - but somehow your intuitive definition has nothing to do with real justice, it's that you don't want to understand that a business owner does not create his business to make his employees richer, an entrepreneur is not a philanthropist.
If you don't want to, sooner or later you will have another revolution, and that will take the country backwards again.
If you mean Russia, there will be no revolution here, the population is too passive and fearful.
Again about personalities, I mean the minimum wage, which can be raised if the profits are distributed fairly.
You can understand the minimum wage, but who will pay for this pleasure? - Have you thought about that? - This means that the burden on all businesses in the country will increase, making them less marginal, some businesses will close, while increasing wages for all will cause a spiral of inflation in demand - people will gobble up the money, nothing new will be created.
Of course raising wages is a very stupid even harmful economic strategy.
There is nothing worse than giving people money for nothing, I have seen it on a micro level, in a company, it also demotivates people and when a person gets money for nothing, he gets a peculiar idea that he can continue to count on it! - very bad for business - on the contrary, it is necessary to link an increase in wages to the results - then the person will try to create a new value, and it is for this he may be given more - but nothing else.
You just propose to throw people handouts (which it is not clear how to finance) and increase inflation without increasing productivity - it is horrible!
You can only do that in crisis episodes like with the coronavirus when Biden dropped 2 trillion from a helicopter, but that's only a special exceptional case.
Workers have to tear their veins out to earn more, no need to pay them for nothing, truly I tell you. 😋
No one should demand anything, it's demeaning. Personally, I have never demanded a raise for myself. If I didn't get a raise, I just changed jobs, luckily there was no unemployment back then and I was, as they say, in demand. If the minimum wage is at a decent level, then no one needs to ask for a wage increase. Only it should be periodically updated to take inflation into account.
A deeply mistaken opinion, apparently stemming from socialist times, just the opposite, you can and should bargain with your employer and do your best to improve your self-representation, well if you don't do that, you're worse off... 😰 But changing jobs is also a kind of strategy, often sitting in one place for a long time you can lose money, many people know that.
transcendreamer:
If you mean the Russian Federation, there will be no revolution here, the population is too passive and frightened.
Or maybe the reason is more banal. Russia has had enough of revolutions. One wants simple peace of mind. Everything collapses fast, but it takes a long time to build something normal on the rubble. Especially taking into account the calmness of the tumult after revolutions. Which often lasts for more than a year or two.
It is not worth demagogy about it. Otherwise it will be turned into a political plane. Which is not very welcome on this resource.
Or maybe the reason is more banal. Russia has had enough of revolutions. We want simple peace of mind. But as usual, everything is destroyed quickly, but it takes a long time to build something normal on the wreckage. Especially taking into account the calmness of the tumult after revolutions. Which often lasts for more than a year or two.
It is not worth demagogy about it. Otherwise it will be turned into a political plane. Which is not very welcome on this resource.
The fear of crisis is understandable, but at the same time evolutionary motion often goes with jerks, breaks, and crises are an inherent feature. One should not forget about a similar process in economics - the creative destruction previously mentioned by Schumpeter and Zombrat...
Furthermore, a crisis is a time of opportunity.
The fear of crisis is understandable, but at the same time evolutionary movement most often proceeds with jerks, breaks, and crises are an inherent feature, nor should we forget the similar process in economics - the creative destruction of the previously mentioned Schumpeter and Zombrat...
Furthermore, a crisis is a time of opportunity.
A crisis is not a revolution. They are not the same thing.
Speaking of crises, they are also different. There are not so often global ones, like the one that started with the pandemic. And there are more often sectoral ones that pass unnoticed by most people. But they are more periodic. And the fact that crises are a time of opportunity, almost no one more or less sensible denies it.
A crisis is not a revolution. They are different things.
Speaking of crises, they are also different. Some are not so often global, like the one that started with the pandemic. And there are more often sectoral ones that pass unnoticed by most people. But they are more periodic. And the fact that crises are a time of opportunity, almost no one more or less reasonable denies it.
I did not equate crisis with evolution, I said that evolutionary movement is most often uneven and with crises.
Is radicalism linked to violence or not? - Taking away property is also violence if you know what I mean...
I've written about correcting market imperfections more than once, re-read it again, Keynes started it, he was the first to show that the pure market does not handle cyclical phenomena well, etc.
If anyone doesn't want to develop and earn more - let them bum and starve - simple as that...
Honest foundations? - The question again suggests that the world is gripped by a conspiracy of world villains? 😁😂🤣
Nice of you to evade answers and confuse. Are you preparing for something, or is this just a warm up?)
Radicalism often includes violence, but does not equal violence. Radical repair measures are replacements). Associatively maybe you have radicalism equal to violence, but it is often not violence, but extreme measures))) But you persist))
On adjustment, the question was asked which methods of market adjustment belong to legal, which to economic. Keynes just showed that the market is not a self-regulating system and needs legal and economic adjustments. The question is which relates to which) Next, which of these methods is more important or primary)))
If you don't want to work, bum, or if you don't want to earn, die. These are radical judgements that are condemnable in any society. Besides, if a deadbeat was born into a wealthy family, they are not in danger of the street life of a bum. That's why they don't work) But about that ethics later, that's a separate fat topic)
I did not claim that the world is conspiracy)))) but gave an estimate that honest money in that 90% is 40%. And 60% is obtained by criminal or violent means. I'm talking about the real world, not the ideal world. And I asked your estimation. We will give our reasoning after the numbers. It's a fairer discus)
A market is where people buy and sell, all of a sudden... also see the definition of market through functions so as not to compromise honest wolves 😉
Also a reminder: Investors' attempts to describe the current situation have also led to terminology such as"wolf market". This is how BGC Financial's chief global markets strategist Michael Purves sees it, the Wall Street Journal noted. "A wolf market is characterised by a narrow trading range, with heightened volatility. In such conditions, as well as when macroeconomic problems dominate, the fundamental market benchmarks do not work, and traders are guided by the short term and technical analysis. According to M. Pervez, the "wolf market" is serious and for a long time, at least until the economy recovers or some catalyst appears to make the market sustainable. According to Michael Pervez, the "wolf market" could last until 2011. (old article but purely as an example)
The definition of the market through its function of aggregation, the regulation of anything, is a description of the market states of society. And besides this is a complication of terminology and logic. In other words, if something in society doesn't meet this definition, one of properties is absent or vice versa, this is not a market? In general, it is surprising, as at last what was obvious was written down in definitions for students.
The market is certainly buying and selling, but not everywhere where there is buying and selling there is a market. In addition, one of the reasons why the USSR lagged behind was the failure to meet market conditions for society. Social competition could not replace market motivation, and the lack of real market responsibility further aggravated the development of society in the USSR. China, on the contrary, has accelerated its development quite dramatically (not without external help, of course), merely by adding prison sentences and deprivation of life to market responsibility in the form of bankruptcy.)
Well the term Wolf Market is sort of irrelevant to our discussion at all.)) Deals always get shorter in times of uncertainty. This is not a wolf market, but a crow market, grab it and be glad to be alive) Not a good term.
This is sophistry, and then you can say 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 is a property of group dynamics of systems satisfying certain properties - no matter who trades humans or robots - 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 throw out people/animals/psychosomatics - the essence of the 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 (hehe😀) comes instead of humans - economics and markets will still work.
Every word carries a meaning. Why don't you want to answer in substance, Market relations are based on animal instincts, And yes rational behaviour and optimality is a consequence of animal instincts, not a property acquired after the birth of an individual. Don't stray from the subject.)
Market mechanisms are derived from market states. Some states of society that have market differences from other states of society. And so the wolf pack has market properties. Not all of them, just the initial ones. It is the conquest of the product and the preservation of it, and at the same time respecting cost optimality and rational behaviour) The market is not a property - it is states of society. I agree, any society, not necessarily people. Market algorithms can also be prescribed in models, but for some reason, such models cannot yet recreate the human community.
And yet he wrote about it and you can't deny it,
It turns out that you refer to Schumpeter to support quasi-socialist ideas, but 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 😁
You've put me down as a socialist, and a quasi)))) Didn't expect that)
Of course Schumpeter is an ardent marketeer and I like his ideas. You are pulling private things out of his writings, about elitist democracy and the division of society it was an assumption in later writings as a reflection on the future that he didn't finish writing. Therefore this assumption cannot be taken seriously.
We have an argument as to what is primary, laws, or economic models. You argue vehemently that economic models are primary without providing evidence. I, that the legal structure of society is primary, and further under strictly defined legal conditions some economic models may not collapse) And Schumpeter proved it.
Also a new topic, whether the common people are responsible for their ability to earn, or it is not a topic for them, but for the state. My point of view. The common people have no responsibility for their life opportunities. He is always a hostage of circumstances. Formulate your point of view)
Nice way of evading answers and confusing you. Are you preparing for something or just warming up?)
Admittedly, rhetoric is the most important part of what I do - and yet I used your own arguments and references to cave in to your positions.
Radicalism often includes violence, but does not equal violence. Radical measures of repair are a substitute). Associatively maybe you have radicalism equal to violence, but it is often not violence but extreme measures))) But you persist))
Let's get back to the original, I wasn't calling for violence, and I'm not a radical marketeer, as I wrote above, ok?
On adjustment, the question was asked which methods of market adjustment are legal, which are economic.
In general everything a state does must be legal (reflected in the rule of law) otherwise it is not a legal state, and at the same time they are all economic.
Keynes specifically showed that the market is not a self-regulating system and that it needs both legal and economic adjustments. The question is what belongs to what)) Next, which of these methods is more important or primary)))
That's exactly what I wrote about, that market equilibrium is only a special case, and there are positive links in a dynamic system in recessions, which requires adjustments, but that doesn't mean you have to do redistribution from the rich to the poor.
If you don't want to work, go bum, or if you don't want to earn, die.
How else could it be? - Why feed the useless?
These are radical judgements and condemnable in any society. Besides, if a deadbeat was born into a wealthy family, he's not in danger of living the street life of a bum. That's why they don't work) But about that ethics later, that's a separate fat topic)
No, these are not radical judgments, this is in line with justice and ethics, even an ancient Russian proverb reflects this wisdom: He who does not work does not eat.
To support a person in a critical situation is fine, but to constantly support him at the expense of redistributing others is foolishness and unfair.
Children of oligarchs - yes - is a separate case - but there is consumption of previously objectified labor.
I did not say that the world is conspiracy)))) but gave an estimate that the honest money in this 90% is 40%. And the 60 percent is obtained by criminal or violent means. I was talking about the real world, not the ideal world. And I asked your estimation. We will give our reasoning after the numbers. It's more honest)
On what basis did you determine the percentage? - Have you personally investigated everyone's life? - I think this is just jealousy and nothing more...
Perhaps it would be easier for you to understand the situation in this way: even if you imagine that no one has ever committed a crime, cheated, misled - even then the distribution of wealth would be Pareto - simply because there are more successful and less successful - and they are exactly distributed according to Pareto, think about it.