The future of the Forex industry - page 39
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
Admittedly, rhetoric is the most important part of what I do - and yet I used your own arguments and references to bring down your positions.
I can see a good school of thought) And judging by the sufficiently unapologetic rhetoric of persuasion, and by the dosage of insult, it may well have been disguised as teaching). I could be wrong of course, there are plenty of options, besides for an inhabitant of the universe)
I didn't claim you were calling for violence either, and you're definitely a normal marketer, but in detail we have different opinions and approach) You sort of claimed that radicalism equals violence, and I'm trying to get you to admit error. Not equal)
Finally the right is remembered. But this is where we differ. There are different kinds of right. The pillars of law are kind of Roman and Byzantine, with variations. But that is not the point. Its norms are not only economic. And just the economic norms of law are secondary. If by law (an example from my mind) there are castes, and low castes must give half to high castes, it does not mean that in such a community there cannot be the market and property rights.
That's not a clear statement. From the rich to the poor, from the rich to the poor? Or is the predetermination that if poor means poorly working equals poorly earning? And what about the Swiss experiments to ensure a decent lifestyle for all the poor (I agree, there is a period of help, but decent such help), they did not seem to perform badly. There were fewer poor people, people were socialized, not all of them, but enough of them. At least the experiment was not considered a failure.
You know, the problem is probably in your formulation itself. If you don't earn, you go homeless, starve, die. I.e. in a commanding inclination and without appeals the wording gives the attitude that if a person does not earn (notice, not working, but not earning) then the person must suffer. From ethical point of view nobody has the moral right to tell how to live. Apparently that is why there is such an aversion to such attitudes. If the phrase had been that I never owe anybody and that's it, it would have been perceived more loyally).
Besides, there is also the question of ethics. Does society need compassion for those whom we do not know. Is it necessary, when coming to the cemetery, to respect all the deceased, or not, but only their relatives? (A radical example, I don't argue, but an illustrative one.)
I agree, there is a problem in germany that was formed after the second generation in families living on welfare. The second generation went on to live on welfare without working. Still not solved by the way. Apparently it's that residue - the margin of error that can't be removed. But the question of what to do about it is a matter for lawmakers/lawmakers, not ordinary people.)
Well it's a problem even, not the obedient children of oligarchs). Also, it seems that the equality of rights, but somehow it is not the same for all).
So, I offered to give you an estimate of the legitimacy of capital as a percentage. I named my vision 40/60 and I would like to know your assessment. And then you can give your rationale. Yes, and let's pick the point where accumulation started from the beginning of manufactures. Up to that point the assets were only on a legal basis, so we are not interested.
And yes we would like very much that the distribution of wealth was symmetrical and Pareto-like 80/20 and 20/80, but unfortunately it is already 90/1 and 10/99 today. )
Just as workers cannot make money on their own without an entrepreneur, an entrepreneur cannot make money without the state.
This is true only in part and not always, but for example, you start an info-business, or trade at markets, or some consulting company, or at the very least coding on a freelance basis, or even promotion / courses through social networks, and so what contribution the state makes to your business? - You can go to any country and continue to work there without any problems, and many guys are doing so, sitting in Thailand and do not even come almost, well, what is the contribution of the state in the value of their business / freelance? - What do they have to pay for?
And then there are mega-corporations that have long been a state for themselves, they have everything, even their own cities, their own cemeteries, kindergartens, but that is a separate issue.
The state provides an important resource - the rules of the game, legal protection.
In the above-mentioned spheres, the state hardly understands and does not provide anything at all, while in the factory business it does.
Without the state, an entrepreneur would have to raise and maintain his own army, would have to become "the biggest fish in the pond" in order not to be eaten, in fact - to replace the state. Those who fail to do so "do not fit into the market".
Yes, that is why some kind of deductions are needed, that is what I wrote about, the state has to do what people individually cannot do, and there is no question about that, but only about taxes on activities that the state has not even learned to understand, let alone regulate.
not to seek a warm place in another country and take advantage of the comfort of that country that the people of that country have created and you have not participated in that.Can you use the comforts of other countries that you did not take part in creating?
Yes, by the waykhorosh wrote"warm place" - as if striving for the best is something bad 😀
In the above-mentioned areas, the state hardly understands or provides anything at all, but in the usual factory business, yes.
Yes, that is why some deductions are needed, that is exactly what I wrote about, the state should do what people cannot do individually, and there is no question here, but the only question is about taxes on activities that the state has not even learned to properly understand, let alone regulate.
It is just that the state does not get to innovative spheres right away. But, if spheres are viable, it always gets there).
How the state, law and taxes should be organised is a long-standing topic and one sentence will not do.
The state is people, yes, their decisions often cause bewilderment.
Moreover, culture is more and more acquiring the features of a universal culture, especially that of the West, but it is only historically so, because Asia has long been European, in some places even more European than Europe, and a similar process took place in history when Western culture spread to the East under Alexander and formed a new quality of universal Hellenistic culture, it is a very important process, because it leads to the formation of a new format of life, when people can communicate with each other regardless of their region of origin.
But this is not certain.
transcendreamer:
In the above-mentioned areas, the state hardly understands or provides anything at all, but in the usual factory business it does.
As long as the government does not just come in and steal your data centre (not to mention copyright and patents), the government does provide something.
One interesting trend in history has been noticed. When territories are fragmented, the state is weak, the enemy comes. Then the state begins to unite, driving out the enemy. But after that, it visits its neighbours. And so it goes on, like in the joke about two cowboys and a bunch of...
She's so ugly, mummy! 😱
For a singer, looks aren't the most important thing. But her voice is unmistakable. And she was very pretty when she was young. Obviously, she's not young anymore, and time, as you know, spares no one.
Quite often in economics definitions are made through functions, and if something satisfies those functions then it is it, e.g. money, one could speculate whether bitcoins are money? - formally, it fulfills almost all the functions of traditional money, but with certain limitations in practice (for now).
In Soviet times, there was also a market, but an unhealthy one and two-tiered, where the prices differed noticeably, and in general there is a market everywhere, and even the most backward savages have their primitive market, and even the extreme cases of monopoly/monopsony are also called a market.
Why was it necessary to talk about wolves at all? - To make an unflattering association for the market mechanism? - Humans, by the way, are far more evil creatures than wolves.
Well then, descriptive functions, although these are properties. Quite often unfortunate terms come up.
In the USSR, it was a mistake to abandon the Austrian economic school and switch to planned management with social competition and no real responsibility for the result.
Until the introduction of the term Wolf Market in 2011, this term meant a market with wolfish laws) And you probably meant not more evil, but more ruthless).
You could suggest the term Sparta's market, there too they did not spare those who were useless).
Of course there is a difference: near circle, far circle. But the point is that without the outer circle, there would be no inner circle. Just imagine: there is a war going on, and soldiers say something like: we are ready to fight for mum and dad, but they are here in warmth, and the front is still far away and there are strangers there, we do not know them and therefore we will not go anywhere.
That is exactly the way it is, but why did they invent barrier troops? You would not deny their historicity, would you? And I do not mean only the USSR, I mean the ancient Persians and Mongols and many other places where there were rear lines and death battalions. It is a very complicated issue of morality in war and the motivation of those involved. People go there either as mercenaries or forced by circumstances. There are of course volunteers, romantic people, dashing adventurers, but I don't think there are many of them, unless it is some kind of close-knit small community like a people's militia. Small communities are characteristic of them and people know what they're joining for.
Some time passes and the cosmopolitans, who are above stupid traditions, nation and state, have their coat wrapped along with their illusory house.
An obscure maxim - why should the fur coat wrap up if things are going well, and the house is by no means illusory?
Democracy and cosmopolitanism, for example, gave us Virgil and other migrant figures and modern examples.
You seem to be trying to throw free metaphors on the airwaves for lack of argumentation.
I officially declare you non sequitur!
Maybe sometime in the future such identities will disappear and culture will become universal and the state will be one for the whole planet, and then we will talk.
So it is already here, literally on the doorstep, you have fallen behind the world.
It's not even close to that now, so to ignore these categories is stupid, you will end up like with modern civilized countries which host savages because "they are the same people", and then have problems in the form of national criminal enclaves at home for their own money. Guests are considered human beings, and they in return welcome hosts as fools and tolerants, who must be milked and not given a fuck. The savages simply do not know about human rights, law abidance, civic awareness, and other such nonsense. So what for? As soon as they find out, when they acquire some moral standards that are complimentary to the acceptors, then invite them in. Wait until the firmware update to make the devices compatible, otherwise it is running ahead of the locomotive and catching knives, well, just inefficient and fraught. And it is a big question whose paradigm will be more effective, it is not sure that it will be globalism and not the opposite - maximum fragmentation and exuberant diversity of communities.
Typical phase of denial 😁
Your logic is: I don't like the X phenomenon so I'll just say that X doesn't exist 😆
Yes there is a problem with migrants of course, but there always has been...
It's a problem that falls under the penal code and will be solved gradually, migrants tend to acclimate as they assimilate.
And you know what, when I walk through an Arab neighborhood, for some reason no one rushes at me with a knife shouting Allah-akbar ...
And look how the offices of IT/itech companies (not Russian) are set up - nobody cares about the region of origin there for a long time - there are a lot of people there, Indians, Chinese, ...
I recommend you to update your knowledge of the world.