The future of the Forex industry - page 41
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
(There is 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 a lot of options, besides for a resident of the universe)
German school of rhetoric + own practice.
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 a mistake. Not equal)
OK, fine, I may have phrased it inaccurately somewhere.
Finally the right is remembered. But that's where we disagree. There are different kinds of law. 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 (example out of my head) there are castes, and lower castes must give half to higher castes, it does not mean that in such a community there cannot be market and property rights.
Certainly, the market will be there, and in fact we know very well that it was in caste and caste systems, but I was saying about something else, that economy always precedes legal systems, for example in Russia trading and legal tradition was in full swing, and the Russian Pravda appeared only in the beginning of the 11th century.
The wording is not clear. From the rich to the poor, from the rich to the poor? Or is it predetermined that if poor, then poorly working equals poorly earning?
The market (and through it, society) decides who gets more and who is more worthy.
If you earn little, it means that you produce something of little value that is of little use to anyone, or that you work inefficiently.
You shouldn't adjust the earnings of ineffective workers, it makes them less competitive, even within a small organization.
Imagine you are a manager and you have two subordinates, you decide how much to pay, if you make ineffective/newbie's salary like a seasoned professional it will be (1) unfair to the professional, (2) if it becomes known the professional will be upset and will probably leave you.
By the way, it is very important to keep employees' salaries secret, that's my recommendation to everyone if anything.
And what about the Swiss experiments to ensure a decent life for all the poor (I agree, there is a period of help, but decent help), they seemed to be good. 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.
They are too fat, that is what... Humanism is excessive 😄
Seriously, if the country is rich (high ratio of aggregate product to population) then they can afford to even feed the homeless, that's their right, but I think it's more of a harmful, demotivating effect.
More precisely: you can and should support a person in a difficult situation, but it should be accompanied by a special program of involving the person (at the factory🤣) and not constant allowances from which he will degrade.
Remember the saying? - If you want to help a poor man, do not give him a fish but give him a fishing rod.
In short, let them go to the factory!
You know, maybe the problem is in your wording itself. If you don't earn, you go homeless, starve, die. I.e. the wording in the clerical inclination and without appeals gives the attitude that if a person does not earn (notice, not working, and does not earn) the person must suffer.
Of course he must suffer! - That is the point! - You've absolutely captured the whole point of the metaphysical archetypal Factory🏭, the iron prison of Kenoma, in our doomed world where entropy prevents us from lampooning in Sphyros, for the very essence of the Factory🏭 is to produce suffering. The Factory🏭 is our entire planet, our entire economy, and this Factory🏭 produces a stream of suffering. You want to ask, why is there a need for suffering? Like is there no way to do it without it? This is a very deep relational problem, and we can only look at it very superficially now. Briefly: suffering seems to be a necessary element of our iron prison, Angband of material forms; some sages say that suffering purifies the soul and makes it more perfect; others say that without suffering you cannot know pleasure, because pleasure is antipossession, others hint in every way that in order to leave the iron prison you have to become non-divided, when suffering and pleasure become exactly the same empty. Then we easily come to the idea that the Factory🏭 is actually generating pleasure, just that some participants in the process are on the wrong side of the machine. And thus the Factory🏭 uses suffering as fuel to generate goodness/pleasure. The form of realisation does not matter, even ancient authors concluded that the Good (ἀγαϑόν,bonum) is the central attitudinal dominant, the centre to which souls aspire, and even said that the Good is God, for agatology is closely linked to teleology and axiology and soteriology and this literally pervades the whole universe, and the human spectrum as well, subordinating(στοχάζεσθαι) by gradient vectors all movements towards the Good (summum bonum) independently and privately.
Brace yourselves, the denouement is near. Now the most important thing. Money, or Bablos in Pelevin's way, is a symbol-carrier of suffering and pleasure, and simultaneously the measurer, it should be quite obvious by now. The universe is so arranged purely mathematically, and this will be repeated for any intelligent race on any planet. So those who work hard but inefficiently - suffer from a lack of BABLOS - because their labour in one form or another creates insufficiently powerful products of pleasure that the Factory🏭 delivers to its beneficiaries.
Obviously, Money is a measure of value *rareness, and given a fair (equitable) exchange, participants should not steal or take Bablos from each other, so the only way to improve welfare is to accelerate the production of more Good(and Suffering), otherwise there is no way.
But there is one more special aspect, the fact is that there is a derivative of suffering, and it is infinite, man unlike an animal can suffer more than his body suffers, and his mind can make his suffering endless, the dialectics of suffering as found by advanced thinkers has the property that the subject at each level of welfare after some time becomes bad and needs more and more, he begins to produce and invest more and more Bublos, but suffering does not end, so he needs not simply to determine
It turns out that all are doomed to suffer, painfully searching for ways to compensate, and no one is free to save himself by ordinary economic methods, and what is interesting is that the capitalists even suffer more than the poor, because the capitalists have more problems and the level of differentiation of corruptibility reaches enormous orders of magnitude.
It is clear that the poor and socialists want to steal Bablos from capitalists, thinking that they (the poor) need it more, but it is wrong, the capitalists will suffer disproportionately if Bablos is taken away from them, In that case there will be instant dissolution and integration of all orders of corruptions and they simply cannot stand it, so actually it is capitalists who need Bablos more than poor people, because capitalists have much higher demands, all this is very serious, not to be trifled with.
From an ethical point of view no one has the moral right to tell anyone 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).
Equally it means that on the same grounds you cannot tell capitalists that they "earn too much".
A quick comment about the word 'must': do not see it as an order, but as a logical necessity, an implication, an inevitability.
There is also the question of ethics. Does society need compassion for those we don't know. Is it necessary, when coming to the cemetery, to respect all the dead, or not, but only one's own relatives? (A radical example, I don't argue, but indicative.)
I don't see a direct link to the issue at hand, capitalism doesn't involve looting/desecration of graves.
But if you want to escalate the situation, I'll offer you a much harder choice in a situation where a ship is sinking, with 1000 passengers on board and only 100 will fit in the lifeboats.
What do we do, captain?
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)
Even if the authorities/legislators ignore the problems, after a while, people will solve these problems by their own means available to them.
Well that's the problem even, not the obedient children of oligarchs). Also, it seems to be equality of rights, but somehow it is not the same for all)
If the oligarch's children do not break the law, do not infringe on anyone's rights, they can do anything, however this applies to everyone equally.
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 reasons. 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.
I don't know, it would take a monumental study to answer exactly, but I agree that during the "establishment/accumulation" period there were often illegal methods, but I think that most of it was still acquired by legal methods.
And yes, I wish that the distribution of wealth was symmetrical and Pareto-like 80/20 and 20/80, but unfortunately today it's 90/1 and 10/99. )
How does it affect you personally? Jeff Bezos has $177 billion, so what? How does it affect your personal life?
Greetings, it's a person's psychological mindset. Nasim Taleb wrote about an interesting phenomenon he observed with his compatriots. There were many refugees in Lebanon during the war, including a large diaspora of Lebanese in the US. So all these people met only with each other, they did not try to integrate, they did not intend to become Americans, and they lived every day in their suitcases in anticipation of their return. And so they never left for their homeland. Taleb decided for himself that he would not follow their example, and became an ordinary American, made a lot of American friends, and not only. And he lives without problems in his new homeland, or motherland, I do not know how to say it correctly.
Hi. Is it a phenomenon, any man who had to leave his homeland and found himself in a foreign land feels discomfort, at least at first, because he feels that the environment around him and foreign people are hostile to him. And this has a reason because not everyone is loyal to immigrants.
I categorically do not accept it, a person's homeland is the country where he was born and raised. Everything else is a foreign land.
It's just that it takes a long time for the state to get into innovative areas. But, if spheres are viable, it always gets there).
How the state, law, taxes should be organised is a long-standing topic, and one phrase does not do away with it.
The state is the people, yes, their decisions often cause bewilderment.
So... This is the asymmetry, it turns out that an innovative entrepreneur has to pay taxes, but he does not get adequate legal support and protection of legitimate interests, or even in some places in general is not covered by law, as with crypto, but worse when the state begins to regulate something there and foolishly just breaks everything.
By the way, it is very important to keep employees' salaries secret, that's my recommendation to everyone if anything.
This is impossible.
I mean, of course, management may try to hide information, but still, one way or another, employees will know the salaries of their colleagues.
Yes, I understand. There is also a very strong barrier - language and cultural environment. Yes, it is something that strongly binds a person to the environment in which he/she grew up. And when it comes to emigration, everyone decides for themselves whether they are ready to break with the past and start life anew or not. If one does not feel such a desire in oneself, one should not go. But this is not patriotism, but attachment to a place and people one meets in life. And patriotism, that's what I said earlier, is an unfounded sense of self superiority. Which, by the way, is skillfully played by all the powers in the world. It is what enables huge armies to be assembled to slaughter other innocent but alien people.
German school of rhetoric + own practice.
OK, OK, I may have phrased it inaccurately somewhere.
Of course, the market will be there, and in fact we know very well that it was under the caste and class systems, but I was saying about something else, that the economy always precedes legal systems, for example in Rus' there was plenty of trade and the legal custom was already there, while Russian Pravda appeared only at the beginning of the 11th century.
The market (and through it, society) decides who gets more and who is more worthy.
If you earn little, it means that you are producing something of little value which is of little use to anyone, or you are working inefficiently.
You shouldn't adjust the earnings of ineffective workers, it makes them less competitive, even within a small organization.
Imagine you are a manager and you have two subordinates, you decide how much to pay, if you make ineffective/new employee's salary like a seasoned professional it will be (1) unfair to the professional, (2) if it becomes known the professional will be upset and will probably leave you.
By the way, it's very important to keep staff salaries secret, that's my recommendation to everyone if anything.
They are too lucrative, that's what ... Humanism is excessive 😄
Seriously, if the country is rich (high ratio of aggregate product to population) then they can afford to even feed the homeless, that's their right, but I think it's more of a harmful, demotivating influence.
More precisely: you can and should support a person in a difficult situation, but it should be accompanied by a special program to involve the person (at the factory🤣) and not constant allowances from which he will degrade.
Remember the saying? - If you want to help a poor man, do not give him a fish but give him a fishing rod.
In short, let them go to the factory!
Of course he has to suffer! - That's the point! - You have absolutely captured the whole point of the metaphysical archetypal Factory🏭, the iron prison of Kenoma, in our doomed world where entropy prevents us from lampooning in Sphyros, for the very essence of the Factory🏭 is to produce suffering. The Factory🏭 is our entire planet, our entire economy, and this Factory🏭 produces a stream of suffering. You want to ask, why is there a need for suffering? Like is there no way to do it without it? It's a very deep relational problem, and we can only look at it very superficially now. Briefly: suffering seems to be a necessary element of our iron prison, Angband of material forms; some sages say that suffering purifies the soul and makes it more perfect; others say that without suffering you cannot know pleasure, because pleasure is antipossession, others hint in every way that in order to leave the iron prison you have to become non-divided, when suffering and pleasure become exactly the same empty. Then we easily come to the idea that the Factory🏭 is actually generating pleasure, just that some participants in the process are on the wrong side of the machine. And thus the Factory🏭 uses suffering as fuel to generate goodness/pleasure. The form of realisation does not matter, even ancient authors concluded that the Good (ἀγαϑόν,bonum) is the central attitudinal dominant, the centre to which souls aspire, and even said that the Good is God, for agatology is closely linked to teleology and axiology and soteriology and this literally pervades the whole universe, and the human spectrum as well, subordinating(στοχάζεσθαι) by gradient vectors all movements towards the Good (summum bonum) independently and privately.
Brace yourselves, the denouement is near. Now the most important thing. Money, or Bablos in Pelevin's way, is a symbol-carrier of suffering and pleasure, and simultaneously the measurer, it should be quite obvious by now. The universe is so arranged purely mathematically, and this will be repeated for any intelligent race on any planet. So those who work hard but inefficiently - suffer from a lack of BABLOS - because their labour in one form or another creates insufficiently powerful products of pleasure that the Factory🏭 delivers to its beneficiaries.
Obviously, Money is a measure of value *rareness, and given a fair (equitable) exchange, participants should not steal or take Bablos from each other, so the only way to improve welfare is to accelerate the production of more Good(and Suffering), otherwise there is no way.
But there is one more special aspect, the fact is that there is a derivative of suffering, and it is infinite, man unlike an animal can suffer more than his body suffers, and his mind can make his suffering endless, the dialectics of suffering as found by advanced thinkers has the property that the subject at each level of welfare after some time becomes bad and needs more and more, he begins to produce and invest more and more Bublos, but suffering does not end, so he needs not simply define it.
It turns out that all are doomed to suffer, painfully searching for ways to compensate, and no one is free to save himself by ordinary economic means, and what is interesting is that the capitalists even suffer more than the poor, for the capitalists have more problems and the level of differentiation of the corrupt reaches enormous orders of magnitude.
It is clear that poor and socialists want to steal Bablos from capitalists, thinking that they (poor people) need it more, but it is wrong, capitalists will suffer disproportionately if Bablos is taken away from them, In that case there will be instant dissolution and integration of all orders of corruptions and they simply can not stand it, so actually it is capitalists who need Bablos more than poor people, because their demands are much higher, all this is very serious, we can not joke about it.
This means that on the same grounds we must not tell the capitalists that they "earn too much".
A quick comment about the word 'must': do not see it as an order, but as a logical necessity, an implication, an inevitability.
I don't see a direct link to the issue at hand, capitalism doesn't involve looting/decontaminating graves.
But if you want to escalate the situation, I'll offer you a much harder choice in a situation where the ship is sinking, with 1000 passengers on board and only 100 will fit in the lifeboats.
What do we do, captain?
Even if the authorities/legislators ignore the problems, after a while people will solve these problems themselves by the means available to them.
If the oligarch's children don't break the law or infringe on anyone's rights, they can do whatever they want, but that applies to everyone equally.
I don't know, it would take a monumental study to answer precisely, but I agree that during the "formation/accumulation" period there are often illegal methods, but I think that most of it was acquired by legal means nonetheless.
And how does this affect you personally? so Jeff Bezos has $177 billion so what? how does this affect your personal life?
Don't talk long, because life is short).
This is what allows us to raise huge armies to slaughter other innocent but alien people.
But it is also what allows us to raise armies to defend our own territories.
Dimitri is all over the place) and asks you if you have nothing better to do, and then he sits on the couch and trolls
You can't beat me Dimitri neither there nor there).
But it's not accurate.
Robert Daley has not represented the US as a diplomat for a long time, he teaches, appears on TV, lectures and so on, and in this video (obviously a TV programme) he is simply expressing his private opinion.