The future of the Forex industry - page 46
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
This again means that there is no argument and the socialist wing has failed again, right?
It's not, I just don't like long and lengthy speeches. Don't forget brevity is the sister of talent. You don't need too many superfluous words, foreign terms and references to authorities. One should only express one's opinions briefly and clearly, and draw no hasty conclusions and conclusions, but those that have been deeply thought over and experienced in the depths of one's soul.
Are these new trends? - It's always been like this...
Okay, well... it's just as if you were complaining about injustice...
It's not complaining, it's dreaming of a better society, nothing more. Remember how Companella dreamt of a city of the sun)
That's not true, I just don't like long and lengthy speeches. Don't forget brevity is the sister of talent. Don't use too many superfluous words, foreign terms and references to authorities. It is necessary to express one's views briefly and clearly, and not to draw hasty conclusions and conclusions, but those that are deeply thought over and experienced by a man in the depths of his soul.
But it just makes it clear that you have no arguments, and thus emphasizes that the social line/information has failed, as it always has.
Recall, you were unable to justify what is a decent level of pay, unable to articulate the principle of equitable distribution.
You also failed to explain why it is necessary to limit the company's profits to 10 times the average wage and on what basis you were going to cut into the company's net profits.
These are not complaints, but dreams of a better society, nothing more. Remember how Companella dreamt of a city of the sun).
What's a better one? 😉 If it's "take and divide" again, it's not a better one at all.
Who are they? And who are we? Who are you talking about now? I'm just not good at your patriotic discourse. I can only assume you must be for the USA? 😍
As for China, you probably think the USA is asleep and dreaming of a bashing China, don't you?
At the same time, there are those in the elite who benefit from developing relations with China, and there are those who don't care.
You cannot look at the world one-sidedly!
It is a universal template, instead of "we" and "they" you can put any two sides of the conflict and it will still be relevant. As an official representative of his country the man in the video could not say some things, now he can and does, and of course no one recognises his defiant private opinion as an official state position. But is he saying something that contradicts common sense and the real state of affairs? In my view no, very succinctly and succinctly articulated the conflict between declared values and real economic interests.
I don't know which discourse you mean exactly, it's a matter of opinion. The answer depends a lot on how far away and in what status the respondent is in relation to the issue centre, because inside and outside are obviously different things supplied :)
I'm not looking so one-sided, it's you making it so simplistic for some reason. It is clear that there are different interests and they may conflict, but we are talking about the main component, and I think it is wonderfully described by that short video. To crush - no, to try to slow down, to prevent the growth of a competitor - yes. "Nuichotakova?" - asks the presenter at the end. Nothing, the truth of life, which is not customary to talk about directly, it is indecent. You don't discuss slaughtering cattle while eating steaks in a restaurant, it spoils your appetite :)
But it just makes it clear that you have no arguments, and thus emphasizes that the social line/programme has failed, as it always has.
Recall, you were unable to justify what is a decent level of pay, unable to articulate the principle of equitable distribution.
You also failed to explain why you had to limit company profits to 10 times the average wage and on what basis were you going to break into the net profit of the company.
What is the best? 😉 If you take it and divide it, it is not the best.
No, I'm not interested in repeating myself and going around in circles. You will never agree anyway. The positions of wolves and sheep will never coincide. What can the wolf offer the sheep positive? - Let me eat you slowly and gradually).
You will say that this is how nature works, the big fish eat the little fish. Only man is not an animal but a rational being and the laws in human society must be humane and fair.Well it's just a universal template, instead of "we" and "they" you can substitute any two sides of the conflict and it will still be relevant. As an official representative of his country the man from the video could not say some things, now he can and does, and of course no one recognises his defiant private opinion as the official position of the state. But is he saying something that contradicts common sense and the real state of affairs? To my mind no, very succinctly and succinctly he has articulated the conflict between declared values and real economic interests.
And what, in fact, is wrong with this speech? Just an ordinary program, someone expressed his opinion, so what? A very minor figure. At the top there will be those who are for and those who will be against, and what does it have to prove? The business elite also want to trade with China.
I don't know which discourse you mean exactly, it's a matter of how you look at it. The answer depends a lot on how far away and in what status the respondent is relative to the issue centre, because inward and outward are obviously different things supplied :)
I don't get it, but it sounds like a dire threat to peace and tranquillity 😁
I'm not looking so one-sided, it's you making it so simplistic for some reason. It is clear that there are different interests and they can conflict, but we are talking about the main component, and here it is in my opinion wonderfully described by that short video. To crush - no, to try to slow down, to prevent the growth of a competitor - yes. "Nuichotakova?" - asks the presenter at the end. Nothing, the truth of life, which is not customary to talk about directly, it is indecent. You don't discuss slaughtering while eating steaks in a restaurant, it spoils your appetite.)
Indeed, what is so special about it, so they discuss politics, of course there will be a question of competition, so what? They are not calling for war.
No, I'm not interested in repeating myself and going around in circles. You'll never agree anyway. The positions of wolves and sheep will never coincide. What can the wolf offer the sheep positive? - Let me eat you slowly and gradually).
You will say that this is how nature works, big fish eat small fish. Only man is not an animal but a rational being and the laws in human society must be humane and fair.And what am I supposed to agree with? I should feed the losers for free? That's nonsense. That said, I don't eat them alive as you write,don't get it twisted.
You have failed to articulate either the criteria for fair distribution, failed to justify whyit is necessary to limit the entrepreneur's profit to 10 times the average wage and on what basis you were going to draw from the net profit of the company...
And on that basis, as everyone here can see, we are left to conclusively and officially admit that the social discourse has succeeded, which is fine.
And we see once again that the whole essence of (quasi-)socialist demands boils down to one thing: give me everything for free. 😁
You will always treat near and far differently, for example, here are 10 people in front of you, 5 of them are your relatives, there is a boat with 5 seats, +1 helmsman is you and you decide who to take who to keep and everyone wants to be saved, but you have to choose five, and just try to tell me that you won't put your five? 😉
The rest of the pitchfork and hut metaphors don't stand up to any, even the most superficial criticism 😀
Of course not equally, but a native speaker of my own culture and mentality , all other things being equal, would be closer and more valuable. Because with him I can make a joke about Stirlitz or two chairs, but with a Korean I can't. And he (this host) can with me and that is valuable. The metaphors are simple and straightforward and can be explained using completely real-life examples. What happens if you come into conflict with representatives of some other ethnic groups for whom national (or some other) identity is still important? It is highly likely that your opponent will very quickly form a support group against which you will stand alone. You won't get any such support group because the inner circle is small and the outer circle, made up of independent progressives like you, feels no affinity to you and no need to support you. They stand aside, because why interfere, they will sort it out themselves, people are all the same, hands, feet and heads. And your opponents have a reliable system of recognizing insiders and outsiders, which allows them to participate in a real conflict with a nominal balance of strength of 10 to 100, because the 99 are yawning on the sidelines, not feeling themselves to be a party to the conflict in connection with the loss of their silly archaic identities. But then again, it's not with arguments on an amusing speculative abstraction, but with a good old-fashioned joking postmodern face :)