A topic for traders. - page 219
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
Is there a fair competition anywhere? Your call is not valid for that very reason.
Why go to the other extreme and think that competition is unfair?
If everything is received fairly, there is no problem, but as many cases like this, it is the exception to the rule.
Now your words are not supported by anything, in fact you accuse that most of all rich people are thieves, but you can't show anything. It's more a sign of philistine thinking, where people from the lowest stratum by default consider the richer and more entrepreneurial people as thieves ("they stole everything"). It's unseemly.
Even if ... I don't like it. I would abolish the institution of inheritance. Radical and more effective. The development of society would be accelerated. And the argument that motivation will decrease, so it will not disappear)))
And that is a clear sign of communist ideology, let me remind you for a second that the communist program of 1848 contained, among other nonsense, abolition of the right of inheritance. 😆 And the most miserable thing is that even this program declared the political dominance of one class over another, LOL, it was essentially an aggressive group identity program with a typically black and white colouring of the world ("we are good, they are bad"). Everyone knows what it led to, the unfortunate consequences.... And in fact the abolition of inheritance rights is part of a coercive policy of expropriation-confiscation... Congratulations Mr Yastremski, you are a latent communist. 😉
And not everyone leaks pensions, some I know personally. They have a hard life, and here they have a lot of fun, you can hardly find it anywhere))))
Not all of course, but there's no doubt that Izersky is leaking. 😃
So it just hurts that someone spends more? Is that how it works? This is typical communist thinking.
No, that's not it at all. Let's say a rich person buys a cartload of groceries and then throws more than half of them in the landfill. Or he changes cars like a glove and creates a car cemetery. This not only pollutes the planet but also depletes its resources which, as you know, are not limitless. The mankind should think about life of future generations and not live one day at a time according to the principle "after us the deluge". Or what? - Shall we pollute this planet and Elon Musk will relocate us to Mars?
He has a different thesis. It is bad when the rights and freedoms of others are violated. He had the one about equalisation before. Then it was about rights and freedoms.
Okay, then what's the violation of the rights and freedoms of others? Maybe I missed something? How does one entity's increased consumption violate another's rights? Well, unless we are talking about some kind of predatory destruction of forests, hunting of rare species, deliberate pollution of rivers, or something like that. But that is not what we are talking about.
Why go to the other extreme and think that competition is unfair?
Now your words are not supported by anything, in fact you accuse the majority of all rich people of being thieves, but you can't show anything. It's more a sign of philistine thinking, where people from the lowest stratum default to thinking that the richer and more entrepreneurial people are thieves ("they've stolen everything"). It's unseemly.
And that is a clear sign of communist ideology, let me remind you for a second, that the communist program of 1848 contained, among other nonsense, abolition of the right of inheritance. 😆 And the most miserable thing is that even this program declared the political dominance of one class over another, LOL, it was essentially an aggressive group identity program with a typically black and white colouring of the world ("we are good, they are bad"). Everyone knows what it led to, the unfortunate consequences.... And in fact the abolition of inheritance rights is part of a coercive policy of expropriation-confiscation... Congratulations Mr Yastremski, you are a latent communist. 😉
Not all of course, but there is no doubt that Izersky is leaking. 😃
Which is the extreme, the thesis that everything is fair (one hundred percent), or the thesis that most capital is obtained in violation of the morals and laws of the countries of accumulation? To me the extreme is that all is fair. And for you?
Well that case (1848) didn't even come close to being realised and was never repeated, not even in China. And what is the problem? The institution of inheritance, apart from the individual motivation of accumulation, carries a lot of negativity and toxic consequences. And what has that programme with one class dominating another got to do with it. Why mention childhood diseases.
And what does it have to do with some)))) How can they affect our thinking))))
No, that's not it at all. Let's say a rich person buys a cartload of groceries and then throws more than half of them in the landfill. Or he changes cars like a glove and creates a car cemetery.
Actually, it's his right to do with his resources as he sees fit, because he acquired them honestly.
And you are most likely misinterpreting the situation, because the old cars won't go to the dump, but to secondary market dealers, and someone will buy them out, and so on.
Not only does all this pollute the planet, but it also depletes its resources which, as you know, are not limitless.
I agree that ecology is important, but now all progressive people are concerned with the environmental agenda, and at the highest level, as well as transcorporations, right?
I don't think there are many crazy rich people who spend more precisely in order to maximise resources and pollution.
Poor people's consumption is much more ecologically damaging, simply because there are more poor people, by an order of magnitude.
Hehe, hence the conclusion: it's useful to reduce the world's population. 😃
Humanity needs to think about the lives of future generations and not live one day at a time on the principle, after us the deluge. Or, what? - Litter this planet and Elon Musk will relocate us to Mars?
Now if you are not aware of very popular topics in "capitalism": GRC, ESG, responsible investing, zero carbon footprint, haven't you heard?
OK, then what is the violation of the rights and freedoms of others? Perhaps I missed something? How does one entity's increased consumption violate another's rights? Well, unless you take into account some kind of predatory destruction of forests, hunting of rare species, deliberate pollution of rivers or something like that. But that is not what we are talking about.
The Bolivar can't take two .... The increased consumption of an individual is harmless as long as it does not violate the rights of others. But here's not infringement, it's a rare and special case. Your appeals are being made to teeth, like it's not the manager's fault that bankruptcy will deprive employees of income - the employees have not worked well, especially the cleaners. That is why your theses are toxic.They are only sensible if the conditions that are not met in most of human society are met.
Which is the extreme, the thesis that everything is fair (one hundred percent), or the thesis that most capital is obtained in violation of the morals and laws of accumulating countries? For me the extreme is that all is fair. And for you?
An unsupported assertion.
More likely you are mentally appealing to the dramatic sharp social literature of the last century, which shows social contrasts and episodes of drawn-out capitalists squeezing the maximum opportunity, crossing all boundaries...
Probably from Theodore Dreiser, the image of Frank Cowperwood projected onto the world. 😄
Well that case (1848) didn't even come close to being realised and was never repeated, not even in China. What's the problem? The institution of inheritance besides the individual motivation of accumulation carries a bunch of negativity and toxic consequences. And what has that programme with one class dominating another got to do with it. Why mention childhood diseases.
How so... The Communist Party Manifesto was taken as a practice, although not all points were implemented, but the consequences of group identity politics and discrimination were disastrous, up to and including famine and terror, and China killed the most in numbers it seems.
What's that got to do with some)))) How can they influence our thinking))))
This is just technology from rhetoric 😄 purely for fun...
But it would be interesting to consider the figure of the distressed false prophet Isersky in this context: is he worthy of some compensation or help to escape from hopeless poverty? I think not, as it would be more effective for society to support promising students, effective progressive people-creators, start-up entrepreneurs, while the ineffective ones should die out. 😍
Now if you don't know there are very popular topics in "capitalism": GRC, ESG, responsible investing, zero carbon footprint, haven't you heard?
You're starting to contradict yourself)))) Compliance is cool, of course, like the means must match the ends, but it is close to the Jesuit Lajolet - the end defines, not justifies the means.
Responsibility is a good word in slogans, beautiful and poorly understood.
And ecology is a tricky subject, the end justifies the means, while a beautiful slogan justifies everything)... Of course, accidents in mines or other disasters is better not to bring, and that is clear only to business owners, or all The majority of sane non-owners too?
That is why it is more correct to abolish the institution of inheritance.
The Bolivar can't take two.... The increased consumption of an individual is harmless as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
I agree with that.
But it is not an infringement, it is a rare and isolated case. Your appeals are being made to teeth, like it's not the manager's fault that bankruptcy will deprive employees of income - the employees have not worked well, especially the cleaners.
Have they been inefficient? - Let them go to the factory.
I also find the thinking of some managers laughable: - Oh, oh, you can't stop this company, because otherwise so many people will lose their jobs. Fools. They are burying the economy in the ground themselves, making it inefficient in the long run.
As for "it's not the manager's fault" - I assure you, he's the first to lose his bonuses in a normal company, and his options are burned out if market performance drops, so... stop thinking in soviet terms... However I do not deny that many companies with dominant state ownership probably still live that way.
That is why your theses are toxic. They are only sensible if the conditions that are not observed in most human societies are met.
I'm only spicing them up a bit to keep the discussion interesting, I'm not actually calling for a bare market and ancap, but I strongly disagree when they start donating to useless futile members of society under the guise of moral principles. It's just plain stupid.