A topic for traders. - page 222
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
Well, I am well aware that there is corruption, and it happens in all countries 😉 - but to reduce capital accumulation to corruption is ridiculous.
I do not undertake to quantify it now, we need an objective study, I would like to see such a study myself, and what was the share of adventurism in total turnover during the conditional wild west / establishment of capitalism... but i am sure we will get vague grey borders between legal and illegal origins and we will argue forever about those borders... but i don't think there is less than half legitimacy as you say... And keep in mind that during the period of enclosure these practices were considered legitimate by current laws or for example the famous Indian Removal Act was also legitimate, but from the perspective of contemporary assessments it would probably be perceived negatively/immorally/etc.
The axiom also requires universal acceptance, for a second, and your thesis does not satisfy that requirement... Besides in social and economic sciences in general axiomatics is not particularly applied, it is not mathematics...
Being determines consciousness... Or should I say, the factor of social pressure makes people of lower strata more stupid, because they lack experience and even the ability to look into the real economic reality, to get away from their everyday life and the factory ...
I think you will agree that the principle of remuneration for results corresponds to the principles of universal meritocracy, so on a larger scale this approach also corresponds to a natural understanding of justice.
One must also remember the fundamental error of attribution, which also contributes to a selective view of the world, and as a consequence inflates the "evil world quotient" (or the formation of an evil world syndrome) in the average person, who, under the influence of available sources, begins to believe that, other things being equal, a wealthier or more influential person is worse morally than a poor or ordinary working man.
Defaulty regret and justification of a poor person usually follows from circumstances - as if he didn't have a chance to be different, while for a rich person they look for reasons rooted in his disreputable deeds... right down to the archetypal figures of the evil rich man and the good poor man... and in reality it's the poor who commit most of the crimes...
I do not think it is appropriate to mix corruption and direct violation of rights. These are different activities, corruption is always a violation of the law, but violation of rights, not always. Laws can be to please the capitalists, and no one has done away with the lobby.
I would like to see that too. The problem of legality has been discussed at different times before. I think it is better to be guided by moral principles, or else murder has not always been a crime either.
I agree, meritocracy is better than democracy.
But I do not quite agree about being. Being is as a consequence of the structure of society, and there are laws, education, upbringing.... institution of inheritance))))
Generally not inclined to localise the regret and justification of the poor. They mean nothing and can rarely be heard. Bankruptcy, on the other hand, is mostly the fault of management. Rarely does the market clean up a niche, but this is rare. Changing the means of production is not frequent, although things are faster now.
I agree, meritocracy is better than democracy.
Agreed that it will be those er rich freaks who will rule? )
freaks can't be dignified. Although this (power of the worthy is better than power of the people) is also from an ideal dream)
I don't think it is appropriate to mix corruption and direct violation of rights. They are different activities, corruption is always a violation of the law, but infringement of rights, not always. Laws can be a year for capitalists, and the lobby has not been abolished.
Infringement of rights is kinda like breaking the law (usually), as the legal system is kinda just about that. 😊
Perhaps you are interpreting "rights" in a broader sense than positive law.
The question is the same - whose rights have been violated and what rights?
I'd like to see that as well. The problem of legality has been discussed at different times before. I think it is better to be guided by moral principles because even murder was not always a crime.
In some cases even now murder is not a crime, but it is the exclusive right of authorized persons.
I agree, meritocracy is better than democracy.
Pure democracy is terrible precisely because it hands out equal rights to everyone without taking into account the value of the members of society and their abilities, I think Mill talked about that.
As for being, I don't quite agree. Being is a consequence of the structure of society, and there are laws, education, upbringing.... the institution of inheritance))))
Well then the vicious circle turns out, by the way the same Mill wrote about a trap of conformism in capitalism, but in fact it is characteristic of any system of relations.
In general, I don't tend to localise the regret and justification of the poor. They mean nothing and can rarely be heard. Bankruptcy, on the other hand, is in most cases the fault of management. Rarely does the market clean up a niche, but this is rare. Changing the means of production is not common, although things are faster now.
Bankruptcy can be of two kinds: (1) malicious bankruptcy and this is punishable e.g. Criminal Code 196 and (2) ordinary bankruptcy which can be divided into 2 sub cases: (a) due to market conditions and (b) poor management... it is not always possible to judge whether it was the market weakness or bad management... sometimes the market changes and the company (and its products) becomes obsolete... it's a kind of objective renewal... by the way, bankruptcy is not an evil in this context, on the contrary, new managers may come and restructure the business... for example, the oil shale companies went bankrupt and then went bankrupt again...
Sorry, but...
Pathetic self-justification... 😄
I can prove my competence as a speculator. For example, to open up a test signal at any time
... and dump it in shame 😆😅😄
And shouting - No, no! I didn't leak it, I just removed the signal because I don't need the signals!!!
And slipping in old October pictures - now that was a particularly nerdy thing to do.
You can tell a competent whistleblower straight away....
😒
Sorry, but this thread was opened for all traders, not for me personally to"Share our opinions. "
But for some reason, everyone is only demanding answers from me on the subject of waves and channels. The rest is of little interest to anyone else, apart from the attacks and accusations against me.
I can prove my competence as a speculator. For example, I can open a test signal (not for subscription) at any moment, and show a profitable short-term trade. I have done it more than once. In response I hear ridiculous accusations of drawing a report and losing money).
But the gentlemen with puffed-up cheeks who present themselves as millionaires and capitalists, cannot do so because of their incompetence in trading).
Well, you have sown the seed, but do not fertilize - and others do not know how to fertilize. People are thirsty for communication, while the seed does not sprout - that's why the mud is that the seed is bad. And I can draw any state - as long as there is nothing to compare it with in history - I did not draw and did not expose such things. No one but you have ever talked about your TCs as if they were something big... If you start talking - talk, if you don't want to - at least say that you're superstitious and don't support this topic with anything... I'm so superstitious I'm not looking for subscribers, not because it's a skewed world, but because risking other people's finances adds responsibility and makes mistakes. Once again, your turkey has a good seed, but you publicly planted it and don't let it germinate - that's why it gets trampled.
Infringement is kind of like breaking the law (usually), as the legal system is kind of all about that. 😊
Perhaps you are interpreting "rights" in a broader sense than positive law.
The question is the same - whose rights have been violated and what rights?
In some cases even now murder is not a crime, but it is the exclusive right of the empowered.
Pure democracy is terrible precisely because it distributes equal rights to all in a row without taking into account the value of members of society and their abilities, as Mill said.
Well then the vicious circle turns out, by the way the same Mill wrote about the trap of conformism in capitalism, but in fact it is characteristic of any system of relations.
Bankruptcy can be of two kinds: (1) malicious bankruptcy and this is punishable e.g. Criminal Code 196 and (2) ordinary bankruptcy which can be divided into 2 sub cases: (a) due to market conditions and (b) poor management... it is not always possible to judge whether it was the market weakness or bad management... sometimes the market changes and the company (and its products) becomes obsolete... it's a kind of objective renewal... by the way, bankruptcy is not an evil in this context, on the contrary, new managers may come and restructure the business... The oil shale industry went bankrupt and then started up again...
Indian rights come to mind somehow, about positive rights. Legal rights then.
If the showers in the hot shop are removed to save money at the city-forming enterprise, so that the workers can only leave the city, the rights of those who cannot wash there after work will most likely be violated and the savings will go to the profit of the owners. Laws are not broken.
Pure democracy is a myth and an impossible dream because of the qualities of man and society. And this myth is usually used to talk the teeth of those who suffer.
Bankruptcy is malicious and due to the change of means of production or market niches it is not our case.
Bankruptcy as a filter for efficient enterprises, or a cleaner for inefficient ones, yes, it works in small business.) But only in small business.
Indians' rights come to mind, as far as positive rights are concerned. Legal rights, then.
Natural rights maybe, or I don't know, human rights maybe... but now they have rights, there's the Indian Citizenship Act, Indian Civil Rights Act, + Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples... so it's just a historical issue, not a modern one.
If the showers in the hot shop are removed to save money at the city-forming enterprise, so that the employees have no other choice but to leave the city, the rights of those who can't wash there after work will probably be violated and the savings will go to the profit of the owners. Laws are not broken.
And where is the right to wash at the factory defined? 😃 What branch of the law does this even belong to?
Clean democracy is a myth and an impossible dream due to the qualities of man and society. And this myth is usually used to plaster the teeth of those who are suffering.
Tooth-saying can be done in other, even much more repugnant way, by placing in authoritarian society and convincing that it is so good and right.
Bankruptcy is malicious and by changing the means of production or market niches is not our case.
Bankruptcy as a filter of efficient enterprises, or a cleaner of inefficient ones, yes, it works in small business))) But only in small business.
Interesting question... I'll have to think about it... read... there was an opinion for example that GM's bankruptcy ended up benefiting them...
So you sow the seed but don't fertilise - and others don't know how to fertilise. People are thirsty for communication, but the seed does not sprout - that's the dirt that the seed is bad. And I can draw any state - as long as there is nothing to compare it with in history - I did not draw and did not expose such things. No one but you have ever talked about your TCs as if they were something big... If you start talking - talk, if you don't want to - at least say that you're superstitious and don't support this topic with anything... I'm so superstitious I'm not looking for subscribers, not because it's a skewed world, but because risking other people's finances adds responsibility and makes mistakes. Once again, your turkey has a good seed, but you publicly planted it and don't let it germinate - that's why it gets trampled.
Download:Izersky_grassing_his_grain_full_HD_with_sound.mp4 😏
literally, a "neural network without learning" has just been invented.
Unsupervised learning has long been known, so it turns out that the model needs to have some a priori information about the market, without prior knowledge, which by the way probably agrees with the dogma of bookworms.
In practice, of course, this would be nonsense, because each instrument needs to be adjusted individually.
You can only cluster something for something without learning.