A topic for traders. - page 229
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
I mean, there's just no way around it. We need something else.
Anyway, the prophet of Iser shamefully slipped away, and then slipped away, and didn't cover the 200+ page topic, so we're not bothering anyone.
In a fortnight you can count half of winter in the northern hemisphere.
The fun will begin in the markets.
Yes, understandably, it's respect for prominent representatives, but in no way the value/meaning of life and nothing to do with sins.
Let me write more directly for you personally the question: - do you condemn the status of a rentier/investor for example and why? (and then there will be a special conundrum, 😉 )
OK, and do you think society's obligation to the individual exists, or is it unimportant? 😀
The question was about society's opinion on the value of an individual's lived life to society, not about the meaning of life. A sinful life has meaning too. but that is not something we are discussing in this discussion.
Of course, I do not condemn the owners or managers of capital, if they increase that capital. And if they reduce or squander it on pleasures to the point of bankruptcy, how can you not condemn them. The no-good ones apparently. Buffett, Trump, how can you condemn them in terms of capital management.
About society's obligations earlier posted. Bash for bash. Laws in lieu of the fiscal part of any revenue. Laws and their enforcement are an obligation of the state to its citizens of sorts)
The question was about society's opinion on the value of an individual's lived life to society, not about the meaning of life. A sinful life also has a meaning. but that is not what we are discussing in this discussion.
You said that work is everyone's responsibility, but you did not reveal the basis for that thought. More accurately, you wrote: "work is the duty of a reasonable and righteous life". What is the relationship between reason and labour? A rational being seeks to minimise labour, not maximise it. And what is the meaning of righteousness here? For example, I suggest you dig a field with a spoon, there will be a lot of labour... Does that make your life righteous?
Of course I don't condemn the owners or managers of capital if they increase that capital. But if they reduce or squander it on pleasures to the point of bankruptcy, then how can you not condemn them. The no-good ones apparently. Buffett, Trump, how can you condemn them in terms of money management.
And if workers work in a deafeningly inefficient factory with an unmitigatedly negative ebitda? (EBITDA).
A factory that gobbles up shareholders value rather than creating it.
❓ Yeah, and what about the traders? - Are they living righteously? ❓
By the way, what if this is an option: you manage your capital and spend it on fun, what about that?
You said that labour is everyone's duty, but you did not reveal the basis of this thought. More accurately, you wrote: "work is a duty of reason and righteous living". What is the connection between reason and labour? A rational being seeks to minimise labour, not maximise it. And what is the meaning of righteousness here? For example, I suggest you dig a field with a spoon, there will be a lot of labour... Will your life become righteous because of it?
The criterion is probably the usefulness of an individual for the society. It is society's assessment, not self-assessment.
You are going off topic. Reveal better your term - The best individual. What or who it is in your understanding. Your understanding seems to be at odds with the accepted one.)
I wrote earlier about society's obligations. Bash for bash. Laws are a substitute for the fiscal part of any revenues. Laws and compliance with them is an obligation of the state to its citizens, I think).
OK, I am satisfied with such an answer. But logically, the individual should receive an equal package of government services in exchange for a portion of the revenue. Laws should not be arbitrary or absurd. There are often some problems with equivalence. 😊 For example, the previously mentioned cryptocurrency dealers are rightly outraged, because they feel that the state is not yet giving them anything for their industry, but is encroaching on the money.
The criterion is likely to be the usefulness of the individual to society. It is society's assessment, not self-assessment.
Society's evaluation, okay, so you agree that the evaluation of an individual's work is ultimately done by society, and in each individual case through negotiation and without coercion. Then if a proletarian in a factory receives a low wage, it only means that his work is not valued too highly, but that is fair.
Labour is a necessity, not an end in itself. We come into this world hungry and suffering, and labour helps us to create the conditions that are good for us. Labour is a means to an end, but labour itself is not a good thing.
You are getting off topic. Expand your term, the Better Individual. What or who is it in your understanding. Your understanding seems to be at odds with the accepted one.)
There's nothing special about it. By "better" in that context, I meant more skilful, adaptable, knowledgeable. Without the moral and ethical impurities.
What if workers are working in a deafeningly inefficient factory with a glaringly negative ebitda? (EBITDA).
A factory that eats up shareholder value rather than creating it.
❓ Yeah, and what about the traders? - Are they living righteously? ❓
By the way, how about this: you manage capital and spend it on pleasures, what about that?
Depends on what made the factory deaf and inefficient. The workers are unequivocally unlucky. If the state of the plant is the work of talentless or worse than thieving management, it is only fair to lock them up. In China, they would. Perhaps crisis management would help. But in any case, most of the workers are hostages to the situation in the factory.
The traders make their money through legitimate immoral activities. It's an old theme. Saber and you brought it up earlier. Anyway, a trader is better than a thief).
If he spends more than he earns by managing capital? Is that the question or is it different?
It depends on what made the factory deaf and inefficient. The workers are unequivocally unlucky. If the state of the plant is the work of talentless or worse than thieving management, it is fair to lock them up. In China, they would. Perhaps crisis management would help. But in any case, most of the workers are hostages to the situation in the plant.
In general, yes, no one expects workers to understand anything about managing the financial/economic activities of the plant. If the plant at some point just became irrelevant, uncompetitive, without any theft let's say, then the workers will have to look for a new place.
Traders make their money through legitimate immoral activities. It's an old topic. I think both Saber and you raised it earlier. In any case a trader is better than a thief).
OK, so you being on the programmer-trader forum are complicit and contributing to immoral acts. 😉
If he spends more than he earns by managing capital? Is that the question at hand or the other way round?
Let's say that exactly as much as he earns, so much as he spends.