A topic for traders. - page 232
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
We must be bold and honest in admitting that hardly 1 in a million lives are truly meaningful, the rest are simply consumers of varying levels. Not everyone is destined to be Aristotle or Caesar. Usually at best one can advance "a millimeter" in some industry. Most lives are just a line between dates, playing almost no role in global history. But at the same time one cannot deny that the importance of different actors to society, by the contribution they make to the overall result they make or better if by the vision they carry with them. Lawyers, medics, programmers bring a unique good to people. And some on the contrary even drag society to a disadvantage, they are all useless freeloaders, drunks and false prophets.
How is it different? It is also people's appreciation. And why should labour appreciation not be fair? 😁
You could do that, it means society has collectively assessed in such a way that there's only enough for a yacht and not enough for a plane anymore.
It's hard, but the market does it nonetheless. It's hard to even determine the true value of a single apple, but the market does that too. Social consensus. Sometimes crooked, yes. And no one has yet come up with any other way that is more adequate.
There, and now you must accept that capital is also the result of labour, or labour in another form, fixed, embodied labour. That's why the children of the more successful ones do not starve from the beginning.
Suggest another word. I used the word "the best" in a simple intuitive sense of a type of social Darwinism. Morality and ethics have nothing to do with it, it is outside the box, it is left out of the brackets. A successful person may or may not be highly moral. And a beggar may or may not be highly moral. It has nothing inherently to do with that. Although the social pressure factor may push the less successful to 'do bad things'.
Becoming meaningful to society is such a goal, because the way up and down is filtered, but inherently random. There is a certain average to leave something for society, even a result of work, even good children, members of society. That's what a lot of religions or teachings have veiled. Like everyone is owed something there))))
The evaluation of work and the result of life have the same attributes and have differences. It is like a statement that the devices of human societies of different epochs have cardinal differences. It depends what is meant by cardinal. If we leave the stratified heterogeneity of society, the ruling elite and the prevailing right of force, these are the features of all societies. Or it is possible to find features inherent in all societies at all times.
You have quite a generalized definition of the market, the market does everything and everything the market does is good. It would not hurt to improve the definition of the market. But it turns out that any counteraction which leads to equilibrium can be called a market.
Of course, we do not argue that capital is the result of labor. The question is in the appropriation of these results by the different layers of society). Human nature is weak and I do not know, but apparently about half can usually be made to work for food under certain conditions. But it's not a stable situation.
The problem with rich kids is that they are only entitled by the institution of inheritance. And that's not a learning or nurturing institution. You can of course refer to the market, like the parent did not raise the child, lost the capital, and the market will straighten everything out, but this makes the employees who serve these capitals hostage. That is why I do not support this institution.
The term best man implies harmony, and there is always room for morality. The best and successful professionals receive all the benefits of life.
To become a meaningful person for society is such a goal, because the way up and down is filtered, but it is inherently random. There is a certain average of leaving something for society, even the result of work, even good children, members of society. That's what a lot of religions or teachings have veiled. Like everyone has to do something there))))
Should religious mantras be taken seriously?
The evaluation of work and the result of life have the same attributes and have differences. It is like saying that the structures of human societies in different eras are radically different. It depends on what you mean by cardinal. If to leave the stratified heterogeneity of society, the ruling elite and the prevailing right of force, these are the features of all societies. Or one can find features inherent in all societies at all times.
Well if in such a general sense to say that any society has hierarchy - then yes - it does exist in both slave-holding and developed democratic societies. 😁
We should complain to the moderators to calm the trolls down. They're not hiding anything anymore, no matter what.
The cow can't be mooing.
You have a very generalised definition of the market, the market does everything and everything the market does is good. It would be nice to tweak the definition of the market. As it turns out, any counteraction that leads to equilibrium can be called a market.
I did not say that a pure naked market is always good, especially because as we discussed earlier in the thread about capitalism and the future of industry, Keynes showed the limitations and drawbacks of a pure market. The market is a voluntary relationship based on the exchange of values. This (trade) determines the value of all things or a reasonable / equilibrium approximation to it. A thermostat, for example, cannot be a market because there are no participants and no value is determined there. Forcing a transaction cannot be a market. The main thing is that the market automatically identifies the efficient and the inefficient, and the inefficient die out. This contributes to economic vigour.
The cow can't be mooing.
That capital is the result of labour is not in dispute, of course. The question is the appropriation of these results by the various sections of society). Human nature is weak and I don't know, but apparently about half can usually be made to work for food under certain conditions. But this is not a stable situation.
The investor invested his money in the factory, invited technologists, calculated the technological process with them, made a calculation of the CC, calculated the business plan, attracted additional funding if necessary, brought lawyers, worked out issues with partners, and so on, finally invited workers to do what is necessary, thereby giving them work, and now it is legitimate and fair that he embezzles financial resourses after all the payments?
The problem with rich children is that they are only entitled by the institution of inheritance. And this is neither a training institution nor a nurturing one. Of course one can of course refer to the market, like the parent did not raise the child lost the capital, and the market will straighten everything out, but this makes the employees who serve these capitals hostage. So I do not support this institution.
Usually those who have nothing to inherit do not support the institution of inheritance 😁😂🤣
Well imagine if you managed to create your own hedge fund, make trillions, and in that case would also advocate not inheriting, give away your wealth to the poor? - I don't think so!
Even at the property level: willing to give your flat to the state for nothing, hmm?The term best person implies harmony, and there is always room for morality. The best and most successful professionals get all the benefits of life.
I clarified earlier that by 'the best' I meant the economic component, the business qualities. But very often it happens that "the best" is correlated, and the best in the market sense are simultaneously highly developed harmonious individuals. And I am not talking about the nouveau riche from the 90s, that is a special case.
I'm talking about correlation, and children of better-off parents have access to better education, cultural and business environment, develop taste and style, appreciate art, literature, philosophy, and are able to communicate at a high level.
Conversely, the proletarian descendant usually has little cultural capital and tends to have a lewd level of communication, as we can clearly see in this thread with the example of the degenerate vocational schoolboy and concrete mixer.
Should religious mantras be taken seriously?
In all judgements/statements, one must look for the truth. If at least one intelligent/helpful thought comes away from a silly lecture, not bad at all. )))