A topic for traders. - page 233
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
In all judgements/statements, you have to look for the truth. If at least one intelligent/helpful thought comes away from a silly lecture, that's not bad. )))
The main thing here is not to carry away stupid thoughts 🤣 or that's what happens most of the time.
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 democracies. 😁
That's not what the thought is about. There is hierarchy in any mound slide. But here if you take dynamic systems, there can be states like hierarchy and there can be states like earth with hills mountains seas. But humans in sufficiently closed boundaries always come to hierarchies).
With the same technological development, the structure of society in terms of living standards is about the same with different political orders. I.e. the technological development of a society determines the living standards of its strata, but not the political structure. Unfortunately or happily I do not know. Despots and dictators have the same problem of being overthrown as governments have of being re-elected. The reasons are the same.
I did not say that a pure naked market is always good, especially since, as we discussed earlier in the thread about capitalism and the future of industry, Keynes showed the limitations and disadvantages 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.
Keynes has it all too perfect anyway. So are you. Thermostat is the laws of the market close to the ideal. But that's not what makes it different. There is no development in the thermostat. Entrepreneurs, scientists. And the market participants are there. Molecules)).
The investor invested his money in the plant, invited technologists, calculated the technological process with them, calculated the CC, calculated the business plan, attracted additional financing if necessary, brought in lawyers, worked out issues with partners, and so on, finally invited workers to do what was necessary, thereby giving them work, and now it is legitimate and fair that he appropriates the financial resources after all the payments?
Too complicated examples. Better simpler, my field, and my right to let someone work in the field, how to distribute the harvest in a good and bad year.
And it's not a question of the right to appropriate net profits, of course he has the right. The question is what standard of living is provided by the pay of those serving his capital.
Usually the institution of inheritance is not supported by those who have nothing to inherit 😁😂🤣
Well imagine if you managed to create your own hedge fund, make trillions, and in that case too would 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?There's one who paid for an oil spill from a sagging tank))) He has already announced that he will leave a couple million from his billions to his kids because he is afraid for their psychological state. So he is not alone.)))
Few people are considered poor, it's a rare case altogether... Mostly everyone is normal in different circumstances.
And it's not about handouts, it's about upbringing, education, job security and standard of living. This, of course, is the task of society as a whole / government or large corporations))). That also requires a lot of money. Handing out is a lost cause, I agree.
That's not what the thought is about. There is a hierarchy in any embankment slide. But if you take dynamic systems, there may be hierarchy-like states, or there may be earth-like states with hills and mountains and seas. Humans, on the other hand, always come to hierarchies in sufficiently closed boundaries).
Well, animals have their own hierarchies too... unevenness is everywhere in nature... a common phenomenon... the distribution of income and wealth is no exception...
With the same technological development, the structure of society in terms of living standards is about the same with different political orders. I.e. the technological development of a society determines the living standards of its strata, but not the political structure. Unfortunately or happily I do not know. Despots and dictators have the same problem of being overthrown as governments have of being re-elected. The reasons are the same.
The technological mode really has nothing to do with the political system, the state always uses the technological level which is available at the given stage. But the quality of governance is highly dependent on the level of technology. For example, we were talking about writing and its role in the state. As soon as the politogenesis reaches a level of maturity, it borrows sharply from any available writing, otherwise the polity becomes impossible to manage resources, to send orders, to control execution, to do the paperwork. Only at the earliest primitive level could a sovereign personally travel around his lands and sort things out. There were isolated examples when the politogenesis was ahead of technological/scientific possibilities, e.g. the proto-states of the Ynglings hardly used runes for the purposes of state, but later on reaching maturity they borrowed the whole state experience, the whole package, and started to use Latin. Only at the early stage of the tribal-state the existence of a state without writing is possible, and as soon as the administrative and communal structure appears there is a need for an efficient communication. Or the supra-structure can be in the form of a military hierarchy like the Vikings came to Russia, but it too would eventually require borrowing from more civilised neighbours.
This is all very important for trading.
There is an amazing example described by Herodotus, when illiterate Scythians sent a message to the king Darius, not being able to write, they sent him the following things: a bird, a mouse, a frog and some arrows - which should have been deciphered as an ultimatum "go away", and Darius thought at first that they agreed to accept his power. One can imagine what level of "governance" the Scythians had at the time with such communications.
Quality of life also depends on technology to a much greater extent than on political system, but as we well know, an ineffective system leads to retardation and backwardness, and as a consequence - to the backwardness of the standard of living. The winners are those countries and nations which are able to form an effective environment for competition and stimulate individual development.
Keynes has it all too perfect anyway. So are you. The thermostat is the laws of the market close to perfect. But that is not what makes it different. There is no development in the thermostat. Entrepreneurs, scientists. And the market participants are there. Molecules)).
Clearly the development of economic theory didn't stop with Keynes 😀 - I just gave him as an example.
It is the non-ideality of the models that makes it move on to monetary methods etc.
Protein group molecules have somehow managed to evolve to the point where we are now communicating on this forum. 😀
You take too complicated examples. Better simpler, my field, and my right to let someone work in the field, how to distribute the harvest in a good and bad year.
And the question is not about the right to appropriate net profits, of course he has the right. The question is what standard of living is ensured by paying those who serve his capital.
All right, you have a field, you grow wheat there, and you decide to build a mill, invite workers, the efficiency of your farm has increased, you appropriate the profit from the sale of flour ... Norm?
Will you increase the workers' wages to your own level out of a sense of charity?
I had earlier clarified that by 'the best' I meant the economic component, the business qualities. But very often, "the best" is correlated, and the best in the market sense are also 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.
Better to change it to make it clearer to more people)
There is correlation of course, as are channel breakdowns and exceptions. My mother is a teacher, she told many stories)
One paid for an oil spill from a sagging tank))) He has already announced that he will leave a couple of million from his billions to his children because he fears for their psychological state. So he's not alone.)))
So? Are you jealous? And what does this have to do with the oil spill by the way?
Few people are considered poor, it's a rare case altogether... Mostly everyone is normal in different circumstances.
And it's not about distribution, it's about upbringing, education, job security and standard of living. This, of course, is the task of society as a whole / government or large corporations))). That also requires a lot of money. Handing out is a lost cause, I agree.
Upbringing, training, provision - it all costs money and a lot of it, all of a sudden. Who will just teach and retrain a poor vocational schoolboy and concrete mixer so that they could then earn themselves and live decently? From which funds will this be financed?