Точно, заложи ближнего своего!
"Лучше стучать, чем перестукиваться..."

Ок, думаю стоит попробовать... А комиссия в 1 рубль не зависит от суммы платежа?
И при чём здесь яндекс деньги, я что-то упустил?

Ok, just looked a little above...


Lol

Lol, I reread what the OP wrote on the first page, it is garbage, simply put mildly speaking

"Я, сцука, Родину продал, а мне не заплатили!!!"

It is ticked by default, so when your payment is pending you should cancel it manually (if you would want to)

I guess the bonus is a one-off payment, though I've got two personally...

I don't understand what you're referring to

It was you who denied "direct" money influence on productivity. I've already told you that almost any effect (especially in economics) which you consider as direct can in fact be divided into a chain of smaller cause-and-effect links (and every link can be subdivided even further, if necessary). In real life, it is rather a matter of convention as to what regard direct and what not. Ultimately, it depends on the scale in which you consider some phenomenon (macro/micro)

Then you switched the theme to a functional dependence as a compulsory condition for "directness" and I've given you a very simple example of two economies (money vs barter) where money influence on productivity (or absence thereof) is evident and can even be described by a simple function taking just two values as an argument and giving you productivity as a result. This example you successfully ignored, though it proves that the very existence of some form of money in circulation is an important factor for productivity on macroscale. An assumption that the magnitude of this influence is dependent on the amount of money in circulation is evident and very well logically founded. The productivity increases with more money in circulation up to some optimal level beyond which injecting even more money can do more harm than good

Ага, будешь первым парнем на деревне на раёне!

Ростелеком это не магазин, там нужно номер лицевого счёта указывать

You're incredibly lucky!!!
This is unfair, I haven't yet won anything...

Это ИС-2, если мне не изменяет память. Пушка не по центру орудийной маски

If Y is productivity (some number) and X is amount of money in circulation (another number) you can always find a function which will show you "direct" connection. I don't really get what you're arguing against

And now you blame me of resorting to petty semantics, lol 

So you implicitly suggested that anyone would want to influence the market (either by participating or abstaining from participation)?


Now you assume that collapsing the status quo was the reason behind the lack of participation? How come?


Basic what? Your implicit assumptions as the only option?

Strictly speaking (was it you who insisted on being precise?), it's just a matter of choosing a transformation function (your F). Whatever you consider "direct" can be further detailed into multiple intermediate steps, so finally it cannot be called "direct". And vice versa, whatever you called "indirect" may be transformed to a direct relationship by choosing a proper F

Actually, you are trying to save your position by clinging to the things which are insignificant in the context. First of all, it was not a question of changing the amount of money in circulation for money to change productivity (yes, you get your attitude mirrored back). Secondly, I could just propose to compare two economies, i.e money economy and economy without money (barter economy). Would a productivity boost in the first case be a direct result of introducing money into the economy?

I think it is still valid to say that money directly increases productivity

Why is it a poor choice to not trade if we agree that the market is unfair? Please expand more on this

It's not that simple. We can say that money improves productivity but it doesn't mean that any quantity of money would do so

It facilitates productivity, like science for example