Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / General => Topic started by: sumner7 on February 24, 2004, 02:14:12 PM
-
There is a posh parking space for sale at Harrods. It's a snip at £100,000. Take a look for yourself...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3516023.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3516023.stm)
-
It should be taken from them for being greedy and turned into a disabled person parking space. I have more respect for a cripple trying to prise himself out of a Reliant into a wheelchair than any high-society money leech who lives off the hard work of the common people.
-
Yet another great point, KennyR. They deserve it more. :-)
-
"big amount o' bucks" -> /dev/void
:-x
-
Why are there so many rich retards?
:-?
-
What if the cripple inherited millions of pounds and is using that disabled parking space for free, pulling up in their modified limited edition Jag...? :-)
-
that_punk_guy wrote:
Why are there so many rich retards?
:-?
Because they are classed as geniuses in one way or another!
-
Yeah! What if they sold their legs to Satan for a rich and long life! :-P
-
Mikeymike wrote:
What if the cripple inherited millions of pounds and is using that disabled parking space for free, pulling up in their modified limited edition Jag...?
Then they better not come running to me for sympathy.
-
KennyR wrote:
Mikeymike wrote:
What if the cripple inherited millions of pounds and is using that disabled parking space for free, pulling up in their modified limited edition Jag...?
Then they better not come running to me for sympathy.
They better not come running to me either.
-
Sumner, did you see the joke there?
-
You two should have realised the parralel with the joke that ends with "if you fall and break your legs, don't come running to me!"...
-
Yes - because they can't walk! :lol:
-
@ KennyR
"It should be taken from them for being greedy and turned into a disabled person parking space."
-----------------
KennyR, why not take your opinion to its logical conclusion.
There are thousands of couples that for one reason or another cannot have children. And as TPG points out, anyone with too much of something, is a "retard", and sumner7 points out that those without, "deserve it more", so shouldn't we take some children away from those undeserving retarded parents with too many children and redistribute them to the more deserving childless couples?
As everything is relative, shouldn't we take say 20% of the housing from single people hogging all that space to themselves, and redistribute it to the more deserving non-retarded couples.
Wow, there's tons of stuff we can redistribute: :idea:
Withhold food from the fat, give to the thin.
One good eye from the seeing, give to the blind.
One girlfriend from the lucky stud, give to the horney.
-
Fade wrote:
As everything is relative, shouldn't we take say 20% of the housing from single people hogging all that space to themselves, and redistribute it to the more deserving non-retarded couples.
Yes, but since these people might then mate, and have children and thus cuase more overcrowding in the future!!
Wow, there's tons of stuff we can redistribute: :idea:
Withhold food from the fat, give to the thin
I think my wife would be keen on this since she's trying to get me to lose weight.
One girlfriend from the lucky stud, give to the horney.
No, not now I'm married and can't get any benefit from it ! :-)
-
@Fade
Or we could just let a few rich people have everything and not bother trying to have any kind of justice at all. That's the American Way, right?
-
KennyR, you always assume that anyone that is rich, got that way by stealing from the poor. That's the Socialist Way, isn't it?
One of these days, you will have more assets than you do today. What will you say then?
-
Fade wrote:
KennyR, you always assume that anyone that is rich, got that way by stealing from the poor. That's the Socialist Way, isn't it?
One of these days, you will have more assets than you do today. What will you say then?
It's just a phase, KennyR will be a conservative when he's older. :-P
-
Fade wrote:
KennyR, you always assume that anyone that is rich, got that way by stealing from the poor. That's the Socialist Way, isn't it?
No, I assume that anyone who would pay £10,000 for a parking space behind Harrods got that way from stealing from the poor! And I would probably be right.
One of these days, you will have more assets than you do today. What will you say then?
I'd still say anyone who'd pay for a £10,000 parking space behind Harrods is a high-society leech.
-
Fade wrote:
as TPG points out, anyone with too much of something, is a "retard"
Uh, yeah, that's exactly what I said isn't it?!!
:-?
-
KennyR, don't you have multiple computers? Those without a computer might consider you greedy and probably stole those extra ones from the poor.
You only need one computer, so why haven't you redistributed all the others to the less fortunate?
-
Fade wrote:
KennyR, don't you have multiple computers? Those without a computer might consider you greedy and probably stole those extra ones from the poor.
You only need one computer, so why haven't you redistributed all the others to the less fortunate?
If you wanna scale it down even further, surely a guy on the street with no blankets envies and considers greedy another homeless man with two blankets. I fail to see the relevance, however. Owning more than one computer is hardly extravagant. You can do that on minimum wage. And some people might need two machines.
Precisely how many of these tits absolutely requires a parking space for £100,000?
I'm sure you see the difference. If you don't, perhaps you need to get a little older... :-D
-
@ TPG
"I fail to see the relevance, however. Owning more than one computer is hardly extravagant."
-------------------------
But it is all relative.
And you have just pointed it out by saying "Owning more than one computer is hardly extravagant."
To say such, only means, you or Kenny can afford mutiple computers, and you don't think it is extravagant to do so.
My point is, don't assume a rich person is a thief, only because he is rich, because he is only rich relative to a poorer person!
-
Fade wrote:
KennyR, don't you have multiple computers? Those without a computer might consider you greedy and probably stole those extra ones from the poor.
If a computer cost half a year of the average working man's wage, then I would expect them to.
-
Fade wrote:
he is only rich relative to a poorer person!
Did you read the rest of my post? At risk of sounding like a parrot:
Owning more than one computer can be justified easily. What's more, I could afford to own more than one computer on minimum wage.
There's a breadline, and anyone who spends two years breadline money on a sodding parking space is too far over it! They're rich, disgustingly rich, whichever way you look at it.
(Edit: Sorry that's twenty years breadline money! Pardon my miscalculation.)
-
Fade wrote:
@ TPG
"I fail to see the relevance, however. Owning more than one computer is hardly extravagant."
-------------------------
But it is all relative.
And you have just pointed it out by saying "Owning more than one computer is hardly extravagant."
my having several computers is like me having several oil brushes and a set of oil paints: they are tools and you need several different kinds to make your art. there is nothing "extravagant" about that!
some dickhead being able to afford ONE parking space that is unreasonably expensive is the height of utter stupidity.
-
@ cecilia
"some dickhead being able to afford"
---------------
What logic!
Someone being able to afford a high priced item, makes them a dickhead.
Guess what that makes everyone who ever chose an A4000 over an A1200, or is waiting around to buy the new A1 when (if ever) OS4 is released?
Everyone knows you can buy a more powerfull computer at 1/3 the price of an A1.
I would also point out that all it takes to produce a piece of art is a piece of paper, some charcoal and talent. All the rest, the high priced oils, the canvas, the easel, brushes, etc. etc. is just showing off your opulence, and might be considered "the height of utter stupidity."
See, it is all relative. But maybe that is something a liberal can't understand. :-P
-
Fade wrote:
@ cecilia
"some dickhead being able to afford"
---------------
What logic!
Someone being able to afford a high priced item, makes them a dickhead.
You and I both know that's not what cecilia meant, it's the fact that this person actually goes ahead and pays for the parking space that makes them stupid.
Guess what that makes everyone who ever chose an A4000 over an A1200, or is waiting around to buy the new A1 when (if ever) OS4 is released?
See above. There's nothing stupid about wanting a more powerful computer. It has some practical use, other than flaunting your money for attention.
Everyone knows you can buy a more powerfull computer at 1/3 the price of an A1.
...everyone knows you can park at ASDA for free ;-)
I would also point out that all it takes to produce a piece of art is a piece of paper, some charcoal and talent. All the rest, the high priced oils, the canvas, the easel, brushes, etc. etc. is just showing off your opulence, and might be considered "the height of utter stupidity."
See, it is all relative. But maybe that is something a liberal can't understand. :-P
Conservatives are stupid. Sorry, just thought I'd reciprocate your insult. Now I'd like to further insinuate that you are stupid. Fade is stupid. Mmmm, that feels good! :-)
-
that_punk_guy wrote:
Fade wrote:
he is only rich relative to a poorer person!
Did you read the rest of my post? At risk of sounding like a parrot:
Owning more than one computer can be justified easily. What's more, I could afford to own more than one computer on minimum wage.
There's a breadline, and anyone who spends two years breadline money on a sodding parking space is too far over it! They're rich, disgustingly rich, whichever way you look at it.
I think what Fade is saying is it doesn't matter to the man with nothing how "reasonable" the things you have are. If he doesn't have them himself, you are a fat cat.
Look at it this way, say you are starving, and there are two men standing next to you, one is talking about his two multimillion dollar corporations, while the other one is talking about his cottage he bought in the mountains. That cottage is certainly a "reasonable" thing for this man to have, but all you can think is "I'm starving, and this fat cat has two homes!", rather than how reasonable one mans assets are and how unreasonable the other ones are.
No matter how little you have, someone else has less. No matter how reasonable the things you have are, someone else looks upon you as a glutton. We only become part of this cycle of endless envy if we contribute to it ourselves.
-
"You and I both know that's not what cecilia meant, it's the fact that this person actually goes ahead and pays for the parking space that makes them stupid."
Why?
What if you owned it? Would it be stupid for you to sell it?
-
T_Bone wrote:
"You and I both know that's not what cecilia meant, it's the fact that this person actually goes ahead and pays for the parking space that makes them stupid."
Why?
What if you owned it? Would it be stupid for you to sell it?
To buy it is stupid, to sell it is exploitative and wrong.
IMO.
-
T_Bone wrote:
That cottage is certainly a "reasonable" thing for this man to have
Is it?
-
that_punk_guy wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
That cottage is certainly a "reasonable" thing for this man to have
Is it?
It holds up to your acid test, it can be afforded on minimum wage.
-
that_punk_guy wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
"You and I both know that's not what cecilia meant, it's the fact that this person actually goes ahead and pays for the parking space that makes them stupid."
Why?
What if you owned it? Would it be stupid for you to sell it?
To buy it is stupid, to sell it is exploitative and wrong.
IMO.
How is buying it stupid?
And if you owned it, why would it be wrong to sell it?
And if buying it is stupid, and selling it is wrong, what do you do with it if you own it?
-
Well, I don't care if they want to sell it for this much. But I think the one who buys it should really REALLY have a good thought about what he/she is doing. I mean, money=power=responsibility.
And maybe the tax man can ask what's the fuss all about, with 'too high' taxes.
-
that_punk_guy wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
"You and I both know that's not what cecilia meant, it's the fact that this person actually goes ahead and pays for the parking space that makes them stupid."
Why?
What if you owned it? Would it be stupid for you to sell it?
To buy it is stupid, to sell it is exploitative and wrong.
IMO.
To buy it is stupid?
Do you mean that someone would be stupid buying it because they're paying over the odds? Otherwise why is it stupid?
To sell it is exploitative? Well, I suppose it depends on your politics, but selling something and getting the going rate for it isn't exploiting anyone, is it? The person buying isn't being exploited unless they HAVE to buy (a life saving vaccine for example).
If I sell something on ebay, and someone bids more than it costs new, I fail to see how I'm exploiting them. It was their choice to buy it, regardless of how silly it might seem to you.
-
T_Bone wrote:
that_punk_guy wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
That cottage is certainly a "reasonable" thing for this man to have
Is it?
It holds up to your acid test, it can be afforded on minimum wage.
I suppose I'll have to take your word on that. I can't imagine I'd have been able to afford a remotely desirable cottage as well as my house while at McDonalds.
-
Cyberus wrote:
that_punk_guy wrote:
To buy it is stupid, to sell it is exploitative and wrong.
IMO.
To buy it is stupid?
Do you mean that someone would be stupid buying it because they're paying over the odds? Otherwise why is it stupid?
Yeah, I think anyone who pays that much for a parking space when they could do so much real good for the world with that money needs their brain checking.
To sell it is exploitative? Well, I suppose it depends on your politics, but selling something and getting the going rate for it isn't exploiting anyone, is it? The person buying isn't being exploited unless they HAVE to buy (a life saving vaccine for example).
If I sell something on ebay, and someone bids more than it costs new, I fail to see how I'm exploiting them. It was their choice to buy it, regardless of how silly it might seem to you.
Well, I suppose that depends on anyone's personal interpretation of what the word "exploitation" means. Maybe I have a wide definition of it. You can exploit teenage workers, expolit security bugs in Windows, exploit elderly pensioners...
The eBay thing isn't so bad, in that you're not setting the price. If someone bid ridiculously over-the-odds, I'd cancel the bid. Just my personal feelings coming into play, but I just wouldn't be able to sleep at night. But the way I see it, Harrods are taking money from people who really should know better, but apparently don't. They're "exploiting" their weaknesses.
-
Wage bands in the UK:
< £10,000/y: on the breadline. People here are are usually unemployed, immigrants, the disabled, struggling single mothers, etc. Called the lower classes by conservatives. Actually its very difficult to be really poor with our strong welfare state and minimum wage levels (yay).
£10,000-20,000: Average workers, about 90% of the population. These people work hard and are taxed hard, and actually generate most of the wealth and most of the taxes the country has. Usually called the working class.
£20,000-40,000: "Professional" workers. Skilled craftsmen, managers, doctors, etc. Whatever skills, experience or knowledge they have is enough to get them high wages. Upper-working class. Work hard but are taxed like crazy and always were, especially on retirement.
£40-000-80,000: Here's where it gets kinda strange. People up here can sometimes have legitimate reasons for such high incomes: stressed executives, high-profile lawyers, MPs, scientists. But most don't. You will find most of the people in this band living comfortably, with a villa in Spain and a yacht, working smaller shifts than the "lower classes". This is the middle class, and upper-middle class, Thatcher's darlings. The higher up here you go, the more your family and connections mean more than your skills. Strangely, these people don't really suffer much of a tax burden.
£80,000+: Well, there isn't much work you can do to earn you this kind of money. People who get this much are usually people who get to dictate their own wages: chief executive fatcats who lower their workers wages but give themselves massive pay rises and absolutely huge pensions, landowners, etc. I wish it was a socialist delusion but its not. These people are often the direct descendents of the landowners William the Conquerer put here when he stole the land from the Saxons. They don't do much work, often have most of their savings in a tax-free haven, and don't contribute much to society. They are the upper-classes, and the people who would pay £10,000 for a parking space at Harrods.
-
£80,000+: Well, there isn't much work you can do to earn you this kind of money. People who get this much are usually people who get to dictate their own wages: chief executive fatcats who lower their workers wages but give themselves massive pay rises and absolutely huge pensions, landowners, etc. I wish it was a socialist delusion but its not. These people are often the direct descendents of the landowners William the Conquerer put here when he stole the land from the Saxons. They don't do much work, often have most of their savings in a tax-free haven, and don't contribute much to society. They are the upper-classes, and the people who would pay £10,000 for a parking space at Harrods.
People who fall into this category are TV Presenters, Actors and other famous people. :-) Explains an awful lot, doesn't it?
-
sumner7 wrote:
People who fall into this category are TV Presenters, Actors and other famous people. :-) Explains an awful lot, doesn't it?
It doesn't
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
sumner7 wrote:
People who fall into this category are TV Presenters, Actors and other famous people. :-) Explains an awful lot, doesn't it?
It doesn't
It does
-
that_punk_guy wrote:
Yeah, I think anyone who pays that much for a parking space when they could do so much real good for the world with that money needs their brain checking.
You're not under the impression that the money dissapears when the lot is purchased are you? Who's to say the man selling the lot, isn't selling it so he can do good with the money he gets from the sale? The money hasn't dissapeared, it's just changed hands. There is no "loss" of any "chance to do good." It's a zero sum transaction. Before the sale, humanity owned $100K and a parking space, after the transaction, humanity still owns $100k and a parking space. The opportunity to do good with that money is there both before and after the transaction, making the transaction itself, irrelevant to doing good.
Money can neither be created nor destroyed, it just changes form. it's the.. erm law of Ecodynamics or something. :-)
[edit- Econodynamics?]
-
sumner7 wrote:
It does
No it doesn't. These people are not productive in any way. They do not add anything to our civilization yet they push their asses in the front of all attention. They are bloodsucking parasites.
It's like a septic tank, the biggest muck floats in the upper regions.
-
T_Bone wrote:
Money can neither be created nor destroyed, it just changes form. it's the.. erm law of Ecodynamics or something. :-)
But it can get stuck somewhere, like thrombosis.
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
Money can neither be created nor destroyed, it just changes form. it's the.. erm law of Ecodynamics or something. :-)
But it can get stuck somewhere, like thrombosis.
It can't even really get stuck.
If you take a significant chunk out of the flow, it devalues, freeing it up by making the flowing money worth more in comparison.
-
Yes, correct. And that devalue process was one of the major causes of the two world wars thankyouverymuch.
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Yes, and that devalue process was the cause of two world wars thankyouverymuch.
Inflation or Deflation?
-
People who fall into this category are TV Presenters, Actors and other famous people. Explains an awful lot, doesn't it?
It doesn't
It does. Don't think about the actors themselves, think about the people who pay them.
It's like football clubs. People might see footballers being paid obscene amounts of money, but the shareholders are usually much, much wealthier.
-
T_Bone wrote:
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Yes, and that devalue process was the cause of two world wars thankyouverymuch.
Inflation or Deflation?
Deflation. Shares being worth nothing and so.
-
T_Bone wrote:
It can't even really get stuck.
If you take a significant chunk out of the flow, it devalues, freeing it up by making the flowing money worth more in comparison.
That's not really the problem. It's when you start helping the elite to get into power to stimulate the economy (such as Thatcher did) by cutting down working men's wages, you begin to find that those 90% of hard working people really do generate all the wealth, all the productivity, and are even the greatest market for what they produce. All you do then is to overheat the economy because nobody can pay for what they're producing, *bang* - instant crash. Isn't monetarism wonderful?
-
T_Bone wrote:
You're not under the impression that the money dissapears when the lot is purchased are you? Who's to say the man selling the lot, isn't selling it so he can do good with the money he gets from the sale? The money hasn't dissapeared, it's just changed hands. There is no "loss" of any "chance to do good." It's a zero sum transaction. Before the sale, humanity owned $100K and a parking space, after the transaction, humanity still owns $100k and a parking space. The opportunity to do good with that money is there both before and after the transaction, making the transaction itself, irrelevant to doing good.
Money can neither be created nor destroyed, it just changes form. it's the.. erm law of Ecodynamics or something. :-)
[edit- Econodynamics?]
But Harrods is hardly a modern-day Robin Hood. Besides, if you want to do some good with your money, you'd do it with your money yourself, or by donating it to a charity, not by buying a parking space. Illustrating that the people buying these spaces obviously are not interested in doing good for the world, they just want the parking space.
-
KennyR wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
It can't even really get stuck.
If you take a significant chunk out of the flow, it devalues, freeing it up by making the flowing money worth more in comparison.
That's not really the problem. It's when you start helping the elite to get into power to stimulate the economy (such as Thatcher did) by cutting down working men's wages, you begin to find that those 90% of hard working people really do generate all the wealth, all the productivity, and are even the greatest market for what they produce. All you do then is to overheat the economy because nobody can pay for what they're producing, *bang* - instant crash. Isn't monetarism wonderful?
Well, hell, that's not good. You stimulate the economy by letting the workers bring home a larger paycheck, by lowering taxes for example, not by cutting wages. She should have been more like Reagan. :-D
-
It's not so much the space they want, just the prestige. Stupid money grabbing socialite peacocks.
-
KennyR wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
It can't even really get stuck.
If you take a significant chunk out of the flow, it devalues, freeing it up by making the flowing money worth more in comparison.
That's not really the problem. It's when you start helping the elite to get into power to stimulate the economy (such as Thatcher did) by cutting down working men's wages, you begin to find that those 90% of hard working people really do generate all the wealth, all the productivity, and are even the greatest market for what they produce. All you do then is to overheat the economy because nobody can pay for what they're producing, *bang* - instant crash. Isn't monetarism wonderful?
That's quite the same I said, KennyR. It's the Keynes theory.
-
KennyR wrote:
It's not so much the space they want, just the prestige. Stupid money grabbing socialite peacocks.
True, aye. And very funny. :lol:
-
T_Bone wrote:
You stimulate the economy by letting the workers bring home a larger paycheck, by lowering taxes for example, not by cutting wages. She should have been more like Reagan.
She was like Reagan - an enemy to the working person.
She kept inflation down by making three million working people unemployed so they wouldn't be able to buy anything, then used taxes from the rest to pay their benefits. To make up the rest of the shortfall in taxes, she sold off all our public companies and turned them into profiteering cowboy outfits owned by the likes of Robert Maxwell. It was never going to last and she knew it. How such people can sleep at night I don't know.
-
T_Bone wrote:
Well, hell, that's not good. You stimulate the economy by letting the workers bring home a larger paycheck, by lowering taxes for example, not by cutting wages. She should have been more like Reagan. :-D
Bad idea. how do you want to pay public services, like maintenance of the infrastructure, or schools, or security, or laws for agreements and treaties, and caring institutions for the elderly.
The latter is more important for the economy than you might think. An African once came to the Netherlands and was amazed about this. Because many families have their hands full of caring for their families, it's hard for them to set up and run shops or other enterprises. Hm, maybe 'tis a better idea indeed to lower the taxes for this particular group workers and higher the taxes for the richer ones.
-
that_punk_guy wrote:
But Harrods is hardly a modern-day Robin Hood. Besides, if you want to do some good with your money, you'd do it with your money yourself, or by donating it to a charity, not by buying a parking space. Illustrating that the people buying these spaces obviously are not interested in doing good for the world, they just want the parking space.
But it's just another transaction. Billions of transactions happen everyday. like I said, it's irrelevant to "good it could do" because that $100k doesn't dissapear, it just moves. it could just as easily be given to charity after the transaction. The transaction is irrelevant.
-
T_Bone wrote:
But it's just another transaction.
No, it's fake economy. Like those non-existing islands in the Pacific.
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
No, it's fake economy.
Exactly.
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
Well, hell, that's not good. You stimulate the economy by letting the workers bring home a larger paycheck, by lowering taxes for example, not by cutting wages. She should have been more like Reagan. :-D
Bad idea. how do you want to pay public services, like maintenance of the infrastructure, or schools, or security, or laws for agreements and treaties, and caring institutions for the elderly.
The latter is more important for the economy than you might think. An African once came to the Netherlands and was amazed about this. Because many families have their hands full of caring for their families, it's hard for them to set up and run shops or other enterprises. Hm, maybe 'tis a better idea indeed to lower the taxes for this particular group workers and higher the taxes for the richer ones.
You should check out what happened when Reagan lowered taxes... the economy thrived so well that the government was taking in astronomical ammounts of taxes, even though the tax rate was lower.
-
Money isn't worth anything if they don't circulate. Do you have sales taxes in the UK? Here in Sweden a certain ammount of the money would go to the state, thus the transaction would be of gain to society.
-
T_Bone wrote:
that_punk_guy wrote:
But Harrods is hardly a modern-day Robin Hood. Besides, if you want to do some good with your money, you'd do it with your money yourself, or by donating it to a charity, not by buying a parking space. Illustrating that the people buying these spaces obviously are not interested in doing good for the world, they just want the parking space.
But it's just another transaction. Billions of transactions happen everyday. like I said, it's irrelevant to "good it could do" because that $100k doesn't dissapear, it just moves. it could just as easily be given to charity after the transaction. The transaction is irrelevant.
So, say you wanna give some money to your kids, do you go out and buy something of equal value, and hope that the owners of the shop simply decide to give that money to your kids?
:-?
-
T_Bone wrote:
You should check out what happened when Reagan lowered taxes... the economy thrived so well that the government was taking in astronomical ammounts of taxes, even though the tax rate was lower.
But effectively, the output came from borrowing. Taxes weren't being generated - just taken from digging a huge deficit that still lasts to this day, and that Bush is happy to make deeper.
A country thrives on its working class. There's no getting around that. The rest just live off them.
-
T_Bone wrote:
You should check out what happened when Reagan lowered taxes... the economy thrived so well that the government was taking in astronomical ammounts of taxes, even though the tax rate was lower.
A. Was this economy boost really due to lowered taxes? And not due to new content on the market?
B. Did the government invest in the economy furthermore, or did it all go to the military?
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
But it's just another transaction.
No, it's fake economy. Like those non-existing islands in the Pacific.
I don't agree. Damage is done when the money is just lying there. If Harrod's decide to put the money in a big bag then there would be a problem.
-
whabang wrote:
I don't agree. Damage is done when the money is just lying there. If Harrod's decide to put the money in a big bag then there would be a problem.
That's exactly what happens. They invest it again in something equal worthless. It's making one big balloon wich can burst anytime when it has become too big to maintain itself.
-
that_punk_guy wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
that_punk_guy wrote:
But Harrods is hardly a modern-day Robin Hood. Besides, if you want to do some good with your money, you'd do it with your money yourself, or by donating it to a charity, not by buying a parking space. Illustrating that the people buying these spaces obviously are not interested in doing good for the world, they just want the parking space.
But it's just another transaction. Billions of transactions happen everyday. like I said, it's irrelevant to "good it could do" because that $100k doesn't dissapear, it just moves. it could just as easily be given to charity after the transaction. The transaction is irrelevant.
So, say you wanna give some money to your kids, do you go out and buy something of equal value, and hope that the owners of the shop simply decide to give that money to your kids?
:-?
Oh, I see what you're getting at, you think people that have money should give it away instead of spending it. that's not all that great for the economy, especially the workers who's employers just lost out on those sales.
-
T_Bone wrote:
that_punk_guy wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
that_punk_guy wrote:
But Harrods is hardly a modern-day Robin Hood. Besides, if you want to do some good with your money, you'd do it with your money yourself, or by donating it to a charity, not by buying a parking space. Illustrating that the people buying these spaces obviously are not interested in doing good for the world, they just want the parking space.
But it's just another transaction. Billions of transactions happen everyday. like I said, it's irrelevant to "good it could do" because that $100k doesn't dissapear, it just moves. it could just as easily be given to charity after the transaction. The transaction is irrelevant.
So, say you wanna give some money to your kids, do you go out and buy something of equal value, and hope that the owners of the shop simply decide to give that money to your kids?
:-?
Oh, I see what you're getting at, you think people that have money should give it away instead of spending it.
I think they would be doing better for the world and for themselves if they used it for more positive, productive things.
-
T_Bone wrote:
that's not all that great for the economy, especially the workers who's employers just lost out on those sales.
It's not, but if the money was meant for your children anyway, what's the difference?
-
that_punk_guy wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
that's not all that great for the economy, especially the workers who's employers just lost out on those sales.
It's not, but if the money was meant for your children anyway, what's the difference?
The difference doesn't matter... the initial transaction itself was irrelevant, so any tangent off it is irrelevant too.
Your analogy doesn't make sense. Are you saying the $100k from the parking space is "meant" for someone? Who? And like your analogy, are you saying that instead of selling the parking space, it should be given away? why? Neither way creates wealth. :-?
-
@ T_Bone
"Oh, I see what you're getting at, you think people that have money should give it away instead of spending it."
------------------
No he doesn't! He only wants the very rich ones to do it.
-
Fade wrote:
@ T_Bone
No he doesn't! He only wants the very rich ones to do it.
How about you let me decide what I think?
-
@ TPG
"by donating it to a charity, not by buying a parking space."
-
T_Bone wrote:
Your analogy doesn't make sense. Are you saying the $100k from the parking space is "meant" for someone? Who?
If these people wanted to do some good for the world, they might use that money for good. That's your kids in this analogy. Why would they give money to Harrods (or whoever's reselling the space) if they really wanted to use it for good? They cannot be sure of what Harrods will do with it, and it's highly unlikely that it's exactly what they intend.
In other words I don't think anyone who truly wanted to do good with the money would say, "hey, the money isn't lost, it's just a transaction."
And like your analogy, are you saying that instead of selling the parking space, it should be given away? why? Neither way creates wealth. :-?
Why do we want to create wealth when it gets squandered like this? Why on Earth do Harrods need to charge people for the privilege of parking near the shop?
It should not be "given away," it should remain the property of Harrods and be freely available for the use of all their customers.
-
Fade wrote:
"by donating it to a charity, not by buying a parking space."
Would you care to elaborate on that? Your point's about as clear as dog poo.
-
Fade wrote:
I would also point out that all it takes to produce a piece of art is a piece of paper, some charcoal and talent. All the rest, the high priced oils, the canvas, the easel, brushes, etc. etc. is just showing off your opulence, and might be considered "the height of utter stupidity."
you obviously know NOTHING about art and certainly nothing about art supplies.
If Oils, etc really were "high priced", no artists would be able to afford them. they ceretainly are cheaper than a parking space.
And, I only bought certain supplies when I got a job which paid me enough to get them. That's how I got my Thaler-Chandler airbrush which I still have - and it's been over 15 years, now.
In no way can anyone accuse me of being "opulant". I've gone through years NOT buying clothes, for example.
I've made alot of sacrifies for my career and when I drop dead I'll have something to leave behind - that I'm not ashamed of! (MILLIONS of people have seen my work on TV and on DVD's. And, yes, I've got proof).
those rich, show-off's should be embarrased to show their idiot faces in public.
-
@ cecilia
"If Oils, etc really were "high priced", no artists would be able to afford them. they ceretainly are cheaper than a parking space."
--------------------
So I guess you are finally admitting it is just relative after all.
-
that_punk_guy wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
Your analogy doesn't make sense. Are you saying the $100k from the parking space is "meant" for someone? Who?
If these people wanted to do some good for the world, they might use that money for good. That's your kids in this analogy. Why would they give money to Harrods (or whoever's reselling the space) if they really wanted to use it for good? They cannot be sure of what Harrods will do with it, and it's highly unlikely that it's exactly what they intend.
In other words I don't think anyone who truly wanted to do good with the money would say, "hey, the money isn't lost, it's just a transaction."
So this has nothing to do with the parking space, you're just upset that the guy with 100k is spending it, rather than giving it away.
And like your analogy, are you saying that instead of selling the parking space, it should be given away? why? Neither way creates wealth. :-?
Why do we want to create wealth when it gets squandered like this?
Squandered? he was spending it! You want people to spend money. That's what free's it from Mr Moneybags mattress, and get's it working in the economy.
Why on Earth do Harrods need to charge people for the privilege of parking near the shop?
Because the Real Estate value of that land is 100k, and they wouldn't want to be accused of squandering it :-), so they sell it. Hell, I wouldn't leave that much money tied up in a parking space either, I'd sell it too! (or rent it, either way)
It should not be "given away," it should remain the property of Harrods and be freely available for the use of all their customers.
How does that help anyone? 100K can do alot more good floating around the economy than locked up in a parking space so Ms. Daisy can park her BMW there. :-)
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
whabang wrote:
I don't agree. Damage is done when the money is just lying there. If Harrod's decide to put the money in a big bag then there would be a problem.
That's exactly what happens. They invest it again in something equal worthless. It's making one big balloon wich can burst anytime when it has become too big to maintain itself.
Perhaps. But that doesn't make this unique transaction into a bad thing. That's about the behaviour of the owners of the money, not about the transaction itself.
-
@ TGP
Fade wrote:
"by donating it to a charity, not by buying a parking space."
Would you care to elaborate on that? Your point's about as clear as dog poo.
-------------------------
No Fade did NOT write the above statement!
That was your statement TPG.
and later T_Bone stated
"Oh, I see what you're getting at, you think people that have money should give it away instead of spending it."
------------------
And then Fade wrote
No he doesn't! He only wants the very rich ones to do it.
Please dont ask me to explain YOUR statement.
-
whabang wrote:
That's about the behaviour of the owners of the money, not about the transaction itself.
This transaction shows that the behaviour of the owner of the money is utterly irresponsible.
-
Fade wrote:
@ cecilia
"If Oils, etc really were "high priced", no artists would be able to afford them. they ceretainly are cheaper than a parking space."
--------------------
So I guess you are finally admiting it is just relative after all.
you are completely missing the point.
I'm not an artist to "show off'. my goal is to be creative every day of my life. maybe this seems silly to the rich, but they are morally bankrupt.
just look at the situation in Los Angeles: for months, now, there has been a bus strike as well as a strike of workers from the biggest supermarket chain in California.
and it's been going on since the fall. and who does this affect????? poor people (students, the old, mexican's, etc). and why does it continue? because who gives a rats ass about poor people in LA?
the rich are driving around in their f'ing cars.
you would NEVER have a transit strike in New York lasting for months. the people here would riot. that's because even the semi-wealthy understand the importance of the subway system to the economy of NY. I've seen upper middle class people on the subway. we all rub elbows with the middle class, lower middle class and the poor (not to mention the incredibly poor).
but in LA, (and you have to BE there to really understand this) the rich are so insulated from reality that they don't see the poor or care how they have to live. trust me, they don't venture out of their little "rich" cocoons.
It's this incredible insensativity that makes me puke.
I don't want handouts and I don't want sympathy, but a total lack of human decency is revolting.
and if you can't understand that than please DON'T talk to me at all.
-
Fade wrote:
@ TGP
Fade wrote:
"by donating it to a charity, not by buying a parking space."
Would you care to elaborate on that? Your point's about as clear as dog poo.
No Fade did NOT write the above statement!
They were in quotes, just like you put them. If you had quoted properly, they would appear in a proper quote box. Now calm down and explain what point you were trying to prove by quoting me. It's not my fault you chose to randomly parrot back part of something I've said earlier. Go punch a wall or something. With your head, if possible.
-
whabang wrote:
Perhaps. But that doesn't make this unique transaction into a bad thing. That's about the behaviour of the owners of the money, not about the transaction itself.
Yes! Exacly! The transaction is irrelevant!
-
T_Bone wrote:
whabang wrote:
Perhaps. But that doesn't make this unique transaction into a bad thing. That's about the behaviour of the owners of the money, not about the transaction itself.
Yes! Exacly! The transaction is irrelevant!
So the whereabouts of the 100k is irrelevant? Even in terrorist's hands?
-
At what point does a person get to spend their own money the way they want to, without someone else thinking they're greedy?
$200,000__/__$100,000__/__$75,000__/__$50,000__/__$25,000__/__$10,000__?__
-
that_punk_guy wrote:
Go punch a wall or something. With your head, if possible.
:roflmao:
And people wonder why I love you! :crazy:
-
Fade wrote:
At what point does a person get to spend their own money the way they want to, without someone else thinking they're greedy?
$200,000__/__$100,000__/__$75,000__/__$50,000__/__$25,000__/$10,000__?__
It must be conform the country's avarage.
-
Fade wrote:
At what point does a person get to spend their own money the way they want to, without someone else thinking they're greedy?
if my grandmother was here she would explain it to you.
Back when my family was all in Europe and and they were rich (before the germans came and had their various invasions), the idea was that being wealthy meant you had a Responsibility to Raise others UP to your level. It was called Class. You acted in a certain way and thought about your actions and how they affected others. You didn't flaunt your money in people's faces. you weren't trying to make yourself feel good by making others feel bad.
but, if you weren't such a peasant, maybe you would understand.
-
cecilia wrote:
that_punk_guy wrote:
Go punch a wall or something. With your head, if possible.
:roflmao:
And people wonder why I love you! :crazy:
Punkie is irresistable :-)
-
@ TPG
"If you had quoted properly, they would appear in a proper quote box."
--------------
Sorry bout that, but none of the stuff on the posting page seems to work with AOS or at least IBrowse. Even the copy and paste drops the quote box.
Maybe I need to use a PC, as most folks seem to do here.
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
whabang wrote:
Perhaps. But that doesn't make this unique transaction into a bad thing. That's about the behaviour of the owners of the money, not about the transaction itself.
Yes! Exacly! The transaction is irrelevant!
So the whereabouts of the 100k is irrelevant? Even in terrorist's hands?
So now..... you're saying that Harrods... is using the parking lot... to launder money... for terrorists..... or...
...
...tea in china?
-
Fade wrote:
At what point does a person get to spend their own money the way they want to, without someone else thinking they're greedy?
Spending your own money is not the issue, having so much you can spend so much so frivolously when most people can work hard 9-5, 7 days a week for 6 months to earn as much. Can't you see that?
Don't you see the injustice of it? I guess not, or by now you'd have got the point. I guess thats the result of living in a country where it's long been acceptable for people to get stinking rich on a lucky break and then raise themselves above the rest of humanity.
-
Fade wrote:
Sorry bout that, but none of the stuff on the posting page seems to work with AOS or at least IBrowse.
Maybe I need to use a PC, as most folks seem to do here.
You can insert the tags manually though, right? I'm pretty sure I managed it when I came on here with iBrowse a couple of weeks back. :-)
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Fade wrote:
At what point does a person get to spend their own money the way they want to, without someone else thinking they're greedy?
$200,000__/__$100,000__/__$75,000__/__$50,000__/__$25,000__/$10,000__?__
It must be conform the country's avarage.
Why must it?
Why the Country? Why not the World? What have you got against the World?
and what happens to the "Average" if nobody makes above it, but people still make below it, doesn't the average go down?
-
T_Bone wrote:
So now..... you're saying that Harrods... is using the parking lot... to launder money... for terrorists..... or...
...
...tea in china?
Nope, haven't said that. Read again.
-
@ KennyR
"Can't you see that?"
-----------------
That's why I put up that simple little chart.
Giving you a chance to put your foot in your own mouth.
But I doubt you will give an answer.
-
KennyR wrote:
Fade wrote:
At what point does a person get to spend their own money the way they want to, without someone else thinking they're greedy?
Spending your own money is not the issue, having so much you can spend so much so frivolously when most people can work hard 9-5, 7 days a week for 6 months to earn as much. Can't you see that?
Don't you see the injustice of it? I guess not, or by now you'd have got the point. I guess thats the result of living in a country where it's long been acceptable for people to get stinking rich on a lucky break and then raise themselves above the rest of humanity.
That carrot that you call "getting lucky" is what provided the incentive to build most of the world we have today. Without that carrot you'd have to make do with a stick.
The carrot's a better incentive.
-
Why the Country? Why not the World? What have you got against the World?
Because the economy isn't based on 'world economy' yet. If you want to make this possible, the lands which are poor now have to be equally productive as the rich countries. And I think we have to invest in these countries to make this possible, rather than the plunder that's going on right now (with wages kept as low as possible)
and what happens to the "Average" if nobody makes above it, but people still make below it, doesn't the average go down?
You know, the trees do not grow into space, wich has it's reasons.
-
Fade wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
"Oh, I see what you're getting at, you think people that have money should give it away instead of spending it."
No he doesn't! He only wants the very rich ones to do it.
Wonder how he knows they're rich? The buyer could be a family business that needs that parking space for storage of a delivery vehicle. :-)
-
T_Bone wrote:
That carrot that you call "getting lucky" is what provided the incentive to build most of the world we have today. Without that carrot you'd have to make do with a stick.
The carrot's a better incentive.
It's not much of a carrot if we all know we're never going to get it!
What would be have to do to earn so much? Working would never do it. Robbing a bank would probably not even cover it. Winning the lottery might, if you like those 14 million to one odds.
No T_Bone, this isn't bright shining capitalism - its basic class-division greed shown by Britain's self-declared upper class twat plutocracy who have been sucking the life out of us for far too long. And they whine about welfare and immigrants!
@Fade
Make sense, for once. Making nebulous statements isn't really doing much for your credibility. I'm hardly going to put my foot in my mouth falling into logical traps that don't have any logic!
-
@ KennyR
"Spending your own money is not the issue, having so much you can spend so much so frivolously when most people can work hard 9-5, 7 days a week for 6 months to earn as much."
------------------
And if I decide to work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 15 years, so I can get myself out of that $25.000 a year category, I am then supposed to feel guilty and give away say everything above $50,000?
Do you actually think people are that stupid?
And I was right about you not answering the little chart question.
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Why the Country? Why not the World? What have you got against the World?
Because the economy isn't based on 'world economy' yet.
We're not talking about countries, we're talking about people. the lines you are talking about are artificial. You think you should have more money than someone else, just because there's an artificial line between you?
If you want to make this possible, the lands which are poor now have to be equally productive as the rich countries. And I think we have to invest in these countries to make this possible, rather than the plunder that's going on right now (with wages kept as low as possible)
So you're saying the problem isn't that there are rich countries, the problem is we need to make the poor countries rich too.
I agree.... but you need to apply that same reasoning to PEOPLE too...
The problem isn't that there are rich PEOPLE, the problem is that we need to make the poor people rich TOO.
See how we made that nice and consistant? :-)
and what happens to the "Average" if nobody makes above it, but people still make below it, doesn't the average go down?
You know, the trees do not grow into space, wich has it's reasons.[/quote]
Trees do, however, grow an average height around the world, regardless of artificial lines inbetween them. :-)
-
Fade wrote:
And if I decide to work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 15 years, so I can get myself out of that $25.000 a year category, I am then supposed to feel guilty and give away say everything above $50,000?
No point in considering it. You'd certainly never be able to earn the millions the average Harrods socialite owns, no matter how smart, resourceful or savvy you were. You are born into that kind of wealth.
-
T_Bone wrote:
We're not talking about countries, we're talking about people. the lines you are talking about are artificial. You think you should have more money than someone else, just because there's an artificial line between you?
Touché
So you're saying the problem isn't that there are rich countries, the problem is we need to make the poor countries rich too.
I agree.... but you need to apply that same reasoning to PEOPLE too...
The problem isn't that there are rich PEOPLE, the problem is that we need to make the poor people rich TOO.
See how we made that nice and consistant? :-)
Well, I want a Marshall-plan for the poor countries, so they can make use of their capabilities.
-
Oh, and before anyone responds with, "How did self-made millionaires get their money then??" - I don't consider that to be earning. Earning is working. Period.
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
whabang wrote:
That's about the behaviour of the owners of the money, not about the transaction itself.
This transaction shows that the behaviour of the owner of the money is utterly irresponsible.
True, but that still doesn't make the transaction into a bad thing. :-)
Hopefully, Harrod's will invest the money wisely so that the money can contribute to the creation of more jobs. They shouldn't be allowed to just hold on to it, as that would be a crime both against socialistic ideas aswell as capitalistic ones.
-
@ KennyR
"Oh, and before anyone responds with, "How did self-made millionaires get their money then??" - I don't consider that to be earning. Earning is working. Period."
-----------------
No KennyR , you can't try to cover it up with that statement.
There are too many Sam Waltons and Bill Gates in this world. All born poor!
-
T_Bone wrote:
whabang wrote:
Perhaps. But that doesn't make this unique transaction into a bad thing. That's about the behaviour of the owners of the money, not about the transaction itself.
Yes! Exacly! The transaction is irrelevant!
This is scary! We've started to agree! :nervous:
You're making a capitalist out of me! NOOOooOooOOAAAGRRGAAGHHH! :-P
-
Fade wrote:
There are too many Sam Waltons and Bill Gates in this world. All born poor!
And you really think Gates works for his money?
There are two ways to get money legally: exploitation of the workforce, and hard work. The first will always get more money. But if everyone was like that, nobody would have any money at all.
I don't accept exploitation and monopolising as earning.
-
whabang wrote:
This is scary! We've started to agree! :nervous:
You're making a capitalist out of me! NOOOooOooOOAAAGRRGAAGHHH! :-P
:lol:
-
whabang wrote:
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
whabang wrote:
That's about the behaviour of the owners of the money, not about the transaction itself.
This transaction shows that the behaviour of the owner of the money is utterly irresponsible.
True, but that still doesn't make the transaction into a bad thing. :-)
Hopefully, Harrod's will invest the money wisely so that the money can contribute to the creation of more jobs. They shouldn't be allowed to just hold on to it, as that would be a crime both against socialistic ideas aswell as capitalistic ones.
Eventually, it's Zen what I am talking about. A transaction is just a thing, empty, nothing. It's the manner, the way, wich matters.
And in this case, the particular form isn't conform the economy.
-
@ KennyR
"There are two ways to get money legally: exploitation of the workforce, and hard work."
-----------------
And just where does the hard working guy that ends up making a mint, turn into the exploiter?
$200,000__/__$100,000__/__$75,000__/__$50,000__/__$25,000__/$10,000__?__
-
Kenny ?
-
Methinks Kenny has run away.
-
Fade wrote:
And just where does the hard working guy that ends up making a mint, turn into the exploiter?
So let I answer it then:
Management turns into exploiting when it earns more than those who make the actual content, the producers.
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Fade wrote:
And just where does the hard working guy that ends up making a mint, turn into the exploiter?
So let I answer it then:
Management turns into exploiting when it earns more than those who make the actual content, the producers.
Who'd want to go into management then?
More responsibility, more career risk, for the same pay? No thanks.
-
Where is the incentive to move up or to become management if there is no reward.
-
Uh T_Bone
You stole my thunder.
-
Fade wrote:
Where is the incentive to move up or to become management if there is no reward.
Let's all start slacking off. We don't want to get promoted anyway. Why bother, it doesn't pay any more. :-)
-
And just where does the hard working guy that ends up making a mint, turn into the exploiter?
About the part where he can earn several times what the average worker can doing only a bare minimum of work. Or about the time he starts keeping his worker's wages lower than inflation to increase his own profits.
-
I'm taking the day off myself.
-
T_Bone wrote:
Who'd want to go into management then?
More responsibility, more career risk, for the same pay? No thanks.
HEY! As if a management job is something more demanding than a productive job. I mean, with my future job for instance, I can called at night if a production line is out of order due to a software error. These kinds of aspects of jobs you are neglecting.
Everybody has their responsibility at work.
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
Who'd want to go into management then?
More responsibility, more career risk, for the same pay? No thanks.
HEY! As if a management job is something more demanding than a productive job. I mean, with my future job for instance, I can called at night if a production line is out of order due to a software error. These kinds of aspects of jobs you are neglecting.
Everybody has their responsibility at work.
What makes you think Management jobs are easier? If companies could get by paying them less, why don't they?
-
KennyR wrote:
And just where does the hard working guy that ends up making a mint, turn into the exploiter?
About the part where he can earn several times what the average worker can doing only a bare minimum of work. Or about the time he starts keeping his worker's wages lower than inflation to increase his own profits.
What if he works his butt off and pays his employees well? Can he then purchase a Harrods parking space? :-)
-
Googled up US Average wage.
Latest shown on Google 2001
Year AverageWage
2001 $37,864
Several = three?
So let's see; 3 X $37,864.00 = $113,592.00
We now know that KennyR thinks anyone who makes over $113,592.00, or EUR 90,908.43 or GBP 60.665.53 is greedy and exploits people.
Please do not accept any pay over this amount!
-
Googled up US Average wage.
Latest shown on Google 2001
Year AverageWage
2001 $37,864
Several = three?
So let's see; 3 X $37,864.00 = $113,592.00
We now know that KennyR thinks anyone who makes over $113,592.00, or EUR 90,908.43 or GBP 60.665.53 is greedy and exploits people.
Please do not accept any pay over this amount!
-
Googled up US Average wage.
Latest shown on Google 2001
Year AverageWage
2001 $37,864
Several = three?
So let's see; 3 X $37,864.00 = $113,592.00
We now know that KennyR thinks anyone who makes over $113,592.00, or EUR 90,908.43 or GBP 60.665.53 is greedy and exploits people.
Please do not accept any pay over this amount!
-
Googled up US Average wage.
Latest shown on Google 2001
Year AverageWage
2001 $37,864
Several = three?
So let's see; 3 X $37,864.00 = $113,592.00
We now know that KennyR thinks anyone who makes over $113,592.00, or EUR 90,908.43 or GBP 60.665.53 is greedy and exploits people.
Please do not accept any pay over this amount!
-
I don't know either. I'm lost!
-
T_Bone wrote:
What makes you think Management jobs are easier? If companies could get by paying them less, why don't they?
I think because there is a serious lack of (good) managers.
With the upcoming of ICT there was also a lack of ICT-people, and they offered GENEROUS royalties for them, how about a million quid + a BMW 5?
It's a bad bad bad thing that the job market is set up this way. Nurses, for instance, work extremely hard, and they do not earn much.
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
sumner7 wrote:
It does
No it doesn't. These people are not productive in any way. They do not add anything to our civilization yet they push their asses in the front of all attention. They are bloodsucking parasites.
It's like a septic tank, the biggest muck floats in the upper regions.
I agree with you in some ways there. Everyone should be equal, and some celebrities should be shot, eg: Jade Goody, Davina McCall, Mark Durden-Smith, Ant and Dec, Foxy and Mel Sykes :ak47: :ak47: :ak47: :ak47:
-
T_Bone wrote:
What if he works his butt off and pays his employees well? Can he then purchase a Harrods parking space? :-)
And if a nurse works his/her butt off?
I think everyone should have been paid according to his/her efforts. So to answer your question, my answer is yes. But I do not think someone wants to buy PARKING SPACE for their hard hard hard working.
-
sumner7 wrote:
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
sumner7 wrote:
It does
No it doesn't. These people are not productive in any way. They do not add anything to our civilization yet they push their asses in the front of all attention. They are bloodsucking parasites.
It's like a septic tank, the biggest muck floats in the upper regions.
I agree with you in some ways there. Everyone should be equal, and some celebrities should be shot, eg: Jade Goody, Davina McCall, Mark Durden-Smith, Ant and Dec, Foxy and Mel Sykes :ak47: :ak47: :ak47: :ak47:
:lol: and how about Justin Timberlake? :roflmao: (though he's hot in some strange way)
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
and how about Justin Timberlake?
Nice looking guy.
Needs a brain transplant.
;-)
-
that_punk_guy wrote:
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
and how about Justin Timberlake?
Nice looking guy.
Needs a brain transplant.
;-)
If Janet Jackson wants to be more popular, she should do it herself! SHE DON'T NEED JUSTIN! :smack:
-
that_punk_guy wrote:
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
and how about Justin Timberlake?
Nice looking guy.
Needs a brain transplant.
;-)
Sure thing..... I agree
HEY! How do you know that?
-
The only thing that JT is good for would be transplanting organ to other people. :-)
-
sumner7 wrote:
SHE DON'T NEED JUSTIN!
Do you? :-D
-
T_Bone wrote:
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
Who'd want to go into management then?
More responsibility, more career risk, for the same pay? No thanks.
HEY! As if a management job is something more demanding than a productive job. I mean, with my future job for instance, I can called at night if a production line is out of order due to a software error. These kinds of aspects of jobs you are neglecting.
Everybody has their responsibility at work.
What makes you think Management jobs are easier? If companies could get by paying them less, why don't they?
Because the major shareholders, the board and the CEO are all drinking together! It´s not socially acceptable in those circles to pay a reasonable wage when your drinking buddies want the fantasy wage.
Recruitment of the board and the top management todays is cross-company it´s not in-company.
It´s not possible to work your way up from the factoryfloor anymore!
And the strange thing is it doesn´t matter if the new CEO did a bad job in the previous company he gets recruited anyway!
And if the management doesn´t have any loyalty to the company why should the workers have it. Then you get theft and people call in sick just because they don´t feel working.
And if there is no loyalty to the company, then there isn´t any loyalty to the country. Which means the company moves somewhere where it gets taxcuts and it´s easier to exploit the workers.
What we have today isn´t the responsible capitalism from old times, its the robber known as marketliberalism which says "Sell your grandma to the gluefactory, you might get a quarter for her".
-
@Dan
Aye! I can agree with that!
It's hard to work your way to the top without jumping between companies. Todays capitalistic systems are about to go just as far out as the communistic system did in the Soviet Union.
"The space merchants" are about to become reality! :nervous:
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
sumner7 wrote:
SHE DON'T NEED JUSTIN!
Do you? :-D
NO! Do you?....
-
sumner7 wrote:
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
sumner7 wrote:
SHE DON'T NEED JUSTIN!
Do you? :-D
NO! Do you?....
Naah. I do not 'need' him.
But I thought, this was a cry straight out of your heart, a cry of jealousy.
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
sumner7 wrote:
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
sumner7 wrote:
SHE DON'T NEED JUSTIN!
Do you? :-D
NO! Do you?....
Naah. I do not 'need' him.
But I thought, this was a cry straight out of your heart, a cry of jealousy.
I'm afraid it wasn't, Speelgoedmannetje. :-)
-
sumner7 wrote:
I'm afraid it wasn't, Speelgoedmannetje. :-)
Then why the capitals?
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
sumner7 wrote:
I'm afraid it wasn't, Speelgoedmannetje. :-)
Then why the capitals?
I just wanted to get that point across.
-
sumner7 wrote:
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
sumner7 wrote:
I'm afraid it wasn't, Speelgoedmannetje. :-)
Then why the capitals?
I just wanted to get that point across.
And WHY did you want to get that point across? :-D