Harrods Parking space for Sale

[T_Bone]

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

[T_Bone]

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.

[T_Bone]

"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]

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.

[T_Bone]

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?

[T_Bone]

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?]

[T_Bone]

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.

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Yes, and that devalue process was the cause of two world wars thankyouverymuch.

Inflation or Deflation?

[T_Bone]

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

[T_Bone]

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]

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.

[T_Bone]

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]

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]

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. :-)

[T_Bone]

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!