Harrods Parking space for Sale

[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!

[T_Bone]

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?

[T_Bone]

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]

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.

[T_Bone]

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]

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. :-)

[T_Bone]

whabang wrote:
This is scary! We've started to agree! :nervous:
You're making a capitalist out of me! NOOOooOooOOAAAGRRGAAGHHH! :-P

 :lol:

[T_Bone]

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.

[T_Bone]

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. :-)

[T_Bone]

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?

[T_Bone]

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?  :-)