Harrods Parking space for Sale

[that_punk_guy]

Why are there so many rich retards?

:-?

[that_punk_guy]

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?!!

:-?

[that_punk_guy]

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

[that_punk_guy]

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.)

[that_punk_guy]

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]

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.

[that_punk_guy]

T_Bone wrote:
That cottage is certainly a "reasonable" thing for this man to have

Is it?

[that_punk_guy]

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.

[that_punk_guy]

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.

[that_punk_guy]

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.

[that_punk_guy]

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:

[that_punk_guy]

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?

:-?

[that_punk_guy]

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.

[that_punk_guy]

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]

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?