Harrods Parking space for Sale

[Speelgoedmannetje]

"big amount o' bucks" -> /dev/void

:-x

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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]

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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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]

Yes, correct. And that devalue process was one of the major causes of the two world wars thankyouverymuch.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

T_Bone wrote:
But it's just another transaction.

No, it's fake economy. Like those non-existing islands in the Pacific.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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]

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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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.