Harrods Parking space for Sale

[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.

[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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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

[T_Bone]

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

Inflation or Deflation?

[KennyR]

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.

[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.

[KennyR]

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_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.

[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

[KennyR]

It's not so much the space they want, just the prestige. Stupid money grabbing socialite peacocks.

[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.

[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:

[KennyR]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

T_Bone wrote:
But it's just another transaction.

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