Harrods Parking space for Sale

[Fade]

@ TPG
"by donating it to a charity, not by buying a parking space."

[that_punk_guy]

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."

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? Why on Earth do Harrods need to charge people for the privilege of parking near the shop?

It should not be "given away," it should remain the property of Harrods and be freely available for the use of all their customers.

[that_punk_guy]

Fade wrote:
"by donating it to a charity, not by buying a parking space."

Would you care to elaborate on that? Your point's about as clear as dog poo.

[cecilia]

Fade wrote:
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."

you obviously know NOTHING about art and certainly nothing about art supplies.
If Oils, etc really were "high priced", no artists would be able to afford them. they ceretainly are cheaper than a parking space.

And, I only bought certain supplies when I got a job which paid me enough to get them. That's how I got my Thaler-Chandler airbrush which I still have - and it's been over 15 years, now.
In no way can anyone accuse me of being "opulant". I've gone through years NOT buying clothes, for example.
I've made alot of sacrifies for my career and when I drop dead I'll have something to leave behind - that I'm not ashamed of! (MILLIONS of people have seen my work on TV and on DVD's. And, yes, I've got proof).

those rich, show-off's should be embarrased to show their idiot faces in public.

[Fade]

@ cecilia
"If Oils, etc really were "high priced", no artists would be able to afford them. they ceretainly are cheaper than a parking space."
--------------------

So I guess you are finally admitting it is just relative after all.

[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. :-)

[whabang]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

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.

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.

[Fade]

@ TGP

Fade wrote:
"by donating it to a charity, not by buying a parking space."


Would you care to elaborate on that? Your point's about as clear as dog poo.
-------------------------

No Fade did NOT write the above statement!

That was your statement TPG.

and later T_Bone stated

"Oh, I see what you're getting at, you think people that have money should give it away instead of spending it."
------------------
And then Fade wrote
No he doesn't! He only wants the very rich ones to do it.

Please dont ask me to explain YOUR statement.

[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.

[cecilia]

Fade wrote:
@ cecilia
"If Oils, etc really were "high priced", no artists would be able to afford them. they ceretainly are cheaper than a parking space."
--------------------

So I guess you are finally admiting it is just relative after all.

you are completely missing the point.
I'm not an artist to "show off'. my goal is to be creative every day of my life. maybe this seems silly to the rich, but they are morally bankrupt.

just look at the situation in Los Angeles: for months, now, there has been a bus strike as well as a strike of workers from the biggest supermarket chain in California.

and it's been going on since the fall. and who does this affect?? poor people (students, the old, mexican's, etc). and why does it continue? because who gives a rats ass about poor people in LA?
the rich are driving around in their f'ing cars.

you would NEVER have a transit strike in New York lasting for months. the people here would riot. that's because even the semi-wealthy understand the importance of the subway system to the economy of NY. I've seen upper middle class people on the subway. we all rub elbows with the middle class, lower middle class and the poor (not to mention the incredibly poor).

but in LA, (and you have to BE there to really understand this) the rich are so insulated from reality that they don't see the poor or care how they have to live. trust me, they don't venture out of their little "rich" cocoons.
It's this incredible insensativity that makes me puke.

I don't want handouts and I don't want sympathy, but a total lack of human decency is revolting.
and if you can't understand that than please DON'T talk to me at all.

[that_punk_guy]

Fade wrote:
@ TGP

Fade wrote:
"by donating it to a charity, not by buying a parking space."

Would you care to elaborate on that? Your point's about as clear as dog poo.

No Fade did NOT write the above statement!

They were in quotes, just like you put them. If you had quoted properly, they would appear in a proper quote box. Now calm down and explain what point you were trying to prove by quoting me. It's not my fault you chose to randomly parrot back part of something I've said earlier. Go punch a wall or something. With your head, if possible.

[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!

[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?

[Fade]

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__?__

[cecilia]

that_punk_guy wrote:
 Go punch a wall or something. With your head, if possible.

:roflmao:
And people wonder why I love you!  :crazy:

[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.