Harrods Parking space for Sale

[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. :-)

[KennyR]

Fade wrote:
And if I decide to work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 15 years, so I can get myself out of that $25.000 a year category, I am then supposed to feel guilty and give away say everything above $50,000?

No point in considering it. You'd certainly never be able to earn the millions the average Harrods socialite owns, no matter how smart, resourceful or savvy you were. You are born into that kind of wealth.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

T_Bone wrote:
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?

Touché

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? :-)

Well, I want a Marshall-plan for the poor countries, so they can make use of their capabilities.

[KennyR]

Oh, and before anyone responds with, "How did self-made millionaires get their money then??" - I don't consider that to be earning. Earning is working. Period.

[whabang]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

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.

True, but that still doesn't make the transaction into a bad thing. :-)
Hopefully, Harrod's will invest the money wisely so that the money can contribute to the creation of more jobs. They shouldn't be allowed to just hold on to it, as that would be a crime both against socialistic ideas aswell as capitalistic ones.

[Fade]

@ KennyR
"Oh, and before anyone responds with, "How did self-made millionaires get their money then??" - I don't consider that to be earning. Earning is working. Period."
-----------------

No KennyR , you can't try to cover it up with that statement.

There are too many Sam Waltons and Bill Gates in this world. All born poor!

[whabang]

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!

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

[KennyR]

Fade wrote:
There are too many Sam Waltons and Bill Gates in this world. All born poor!

And you really think Gates works for his money?

There are two ways to get money legally: exploitation of the workforce, and hard work. The first will always get more money. But if everyone was like that, nobody would have any money at all.

I don't accept exploitation and monopolising as earning.

[T_Bone]

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

 :lol:

[Speelgoedmannetje]

whabang wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

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.

True, but that still doesn't make the transaction into a bad thing. :-)
Hopefully, Harrod's will invest the money wisely so that the money can contribute to the creation of more jobs. They shouldn't be allowed to just hold on to it, as that would be a crime both against socialistic ideas aswell as capitalistic ones.

Eventually, it's Zen what I am talking about. A transaction is just a thing, empty, nothing. It's the manner, the way, wich matters.
And in this case, the particular form isn't conform the economy.

[Fade]

@ KennyR
"There are two ways to get money legally: exploitation of the workforce, and hard work."
-----------------

And just where does the hard working guy that ends up making a mint, turn into the exploiter?

$200,000__/__$100,000__/__$75,000__/__$50,000__/__$25,000__/$10,000__?__

[Fade]

Kenny ?

[Fade]

Methinks Kenny has run away.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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.

[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.

[Fade]

Where is the incentive to move up or to become management if there is no reward.