Ashley Olsen Spotted Sporting $39,000 Backpack By The Row

[Drakken]

How does her not buying a bag (or the suppliers not making a bag) feed a hungry person? If anyhing the VAT and sales tax from her purchase well flow into welfair and poverty programs making it more likely hypothetical hungry person will get fed.

Didn't you know luxury is vain and bad?

It's the same logic than arguing that so and so's millions from "useless services" (entertainment, sports, etc.) are excessive because they are payed for that rather than saving lives in Africa as a doctor.

[Slargos]

How does her not buying a bag (or the suppliers not making a bag) feed a hungry person? If anyhing the VAT and sales tax from her purchase well flow into welfair and poverty programs making it more likely hypothetical hungry person will get fed.

Not true. Apparently trickle down economics don't work, and the hungry are better off by her hoarding the cash under her bed made of gold.

[Pat]

Buying shit like that is a clear sign you have more money than you need, whereas, on the flip-side, there are a lot of people that clearly need money. Time and resources are spent on making, advertising and selling stupid shit people wouldn't buy unless they had too much money and those time and resources could be used to the benefit of normal people.

[Pat]

How does her not buying a bag (or the suppliers not making a bag) feed a hungry person? If anyhing the VAT and sales tax from her purchase well flow into welfair and poverty programs making it more likely hypothetical hungry person will get fed.

Not true. Apparently trickle down economics don't work, and the hungry are better off by her hoarding the cash under her bed made of gold.

Trickle down economics.

[garbon]

Buying shit like that is a clear sign you have more money than you need, whereas, on the flip-side, there are a lot of people that clearly need money. Time and resources are spent on making, advertising and selling stupid shit people wouldn't buy unless they had too much money and those time and resources could be used to the benefit of normal people.

Lot's of people have more money than they need.  I certainly do and I don't even have that much money.

[Slargos]

Buying shit like that is a clear sign you have more money than you need, whereas, on the flip-side, there are a lot of people that clearly need money. Time and resources are spent on making, advertising and selling stupid shit people wouldn't buy unless they had too much money and those time and resources could be used to the benefit of normal people.

Indeed. All rich people who make more than $100 000 per year should be executed and their wealth redistributed to the poor of the third world. The unemployed can then take their jobs for smaller salaries and the savings can again be redistributed on more worthy people such as the Somalis or why not the Tamils? I hear the Tamils have a hard time of it. Especially, you know, the PoW.

[Drakken]

Buying shit like that is a clear sign you have more money than you need, whereas, on the flip-side, there are a lot of people that clearly need money. Time and resources are spent on making, advertising and selling stupid shit people wouldn't buy unless they had too much money and those time and resources could be used to the benefit of normal people.

So, money is about spending it anyway you want it, she's earned it. Even burning it or spending it on fashion-horror crocodile skin packbag worth 39 grand made by her twin sister's colony of slave labor somewhere in a piss poor country.

Because by your reasoning, any rich celebrity should be honour-bound to throw away the money she's earned him or herself for the good of the others? And how exactly would you execute that, other than by taxation?

[Slargos]

Buying shit like that is a clear sign you have more money than you need, whereas, on the flip-side, there are a lot of people that clearly need money. Time and resources are spent on making, advertising and selling stupid shit people wouldn't buy unless they had too much money and those time and resources could be used to the benefit of normal people.

So, money is about spending it anyway you want it, she's earned it. Even burning it or spending it on fashion-horror crocodile skin packbag worth 39 grand made by her twin sister's colony of slave labor somewhere in a piss poor country.

Because by your reasoning, any rich celebrity should be honour-bound to throw away the money she's earned him or herself for the good of the others? And how exactly would you execute that, other than by taxation?

Psst. Swedish.

Doesn't terribly mind raising taxes for everyone but himself. 

[Pat]

Right. Now let's say you take someone with 1 million USD in a bank account and give him 1000 dollars. He will now have 0,1% more money. Give those 1000 dollars to someone with 10 000 dollars in the bank. He will now have 10% more money. And give them to someone with 1000 dollar, he will now have 100% more money.

Buying shit like that is a clear sign you have more money than you need, whereas, on the flip-side, there are a lot of people that clearly need money. Time and resources are spent on making, advertising and selling stupid shit people wouldn't buy unless they had too much money and those time and resources could be used to the benefit of normal people.

So, money is about spending it anyway you want it, she's earned it. Even burning it or spending it on fashion-horror crocodile skin packbag worth 39 grand made by her twin sister's colony of slave labor somewhere in a piss poor country.

Because by your reasoning, any rich celebrity should be honour-bound to throw away the money she's earned him or herself for the good of the others?

Doesn't follow. Humans are selfish, and it is very intrusive to tell people how they should act. Change the system, not the people.

And how exactly would you do that, other than taxation?

Taxation is one way, changing modes of production is another way. You don't get rid of this kind of celebrities without first changing people's perceptions, but take capitalists for example. I think most capitalists could be made into wage-earners working for major investment funds. You could start up an investment fund that invest in democratic companies. You go to the fund á la the show Dragon's Den (it's a BBC show where you ask capitalists for money to start up companies). This would mean everyone could get money to start a company, not just the ones who already have access to money. Because if you don't have access to start-up money, you will most likely not think about starting something very large. So in a way it would also emancipate the mind of people and make their dreams more realistic. Problem with democratic companies is they don't react well to lay-offs etc (very hard to decide who should go democratically). Also you don't want a raise of hands before every major decision. So there must be representative democracy and the fund needs to be able to step in and over-ride the democracy in certain pre-defined situations. Let's say you go to the fund with a constitution of how you want your company run, and how profits are shared, and it is then put to negotiation between yourself and the fund, the only non-negotiable part being that after a grace start-up period (which is also negotiable) the employees gets to decide who runs the company and free and secret elections can be held as to achieve that.

Anyway I could write more about this if someone's interested but I usually get yelled at whenever I write long posts so I'll stop. If somoene wants to know more they can ask, but don't just assume it hasn't been thought of because I haven't mentioned it.

Buying shit like that is a clear sign you have more money than you need, whereas, on the flip-side, there are a lot of people that clearly need money. Time and resources are spent on making, advertising and selling stupid shit people wouldn't buy unless they had too much money and those time and resources could be used to the benefit of normal people.

So, money is about spending it anyway you want it, she's earned it. Even burning it or spending it on fashion-horror crocodile skin packbag worth 39 grand made by her twin sister's colony of slave labor somewhere in a piss poor country.

Because by your reasoning, any rich celebrity should be honour-bound to throw away the money she's earned him or herself for the good of the others? And how exactly would you execute that, other than by taxation?

Psst. Swedish.

Doesn't terribly mind raising taxes for everyone but himself. 

I'm fine paying a lot of taxes as long as everyone else has to as well. This also has the added benefit of actually working, as opposed to voluntary charity where you just go "well no one else gives a lot anyway, and besides there are so many people richer than me so I need the money". Besides, why should you give a lot when no one else has to? Never thought I'd tell you this, but don't be so idealistic, be more crass.

[derspiess]

They killed Heath Ledger.

They should get a medal.

[Slargos]

Matthew 25:20-30

[The Brain]

If I worked at a "democratic company" I would quit and find a real company. Sounds like a nightmare.

[Drakken]

Right. Now let's say you take someone with 1 million USD in a bank account and give him 1000 dollars. He will now have 0,1% more money. Give those 1000 dollars to someone with 10 000 dollars in the bank. He will now have 10% more money. And give them to someone with 1000 dollar, he will now have 100% more money.

Yet it's still 1000$, and he only has 2000$ now. So his level of wealth and spending power hasn't grown a bit, and will probably be spent on a Plasma TV, some beer, cigarettes, a trip to Cuba, drugs, or hookers, or any immediate expense such people may have.

Besides, the amount of people who'd like a free 1000$ massively surpasses the number of rich celebrities you can rob, so you'll run out of 1000$ to rob sooner than you think. Because what you are arguing is in fact Robin-Hood robbery.

For the rest, TL;DR.

[Drakken]

If I worked at a "democratic company" I would quit and find a real company. Sounds like a nightmare.

In Soviet Sweden, democratic company owns you.

[Pat]

Matthew 25:20-30

"Bagge får tacka lamm". But what if there is no afterlife?

Right. Now let's say you take someone with 1 million USD in a bank account and give him 1000 dollars. He will now have 0,1% more money. Give those 1000 dollars to someone with 10 000 dollars in the bank. He will now have 10% more money. And give them to someone with 1000 dollar, he will now have 100% more money.

Yet it's still 1000$, and he only has 2000$ now. So his level of wealth and spending power hasn't grown a bit, and will probably be spent on a Plasma TV, some beer, cigarettes, a trip to Cuba, drugs, or hookers, or any immediate expense such people may have.

Besides, the amount of people who'd like a free 1000$ massively surpasses the number of rich celebrities you can rob, so you'll run out of 1000$ to rob sooner than you think. Because what you are arguing is in fact Robin-Hood robbery.

For the rest, TL;DR.

What about taking the surplus value of labour from many workers and then spending it on inconspicious consumption? And maybe if you could read and understand what I was writing you would see I wasn't arguing for Robin Hood robbery or theft, even by the most libartardian standards.