Thanks for putting words in my mouth. At which point did I "EVER" say I want the rich to give away all there money to the poor?????????? All I was trying to say is that I was disgusted in how she and many others could "waste" money in such a manner. End of story. Agree to disagree.....
WTF's wrong with Tiger Wood's wife?!?!
- Thread starter kono
- Start date
Very common in areas where land is no longer available. Pick up an under priced property, knock down the existing building(s), build something you like. Common in parts of Toronto, Ontario cottage country Florida waterfront and LA. Great way to make even more money after a few years. Real estate is a wonderful way to make money. You just have to remember the only permanent value is in the land. Unless it slides into the Pacific.
Agree.
Add manufacturing (not just auto although that seems to be one of the biggies if not the biggest, but wish there was more different kinds of mfg'ing).
He must be a nice guy who's helping her invest in her new wealth - smart girl.
(BTW, someone else asked what she did to earn all of this wealth but they forget about modern divorce law).
She got lucky and found Tiger. Hell, if tables would had turn a few other ways she might had ended up working in some $20 lap dance club.
Now that she is rich, she can go after other fat cats. She has it made, money wise at least. How would you like to be one of her kids, lol
Now that she is rich, she can go after other fat cats. She has it made, money wise at least. How would you like to be one of her kids, lol
The level of economic ignorence in this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_broken_window
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/That_Which_Is_Seen,_and_That_Which_Is_Not_Seen
162 years later and people still wallow in ignorance. For shame, for shame.
I don't know why I bother, it seems a total waste.
Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
When I read stuff like this I think maybe monarchy isn't such a bad thing, even though I am not a fan of Liz are Chuck.
better than putting you lot in charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_broken_window
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/That_Which_Is_Seen,_and_That_Which_Is_Not_Seen
162 years later and people still wallow in ignorance. For shame, for shame.
I don't know why I bother, it seems a total waste.
Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
When I read stuff like this I think maybe monarchy isn't such a bad thing, even though I am not a fan of Liz are Chuck.
better than putting you lot in charge.
Well, this thread seems to be discussing the morality of Elin's extravagant purchases. And I was just lamenting how this looks to younger people who may be looking up to this.
Elin Nordegren gets $100 M ... for being married to Tiger Woods.
Meanwhile, Julie Payette was the first Canadian woman to visit and work on the International Space Station. How much does she make?
The level of economic ignorence in this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_broken_window
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/That_Which_Is_Seen,_and_That_Which_Is_Not_Seen
162 years later and people still wallow in ignorance. For shame, for shame.
I don't know why I bother, it seems a total waste.
Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
When I read stuff like this I think maybe monarchy isn't such a bad thing, even though I am not a fan of Liz are Chuck.
better than putting you lot in charge.
Of course
Money was more equitably distributed in Medieval Europe than it is today
Capitalism makes more wealth but does not distribute it more fairly
Those who believe it does are as daft as the "intellectual elite" who believed in the Feudal system during the Medieval days
No it is not OK that a few have it all when they have not earned it
The rich get richer off the sweat of the workers
This causes huge economic problems and wars world wide
Tiger Woods is rich because he is part of a monopoly (The PGA)
Maybe not as stupid as the people that jump to conclusions:
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/go...d-tiger-woods-ex-wife-level-12-171330450.html
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/go...d-tiger-woods-ex-wife-level-12-171330450.html
b.s.... people come up with any lies to save their face.. too easy to pay off a termite inspector and get them to fabricate a story. I mean .. You have a termite infested house and you invite Habitat for Humanity to take whatever they want? people can't be so stupid
