3 ms·

They are parasites because they are spending money (that they didn't earn by producing anything) in an inefficient manner. That three floor apartment could hous

by rm999 13y ago

They are parasites because they are spending money (that they didn't earn by producing anything) in an inefficient manner. That three floor apartment could house many people, instead it is wasting a very rare commodity in NYC: housing. I'd be much more sympathetic if she actually spent time in that apartment. She produces no wealth and destroys wealth through inefficiency - good use of the word "parasite". Usually I'm the one who is defending the wealthy from unfair attacks online, but in this case I don't understand your argument.

pdog 13y ago
I understand and I'm sympathetic to what you're saying. It's a bit counterintuitive, but I'll try to elaborate more on the points you've made: > They are parasites because they are spending money Parasites are people who take from the system; she's contributing by putting money into it. > (that they didn't earn by producing anything) The source of her money is irrelevant to the question of how she should spend it. What difference does it make how she got it? One dollar is perfectly interchangeable with another, and the fungibility of money makes it one of the most neutral substances on earth. > in an inefficient manner. She's buying luxury properties, probably spending a token amount to fund her lifestyle, and letting professionals manage the rest. That's may be a pretty efficient allocation of capital for her situation. > That three floor apartment could house many people, instead it is wasting a very rare commodity in NYC: housing. Nowhere in Manhattan are there many people getting together to split a three-story penthouse apartment. Her properties are fundamentally different from a regular one- or two-bedroom apartment. This is difficult to articulate, but living in a penthouse in Manhattan isn't a right. > I'd be much more sympathetic if she actually spent time in that apartment. Again, why does it matter how she's using the apartments? If she owns more than a few luxury properties and it doesn't make sense to rent them out (to who?), then she necessarily is using them in an "inefficient" manner, since she can only be at one place at a time. > She produces no wealth and destroys wealth through inefficiency - good use of the word "parasite". Again, when she's spending "inefficiently", she's contributing to the system.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- icebraining 13y ago
  Parasites are people who take from the system; she's contributing by putting money into it. Unless she owns a fractional-reserve bank, she probably just moved the money around, while taking wealth from the system, which is what "spending money" means. By your argument, a thief who spends the spoils of his crime is contributing to the system! The source of her money is irrelevant to the question of how she should spend it. Not in a discussion about ethics, it's not. One dollar is perfectly interchangeable with another, and the fungibility of money makes it one of the most neutral substances on earth. Red herring; nobody is arguing about the particular dollars she owns, but the amount of them. She's buying luxury properties, probably spending a token amount to fund her lifestyle, and letting professionals manage the rest. That's may be a pretty efficient allocation of capital for her situation. Efficient for whom? For her? Why is she the only one who matters? Again, when she's spending "inefficiently", she's contributing to the system. How is putting money in the system by itself a (positive) contribution? Should we applaud counterfeiters?
userulluipeste 13y ago
«They are parasites because they are spending money (that they didn't earn by producing anything) in an inefficient manner. That three floor apartment could house many people, instead it is wasting a very rare commodity in NYC: housing. I'd be much more sympathetic if she actually spent time in that apartment. She produces no wealth and destroys wealth through inefficiency - good use of the word "parasite".» You know, when I tried to picture what you implied to be the right and correct resource use I come up with Bangladesh life-style - many people living in a small area, not a lot of space wasted. If I think more about it, the entire american life-style resonates in opposition with your objections. In fact, all the american-dreamers long to what she is and what she has, don't they?

by rm999 13y ago

pdog 13y ago

I understand and I'm sympathetic to what you're saying. It's a bit counterintuitive, but I'll try to elaborate more on the points you've made: > They are parasites because they are spending money Parasites are people who take from the system; she's contributing by putting money into it. > (that they didn't earn by producing anything) The source of her money is irrelevant to the question of how she should spend it. What difference does it make how she got it? One dollar is perfectly interchangeable with another, and the fungibility of money makes it one of the most neutral substances on earth. > in an inefficient manner. She's buying luxury properties, probably spending a token amount to fund her lifestyle, and letting professionals manage the rest. That's may be a pretty efficient allocation of capital for her situation. > That three floor apartment could house many people, instead it is wasting a very rare commodity in NYC: housing. Nowhere in Manhattan are there many people getting together to split a three-story penthouse apartment. Her properties are fundamentally different from a regular one- or two-bedroom apartment. This is difficult to articulate, but living in a penthouse in Manhattan isn't a right. > I'd be much more sympathetic if she actually spent time in that apartment. Again, why does it matter how she's using the apartments? If she owns more than a few luxury properties and it doesn't make sense to rent them out (to who?), then she necessarily is using them in an "inefficient" manner, since she can only be at one place at a time. > She produces no wealth and destroys wealth through inefficiency - good use of the word "parasite". Again, when she's spending "inefficiently", she's contributing to the system.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
icebraining 13y ago
Parasites are people who take from the system; she's contributing by putting money into it. Unless she owns a fractional-reserve bank, she probably just moved the money around, while taking wealth from the system, which is what "spending money" means. By your argument, a thief who spends the spoils of his crime is contributing to the system! The source of her money is irrelevant to the question of how she should spend it. Not in a discussion about ethics, it's not. One dollar is perfectly interchangeable with another, and the fungibility of money makes it one of the most neutral substances on earth. Red herring; nobody is arguing about the particular dollars she owns, but the amount of them. She's buying luxury properties, probably spending a token amount to fund her lifestyle, and letting professionals manage the rest. That's may be a pretty efficient allocation of capital for her situation. Efficient for whom? For her? Why is she the only one who matters? Again, when she's spending "inefficiently", she's contributing to the system. How is putting money in the system by itself a (positive) contribution? Should we applaud counterfeiters?

userulluipeste 13y ago

«They are parasites because they are spending money (that they didn't earn by producing anything) in an inefficient manner. That three floor apartment could house many people, instead it is wasting a very rare commodity in NYC: housing. I'd be much more sympathetic if she actually spent time in that apartment. She produces no wealth and destroys wealth through inefficiency - good use of the word "parasite".» You know, when I tried to picture what you implied to be the right and correct resource use I come up with Bangladesh life-style - many people living in a small area, not a lot of space wasted. If I think more about it, the entire american life-style resonates in opposition with your objections. In fact, all the american-dreamers long to what she is and what she has, don't they?