Jump to content

"Wasted Money" - A very personal term


Mick Mac

Recommended Posts

I have to admit it irkes me slightly when people use this term as advice to other people.


People seem to use it when they believe something is seen by them to be overpriced.


Noone is compelled to buy a product, but money needs to move around for it to work as a means of purchase / barter (and in so doing it generates taxes) It's also your means of buying what "you" want.


It's not for one person (a third party to a transaction) to tell another that money is or has been wasted. The money has simply moved from one person to another person (in this case the fresh flower company, northcross road )- how has the third party been affected? Not at all, although some vat has gone into government coffers, as will some income tax (which goes to help those less well off, fund public services etc).


By all means express an opinion as to whether the product might bring enough enjoyment for the price being asked - but "wasted money" it is not. Money doesn't get wasted - it's moves around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can have destruction of money - as when Joe Corr set fire to a punk collection worth ?5 million recently.


Or when that band burned ?1 million on a Scottish island in the 1990s.


I think I agree with your statement, I wouldn't class either as a waste. The second in particular would be welcomed by the Bank who printed the notes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well - I think destruction IS a bad thing. It's potentially a publicity stunt that reeks of selfishness. Certainly a charitable donation would be preferable IMO - unless there is some long term political message that works for the greater good over time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have to admit it irkes me slightly when people

> use this term as advice to other people.

>

> People seem to use it when they believe something

> is seen by them to be overpriced.

>

> Noone is compelled to buy a product, but money

> needs to move around for it to work as a means of

> purchase / barter (and in so doing it generates

> taxes) It's also your means of buying what "you"

> want.

>

> It's not for one person (a third party to a

> transaction) to tell another that money is or has

> been wasted. The money has simply moved from one

> person to another person (in this case the fresh

> flower company, northcross road )- how has the

> third party been affected? Not at all, although

> some vat has gone into government coffers, as will

> some income tax (which goes to help those less

> well off, fund public services etc).

>

> By all means express an opinion as to whether the

> product might bring enough enjoyment for the price

> being asked - but "wasted money" it is not. Money

> doesn't get wasted - it's moves around.




You are quite correct in saying it is your money to 'waste' as you want. Your justification reminds me of the song from Cabaret, 'It's Money makes the World go Round' perhaps it's on Youtube, play it and feel better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elphinstone's Army Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


Your justification reminds

> me of the song from Cabaret, 'It's Money makes the

> World go Round' perhaps it's on Youtube, play it

> and feel better.



Available at:

- always brings a smile to my face ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well - I think destruction IS a bad thing. It's

> potentially a publicity stunt that reeks of

> selfishness. Certainly a charitable donation would

> be preferable IMO - unless there is some long term

> political message that works for the greater good

> over time.


If it was monopoly money and they were sponsored then :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IlonaM Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Elphinstone's Army Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> Your justification reminds

> > me of the song from Cabaret, 'It's Money makes

> the

> > World go Round' perhaps it's on Youtube, play

> it

> > and feel better.

>

>

> Available at:

>

-

> always brings a smile to my face ...



Why thank you, Ilona !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IlonaM Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Elphinstone's Army Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> Your justification reminds

> > me of the song from Cabaret, 'It's Money makes

> the

> > World go Round' perhaps it's on Youtube, play

> it

> > and feel better.

>

>

> Available at:

>

-

> always brings a smile to my face ...



I find that song quite chilling :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> unless there is some long term

> political message that works for the greater good

> over time.


i think that bloke out of KLF burning all that money is more a pub quiz curio these days, rather than a political act with lasting repercussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • @Rockets : No one has changed the definition of 'consultation' or 'referendum', or switched the terms. They are different things and have different meanings. You can even check this in a dictionary if you're not sure about it. Regarding the most recent consultation (at least the one I assume you're referring to), it was about the design of the Square. It was not a consultation on the existence of the LTN itself, despite (again rather desperately and a little embarrassingly) some people pretending it was.  As for One Dulwich, I think what vexes people has been very clearly articulated, and very conspicuously ducked by those posting their regular missives: Firstly, they're claiming that people are accidentally driving through the square because of bad signage / lack of clarity. This is both ridiculous and ironic. Ridiculous because no sensible person could possibly believe it to be true, and ironic because they've objected to any updates to the layout (instead trying to pretend it's a rerun of the LTN consultation itself which closed several years ago as noted above). Secondly, they've claimed that someone has been pressurising the emergency services, yet fail to say who, or how. You seem to have suggested it may be the involvement of the 'far left' 😄 Anyway, It's all very tedious. If you want to improve signage, engage in that conversation, instead of trying to reopen debates that have finished. If you're going to claim intimidation of the emergency services, you probably want to give details and have some evidence. And if you think someone can drive through the square by mistake, you may want to question what you consider to be safe and competent driving. 🤣    
    • Got mine two days ago plus yesterday I received a second-class letter which was posted the day before in Sydenham
    • Back, regrettably, to the Private Eye benchmark test.  Have folk expecting the issue that would normally have been delivered on Wednesday the 24th received theirs yet, and if so, when?
    • What area are you in?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...