that '100k' bag (i doubt it she paid full price) has bought her much more in publicity.
smart move imo
smart move imo
When children of the rich burn 100K USD for fun.
- Thread starter noob_trad3r
- Start date
100K for her is like you taking a penny to one of those machines that stamps it into something.
It is all about magnitude. 100K = 1 penny for her in terms of magnitude.
It is all about magnitude. 100K = 1 penny for her in terms of magnitude.
Clint Eastwoods net worth = $375 million
So burning a bag is about 0.025% or 1/3750th percent of his money.
To scale it, the average american familys net worth is about $138,000 as of 2011 so that would be like your kid burning a purse worth $34.50.
Not quite like smashing a penny, but still not really something a parent is going to get TOO upset over.
im amazed at how many closet socialists there are on a trading forum..
to the statement that the tax system is out of whack for the terrible '1%' (notice how its never sporting, musicians, actors who are vilified) is ridiculous, say you increase income tax, all that is doing is hurting middle and upper-middle class... uber wealthy dont earn an income, its locked away in trusts and investments, even if a tax raise did hurt them they would just offhsore funds or hire an accountant, why, cos they can afford to..
Now lets get to the problem with the argument... if your in favour of redistribution (as if theirs a pre defined level of 'wealth' that an all knowing body of benevolent politicians divides up 'fairly') then you would support ridiculous purchases of frivolous consumption.
In a free market that is how wealth is distributed, would you rather the wealthy consume and let all the jobs, trickle down money that goes along with it or would you rather they hoarde?
Most of the modern comforts today were seen as ridiculous luxuries of the uber rich, without the uber rich spending money on 'wasteful consumption'.. we would not have indoor bathrooms, many of the cars you see on the roads etc etc. Its funny how most of the basic amenities the middle class have today were not available to the Pharaohs of old no matter how uber rich and '1%' they were..
to the statement that the tax system is out of whack for the terrible '1%' (notice how its never sporting, musicians, actors who are vilified) is ridiculous, say you increase income tax, all that is doing is hurting middle and upper-middle class... uber wealthy dont earn an income, its locked away in trusts and investments, even if a tax raise did hurt them they would just offhsore funds or hire an accountant, why, cos they can afford to..
Now lets get to the problem with the argument... if your in favour of redistribution (as if theirs a pre defined level of 'wealth' that an all knowing body of benevolent politicians divides up 'fairly') then you would support ridiculous purchases of frivolous consumption.
In a free market that is how wealth is distributed, would you rather the wealthy consume and let all the jobs, trickle down money that goes along with it or would you rather they hoarde?
Most of the modern comforts today were seen as ridiculous luxuries of the uber rich, without the uber rich spending money on 'wasteful consumption'.. we would not have indoor bathrooms, many of the cars you see on the roads etc etc. Its funny how most of the basic amenities the middle class have today were not available to the Pharaohs of old no matter how uber rich and '1%' they were..
I'm only for distributing the wealth of anyone that has a single dollar more than me. 