U.A.E Ruler spends 22 million to put his name in land

There are parts of the Quran that do not support the views of the terrorists. There are other parts that do support those views. While I certainly prefer the peaceful interpretation, that does not mean the other parts can be ignored. Just like there are parts of the bible that are peaceful and parts of the bible that are not. Jesus said that he was not here to replace the old law, but that he was the fulfillment of the old law, thus his teachings were to be taken in addition to the old law. That means that a true reading of the text would require Christians to do things like stone adulterers. We can choose not to do that, but those who do and say they are doing it in the name of Christianity are still Christians, and their behavior is based on their religion.

The bolded part is EXACTLY what I was talking about when I said you were trying to avoid a stain on Islam. Guess what, they are in the same group as you, the Muslim group. Just like the KKK and the abortion clinic bombers are in the same group as me, the Christian group (not to mention the American group).

 

Have you taken a look at history to see what kind of people share your "grouping" methodology?

 

All people use my "grouping" methodology. That is how we can operate on a daily basis. Do you ever go through a door you have never used before? You don't spend time trying to figure out how to operate it, do you? You understand that it is part of the group "doors" and treat it accordingly. How about cars? Have you learned how to operate a manual transmission? You don't read the users manual for every individual car do you? I know that when I drive a manual I understand how to operate the clutch and that I should do so when braking or changing gears. I don't sit there mystified as to how I should start this large collection of matter, because I have grouped keyed ignitions together. Categorization is essential to human survival.

 

We're not objects. We're not even animals. But the examples you provided clearly relay to me the message of how you think about people. Thanks.

 

I'm all for rich, crazy people throwing their money around. This silly thing transferred $22 million from his pockets to laborers and companies that actually will be able to make better use of the money. He needs to spend more of his billions, whether it be on useful stuff or stupid stuff - just get it out of his hands.

 

That's the right way to look at it. I agree.

 

yeah, it's a perspective enshrined in the Republican Party with regards to billionaires, I mean "trickle-down job-creators".

 

You think it would be better if he just held onto the money?

 

It would be better if he invested it, because at least the capital gains tax would be spent somewhat responsibly, and the money would have gone to enterprise as well.

Hell, there's about a million things he could have done with the money that would have been better.

I can understand defending him based on "choice" and all that, but to defend how he used his money...meh.

Using your logic, he could have spent the 22 million on prostitutes, and helped support a lot of single mothers too, ain't that grand.

 

Yes - I think that would have been better than him sitting on it and becoming richer.

 

Him sitting on it would have involved investing in enterprise, or if he was stupid, plonking it in a bank account that would see it go out in investment, and he'd be taxed on capital gains and all that good stuff.

Let's not pretend that this behavior is in any way morally justifiable. You can say that we're not in a position to judge in a society of free will---but if you're actually judging him, and trying to leave with the conclusion that eh---"it's better than nothing", no, no it's not, and it's certainly not better than, for example, looking at the famine in the Horn of Africa and doing something about it.

The only way this money could have been spent worse is if he maybe spent the 22 million hiring bounty hunters to kill random people, or if he spent the 22 million on cocaine, and even then, cocaine dealers and bounty hunters "stimulate" the economy with their stupid purchases.

You can't justify the ego-maniacal and wasteful dimensions of this "investment" from a moral standpoint.

 

Now THAT is the exact definition of trickle down economics.

YES! Because those single mothers will spend that money and circulate it in the local economy. The whole idea is that it gets money out of the hands of the wealthy and directly into the hands of the poor / middle class. That's exactly what you want to do.

 

er...

does not compute

Your latter thing is basically trickle-down economics too, and is the paradigm used to justify every expense by the rich saved from tax. Never mind that tax is often used to fund things with positive externalities that are often public goods, while the whims of an ego-maniacal billionaire barely break even economically in terms of externalities, are most certainly not beneficial public goods, and some even have negative externalities (like the "wow, he's such a jackass" association with the nation---which may suffer tourism drop as a result, though I guess any publicity is good publicity these days).

The former just adds an extra step, in that money gets invested into enterprise that hires poor/middle-class people...but basically, you're a proponent of trickle-down economics.

meh. I might be able to understand a defense of "leave the guy alone, it's his choice." But to try to justify it from an economic viewpoint...eh. 22 million spent anywhere will have an impact, but this is a particularly wasteful and megalomaniac expense, and the positive impact, if anything is not large, and certainly not what that 22 million could have achieved if it were put into more productive endeavors.

 

No, it's not. Trickle down economics is the idea that giving money to the rich will cause them to invest in businesses that create jobs. It's the idea that you grow an economy by giving money to the business and trusting that it will flow downwards - supply side economics.

I'm saying to directly give the money to the poor - it's the exact opposite of trickle down economics. Then if the poor has $22 million more, they will spend it, creating demand and causing businesses to expand that way - it's demand side economics.

Whether the guy buys a $22MM car, builds a statue, writes his name in an island, or gives it away is irrelevant. The bottom line is that it's a direct transfer of money from rich to the poor. It's not a government decision, but it's basically the same decision as whether to give a tax cut to the wealthy or the middle/lower class - it's a decision of which group you shift money toward to get the most economic effect. Here, you have a choice whether the rich keeps his money and invests it, or puts it in the hand of the poor to spend it.

 

Oh, you would prefer human examples? When you see a person from behind, do you just have no idea that they most likely have eyes, a nose, a mouth. Are you surprised every time you find out that a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina? If you meet someone named Beth, and that person says they are going to the restroom, do you have no idea of which door they will enter?

 

Abu Dhabi doesn't have an endless supply of reserves, they will be one of the big producers who will have to diverge away from oil the quickest. I'm sure this guys grandchildren's children will be cursing him for spending money on this, it'll likely have eroded away by then too. Absolutely nothing to show for it. Hope they enjoy the good times while it lasts.

 

piece and chain and swang
diamonds rangs and thangs
popped and swang
while i flip wood grain

 

No, you are justifying trickle-down, word for word, just skipping a step.

Carving your name in sand=enterprise in this case. Investing is investing in for example, Wal-Mart that will hire poor people as a result, so yay! This time, you're simplifying a step...carving my name in sand=hiring poor people=yay!

There's no demand side or supply side, you are justifying rich people doing whatever the f*** they want with their money so long as they hire people. That money isn't directly given to the poor either, and much of that 22 million will go to corporate agents. It is by no means a "blank cheque", especially with the appalling migrant labor conditions that usually go into these kind of jobs.

Your whole argument, whatever he does with his money so long as he is hiring people to do it is incredibly flawed. If that theory were true, Keynesian spending would equate spending 22 million on cocaine with 22 million on schools and education.

It's not how it works. Like I said, 22 million spent on anything will have some positive impacts, but the externalities it produces, the velocity of the money in question, and the nature of the good itself will determine whether or not it is efficient. This is an incredibly inefficient use of this money. Economically speaking, you're breaking even, if not being inefficient. Morally speaking, this is about as repugnant as it can get, especially with the news of budgetary shortfalls leading to the death of hundreds in the Horn of Africa.

 

A vagina and a nose can not be equated to ideology/bellief system/ethics/morals.

But like I said, I see what you are saying. I just completely disagree with you that these things can all share the same grouping methodology.

If Beth has a nose, then she has a nose regardless of whether she says she doesn't have one.

But if Akhmed says he is a Muslim, that's compeltely subjective and therefore irrational for you to group people who nominally share the same ideology.

Your poor methodology ensures that OBL could start a religion with a new name but maintain his ideology, and you will suddenly group him separately because ideology is subject to "interpretation" so the only means by which we can group people is by what they name themselves. Doesn't that seem like a major failure of your grouping methodology? The determining factor is what each individual person labels themselves?

If I follow what I consider Islam and call myself a Buddhist (non-practicing), then you will group me with the Buddhists? If I go and blow something up, is that then Bhuddistic terrorism?

But one thing is for sure. If Beth has a nose, then Beth has a f**cking nose.