Display:
If they're really losing money on it they could give it to me for free. Or even pay me to take it.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 7th, 2007 at 11:18:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd suggest reading Alan Clark's diaries.

I'd suggest reading them anyway, because they're entertaining. But there's one memorable scene where he's looking at a wall of water coming down one of his interior walls during a storm and thinking 'I really can't afford to fix this.'

It's true that it's hard to be sympathetic when people are - by most people's standards - really very rich.

But the original argument was that land is inherently a source of power. And while there's some legacy traditional value associated with it, my point is that if you have £x million to spend and want to make a good return on it, buying a big country house may possibly not be the best way to do it.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Mar 7th, 2007 at 11:27:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I would say that is because a big country house is a way of spending money luxuriously. Is and I would say has always been. Having a lot of land and not using it in a productive manner is showing of your wealth, like having a gold-plated SUV. Or lighting cigarettes with money.

If people insist in keeping the symbols of wealth when the sources of wealth has passed, they might find it hard to do. If reformed from symbols of wealth to productively used assets, the former symbols (land, gold, money) can be very productive, but that includes giving up the status of the symbol.

Land is not inherently a source of power, it has to be used as well.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Mar 7th, 2007 at 07:15:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series