It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
...Those who are in politics, those who are rich, and/or those who basically make up the top percentage of a country are the worst people to be in charge of government. It also goes to show that they have no moral compass, and I think that many of these people become rich, if they were not born that way like the majority, because they have no compassion for others.
They do not mind screwing someone over to make a buck, and that is how they achieve their wealth. The act we are discussing in this thread is proof positive. I mean what kind of person do you have to be to not only consider doing something like this, but to actually go through with it? Sure, it was their money to begin with, but that means absolutely nothing considering the point of the action was obviously to be cruel to someone who is less fortunate. So everyone just remember what the elite think about regular people, because this illustrates it perfectly, no matter what country you are in.
ABOUT "I am
Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by TrueBrit
And a homeless person sitting on the street (paid for by the taxpayers) can hold a sign up asking for money all day and/or fall asleep behind the bushes and/or pass out from drinking too much in full view of everyone else? You're giving a free pass for homeless people, but not to those who have money.
Burning some money in front of a homeless person is not the same thing as throwing malaria vaccine in a tub filled with acid. Most of us already know that homeless people spend the money mostly on alcohol. And even if they don't get any money they can still survive. That's not so with someone who has malaria and will die if there's no vaccine. $25 or $50 or $100 is not going to save a homeless person from themselves. At the end of the day, they're their own worst enemy.
Want to help a homeless person? Show them how to get a job. Show them how to clean up and find good clothes. Show them how to be presentable to an employer. Show them how to not beg. Give them a place to live where they have to do small jobs and train them to adopt good habits. If they stop cooperating and do not look for work then kick them out and find people who will.edit on 24-2-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by jonnywhite
I have been homeless, and I wasnt on hard drugs and heavy drink! I was just down on my luck, had no where to go, and not enough money to aquire somewhere to live, of even the most meagre sort.
Do not judge people based on thier circumstances. Things are not as simple as people find it so easy to claim.
Posted: 23/02/2013 14:02 GMT | Updated: 25/02/2013 13:38 GMT
In an article which previously existed on this link we published an unfounded allegation about Orme Alexander Clarke.
We would like to apologise.
Money burning or burning money is the purposeful act of destroying money. In the prototypical example, banknotes are destroyed by literally setting them on fire. Burning money decreases the wealth of the owner without directly enriching any particular party. However, according to the quantity theory of money, because it reduces the supply of money it increases the value of the remaining money, increasing (by roughly the same amount as the money burnt) the collective wealth of everyone else who holds money.
Money is usually burned to communicate a message, either for artistic effect, as a form of protest, or as a signal. In some games, a player can sometimes benefit from the ability to burn money (Battle of the sexes). Burning money is illegal in some jurisdictions.
For the purposes of macroeconomics, burning money is equivalent to removing the money from circulation, and locking it away forever; the salient feature is that no one may ever use the money again. Burning money shrinks the money supply, and is therefore a special case of contractionary monetary policy that can be implemented by anyone. In the usual case, the central bank withdraws money from circulation by selling government bonds or foreign currency. The difference with money burning is that the central bank does not have to exchange any assets of value for the money burnt. Money burning is thus equivalent to gifting the money back to the central bank (or other money issuing authority). If the economy is at full employment equilibrium, shrinking the money supply causes deflation (or decreases the rate of inflation), increasing the real value of the money left in circulation.
Assuming that the burned money is paper money with negligible intrinsic value, no real goods are destroyed, so the overall wealth of the world is unaffected. Instead, all surviving money slightly increases in value; everyone gains wealth in proportion to the amount of money they already hold. Economist Steven Landsburg proposes in The Armchair Economist that burning one's fortune (in paper money) is a form of philanthropy more egalitarian than deeding it to the United States Treasury. In 1920, Thomas Nixon Carver wrote that dumping money into the sea is better for society than spending it wastefully, as the latter wastes the labor that it hires.
Originally posted by mykingdomforthetruth
that 50 pound note is suppose to be exchangable for 50 pounds in weight in sterling silver like 35 dollars is suppose to be worth 1 full ounce of gold...
the time will come when that tramp and the toff will be on the same page
Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by jonnywhite
You know Oxford is turning away kids from working class backgrounds, not because they didn't work hard enough, but because they wouldn't be able to afford the living standards. So that pretty much rules out the chances of poorer people being able to study at Oxford. A place the reserve of the rich only.
Originally posted by bigdohbeatdown
er... burning or destroying money.. or anything with the queens head on it is illegal. These mofos should be prosecuted... what happened to the rule of law?
Originally posted by Knobby
reply to post by woodwardjnr
Also, who from a working class background will be able to pay the £9000 per year tuition fees for just about any course in England and Wales. And that's without living expenses on top of that.
If you are staying away from home then I would dread to think what the final bill would be.
I wonder when the boys formulated that particular plan to keep the poor uneducated.