Let's look on the plus side - at least that cash has now gone into somebody else's pocket, to hopefully be spent more wisely.  Better that than sat in his bank account earning him (and some bankers) interest surely.  That's how this works, isn't it?

PANDA WINS

An awful lot of inverted snobbery going on in here.

If people want to turn thirty thousand pounds into piss over a couple of hours then post about it on Twitter they're perfectly free to do so. As are we perfectly free to think they're absolute thundercunts for doing that.

You pronounce it go-(as in 'go')-sh and I have used it at College before.

You're terribly posh though. But you don't buy cristal so it evens out.

I agree with all of that, but also think some people with a lot of money spend it in really dumb ways.

I guess many people are in Vegas, no surprise Elm.

spinningbiggles.gif

A lot of the Americans do define the word, to be fair.

Lord_Griff wrote:

Without competition, or appropriate reward for moving toward the upper end if the bell curve the human race would still be hunting and gathering. There would be no slack in the system to do the socially responsible acts of providing for those who truly can't help themselves.

Twonk. Tosh. Twiddle. One might even say bullshit, if one were uncharitable. If the only reason we did anything was due to profit, then we'd be in a sorry state indeed. You should read something along the lines of 'Mutual Aid' by Kropotkin. Working together, for the benefit of others without regard to reward for oneself, has been just as big a driving force in human history as the desire to accumulate wealth.

Not saying that we shouldn't reward those that work harder, but what possible work can someone be doing to warrant spending tens of thousands of pounds, more than most people in the world will see in their lifetimes, on a few rounds of drink? There's being rewarded for a job well done, and there's taking the fucking smeg. There's a fair pay, well earned, and there's living like a goddamn king at the expense of others (i.e., those having their benefits slashed to pay for the mistakes of the ultra rich bankers we had to bail out, who then used that bail out money to give themselves enormous bonuses. For nearly bankrupting us all.)

tl;dr - Profit is not, and should not be, the only driving factor behind human advancement. Secondly, there's a difference between getting what you deserve and bleeding others dry to line your own pockets.

In the mean time, here's a picture of a happy cat.

Lord_Griff wrote:

Agreed with mod. Skerret I have an issue with the perception that achievement, accolades and wealth should be equally distributed. Principally derived from a misplaced sense of entitlement that appears to affect an increasing proportion of society. Say a young chap studies hard, from the ages of 4 to 22 then goes on to do a post grad or MBA etc and makes a decision to work long hours in a position of responsibility corresponding to his intellect, education, sacrifice and understanding. His role generating material operating profits for a company above and beyond that achieved both those who he manages. He should be entitled to better pay. What about the person who pens a truly great book, and as the nous to self publish and make hundreds of millions of pounds because the general public are willing to purchase said book. It feels like a lot of you would argue that true works of art should be distributed freely, or that the author should give away his or her hard earned reward for their graft. Without competition, or appropriate reward for moving toward the upper end if the bell curve the human race would still be hunting and gathering. There would be no slack in the system to do the socially responsible acts of providing for those who truly can't help themselves.

I see. I think your post is directed at others (if anyone) though as I agree with the above and basically said what Mod said, ergo we all agree and everyone's happy, if poor.

To be clear; it's their money and the mere fact that they have it matters to me not a whit, but I reserve the right to call them gauche and tasteless because at that level it's blindingly obvious.

The person who pens a truly awful book is more likely to reap such benefits, see Dan Brown.

I'm more impressed with whoever made their fortune by selling AIDS champagne for $4000 a bottle to idiots who think it's flash.  Reminds me of the episode of 30 Rock where Jack's disgraceful champagne was shifted by associating it with LL Cool J despite it tasting like poison.

Elmlea wrote:

I'm more impressed with whoever made their fortune by selling AIDS champagne for $4000 a bottle to idiots who think it's flash.  Reminds me of the episode of 30 Rock where Jack's disgraceful champagne was shifted by associating it with LL Cool J despite it tasting like poison.

Well it's the same as Beats Headphones isn't it? You look everywhere, every sod has them and they take a look at my tiny sennheiser buds and tell me I've not got a clue and I just laugh.

It's largely a matter of degree, is it not?

I don't think we're communists, but I do think the tone of a few posts here is simply: well done if you've made a few quid, but don't take the piss, and be aware that the system as is sucks a fair bit.