I don't get this. To me, theme park rides are social events. Your friends' reactions and the reactions of others on the ride are as much a part of the fun as the ride itself. This would be just so boring to me.
Is income inequality unjust, and if so, where is the injustice?
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
Seems it is to him, too.
Like a true super villain he probably doesn't even care about the rides, he was just getting off on the fact he was preventing a whole bunch of kids from enjoying themselves.
Once upon a time, there was this TV presenter in Belgium who started presenting kids' shows with a talking stuffed dog. They became really popular, and got their own "frame"show presenting the cartoons and stuff from their "living room" while neighbors would walk in and have some minor adventures.
Anyway, they made a song about being rich - it's in Dutch, of course, but a part of the refrain was more or less "If you had 10 million, what would you do? Give a great big party, with kilos of chocolate and liters of lemonade, to give away to everyone for free!"
Now, this small children's show grew bigger and more popular, they had their publishing house which expanded further, created a bunch of other properties,... All told: he now owns (or co-owns along with the guy who used to voice the dog and their manager) Studio 100 - Belgium's response to Disney. They have theme parks, hotels, several own TV channels, kids' shows across several other networks, they sell out large arena's several times a week with shows of their different IPs for different ages, you name it.
A few years ago, some smart ass said, "hey, Gert, you claimed you'd throw a big party for everyone if you got 10 million. I'm pretty sure you're well over that by now".
He actually did have a huge big party for - IIRC - two weekends in all of his attraction and theme parks, giving everyone (you had to register beforehand to avoid stampedes and crap but it really was thousands of random people from across the country) free entrance, free chocolate upon arrival, bottles of lemonade, and huge amounts of free merch.
Obviously that wasn't "millions" wasted, and it was more of a PR stunt than anything else,and so on. But it worked. He's one of the richer Belgians around (excluding royalty and higher nobility), but he's still well-regarded as "local boy makes good".
It would've been so laughably easy to rent out the whole theme park and let in, say, 2.000 underprivileged kids for free, or whatever. you wouldn't even notice 'm, it's not like you'd have to wait in line. But the image would've been so different. Just goes to show - you can be a multimillionaire/billionaire and still at least care a bit about what people think of you, or, you can just be a jackass and not care about the plebs anymore.
Anyway, they made a song about being rich - it's in Dutch, of course, but a part of the refrain was more or less "If you had 10 million, what would you do? Give a great big party, with kilos of chocolate and liters of lemonade, to give away to everyone for free!"
Now, this small children's show grew bigger and more popular, they had their publishing house which expanded further, created a bunch of other properties,... All told: he now owns (or co-owns along with the guy who used to voice the dog and their manager) Studio 100 - Belgium's response to Disney. They have theme parks, hotels, several own TV channels, kids' shows across several other networks, they sell out large arena's several times a week with shows of their different IPs for different ages, you name it.
A few years ago, some smart ass said, "hey, Gert, you claimed you'd throw a big party for everyone if you got 10 million. I'm pretty sure you're well over that by now".
He actually did have a huge big party for - IIRC - two weekends in all of his attraction and theme parks, giving everyone (you had to register beforehand to avoid stampedes and crap but it really was thousands of random people from across the country) free entrance, free chocolate upon arrival, bottles of lemonade, and huge amounts of free merch.
Obviously that wasn't "millions" wasted, and it was more of a PR stunt than anything else,and so on. But it worked. He's one of the richer Belgians around (excluding royalty and higher nobility), but he's still well-regarded as "local boy makes good".
It would've been so laughably easy to rent out the whole theme park and let in, say, 2.000 underprivileged kids for free, or whatever. you wouldn't even notice 'm, it's not like you'd have to wait in line. But the image would've been so different. Just goes to show - you can be a multimillionaire/billionaire and still at least care a bit about what people think of you, or, you can just be a jackass and not care about the plebs anymore.
GasBandit
Staff member
And that kind of baked-in altruism is why you won't ever be a billionaire.
I forget who said it, but it has been said that in the life of every businessman, there will be a thousand little instances of where you will have to choose between profit and taking care of people (maybe even your own people). Billionaires are the ones who never even felt the slightest twinge at never picking that second option.
I was at a Taco Bell once when one of the Raiders came through (this is back when they were local, in Oakland). The guy orders his food, and then (quietly) says to the cashier that he wants to pay for everyone else in line behind him. He handed over his credit card, and waited while the next (10? 12?) people behind him ordered their food. Each time he nodded, and the cashier used his card to pay for strangers’ meals. Then he calmly walks out, never making a big deal. It was one of the nicest random acts I’ve ever seen a wealthy person do.
Meanwhile the richest man on Earth can’t be bothered to do a single nice thing in all of Disneyland. Prick.
figmentPez
Staff member
Last edited:
Yes. It had better be special in some way to justify that.
Last edited:
figmentPez
Staff member
I just realized my link to the news article was broken.
For a mass-produced product churned out in the hundreds of thousands by custom built machines? Yeah, that's a steep price.
For something that's probably made by hand for a pop-up art installation? Eh, probably not? I'd assume they're higher quality than what you'd get from Good Humor.
Yeah, a simple lollipop is no banana....
figmentPez
Staff member
figmentPez
Staff member
Clearly, what is needed in this case is lower taxes for corporations and land owners, so they can let these benefits trickle down. And, of course, these people need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps - maybe get a third and fourth job (there's three of them, after all!), cut out the eating in restaurants (so wasteful!), don't whine about "rights" and privilege. Perhaps they should've saved more for their retirement!
Thoughts and prayers, though, the Lord will provide!
/s, if that wasn't clear enough.
Thoughts and prayers, though, the Lord will provide!
/s, if that wasn't clear enough.
I've never wanted to tar and feather a meme before
I ‘shotted this meme months ago, and I’m still not sure either way, because the irony goes so deep into, “Oh, wait—you’re serious” territory.
—Patrick
It's Turning Point, no amount of parody matches the real thing and makes it nearly impossible to tell if something like this is real.
I'm a landlord and I think this image deserves to go to jail.
Dave
Staff member
The problem isn't landlords per se. It's the fact that corporations and individuals are able to buy up hundreds of houses and rent them out, taking them away from an already depressed housing market and creating artificial demand crunches where none exist. Then they crank up the rent to maximize their profits.
What needs to happen is that government needs to step the fuck up and do things like creating a sliding taxation scale for home ownership. The first house is base, the second slightly higher taxation, the third is prohibitively taxed, and the fourth and up get taxed to shit. Or make it illegal to own more than X homes.
What needs to happen is that government needs to step the fuck up and do things like creating a sliding taxation scale for home ownership. The first house is base, the second slightly higher taxation, the third is prohibitively taxed, and the fourth and up get taxed to shit. Or make it illegal to own more than X homes.
GasBandit
Staff member
And then they buy the homes and bulldoze them to build something else. Apartments/condos if the legislation explicitly says "houses," something else otherwise. Somewhere there's a sweet spot between houses off the market and houses they own, and they'll find it because they have the money to burn to do so.
Something does need to be done, but it won't be simple, or there'll be loopholes.
The government could also remove some of the barriers to the construction of affordable housing. New construction in a lot of areas is luxury-grade because builders don't turn a profit on anything else. Higher density housing summons oodles of red tape and landlord/NIMBY opposition. The current system feels tailor made to encourage sprawling suburbs and luxury condos.
Not that I don't agree with taking an axe to REITs and such, but a multi-pronged approach might be more effective.
Not that I don't agree with taking an axe to REITs and such, but a multi-pronged approach might be more effective.
If they started building apartments that kinda solves the problem by bringing more units online increasing supply which is kinda what people want to happen.
There’s going to be loopholes no matter how long politicians take crafting it. And those with money are going to make more money because that’s how the system is designed to work. Will it help the problem without devastating side effects should be the main concern.
There are currently literally more empty housing units than homeless people in the USA. Clearly, it's not just a matter of too small a supply, and simply increasing supply will not solve this issue.
If there are 10 million people looking for a house with a budget of $1000/month for rent, and there are 20 million empty houses but they're all set with a rent of $1500/month, then the landlords can choose to lower their rent to have some income....Or they can just let their houses stand empty, advise people to co-house, etc.
There's a glut of high-priced housing units and a shortage of smaller and especially cheaper housing units at the moment. New builds, though, have to comply with ecological restrictions, zoning restrictions, etc etc (some of which are not as strict in the USA as elsewhere, but still) and this drives up prices. In Belgium, finding a spot where it's legal to build a new house is becoming a problem - we're too built up and we want to restrict further loss of open space to buildings. Therefore, whenever someone does have a plot of land zoned for housing, they're more likely to put up a block of 6 or 8 apartments than a single family house. Much higher return. Either way, newly built housing has to be nearly energy neutral (BEN is the literal term used meaning exactly that - "almost energy neutral"), either by producing a large part of their own energy (solar panels, wind turbine, water wheel,...) or by being isolated enough not to lose much. Practically, they need both. This drives up construction prices, along with the current shortage of some materials and, of course, increasing labor costs. Building a "cheap" or "affordable" house simply isn't worthwhile, profit-wise.
In the US, house prices have skyrocketed, for a number of reasons, one of which is greatly reduced first home ownership with a large part of the market falling into the hands of corporate real estate agencies which are interested only in high profits and have pushed their prices on everything up as high as they can go. There's been a visible (in charts) move of people to houses one or two categories "down" from where they could've gone a decade earlier, thus leaving more high-end properties empty and low-end properties with high demand and the lowest incomes to fall out of the housing market all together.
It has been repeatedly shown that there IS enough money to solve the majority of the world's money-related problems, it's just that the people who have it are unwilling to do anything about it. Oh sure, some of them are, but even a multi-billionaire can't effect worldwide change all by his or her lonesome. It would require a coordinated effort, and a desire to cooperate is not often found in those afflicted with avarice.
--Patrick
--Patrick