She loves me…She loves me not…She loves me…She loves me not…She loves me… :lovestruck:
I agree with that so I’d have to make changes to my initial post to be more economically correct. But it’s aside my point. No references at all to economic patterns, the luxury items described in this thread are much more blinding. We want them so bad that we close our eyes to the immense help the money we are spending on luxury things could do in third world countries. Can you see that? Of course I’m no better. But I’m sure if we stopped buying crappy Nikes and spent our money more wisely(whatever that is), it would be much greater help than creating employement for the Vietnamese.
I think this is an installed sense of guilt that some people have. You can either live in civilization or be a hermit. But successful hermits, despite their spirtual superiority, have little interaction, and therefore are little benefit to the masses.
And I think what you have missed or misread in thsi thread is that most of us have our favorite things, a favorite FEW things, that we did pay extra for because these things give us some larger sense of pleasure.
I don’t believe that the poor in the world do not have their own luxury items…after all, what makes a true luxury item is the sense of worth it gives us, not its price tag.
This is why I think this is an interesting topic: almost ALL of the money that we spend on luxury items would probably do more good if it were spent on someone else. For some of us, US$75 million spent on a private yacht is not merely absurd, but immoral. Others may feel that way about a US$1 million automobile. Others a US$90,000 Jaguar. Others a fancy stereo, or a trip to a tropical island, or even a pair of sunglasses. It is all a sliding scale, and I suspect that few or none of us can plead “not guilty” to making choices with our money that bring us a minor amount of enjoyment rather than using that money to buy mosquito nets so a child doesn’t die of malaria.
So we each set our own subjective level of what we consider to be conscionable luxury consumption. For me, spending US$75 million on a yacht when so many live in poverty is unconscionable --it is wrong–, but buying a BMW is not.
But if you ask me to explain why I set this subjective level at the point that I do (or indeed exactly where that level is) and all I will have for you is a sincere and humble “I don’t know.”
[quote=“Hobbes”]So we each set our own subjective level of what we consider to be conscionable luxury consumption. For me, spending US$75 million on a yacht when so many live in poverty is unconscionable --it is wrong–, but buying a BMW is not.
But if you ask me to explain why I set this subjective level at the point that I do (or indeed exactly where that level is) and all I will have for you is a sincere and humble “I don’t know.” [/quote]
Perhaps it’s because you haven’t got US$75 million - but have got enough (or hope to have enough) money to buy a BMW?
Incidentally, would you think it was unconscionable for Bill Gates (a man who has given over US$20 billion to charity) to buy a yacht? What I’m trying to imply is that perhaps the issue isn’t really how much you spend on luxury items for yourself - it’s how much you spend helping other people.
My main luxury item used to be holidays to exotic (usually poor) countries - which is interesting from the ‘guilt at wasting money’ angle: not only does it bring you face-to-face with the fact that you’re much richer/luckier than 90% of the rest of the world (increasing guilt), but you also know that the money you spent on your luxury is doing more to help the poor than most other things you spend money on (decreasing guilt).
Nowadays, my main luxury items are Chocolate Hob Nobs.
You may be right, but I hope you are not. I hope that if I ever had that kind of money I would not spend it like that. But maybe none of us really know unless/until we’re in that situation.
As for whether it would be wrong for Bill Gates to buy that yacht… yes, I think that would be wrong. And for me, the fact that Gates gives an enormous amount of his money to charity already wouldn’t change my feelings regarding the yacht. Note, this is just my personal opinion. I certainly do not favor any sort of laws that would prohibit this. In fact, if it were a friend of mine making a purchase like that (I should be so lucky, right? ) I probably wouldn’t even say anything to him about it unless he asked me. As I said in my earlier post – we all set our scales differently, and I believe that others would have just as much right to criticize me for buying a fancy car or hifi system as I have to criticize the prospective yacht-purchaser.
I think this is an excellent point. I actually chose the yacht example carefully, because it is (i) an item that consumes vast resources to build and operate, (ii) has limited usefulness to other than a select few, and (iii) depreciates over time.
For these reasons, I believe that paying US$75 million for a yacht is NOT the same as paying US$75 million for a van Gogh. Why? Because the van Gogh took very few resources to produce (somone used some time and resources to make the canvas and the paints, the artist spent spent some time painting it – it takes some resources to preserve and protect – that’s about it), and the US$75 million dollars that are exchanged in its sale are not significantly taking away labour-hours and raw materials that could be used for another purpose. When someone buys a yacht, however, an amazing amount of energy and resources are consumed, and those resources are no not available for other uses. As I said – it’s a very subjective area. But for me, the resources consumed by one’s luxury items are more important than the price tag. And even if we generally imagine a correlation between the two, the van Gogh/yacht example illustrates that this is not always the case.
[quote=“Hobbes”]So we each set our own subjective level of what we consider to be conscionable luxury consumption. For me, spending US$75 million on a yacht when so many live in poverty is unconscionable --it is wrong–, but buying a BMW is not.
But if you ask me to explain why I set this subjective level at the point that I do (or indeed exactly where that level is) and all I will have for you is a sincere and humble “I don’t know.” [/quote]
It’s about a woman who’s husband undergoes a kind of “awakening”, and decides that his life is full of luxury that would provide far more happiness if it were distributed to others. He doesn’t become a monk or anything, but he does things like giving one of his kid’s computers to an abused children’s shelter (so his two kids now have to share one rather than each having their own), and convincing his family to give up their sumptous roast turkey dinner so that they can bring the food to a homeless shelter.
It’s a short book, and I read it on a brief trip to Hong Kong recently. It points to a number of the themes we’ve been discussing, and shows the difficulty the woman in coming to terms with her own feelings about what it means to be a good person. Very interesting, I thought.
Very well put. If you actually go there and spend your money. It may feel awkward but a lot more of your money goes directly into the local community. If I look at people, how they live and make my own observations, I think I gain from it too.
I want to go back on vacation. Why so short? Prices on flights just dropped a lot. I can get a return flight open ended for a month to manila for just over 8000nt. I paid 15 during CNY. More holidays, is my luxury of choice but…
As I consider time more precious than money these days, my biggest luxury is probably the time I fritter away on Forumosa. But it’s time well spent, I feel sure!
May be people lose themselves with this because it somehow makes up for what they lack elsewhere. [/quote]
This is one of those rare Yellow Cartman links that I didn’t have much use for. The article claims that it is going to give a list of “upscale versions of ordinary stuff – replacing functional things I already own”, and then gives us a rather mixed bag.
Sure, I was nodding my head when it came to pots and pans from Williams-Sonoma, but then we get to other examples where Johnnie Walker Black is compared to 30 year old single malt scotch, and a 36 inch TV is compared with a 60 inch plasma! :loco:
Of course it is true that we could “live without” these things. But we could also live without the 36 inch TV. We could also live without books or travel to other countries. But many of us value these things because we feel they make our short lives a little bit more enjoyable and satisfying.
The final thought that I had, looking over the list, is "Well if I feel that the scotch and TVs are qualitatively different (rather than being “upscal versions of ordinary stuff”) then perhaps there are others who feel the same way about the items that they enjoy. Maybe someone who loves to cook can tell the difference between a $125 pan and a $4 one. Maybe the people who buy expensive cosmetics really notice a qualitative difference. (I certainly hope so – my wife owns a bottle of something bearing the label “SK-II”, which I only recently realized is more expensive than my scotch. )
I do believe that it is valuable to choose our luxury items with care, and to appreciate them. I’ve even made the somewhat radical argument earlier in this thread that I believe certain extreme luxury purchases to be morally wrong. I even agree with this author when it comes to certain items. But I don’t agree with the blanket idea that buying an “upscale” product is some kind of social disorder or mass delusion.
[i]Extremely timely[/i] of you top mention this. The tai-tai and I had a conversation regarding this exact same thing recently. I lost of course when she noted that where as I benefitted by my bourbon expense, we both benefitted by her cosmetic purchase.
To which I dejectedly responded…“yes dear, of course you’re right.”
[quote=“TainanCowboy”][i]Extremely timely[/i] of you top mention this. The tai-tai and I had a conversation regarding this exact same thing recently. I lost of course when she noted that where as I benefitted by my bourbon expense, we both benefitted by her cosmetic purchase.
To which I dejectedly responded…“yes dear, of course you’re right.”[/quote]
TC! You missed the boat, pal.
I assume that your wife was saying that her cosmetic purchase benefitted you by making her more beautiful.
Now, I’ve never seen your wife, but, I’m certain that she is absolutely lovely.
However, if it were my wife who made such an assertion… I would have responded that the bourbon benefits us both because, even as lovely as she already is, the bourbon makes her still more beautiful to me!
Of course, if you are going to attempt this line of reasoning, you need to be very, very careful about your choice of words and phrases…
TC, I would have argued that my woman didn’t need cosmetics on account of her being absolutely lovely anyway. I may have even gone as far as to say that she didn’t really need clothes either.
Then I would have spent the money on a sex-bungy, which seems like an incredibly unnecessary must-have to me. The link is PROBABLY NOT SAFE FOR WORK, if your boss or colleagues are of the uptight persuasion.
All I have to add to this debate is that it is the pursuit of more than we have that defines human beings. Most animals may be content to sleep in a cave, eat whatever they can find, and rut like dogs wherever they happen to be. The desire to retire to a beach hut in Bali with a couple of young nubiles who make great curry and don’t mind playing chess (or whatever) in the bungy is perfectly natural. I’m not going to feel guilty about it.
Now, who mentioned chocolate hob nobs? Where? :help:
/
), and is called: 
that could be quite a luxury…
