I wonder what standard of living we would have if we were all brought to a common standard world-wide. I’m just curious about how far about the average most of us participating in this thread actually are.
There might be many who would think we are foolish to overlook our own very conspicuous consumption. If your only choice is to walk fifty miles for medical care, I don’t think you would care whether the rich man in the village was driving a Porche or a Jeep.
And feeling this way doesn’t seem to make me consume less.
I think Lissa and I see things in a similar light.
I certainly wasn’t assuming that all rich people (or even the rich person in question) squander their money. But does it matter? If certain types of spending are wrong, can you “make up” for it by giving to charity? Most ethicists would judge each act separately. Even if the person contributes 90% of their wealth to charity, one still must ask what the moral action is when spending the remaining 10%.
Mind you, I’m not convinced that buying a mansion is unethical. (I’m using the terms moral and ethical interchangeably here.) Ultimately, I think morals are about preferences. If I have a billion dollars to spend, I have to decide if I would prefer a world in which global poverty is $1 billion closer to being solved, or a world in which I have a $1 billion house. Or a world in which poverty is $900 million closer to being solved, and I have a $100 million house. Frankly, that last choice sounds pretty good to me!
I seem to recall that if wealth/income were shared entirely equally across the 6 billion or so inhabitants of the planet, everyone would be living substantially below what is currently considered the poverty rate in the US. (Sorry, no cite).
But I am not suggesting any such radical solution of complete equality. Merely questioning the magintude of the gap between the rich and the poor.
I disagree with your examples (as a group). Jay Leno is a serious car buff. He collects cars because he it is his hobby. He’s very knowledgeable about them and he writes columns for car magazines. I don’t see him buying cars just to impress people. This is different than wearing a lot of diamonds. From an aesthetic POV, diamonds can be easily replicated for their appearance at a substantial savings.
Consumption to impress someone is a pretty shallow way to live and will not bring anyone happiness. If anything, attempts to impress by excess is a sign of unhappiness. That doesn’t mean money can’t be enjoyed if spent in large amounts, it just means there has to be a purpose behind it. I can think of a couple of Hollywood putzes who’ve built their lifestyle on a pit of monetary quicksand. It’s sad to watch.
Wealth exists because people work for it. If you tried to spread it out it would evaporate over time. This was tried in the United States by various communes in the 19th century and they eventually broke up. It’s human nature to want to benefit from your own labor at the expense of those who do not work as hard.
I find it vulgar and distasteful, but I wouldn’t stop anyone from spending their money however they choose. I do, however, reserve the right to judge people based on how they choose to spend their money.
and again, because I feel somewhat strongly about this, note that they are spending it on a cause that defuses the money down through society (even though it’s not “charity”), NOT wasting or otherwise destroying goods for no purpose.
Its his/her money…why would it be wrong for them to spend it as they see fit? The ‘sin’, IMHO, would be for YOU to decide FOR them what is best. YMMV of course.
Are these magical yachts and houses? Did they materialize out of the ether or something? Or did someone have to, you know, build them? Where did the materials come from? Who did the work?
You see where I’m going or do I need to spell it out further?
I think I see where you’re going with it, and it’s quite wrong. That an industry involves jobs and incomes to others is a cost, not a benefit. The labour and resources used to produce fancy yachts could be used to produce something else. I posted above about the circumstances in which it might be a bad thing.
There are some positive externalities associated with conspicous consumption. Many great works of art and architecture were created for such a purpose, but enjoyed by many. The great pyramid for example.
Of course, there are negative externalities too, like the aforementioned increase in aggregate envy.
You are comparing apples to oranges here. And its really beside the point I was making…namely that the people who are involved in all the aspects to MAKE and distribute those non-magical boats and homes are making their livelyhood at it. I.E. it pays their bills, puts a roof over their and their families heads,
keeps their kids in diapers, puts food on the table and gas in the tank and allows them to go to Disneyland once a year.
Certainly. Whats your point? Going to regiment the economy and dictate what people can and can’t buy? Unless you are going to do that (I’ve heard its been tried before…wonder how that worked out), then since there is a market for these things its kind of a silly arguement. You could just as well say that the labor and resources used to produce books and magazines could be used to produce something else…and you’d be equally right. How about the labor and resources used to produce housing for the poor? Couldn’t THAT be used somewhere else…and probably somewhere more productive? Wonder where the money for that kind of social project comes from anyway…
I agree that there should be a strong presumption that people are the best judges of how to spend their money. I think it’s a rebuttable presumption, but it should require strong evidence. In this case, I’m not saying that a person who likes expensive stuff is a problem: I’m saying that people who buy expensive stuff to display their status can be a problem if the process uses a lot of resources. In economic terms the benefits of status are a rent, the seeking of which can be destructive. Conspicuous consumption is (or can be, in the circumstances I’ve outlined) a market failure.
Secondly, it’s important to note as you do that if conspicuous consumption is a problem, that doesn’t of itself justify government action. The cure can turn out to be a lot worse than the disease. Whilst there are always good reasons to remember this, it’s particularly important here because there are good reasons to suspect that many people’s complaints about others’ conspicuous consumption are self-interested and envious. But I’m an economist and I understand that there are market failures that governments can’t or shouldn’t be trusted to fix. But it’s still a market failure.
My point about jobs and incomes is that it’s irrelevant to the discussion. If an industry is overexpanded for some reason, there are people making a good living from it. That says nothing about whether it is desirable to do something about it. If a cure for debilitating and disfiguring birth defects were found, it would make some people lose their livelihoods. Of course we might be concerned about their transition to other jobs. But we wouldn’t think for a moment that the loss of livelihood was any argument at all against the desirability of introducing the cure.
