# You fucking rich little TWERP. (Kinda weak rant) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 25, 2004, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304 "2004-03-25T06:37:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304/161 "2004-04-03T22:36:12Z")
> [@Bippy the Beardless](#): > > Can you not see that chip on your shoulder, the one saying ‘being able to pay 12K for casual clothes isn’t fair’. Why are you wearing that chip, it doesn’t suit you, in fact it looks somewhat ugly, maybe you should try getting it removed? OK, what’s fair about some people being able to afford casual wear that costs more than the annual income of many people in that same society? Explain it to me. Don’t be afraid to sound patronizing, I can handle it. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304/162 "2004-04-03T23:12:52Z")
I await a **artemis’s** response to all of this, but a few points stuck out at me: > [@Evil Captor](#): > > Actually, I think many people who go to the Oscars and wear expensive clothing are only “borrowing” the clothes from the designers, jewellers and so forth. Can we spell “backpedal”? In your previous post you said: > [@](#): > > I got no problem iwth the humpty-thousand dollar gowns and such they wear at the Oscars and so forth. Well, why do you talk about how you have no “problem” with these expensive gowns, since (you now claim), they’re just “borrowed” anyway? > [@](#): > > They get a very expensive outfit which the TV commentators will commentate on, the designers get to strut their stuff at a high-profile event, and the teeming millions get to watch on TV. Everybody wins. There’s social utility here, it’s not just some popinjay in $12K worth of bling bling. What? But what’s the point of commentating on a $12,000 gown, or promoting it so the designer can get some exposure, if your whole complaint is that such clothes are **OBVIOUSLY** too much and no one has any business buying them? Hell, according to you, the rich actors don’t even _buy_ these gowns, they’re just _borrowing_ them! So who exactly is the target clientele of these fancy gowns? By everything you’ve said so far, **no one** is, because **no one** has any business pissing their money away on something so “unjustified.” > [@](#): > > She apparently thinks that because you shouldn’t blame people for the level of wealth or poverty they are born into, that this means you therefore can’t or shouldn’t look askance at the social inequities that our current system creates, even when they manifest themselves as loudmouthed popinjays prancing about in casual wear that is worth more than many people’s entire annual income. Hopefully she will reach that point some day. Oh good grief. Not paying attention, were you? I think we’ve repeated (and repeated and repeated) that the rich guy in the OP was clueless for talking so casually about his wardrobe budget to the OP. I agreed, and have always agreed, that the rich guy was a twit for doing that. That, I think, covers the “popinjay” “prancing about” portion of the discussion. I don’t much care for popinjays prancing around myself. I also don’t much care for people who don’t _appreciate_ the stuff they buy. This is something I’ve repeated several times. But what does that have to do with someone buying what they feel is important to them and being able to enjoy that thing (that they bought with their own money because they could afford it and it was important to them) without a bunch of whiney busibodies sticking their noses in and condemning them? Pretty much nothing. A middle-class person can be a “popinjay” and prance around. A middle-class person can not appreciate the stuff they have. These qualities are not exclusive to the rich, nor are all rich people (who buy expensive nice things) popinjays who don’t enjoy or appreciate the stuff they buy. They are two completely different issues. But I’m sure you won’t acknowledge that. And while I’m at it, is **Alice in Wonderland** and “popinjay” and is she “prancing around”? You don’t know how she spends her money, you pretty much don’t know much about her financial dealings—all you know is that she’s admitted to owning several very expensive outfits. So is she a bad person now? > [@](#): > > OK, what’s fair about some people being able to afford casual wear that costs more than the annual income of many people in that same society? What’s fair about some people buying computers or several cars or going on nice vacations when other people in that same society never have a car and never get to go on a vacation and never can afford a computer? Why don’t you answer that first. ---
**Author:** ![Bad\_News\_Baboon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5fc32e/32.png) [@Bad\_News\_Baboon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bad_News_Baboon)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304/163 "2004-04-03T23:48:32Z")
> [@alice\_in\_wonderland](#): > > Wool cashmere pants (around $2,000), button down shirt (about $400), cahsmere sweater (1) (around $1,500), cashmere sweater (2, around shoulders) (around $1,500), casual blazer (around $2,500), scarf ($400) Maybe it’s because I live in Texas, butseriously, I have never seen a man (much less a college age one!) wear a button down shirt, blazer and TWO cashmere sweaters. In photo shoots, yes, but not reality. I do, however, realize you’re just trying to make the numbers add up to $12,000. ---
**Author:** ![alice\_in\_wonderland](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alice_in_wonderland/32/176_2.png) [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304/164 "2004-04-04T01:36:18Z")
> [@Bad News Baboon](#): > > Maybe it’s because I live in Texas, butseriously, I have never seen a man (much less a college age one!) wear a button down shirt, blazer and TWO cashmere sweaters. In photo shoots, yes, but not reality. > > I do, however, realize you’re just trying to make the numbers add up to $12,000. I imagine in Texas the man would be very hot if he did. 😉 There are a couple of men’s clubs here in town where the outfit I described would not be unusual. I’m actually finding people’s disbelief kind of wacky - Holt’s has a private area for shopping (you get your own shopper) where the prices aren’t marked - you know - if you need to know the price, you can’t afford it type set up. I think most high-end retailers do as well. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304/165 "2004-04-04T02:23:08Z")
> [@yosemitebabe](#): > > So who exactly is the target clientele of these fancy gowns? By everything you’ve said so far, **no one** is, because **no one** has any business pissing their money away on something so “unjustified.” See my post. If we’re talking about “Haute Couture” (and we are, I think), the buyers of these gowns don’t come close to covering the costs of production. The money is made when 1. Haute Couture is transformed into “Pret a Porter” (sp?), i.e. manufactured outfits, which look more conventional. 2. The large upper-middle class market pays for the $300 perfume, in order to indirectly participate in the Dior $12,000-a-dress lifestyle. * * * The starlet is really supporting #2, above. The 200-1000 H.C. buyers are really a fringe market. If this target clientele disappeared, they would not really be missed. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304/166 "2004-04-04T02:32:17Z")
> [@alice\_in\_wonderland](#): > > Wool cashmere pants (around $2,000), button down shirt (about $400), cahsmere sweater (1) (around $1,500), cashmere sweater (2, around shoulders) (around $1,500), casual blazer (around $2,500), scarf ($400) > > Obviously, that’s exclusive of shoes, wrist watch, jewelry or outerwear. I have no doubt that if I were to hunt around through my old catalogues, I would be able to find a more expensive outfit for men. Thanks for the info, Alice! Problem is, **caphis** has said that we’re talking about “shirt, pants, shoes”. So, let’s say we combine the (simply stunning!) wool cashmere pants along with the (to die for!) button-down shirt: we’re still only at $2400. Ok, let’s slap some $2000 (WAG) alligator shoes on our clothes horse: we’re still about $7500 short. No, if this guy is a real fashion victim, he (or his Mom) has to be buying the Design. Not the fabric, not even the (manufactured) Brand. OTOH, maybe Mom is part of the fashion industry and there’s a little social back-scratching going on. I’m thinking that our hero is not only socially clueless, but also confused about the cost of his garments. Maybe he has math anxiety. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304/167 "2004-04-04T10:20:04Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > See my post. > > If we’re talking about “Haute Couture” (and we are, I think), the buyers of these gowns don’t come close to covering the costs of production. > > The money is made when > > 1. Haute Couture is transformed into “Pret a Porter” (sp?), i.e. manufactured outfits, which look more conventional. > > 2. The large upper-middle class market pays for the $300 perfume, in order to indirectly participate in the Dior $12,000-a-dress lifestyle. > > * * * > > The starlet is really supporting #2, above. The 200-1000 H.C. buyers are really a fringe market. If this target clientele disappeared, they would not really be missed. And Mr. Rich-guy is not wearing H.C. He’s wearing casual clothes that cost a lot. Besides, are you saying that it’s okay and somehow _different_ to support super-expensive big name designers who also happen to sell $300 perfumes? Like that’s not also monumental “unjustifiable” expense that could be spent so much more righteously? To pay a whole lot of money to just be associated with the Dior lifestyle? And getting back to the expensive gowns at the Oscars thing: I see no reason that the stars _have_ to wear these kinds of gowns. It would probably be considered “daring” and “edgy” to go to some fresh-out-of-fashion-design-school person’s boutique down on Melrose and have them design something _fabulous_ for a thousand or so. In fact, I think I’ve heard of some of the stars doing something similar to that. (The L.A. news always has a lot of entertainment stories and covers shit like this.) I don’t think it’s some do-or-die thing—like they _have_ to to wear a gown from one of the Big Designers. The stars just _want_ to do it. (And I think if they want to, they should be able to, don’t get me wrong. I’m just not seeing how it is apparently more “justifiable” than Mr. Expensive Suit buying whatever he wants to buy.) ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304/168 "2004-04-04T21:37:48Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Actually, I think many people who go to the Oscars and wear expensive clothing are only “borrowing” the clothes from the designers, jewellers and so forth. They get a very expensive outfit which the TV commentators will commentate on, the designers get to strut their stuff at a high-profile event, and the teeming millions get to watch on TV. Everybody wins. There’s social utility here, it’s not just some popinjay in $12K worth of bling bling. WHAT social utility? The actors and actresses dress up in $20,000 dollars worth of clothes to make it clear to the watching masses that they are indeed members of the Beautiful People crowd, the fashion designers get exposure so that they can sell yet more hideously expensive clothes to other wealthy people, and the teeming masses get to watch as the privileged strut their wealth. This is EXACTLY the sort of behavior you claim to hate - and yet here you are defending it. The Ocsars are an awards ceremony. If the participants all decided to show up in rented tuxedos and $200 evening dresses similar to those worn by ordinary middle-class people at “important events”, nothing about the awards ceremony itself would be changed. The elaborate display we all see on Oscar night is pure ostentation, nothing more. It is hypocritial for you to defend it and at the same time rage about the OP’s rich friend buying expensive clothes instead of shopping at Sears the way the rest of us do. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > My point was that the “economic justification” argument is meaningless because it justifies ANY economic activity, including buying slaves, contract murders, etc. An argument that justifies ANYTHING justifies nothing. In essence you are saying that buying a $12k suit is good because doing anything with $12,000 is good. I merely pointed out that this is a specious argument, or in Pit terms, it’s completely full of shit. Capiche? Bullshit. I said that doing anything LEGAL with $12,000 is good. Slavery and contract murder are not legal. Now if you succeed in making the purchase of expensive clothes illegal and the OP’s friend continues to buy them in defiance of the law, you’ll have a case that what he’s doing with his money is wrong. Until then, he’s entitled to spend his money however he wishes, provided he’s not violating the law in doing so. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > There are quite a few business mags and wealthy investors who disagree with you on this point. Perhaps you can persuade one of them to give you an original van Gogh for ten bucks. As it is, your argument consists of pissing into the wind. > > You are right that there is nothing intrinsic to the Van Gogh that makes it so valuable – just paint on canvas. It’s the social value that makes it expensive. For rhe record, I think that most of th time when people pay laege sums of money for art, they’re being foolish – but those wealthy investors would disagree with me, too, and point out that they expect to make money on the artwork. Since most of the time they do make money … You contradict yourself. You tell me that my argument is “pisisng into the wind”, and then in the next paragraph you admit that it’s true - a Van Gogh has no more intrinsic value than a lesser artist’s work. Since that is the case, how is it justified for a person to spend millions on a Van Gogh, when they can buy a lesser-known artist’s work for far less money and put the rest of their money to a more socially productive use? There is no NEED to buy a Van Gogh painting to decorate your wall. Buying a Van Gogh for $20 million dollars is just as ostentatious as building the Hearst mansion was - and yet you have indicated in earlier posts in this thread that you disapprove of the construction of the Hearst mansion (which, being real estate, could just as easily have been justified as an “investment” by Hearst the same way the art collectors justify spending millions of dollars on a painting). > [@Evil Captor](#): > > My only point was that there’s a marketplace for investment grade art, enough that people buy it as a secure way of parking their wealth. I’m sure there are some instances where people lose money, especially when taking a flyer on “riskier” artworks. Frankly, I don’t really agree with all these inflated prices for artwork, but I am not going to pretend this market doesn’t exist or function. Certainly the market for expensive artwork exists and functions. So does the market for very expensive clothes. Odd that you should have problems with a person participating in one of those markets but not in the other, given that they are both of equal social utility. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > Please, Mr. Artemis, explain to me how a $12,000 casual wear suit makes sense. How is it RIGHT? I’ll grant you, the individual in question has every right under our present system to buy and wear a $12,000 casual outfit, but under what conceivable grounds am I supposed to think it’s a good idea? Please, enlighten me, I’m such an unwashed mass and all. How is spending $12,000 on a car right? Or a painting? Or an in-ground swimming pool? Or a telescope? Or a horse? Or a kitchen remodel? Or a fancy family vacation to Europe? Or a college education? None of those things are needs. No one HAS to buy any of those things. And most of the people living on this planet will never be able to afford any of those things no matter how badly they want them or how carefully they save their money. But I doubt you’re going to criticize **caphis** for spending $12,000 on a car, or spending tens of thousands of dollars on his education. You seem fine with someone spending large sums of money on non-essential items provided they’re non-essential items YOU personally approve of. Who made you the judge of what is or is not a legitmate use of another person’s money? > [@Evil Captor](#): > > She apparently thinks that because you shouldn’t blame people for the level of wealth or poverty they are born into, that this means you therefore can’t or shouldn’t look askance at the social inequities that our current system creates, even when they manifest themselves as loudmouthed popinjays prancing about in casual wear that is worth more than many people’s entire annual income. Hopefully she will reach that point some day. And how does convincing Mr. Rich Kid not to buy those expensive designer clothes change the social inequalities that exist? He’s still rich, whether he buys the clothes or not. And how can you be comfortable chastizing him for his purchases while living in a First World country? To much of the world’s population, YOU are a loud-mouthed poppinjay prancing about in casual wear worth more than they’ll earn in a year. They are as impressed by your supposed concern for social justice as you would be by a man with “only” $50 million dollars deriding Bill Gates’s spending as excessive. There’s a fellow in my town who lives in a nice but decidedly middle-class neighborhood (Dundee, in Omaha, NE - 3555 Farnam Street, to be exact). His house costs less than mine does. He wears ordinary clothes, does his shopping at the local malls, blends right in. Tell me - are you going to criticize me for purchasing my “overly expensive” quarter-million dollar house and give Warren Buffet, the second-richest man on the planet, a free pass because he prefers to plow his money back into Berkshire-Hathaway to make even more money rather than spending it on luxury goods? > [@Evil Captor](#): > > Once again, one has to be Ghandi to advocate more social equality. Poppycock. I do things along the lines you suggest already, specifically, I vote democratic and argue in a variety of forums, and in Real Life, for a single-payer, universal health care system not based on employment, a saner tax system and several other things you haven’t suggested. However, if all I did was was mock popinjays in overpriced casual wear, that at least would be a step in the right direction, even if it was a tiny step in comparison with some of the more constructive things I could be doing. The first step in the right direction still gets you going in the right direction. No, it is NOT a step in the right direction. It changes nothing that matters. All it does is create a climate where everyone, from Mr. Rich Kid to you to the person on welfare shopping with food stamps, risks being criticized for making “wrong” purchasing decisions based on arbitrary and utterly inconsistent criteria. Working to reduce income disparity is a good thing. But even if we achieved a world with 100% income equality, people would have different opinions about what constitutes a “reasonable” purchase. If you don’t want to find your own lifestyle held up for examination and your own purchases derided as “wasteful” and “unnecessary”, then don’t do it to other people. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304/169 "2004-04-04T22:28:24Z")
With all due respect, **yosemite** , we tend to talk at cross-purposes a lot. No problem, I’m just pointing out the potential for misunderstanding. Here’s my big-picture POV: the OP was mostly (not entirely) about cluelessness. A human quality. One which hasn’t inspired much controversy here. As for the sub-issues, I’ve glommed on to the following: _$12,000?!? For pants, shoes and shirt **on a guy**? Never mind the ostentation, how is that possible???_ > [@yosemitebabe](#): > > And Mr. Rich-guy is not wearing H.C. He’s wearing casual clothes that cost a lot. That is a contentious point. As I tried to show above, the numbers don’t add up. (And can’t H.C. be casual-ware? R&D prototypes can be swimware, eveningware or whateverware.) > [@](#): > > Besides, are you saying that it’s okay and somehow _different_ to support super-expensive big name designers who also happen to sell $300 perfumes? Like that’s not also monumental “unjustifiable” expense that could be spent so much more righteously? To pay a whole lot of money to just be associated with the Dior lifestyle? I was not casting judgment: I was describing a market structure. I may have implied that buying on the basis of brand is a sucker’s game. But I did not state that explicitly. My point though was that it doesn’t matter whether anybody buys the $15,000 H.C. dresses or not: they would be produced anyway. > [@](#): > > And getting back to the expensive gowns at the Oscars thing: I see no reason that the stars _have_ to wear these kinds of gowns. No, but doing so provides entertainment for the masses. Therefore, following my consequentialist ethics, it morally imperative to accept a free gown from a top designer to wear to the Emmy’s, particularly if it’s in poor taste. The starlet’s shame is our gain. Many enjoy reading about the least or worst dressed of 2004. > [@](#): > > The stars just _want_ to do it. (And I think if they want to, they should be able to, don’t get me wrong. I’m just not seeing how it is apparently more “justifiable” than Mr. Expensive Suit buying whatever he wants to buy.) Well, remember that the starlets often aren’t paying squat for the gowns. Accepting a promotional gift is different than buying an expensive anything. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304/170 "2004-04-04T23:08:18Z")
> [@artemis](#): > > And how does convincing Mr. Rich Kid not to buy those expensive designer clothes change the social inequalities that exist? He’s still rich, whether he buys the clothes or not. And how can you be comfortable chastising him for his purchases while living in a First World country? To much of the world’s population, YOU are a loud-mouthed popinjay prancing about in casual wear worth more than they’ll earn in a year. They are as impressed by your supposed concern for social justice as you would be by a man with “only” $50 million dollars deriding Bill Gates’s spending as excessive. I hope that I’ve pulled a central quote of yours. 1. Opportunity cost. If Richy-Rich didn’t spend his mullah on designer clothing, economic activity would be shifted elsewhere. If Richy saved the money during an economic expansion, the resources would presumably enhance the country’s stock of investment capital. Since the US has a low savings rate this would, in general, enhance economic welfare and security. The interesting thing about this argument is that the harms associated with misallocated resources are rather diffuse. That is, aside from their magnitude, the harms don’t fall disproportionately on one person or group of people. 1. Conspicuous consumption and positional goods: Much of the value of a $12,000 outfit comes from the fact that it’s more expensive than a mere $3,000 outfit. That is, much of the product’s value reflects the fact that it’s somehow better than other products. Of course, it may also have intrinsic properties, but I would argue that they are secondary in this case. Conspicuous consumption harms fall locally: they are borne by those who view the consumption. (Some may want to dismiss these sorts of harms entirely. For the time being, I merely want to identify them.) 1. $50 shoes. $30 shirt. $40 pants. $3 socks. $20 belt. $40 sweater = $183. Dang. Clothes _are_ expensive. That’s far more than most in Sub-Saharan Africa earn in a month - but also less than they earn in a year. 2. The POV of the philosopher Peter Singer seems relevant. Global disparities in wealth are quite large. There’s a good case for giving away 20% of the amount above a locally “comfortable” income, say, $50,000 in the US. Most will balk at that. 3. An interesting link is [here](http://www.nonprofits.org/lib/mills.html). Here’s one quote: "One problem here is that while we want some selfishness to turn out to be justified, we don’t want _all_ selfishness to turn out to be justified. " “…we want to explain why “it is sometimes permissible to refuse to perform an optimal act. But …at the same time [we want to] avoid arguments that rule out the possibility of there being any moral requirements at all. Thus the explanation must also account for the fact that sometimes a given optimal act _is_ required by morality.” If we try to establish some protected zone of self-interest, we will have trouble showing that this zone can ever be legitimately encroached upon. And if we argue that reasons of self-interest sometimes outweigh moral reasons, then we will have to say that moral sacrifice is sometimes actually _un_justified. But certainly we want it to be permissible, even if not required, for the moral saint to go the extra mile. Kagan concludes that it is difficult to set principled limits to what morality may demand of us.” ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304/171 "2004-04-05T03:37:23Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > The POV of the philosopher Peter Singer seems relevant. Global disparities in wealth are quite large. There’s a good case for giving away 20% of the amount above a locally “comfortable” income, say, $50,000 in the US. Most will balk at that. **Measure for Measure** , I quite agree that global (and for that matter, regional) disparities in wealth are a huge moral problem. I have no problems with adopting societal policies intended to reduce those disparities (and I’m someone who would definitely lose out under such schemes; when I vote Democratic, I’m voting against my economic interest). My objections to **Evil Captor’s** stance is that ineffective, rude, and ultimately hypocritical. You saw his responses in his later posts - here he is railing aginst the OP’s friend for spending $12,000 on a suit, but defending actresses who wear similarly expensive clothes to awards cerremonies, and “investors” who spend milions of dollars on paintings. Why is spending $12,000 on a suit a heinous offense, but spending $12 million on a painting OK? Or $20,000 on a car (an expense most Americans would regard as reasonable), for that matter? And **Evil Captor** doesn’t seem to realize that all the same objections he’s raising to the OP’s friend’s spending can also be raised against HIS spending. **Evil Captor** is posting on the Dope; presumably he owns a computer. No one needs a computer. What right does he have to spend $1000 on a computer when there are people in Africa who don’t earn that much money in a year? Why hasn’t he sold his computer, stopped his internet and cable service, and donated the money he saves from those “frivolous, unnecessary” expenses to charities? What RIGHT does he have to spend money on such luxuries? Criticizing individual expenditures is pointless; people will never agree on what should or should not be bought. Anything can be seen as a “wasteful luxury” to someone. People who are concerned about wealth disparities should concentrate instead on implementing broader societal changes that will make it more difficult for people to accumulate huge amounts of wealth, and let the market function without interference. If there are few multimillionares, there won’t be many $12,000 suits sold - and the ones which are will be will more likely be bought by people who REALLY want that suit and are willing to give up a lot of other material items in order to have it. Hell, I’m not even close to being a millionare - but I could buy a $12,000 outfit right now, without even going into debt, if I wanted to. But like most middle-class and upper-middle class people, there are a lot of other things I value more (including having money in the bank in case of hard times ahead). When the opportunity cost of owning an item becomes high enough, there’s no need to mock people and deride them as “prancing poppinjays” to prevent them from purchasing it; they abstain of their own accord. ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304/172 "2004-04-05T18:18:45Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > OK, what’s fair about some people being able to afford casual wear that costs more than the annual income of many people in that same society? Explain it to me. Don’t be afraid to sound patronizing, I can handle it. Clothing is a necessity in our society. The money spent on clothing goes to the producers of said clothing. $12,000 is a hell of a lot of money, but it doesn’t magically disappear when the clothing is bought. It goes to the tailor’s, the cloth manufacturers, the middlemen,… all of whom use that money (minus the governments share) to finance their own lives and businesses. There is no inherent waste in this situation. Compare this to the person mentioned earlier who receives a package of clothes each week, and then throws them away when they are dirty, such a person is wasting resources, and deserves scorn for such resource wasting. (Not to say we don’t all waste resources one way or the other, but such obvious wastefulness is horrible). Compare to the person who buys the cheapest possible casual clothing, this person is paying less than it ‘reasonably’ costs to produce that clothing. By this I mean they are buying clothes that are produced by underpaid ‘almost - slaves’ in the third world, the factories producing the cloth are poorly maintained and wasteful of resources (to keep the prices down). Such purchasing is necessary to those who cannot afford otherwise, but would be mean spirited by someone who could afford items produced by more responsible manufacturers who are more careful for their employees and the environment. The rich man who is subject of the OP seems nieve in the extreme, but why should he not spend his own money in the way he wishes so long as it causes no harm? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304/173 "2004-04-05T22:38:37Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > 1. An interesting link is [here](http://www.nonprofits.org/lib/mills.html). Here’s one quote: "One problem here is that while we want some selfishness to turn out to be justified, we don’t want _all_ selfishness to turn out to be justified. " Thanks for the link, the person cited here is closer to my position on social and economic inequity in the world than anything I’ve seen here, though I do have some differences with her. Look, the well of human misery in the world is a near-bottomless pit, what’s more, just throwing money at it won’t work. Many Third World countries are governed by kleptocracies that will simply absorb all the money sent their way at the top, leaving little or nothing for the people on the bottom who really need it. Even in countries which are not total kleptocracies, the inevitable pattern in almost any society is for the people at the top to absorb most of the wealth and for the people on the bottom to get by on a relatively small proportion of it. Even here in the U.S., land of the free market, home of the brave, etc., the wealthy are rapidly becoming a kleptocracy, to wit: > [@](#): > > The top one percent of U.S. households owned 42 percent of all stock in 1997… > The top ten percent of households owned 82 percent of all stock-market wealth… > Only 27 percent of households held more than $10,000 in stock in 1997… > 57 percent of Americans didn’t own any stock at all… > The top fifth of households saw their income rise 43 percent between 1977 and 1999, while the bottom fifth saw their income fall 9 percent… > Since 1973, every group in society except the top 20 percent has seen its share of the national income decline, with the bottom 20 percent losing the most. They have just 3.6 percent of national income, down from 4.4 percent a quarter century ago. > Indeed, the top fifth now makes more than the rest of the nation combined… But it’s not just the U.S., all over the world, the people at the top grab everything they can get their hands on, not because they’re unusually greedy pigs, but because they are human beings, and human beings in general – poor, wealthy, etc., have prove over and over again that if given the chance, they are greedy pigs. The perceived morality of the poor is mostly just a matter of lack of opportunity. There are exceptions at all levels, but as a group: greedy pigs, greedy pigs, greedy pigs. Everywhere, people in a position to do so will gladly allow hundreds to starve if it means they get a second vacation in Ibiza each year. Capitalism as we know it tends to enable the people at the top because they use their wealth to bend the rules and tilt the playing field in their favor, all the while claiming they are the worthy beneficiaries of the free market. Some are in fact brilliant capitalists, most are mediocre and aren’t really doing a much better job of managing their money than your average poor person would if they were raised in the same circumstances and had the same opportunities. Still, it is better than most other economic systems, which in many cases amount to little more than organized looting. Karl Marx took a hard swing at this problem when he wrote Das Kapital, but like a lot of social thinkers he got bogged down in the economics and he was unfortunately influence by the British social class system, and he didn’t deal with sufficient rigor with the issue of how to deal with the fact that workers who get the upper hand in a socialist economy will very quickly become the same greedy pigs they replaced. This is in fact one of two central issues wrt to wealth and poverty in the world. (The other … the tendency of poor people in Third World societies to treat children, especially male children, as a form of wealth and to sparp 'em out as fast as they can … we already have a handle on, as there’s a well-documented tendency for birth rates to go down once Third World folks move to industrialized nations. The prospect of a good life with fewer children will transform all but the most ardent Catholic into a birth control proponent, as far as their personal lives are concerned.) This is the one that makes poverty so deep and so widespread. Most countries have the resources to feed and house and clothe their people decently, but the folks at the top are utterly uninterested in this. The problem of fighting this tendency is a hellishly difficult one, because we find ourselves up against some fundamental human tendencies: the tendency to amass wealth as a form of ego-boo, the tendency to want to protect and provide for oneself and one’s family through wealth, the tendency of people to accept hierarchical arrangements, the tendency of in-groups to ignore the interests of out-groups There are all sorts of ways to potentially deal with these issues, other than a frontal assault on what it is to be human. Frex, most of the advances in wealth for poor people in industrial societies have been as a result of the effect of technology on society, not a wonderful largesse on the part of the wealthy. I suspect that when the problem is solved … and it WILL be solved … it will be as a result of some intellectual or technological breakthrough, rather than some wonderful upgrade in human character and behavior. I’m working on some aspects of this problem, in my own personal and slow kinda way. Ultimately, I see a world where to be human is to be wealthy, by our present standards. Everyone will live their whole lives knowing they will always have enough to eat, clothes to wear, and a place to stay, simply because they are part of human society. They’ll have more interesting problems to deal with during their waking hours than how to keep their sanity while working for an idiot boss. I see this as an absolutely wonderful world, well worth striving for, and one sufficiently wealthy enough to allow for the existence of Yosemitebabe’s “nice things” on a scale she can’t even concieve of at present. But if it meant dumping the gold-plated swimming pools, the $12,000 casual suits and the million dollar paintings … well, hell, I can live with that. Small beer, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304/174 "2004-04-06T02:19:02Z")
> [@Bippy the Beardless](#): > > Clothing is a necessity in our society. The money spent on clothing goes to the producers of said clothing. $12,000 is a hell of a lot of money, but it doesn’t magically disappear when the clothing is bought. It goes to the tailor’s, the cloth manufacturers, the middlemen,… all of whom use that money (minus the governments share) to finance their own lives and businesses. There is no inherent waste in this situation. Um, yes there is. Spending the money on something else would shift resources towards that alternative use. By analogy, the government could spend $100 million building pyramids in the Mohave. The money would go the concrete-maker, the ditch-digger, the engineer, the middlemen… … all of whom use that money (minus the governments share) to finance their own lives and businesses. Nonetheless, I would think that the funds would be better placed in productive investment, research or transfers. Ditto if our possibly-apocraphal rich guy is spending the dough. Resource allocation matters. ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304/175 "2004-04-06T18:16:43Z")
I agree that it is a problem that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. My gripe with the OP is that the rich person who invests their money wisely is adding to this state by making themselves even richer. Whilst the rich person who spends their money on luxury items is spreading their wealth to poorer people, which is a good thing if it doesn’t needlessly end up wasting limited resources. The fact that the rich man could spend the money on better things, is not an issue to me, as it is almost impossible to find a monatary transaction where it could not be argued that the money could have been spent better. But the rich person investing the money, even if the investment is in good cause research or transfer, is still being made in order to gain the rich person more money. If that was not the reason for the investment then the rich person is in essence giving charitably to a profit or loss making venture. It certianly helps the wheels of economy go round, but it doesn’t help redistribute wealth. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304/176 "2004-04-06T21:29:24Z")
I find it not surprising that you’ve chosen not to directly address artemis’s post. It very clearly shows your hypocricy. I suppose you’ll never answer: why is a $12,000 suit evil, but a $12,000 evening dress okay? > [@Evil Captor](#): > > I’m working on some aspects of this problem, in my own personal and slow kinda way. How, by being a rude hypocrite? > [@](#): > > Ultimately, I see a world where to be human is to be wealthy, by our present standards. Everyone will live their whole lives knowing they will always have enough to eat, clothes to wear, and a place to stay, simply because they are part of human society. But who will decide what is _enough_ to eat,good _enough_ to wear, and what is a _good enough_ place to live in? > [@](#): > > But if it meant dumping the gold-plated swimming pools, the $12,000 casual suits and the million dollar paintings … well, hell, I can live with that. Small beer, in my opinion. So you wish for Hearst Castle to never exist, nor the Van Gogh painting. Charming for you, but not for those who have enjoyed touring the Hearst Castle, or enjoyed viewing the Van Gogh painting. And other people may wish for your nice house, nice computer, or nice car to never exist. Because in their worldview, those things are excessive and should be “dumped.” I’m sure _they_ can “live with that” too. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304/177 "2004-04-07T03:03:24Z")
**Bippy** : ----- My gripe with the OP is that the rich person who invests their money wisely is adding to this state by making themselves even richer. Um, wah? I may be missing something, like any reference whatsoever to investment or savings in the OP. I thought the topic was, “Cluelessness and conspicuous consumption”. From the OP, “AND THEN he has the nerve to tell me that I don’t know how hard it is to manage that kind of money.” Uh, ok, but that doesn’t really touch on the $12,000 suit, does it? I certainly don’t recall the OP attacking wise investment. ----- The fact that the rich man could spend the money on better things, is not an issue to me, as it is almost impossible to find a monetary transaction where it could not be argued that the money could have been spent better. It is this sort of moral relativism that I object to. Stealing is wrong, although I can think of worse things: “I didn’t murder”, is hardly a defense. Spending an unusually exorbitant amount on a frivolous item is wrong (assuming for the moment that it is frivolous to the buyer as well, a scenario which is wholly consistent with the OP), although it certainly doesn’t rise to the level of stealing. To say that mammals have duck-like characteristics in no way implies that ducks can’t be identified. One of **yosemitebabe** ’s possibly unintentional subarguments, “Different people have disagree on what is and what is not moral, so we shouldn’t make moral judgments on this”, is objectionable as well. (Sorry about that, **y** : I hasten to reiterate that the underlying moral issues are not clear cut. I’m just saying that ambiguity doesn’t justify a flight away from them.) ## If your actions have consequences, you won’t get a free pass from me. As another poster pointed out earlier, this OP is hardly the first attack on wasteful spending: heck, I believe that I am defending traditional conservative values here. When addressing moral behavior that forms a continuity (lots of grey) it is entirely sensible to attack the most extreme cases first: where else would one begin? This is the case whether we’re discussing any virtue, be it political corruption (everyone could be more honest!), dieting (who among us couldn’t lose a few pounds, so why should focus on that 3000 lb person’s health problems?) …or conspicuous consumption. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304/178 "2004-04-07T04:02:52Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > One of **yosemitebabe** ’s possibly unintentional subarguments, “Different people have disagree on what is and what is not moral, so we shouldn’t make moral judgments on this”, is objectionable as well. How many times do I have to say that I was appalled by the cost of the suit? It’s too much for my blood. So was my sister’s $500 ring. So, I guess you’re saying that instead of keeping my yap shut to my sister about her $500 ring, and perhaps assuming that she knew what she was doing, and the $500 of her **own money** spent on the ring was worth it to her, I should have piped up, and told her how appalled I was, and how I thought she _should_ have spent the money differently? Because certainly, I would have never spent that money that way. So is that what you think I should have done? Yes or no? > [@](#): > > If your actions have consequences, you won’t get a free pass from me. So, fine. So next time my sister shows me something that I think costs too much, I’ll make sure to not give her a “free pass.” That will make things ever so much more pleasant. > [@](#): > > When addressing moral behavior that forms a continuity (lots of grey) it is entirely sensible to attack the most extreme cases first: where else would one begin? Speaking for myself, a $500 ring seems pretty extreme to me. I mean, to **me** it does. It seems quite obvious to **me**. And I daresay that the folks who condemned my dad’s book collection felt it was “extreme” enough to warrant their censure. Look—I can see getting irked with someone who has a clueless “let them eat cake” attitude. I certainly can see getting irked with someone who treats their expensive goodies like Kleenex, to be thrown out without a second thought. But that is a separate issue from just _buying_ the stuff in the first place. People may buy many things for various reasons. **Alice in Wonderland** here is one of those people. Do you mean to say that you _know_ she is immoral? Are you condemning her because she owns some expensive clothes? Are you not going to give her a “free pass”? Some people may have some prudent spending habits to “counteract” (if you will) their seemingly extravagant spending. For instance, my dad bought a shitload of books and records, but he always kept his car for over ten years. Yet people who drove a far nicer car than he did censured him for his books. Why did they feel entitled to do that? Oh, but I’m sure that they thought they were on the moral high ground, not giving him a “free pass” like that. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304/179 "2004-04-07T05:31:47Z")
**YB** Perhaps I should define my terms. On page 2, **yosemitebabe** said, “. To start bitching about how this guy spends his money on this and not that, (and how the rich guy’s spending is not “justified”) is out of line. If this rich guy wants to spend money on clothes, he can do so. Because it’s his money and he doesn’t have to answer to anyone else about how he spends it. Just like my dad’s book collection is not anyone else’s business.” To say, “How somebody spends their money is their business”, is to give them a free pass: regardless of the consequences of their behavior, we will refuse to pass judgment. Well, nothing doing: **nobody** whose actions have consequences can escape the terrifying moral evaluation of **M4M, The Scowling Prophet** ©. So the book collection doesn’t get a free pass. (It does, however, happen to pass muster in M4M’s um book, after due consideration.) — [Regarding, the $500 ring.] So is that what you think I should have done? Yes or no? Um, no. However, if the ring is $5000 you are permitted to look at her strangely. Thanks for asking. \<\< Actually, the trickier part comes when she asks about how much you like the $500 ring. “_Interesting_ choice sis!” \>\> ---- [Regarding **Alice** ’s $5000 dress] Do you mean to say that you know she is immoral? Separate issue. I haven’t passed judgment on Alice, because 1) I haven’t gotten enough background info and 2) her behavior is not off-the-charts extreme. (Unlike the alleged $12,000 pants-shirt-shoes-socks purchase.) \<\\> However. Another thing I won’t say is, “Alice: Spend your money on _whatever you want_.” Uh-uh. No free passes, no blanket permission, no-siree-bob. ------ Some people may have some prudent spending habits to “counteract” (if you will) their seemingly extravagant spending. For instance, my dad bought a shitload of books and records, but he always kept his car for over ten years. Yet people who drove a far nicer car than he did censured him for his books. Why did they feel entitled to do that? I should admit that this is good point, IMHO. Comprehensive moral judgment requires lots of information. And yet for privacy reasons, this information is unavailable. For this reason, we are left with casting judgment only in extreme cases. Like (just say) spending $12,000 on… well you know. Raised eyebrows and dubious attitudes are permitted for a wider set of circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304/180 "2004-04-07T05:52:01Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > **YB** > To say, “How somebody spends their money is their business”, is to give them a free pass: regardless of the consequences of their behavior, we will refuse to pass judgment. But what “consequences” are we talking about, and how severe must these “consequences” be? Someone spending $1000 on a computer instead of giving that money to charity is a “consequence,” is it not? > [@](#): > > Um, no. However, if the ring is $5000 you are permitted to look at her strangely. Thanks for asking. > \<\< Actually, the trickier part comes when she asks about how much you like the $500 ring. “_Interesting_ choice sis!” \>\> Very funny. But since you’re playing along, please tell me what is the exact dollar amount that is “too much” for a ring, or a car, or a computer. And while you’re at it, please tell us what dollar amount spent on these items warrants an eye roll, or raised eyebrows, or a chewing out. I await to be enlightened. > [@](#): > > Separate issue. I haven’t passed judgment on Alice, because 1) I haven’t gotten enough background info And you think you’ve got enough background info on all the other people who have spent thousands on luxury items? _Really?_ > [@](#): > > and 2) her behavior is not off-the-charts extreme. (Unlike the alleged $12,000 pants-shirt-shoes-socks purchase.) Wait a minute. She spends (if memory serves) something like $5,000 on individual outfits. Do you seriously think that many people here will agree that this is not a whole helluva lot to spend on an outfit? Wow. > [@](#): > > Another thing I won’t say is, “Alice: Spend your money on _whatever you want_.” Uh-uh. No free passes, no blanket permission, no-siree-bob. You _are_ kidding, right? This is a whoosh, right? Must be. Otheriwise, you’re saying that other people have to get “permission” from you to spend their own damned money. And that’s just too damned bizarre. > [@](#): > > I should admit that this is good point, IMHO. Comprehensive moral judgment requires lots of information. And yet for privacy reasons, this information is unavailable. And that’s why most of us should keep our yaps shut. And that’s been one of my main points all along. Unless you _know_ someone else’s private finances, and how much they give to charity, for instance, or what other investments they make, you know jack shit and perhaps it’s best to keep your judgments to yourself. > [@](#): > > For this reason, we are left with casting judgment only in extreme cases. But you and I (and I daresay everyone else on this thread) cannot agree on the “extreme” cases. I think **Alice in Wonderland** spent a whole helluva lot of money on her outfits and to me, it doesn’t seem that much _less_ extreme than Mr. Rich Guy in the OP. Not that I am condemning Alice or thinking that I have any right to tell her how she should spend her money and I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s far more wise with her spending than I am. But to me, (and I suppose, many others), $5,000 is a shitload. But it’s not “extreme” enough for you? Fine. So you won’t give her the fish-eye? Fine. But a lot of people would—especially if they were encouraged to feel that they were entitled to give her the fish eye over her private spending habits. As for me, I think it’s a very arrogant, uncharming thing to do, so I’m not going to do it. And artemis put it well in a previous post: this sort of thinking leads to an atmosphere where everyone feels entitled to be rude and intrusive and judgmental, and that seems unpleasant to the extreme. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-fucking-rich-little-twerp-kinda-weak-rant/236304.md?page=10)