You have not addressed the fact that your argument is meaningless: it applies to ALL transactions. It’s morally neutral – you are simply saying you like the fact that somewhere, someone spent $12K rather than burying it in his back yard.
No, by arguing with rude hypocrites. And I DID address this problem. I said an Oscar dress has a LOT of social utility – for the stars who design them, for the people who make them, and for the millions who watch the Oscars on TV. Whereas Mr. 12K casual wear is presumably just pumping up his own pathetic sense of self-worth with the outfit. And of course, its value decreased radically the moment he put it on, and will probably be worth 1/100 of its value in less than a year. It’s sheer waste and frippery, and has little or no social utility other than to prop up the ego of the wearer. Now, it’s true that it enriches the people who make such bling bling, but as has been pointed out, surely there are better ways to spend our money.
I don’t anticipate any worldwide dictator state making any such decision. My bet though, is that the standard will be – everyone will have a room of their own to sleep in where they won’t freeze or get eaten by bugs, etc., everyone will have access to TV and the internet, everyone will be able to eat well enough to not have hunger pangs, everyone will have clothes they can appear in public in without being pointed at in horror and dismay (unless that’s their intent, as is clearly the case with some club clothes), and everyone will have some means of travelling to other cities/countries when they need to. Food, shelter, clothing, and a hookup with the world via telecom (community). I don’t think anyone will DECIDE that for everyone else, it will just become obvious at some point that that is the minimal standard. There’ll probably be minimum standards for health care, too.
C’mon, YB, try reading with comprehension. I never expressed any such wish. I really don’t think it will be necessary to trash those things to achieve a just society. Reread what I said about poverty and tech. You don’t make poor people wealthy by taking away rich people’s bling-bling. (You are still at liberty for mocking rich people who are too interested in it, of course.)
They probably are excessive to someone whose ambition is to have enough to eat. But it doesn’t stop there. Have you ever heard of Abraham Maslow, YB?
M4M has already spoken of raised eyebrows and dubious looks. Really, you gotta read what people write. I guess the bottom line is, loss of respect for being a twit with your money.
This is what I call the “lawyer’s fallacy” which consists of discrediting general principles (Thou shalt not steal) because they can’t cover every conceivable specific case (But your honor, this man was only taking the bread to feed widows and orphans!) The reason that general principles (Sending money foolishly is something deserving of mockery) exist is that most of the time, for most people, and in most cases, they work. All your quibbling about exact price tags, etc., is covered by “YMMV.”
George Bernard Shaw came closer to the mark than anyone I’ve seen. He said, “A gentleman is someone who produces more than he consumes.” Note that Shaw’s definition didn’t proclude frippery or bling bling. Unfortunately, his def is outdated, as automation means that in many respects, most of us aren’t needed to produce things. Still, his idea is a nice way to start thinking about wealth and social responsibility.
Evil Captor: to requote myself:
You’re still doing it. You ignore him, you ignore my mention of him. Some of the things you talk to me about have already been addressed by artemis, but I guess he doesn’t exist anymore, does he?
Why is that? Something seems . . . gutless about that. I am very curious to see how you would respond to his posts, since it seems obvious to me that he’s exposed your hypocricy quite well. Are you determined to avoid doing that?
No, you’ve gotta read better. Here’s what M4M wrote:
I think this is obvious: the consequences of their spending behavior.
But previously you said this:
The only mention of gold-plated swimming pools was from the Hearst Castle. So, I can only assume that you meant dumping the Hearst Castle, or perhaps some equally opulent place like it (to be built sometime in the future). And the million dollar paintings? We’ve discussed them here too. The names Van Gogh, I believe, came up. And you clearly state that it’s okay to “dump” the million dollar paintings. You do realize, of course, that most million dollar paintings are by people like Van Gogh. Certainly I don’t ever expect to produce a million dollar painting. So which artists’ works would we be talking about, exactly? Not mine, that’s for damned sure.
And here is artemis’s response, which I completely agree with, and which you’ve repeatedly ignored:
How long are you going to ignore that? Do you have any response to that? Or are you going to (presumably) continue to pretend that it was never written and keep on glossing past it?
No. Some Transactions are loans, such as $12000 investment. They are made with the express expectation of getting more back at a later date.
Others are purchases, such as buying $12000 of clothing. For which the purchaser gets maybe a few $100 of resources.
Other transactions, are gifts or charitable donations. For which the purchaser gets nothing tangeable in return. But can be used as a Tax Benifit.
In one the rich person gets richer, in the others they get poorer. It is quite simple. The clothing does not consist of $12000 worth of resources, it is not resellable for $12000.
Smaller points:
----- 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. [yosemitebabe]
We’ve already established that context matters: indeed that was your point regarding your Dad’s allocation of funds between books and cars. Indeed, I took the trouble to highlight that issue. So asking for exact dollar amounts to be applied generally is inappropriate. I could plausibly sketch situations that justify various moral stances, but I see little point.
I do, however, see a point in opposing amoral stances where I consider them inappropriate.
----- And you think you’ve got enough background info on all the other people who have spent thousands on luxury items? Really?
No, but I think I have enough background on Richy in the OP. Let’s face it, there’s virtually no issue of defamation, legal or moral, since nobody here (with the small exception of his friend) knows his identity. So we’re on pretty solid ground discussing this case that, after all, is largely hypothetical for the purposes of this discussion.
When, pray tell, did I judge “all the other people who have spent thousands…”? I merely gave myself the option of judging them.
But the above is merely tit-for-tat: I don’t think it gets at the underlying issues particularly well.
------- 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.
But when a certain behavior is demonstrably extreme --which $12,000 casual wear on a guy is (indeed, in a way that even the same amount on a woman would not be), I feel comfortable drawing moral conclusions on the basis of it. Richy is pushing the boundaries of conspicuous consumption: furthermore he has shown an indifference to the underlying quality of the materials. Here we have a lot more information than we usually do.
Similarly, if my brother bought a $12,000 outfit I would be in a position to question him about it, because of a stronger knowledge base.
--------- But to me, (and I suppose, many others), $5,000 is a shitload. But it’s not “extreme” enough for you? Fine.
I didn’t say it wasn’t extreme enough for me. I said that I would withhold judgment. Big difference. Empirically, there are a fair number of women who may own one garment or piece of jewelry that exceeds $5000 in value. Again, I’m neither supporting nor condemning that behavior. (Gender ignorance plays a role here, among other reasons).
----- Otherwise, 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.
Permission was put in quotes, I note. It’s a strange way of putting it.
People can and will behave in all sorts of unethical ways. Some may shoplift, for example. While I can imagine circumstances where that would be a moral course of action, I would say generally speaking that I consider such behavior wrong.
In contrast, I am not willing to say that Alice, for example, can spend her money in any way she likes while still being considered a moral person by me. I can imagine scenarios where she would be allocating resources immorally and I can imagine purchases that would permit me to put a reasonable bound on her moral character.
The only bizarre part is mistakenly conflating my opinion with any notion of “permission”. Clearly, I have no authority to make Alice to X, Y or Z. I can enforce certain ethical norms only to the extent that I draw inferences about Alice’s character on the basis of her behavior.
In sum, I reserve the right to form opinions --or reserve judgment-- on the basis of what I observe. Big deal.
Once again, I feel like I’m struggling with minutia. Let me outline some underlying issues:
-
Inadequate information does not justify eliminating certain moral standards.
-
There are legitimate questions of diplomacy and tact here. But they are not unique to this particular question: if my brother shoplifted, a judgmental attitude might be counterproductive, but that does not imply that I should condone shoplifting.
-
One should not assume that all discussions of practical ethics will inevitably turn into shouting matches.
-
Moral ambiguity is ubiquitous. This fact does not justify amorality, though it does encourage circumspection when evaluating a certain behavior.
This post is still too windy. Hey, I tried. YB: Feel free to ask me to hit some of the points that I missed, if you feel them to be central or important.
I will address this point only because it seems important to certain members, for reasons that are unclear to me. I will elaborate on my remarks made earlier.
My understanding is that the Oscars are a spectacle watched by literally billions of people. The are entertainment and they are a promotional vehicle. I am not surprised that actors and actresses arrange stylish outfits for themselve during it, but I see their fashion choices as being essentially business decisions.
Basically, I disagree with artimis’s characterization: the clothing worn by the participants in the show (including those in the audience) will affect their level of exposure in the media. Their level of exposure, in turn, can affect their careers in non-trivial ways: for this reason, I think of these garments as business-wear more than party-wear.
TYPO: …Clearly I have no authority to make Alice do X, Y or Z.
I want to step in here for a moment - for the record, I was out of town on a 3 day skiing holiday - I’m sure folks will have an opinion on that as well. Ahem.
Measure for Measure - I actually find your stance on this issue to be morally and ethically bankrupt, and I’m going to try to explain why. It’s possible that I’m actually too tired to do this now, but your comments need responding to.
It is impossible for you to ever know all there is to know about another person’s circumstances. Any judgement you make about another person’s worth or moral fortitude, based on one or two pieces of information about that person, is suspect. I would go so far as to say that it’s immoral for you, not knowing all the facts, to condemn another person as a non-ethical human being based on such an absence of facts. What on earth make you think that you have the right to pass such a judgement? Your argument is absurd - because you believe an action to be unethical, or a purchase to be excessive, that makes it so? That’s totally ridiculous.
You know nothing about the poor sap in the OP except that he has expensive clothing and donates a lot of money to charity. According to my moral compass the fella gets a pass so far because him wearing an expensive outfit hurts no one, and him donating to charity helps many - however, I can conclude nothing about his character with only these two facts. Perhaps he’s a total beast who kicks puppies. Perhaps he’s in line to receive the Nobel Peace Prize - perhaps both. Without all the information, any inference I could draw is meaningless and to stake a person’s character on such a conclusion is morally and ethically flawed, IMHO.
Who are turning in to see an awards ceremony, not simply to ogle at the Beautiful People. Most of the audience is interested primarily in who wins what; if all they were interested in was looking at the stars, the show would be a hell of a lot shorter.
And how can you in good conscience defend “business-wear” that costs tens of thousands of dollars? We’re not talking some sort of specialized gear like a biohazard suit, but merely an ordinary man’s evening suit or a lady’s dress. Would Cate Blanchett suddenly look like a cow if she dressed in a $500 outfit rather than a $20,000 one?
Whether you want to call it business wear or party wear, it’s more expensive than it needs to be for the purpose at hand. Logically you can’t defend such a “waste of resources” if you want to be consistent in your stance.
Hold on gang, let me post this first:
Trying to collect my thoughts…
The OP was primarily about cluelessnes, which hasn’t spawned much controversy. Among sub-issues, I don’t have much problem condemning the $12,000 gift of pant-shoes & shirt, partly because my leading hypothesis is that it never occurred. Also, the hypothetical purchase seems sorta pointless, exorbitant and indicative of poor stewardship of financial resources in this narrow instance.
Of course, expressing moral judgments without grace or tact can be counterproductive. And frankly, if I knew Mr. Rich, I’d probably have bigger fish to fry. If I knew him well enough to exchange fashion tips, I might want to consider saving my rhetorical ammo for something that I consider important, such as third world development.
Specifically, I would want Mr. Rich to allocate a certain amount of attention and resources towards effective charitable endeavors. These endeavors might include the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, Doctors Without Borders, Accion International and of course the Alt.Sex.Stories Text Repository.
However, before pulling out his wallet, he should consider the quality of the NGO’s management. That can be found here, here and here.
In practice, of course, I doubt whether any of these conversations would actually take place.
-
Please note that I explicitly did not judge Alice, specifically because of a lack of information.
-
Alice: Please show me the quote where I condemned the OP’s friend unilaterally as, “An unethical human being”. (I’m not claiming here that I didn’t say something harsh about the poor (ha!) fellow. I merely want to be pointed towards the exact statement I made that I should defend.)
-
Well, I know the guy is socially clueless. I know his family has given some money to the Children’s Hospital. The evidence indicates that he has a poor grasp of the cost of his garments in relation to other garments.
-
More to the point, I feel rather comfortable in condemning wasteful expenditure. Furthermore, I believe this to be fully compatible with traditional conservatism. And I believe that one’s actions reflect one’s character, and that we are all imperfect beings.
If people were merely interested in who wins what, they would just read about it in the newspaper. That sort of information content can be summarized in a single table.
Furthermore, even if people just wanted the facts ma’am, the actors/actresses --who make there living on the basis of appearance-- would still want to appear fashionable, since they have a huge worldwide TV audience watching them.
In many cases, it’s given to the actresses free. For the donating fashion house, it’s like an advertisement, a rather inexpensive one actually.
None of these points are new to this thread.
Now, as to whether Cate Blanchet should buy a $500 dress or a $5000 dress for the awards ceremony (assuming she gets no offers from the fashion-houses), I’d leave that to her agent. Still, I would say that if the dress gets a photo of her in People Magazine the next week, then $4500 is a fairly cheap promotional expense.
---- Whether you want to call it business wear or party wear, it’s more expensive than it needs to be for the purpose at hand.
Just to summarize: that is an empirical claim which needs to be demonstrated. Disclaimer: I have no special knowledge of Hollywood. I have read an article about the fashion industry in the Economist this year.
So can a sporting event. But yet people watch sports, enjoy watching sports, and yet the atheletes don’t need to wear $12,000 uniforms.
And they could appear just as fashionable if they wore some nice, affordable outfit designed by a local design school graduate. L.A. has several excellent colleges that crank out talented designers. (I went to one. But I didn’t study fashion.)
And it’s promoting the hoity-toity “beautiful people” extravagant, expensive, “wasteful” lifestyle.
What? You mean you’ll give her “permission”? :rolleyes:
I do not claim to have any special knowledge of Hollywood either. But I was born and raised in S. California, went to a local design school (where I rubbed elbows with design students and did take a few fashion illustration classes) and I also had a friend who worked on the costumes for the Oscars and for a multitude of TV shows and movies. (Unfortunately, he’s passed away, otherwise I’d ask him for more information about the Oscars.) All I can say is that most people won’t know a “big name” fashion dress if they see it. The wearing of an expensive Big Name designer dress is not going to enhance the Oscar experience for the vast majority of viewers. The wearing of a pretty, elegant dress is part of the whole Oscar ceremony, but any good design school grad (or just anyone who has proven themselves to have an ability for fashionable design) could design a lovely but affordable dress.
Or, the actress could just buy something lovely and flattering off the rack. Most people would not know the difference.
Here’s the dialogue, concerning Alice
Emphasis added. Note that I explicitly address the information issue.
Bolding added. Again, I address the knowledge issue.
At the same time, if there is a specific comment that I made about anyone that Alice believes was overly harsh, please let me know.
Yosemite:
I am a little disappointed that you snipped at the side-issue with artemis. IMHO, you have not addressed my substantive responses.
I should also note that it is unclear to me how many starlets pay what sort of money for designer dresses going to the Oscars.
Furthermore, yosemitebabe’s reference to sport stars is pretty sorry, IMHO. She noted herself that fancy dresses are part of the Oscar experience. The same cannot remotely be said about sporting events. She appears to be reacting to my comments rather reflexively.
And the “permission” bit is just getting silly. To quote myself, “In sum, I reserve the right to form opinions --or reserve judgment-- on the basis of what I observe. Big deal.”
IMHO, yosemitebabe has been dodging more than Evil Captor has. After all, I myself had addressed the Oscar issue, before she started sniping at Evil for this alleged hypocracy.
Again, a disappointing peformance.
Whatever. The business issue is whether Cate wearing a bizarro designer dress will get her extra press coverage. If so, it may be a reasonable investment.
Previous disclaimers regarding Hollywood apply.
You just think they’re substantive.
Fancy dresses that don’t have to be super-expensive, as I think I’ve illustrated. And my point about sporting events is spot-on. You said that one could read the results of the Oscars (who won, etc.) in the newspaper. Same can be said about a sporting event, right? How is that not comparable? People don’t have to view either to learn of the outcome. And yet they enjoy viewing. Why? To find out who wins, as it happens.
Honeychild, it’s called sarcasm. :rolleyes:
You think you’ve addressed it well enough. I don’t think you have. Just because you ramble and ramble and crank out multiple posts doesn’t mean you’ve given a “substantive” post, you know.
And you mean that Rachel Smith, recent graduate of Otis School of Design, can’t create a “bizarro” design, if that is Cate’s wish? Or that very capable but-yet-unknown designer who has a boutique in a trendy area of LA can’t design a snazzy outfit, if that’s what is called for?
That’s news to me. I saw many a flamoyant, bizarro design being worn by fellow students when I went to school. And I saw some pretty stylish stuff as well. And the fabrics available down in the garment district (where I shopped occasionally) can be pretty inexpensive. Good quality, but inexpensive.
The point: You didn’t respond to my post that replied to you. Instead, you chose to discuss the Oscars. To each his own, I guess.
Terrific. But we still have a shortage of facts. I haven’t seen an example of a starlet who has purchased a Dior dress (say) and has turned down an equivalent (and less expensive) one from an unknown. Find me such an example and… following Artemis I would say that’s a wasteful expenditure.
It’s just that there are a lot of ancillary issues to deal with when you jump from Mr. Rich wearing $12,000 casual outfit to Demi Moore (say) making a promotional appearance at the Oscars. Ones that distract us from the topic at hand.
Too bad you didn’t say that.
It appears that we agree: People watch sporting events and the Oscars because they are spectacles. Which is what I said to begin with. IF it was MERELY the outcome that people cared about, they wouldn’t bother seeing the show or display of athletic prowess.
Silly.
------- Honeychild, it’s called sarcasm.
It’s called, “Ducking my response”.
--------- You think you’ve addressed it well enough. I don’t think you have.
Fine, then respond to it, and don’t pretend that point has never been brought up when you accuse Evil of ducking the issue (and hypocrisy no less!). What’s the next characterization, shamelessness?
------------- Just because you ramble and ramble and crank out multiple posts doesn’t mean you’ve given a “substantive” post, you know.
Ramble. Oh. Pot, kettle, black: is this your anthem?
I have tried to reach for the central issues in this thread, perhaps without success. Let me summarize. To the extent that actions have consequences, they have a moral quality to them, among others. I will draw conclusions about a person’s character on the basis of their behavior, giving due consideration to my information set. Although I recognize that tact, discretion and diplomacy are virtues, I will not make blanket prohibitions (eg. “People should keep their yaps shut regarding…”) against expressing certain specified opinions, particularly ones regarding public morality.
I acknowledge that others may disagree.
One last thing: Notwithstanding the snarls, barbs and frustrations expressed above, I did find yosemitebabe’s comments about fashion and apparel interesting and helpful. (And, admittedlly, her snippiness wasn’t exactly unprovoked.)
I know that you didn’t condemn me personally - I wouldn’t actually be that concerned if you had. As I stated previously, I’m totally comfortable with how and where I spend my money, what amount I give to charity, what amount of my time I spend volunteering, and what amount of cash I use to treat myself sometimes. Your approval is not request or required. 
My objection to your line of logic is that you’re condemning (IMHO) people based on insufficient information. Assume that Jr. DOES have a $12,000 outfit - it doesn’t strike me as that unbelievable - it’s not going to be off the peg stuff, but without too much effort a person could get such an outfit. Perhaps mom attended the Hugo Boss or Gucci show and bought an outfit for Jr. off the model. It happens. It’s expensive. Whatever.
So, assuming Jr. has the outfit - so what? If he has a $12,000 outfit, but donates $120,000 to charities - perhaps the charities that you listed - I think he and his mom are probably in the clear from a karmic point of view. Suggesting that owning such an outfit is immoral is ridiculous. Furthermore, suggesting that spending $12,000 on an outfit is wasteful is totally unfair - I can appreciate the fact that most people have a limited knowledge or interest in clothing - fine. However, there are those of us in the world (myself, mom of Jr. in the OP) to whom clothing is a luxury item - for some of us, the only luxury item we indulge in. Obviously Jr. is unimpressed with his clothing - but perhaps his mom enjoyed buying it for him. Perhaps she enjoys knowing that her son is dressed best. This is obviously not a priority for you, but why do you think you can condemn or judge her because it’s a priority for her? Have you never spent money on something frivolous, just because you liked it? Did you buy the most simple basic auto available, with no AC and no radio and no cushy seats because it was the most practical, or did you splurge for some extra goodies?
Assuming you’re not a Tibetan monk (and if you are, what the heck are you doing on the Dope?!?!) or a devout Buddhist, I’m guessing that you’ve purchased something that wasn’t an absolute necessity in your life. That being the case, for you to dismiss a non-necessity clothing purchase, based on the dollar amount, which to you is excessive, but to Mrs. Rich clearly isn’t, is hypocritical and unfair.