5 ms·

I never claimed that 'owning a pen is vain'. My comment referred to the GP's statement: Physical possessions like this pen is just so vain, shallow, and meanin

I never claimed that 'owning a pen is vain'. My comment referred to the GP's statement: Physical possessions like this pen is just so vain, shallow, and meaningless. When I ask "Where is the cut-off", it's to prompt thought, to draw out an answer to the question: where is that cut-off? "obviously buying a $4000 pen…is utterly grotesque" So where should the cut-off be? Is it $3500? $350? Where does the price of a pen become grotesque? If $4000 is obviously grotesque, where does that value statement become less obvious? Isn't that worth thinking about? Another aspect to that debate are those who didn't buy the pen. For example, those gifted it in a will, or who win it as a prize. Or even of those who do buy it, perhaps an aspiring writer, who spends the entirety of their advance on this pen - not to signify or demonstrate their wealth - but as relief that they've finally been signed, as proof to themselves that they're not an imposter. Sure, it might not be the most practical use of their money, but does it justify the ad hominem of "grotesque"? Yes, there is vast inequality in the world, and $4000 would be an enormous amount of money to a vast number of people. But if that's the argument, it doesn't matter whether it's a pen, a car, a house, a painting, an antiquity, a rare MtG card; the argument simply becomes: is it grotesque to spend $X when there's a cheaper alternative?

Emma_Goldman 9y ago
OK, there's two things here. First, the symbolic capital of a pen. Second, its role in political economy. IMO both are relevant to the evaluation of anybody who buys the $4000 pen. There is a distributional element (the money is better spent on those who actually need it), an ideological element (you live in a system that inculcates desires for useless commodities), a cultural element (you are playing a status game in which useless things are feted), and a character element (the third & to some extent first of these things suggests that those who buy $4000 pen's are terrible, vain people) I already addressed why I don't think there is an axiomatic answer about the 'cut-off' above: it's contextual. But clearly (in my mind, anyway) in the global political, economic and cultural conditions in which we live the purchase of a $4000 pen is grotesque.
- manarth 9y ago
  the symbolic capital of a pen… (a system that inculcates desires for useless commodities)… (a status game in which useless things are feted). To me, a pen is utilitarian, not useless. I can see how the additional usefulness of a $4000 pen Vs a $400 pen could theoretically be questioned, but having no experience of using either, I wouldn't like to argue that case. I don't think there is an axiomatic answer about the 'cut-off' above: it's contextual. The reason I'm specifically questioning this is that your responses seem to demonstrate an axiomatic answer: $4000. That figure (and presumably any amount above $4000) is, in your words, "obviously utterly grotesque", but there's no indication how you came to that figure. in the global political, economic and cultural conditions in which we live the purchase of a $4000 pen is grotesque Are you saying that for everyone, the purchase of a $4000 pen is grotesque? That context does not matter once the sum reaches $4000? I appreciate there may be shades of gray, but is there a range where you would start to challenge this? Say, 10 times the median price for a pen in that particular location? What's justifying that figure of $4000, other than "it's obvious"? When it comes to challenging behaviour, and especially describing certain behaviour as "grotesque", it feels like there might be a better way to separate them. The numbers matter when it comes to discussing (and influencing/lobbying) policy. The world's richest 8 people have the same wealth as 50% of the world's population [1]. Is that grotesque? Bill Gates uses some of that wealth to help some of the poorest people in the world. Does that offset his grotesque wealth? Does that justify it? In the USA, a CEO earns 2,617 times the average salary for American workers [2]. Is that grotesque? In the UK, the average FTSE100 CEO earns 129 times their average employee. 20 years ago, that figure was only 45 times, or roughly a third of the current inequality [2]. Which is fairer? What could be done to make things more fair? These questions and discussions are important, because they can inform policy. For example, tax rates and bands - such as 90% tax rate on earnings over $X (which has been done in the past, but seems to be politically untenable at the moment). If you want to call certain spending grotesque, it's helpful to have a reasonable rationale for that figure. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/worlds-eight-richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50 https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/w... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/business/britain-ceo-executive-pay.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/business/britain-ceo-exec...
vacri 9y ago
> So where should the cut-off be? Is it $3500? $350? This kind of debate tactic always puzzles me, forcing a binary state on an opinion. The quoted bit even implies a spectrum, given the adjective 'utterly'. I can't imagine you saying the same to a friend who said "I went for a very long drive last weekend" > "What's the cutoff for long? 50 miles? 100 miles?"
- manarth 9y ago
  forcing a binary state on an opinion. Shades are OK too. For example: "$4000 is grotesque, $400 is sketchy, anything above $100 could potentially be justified, and below $100 is safe territory". It doesn't have to be binary, but when someone states a certain figure - "$4000 is obviously grotesque" - then a binary state has already been established. $4000 and above is grotesque, below is, well, possibly grotesque, possibly not. Uncertain, clearly. That seems a sensible starting point for a discussion, to understand what makes $4000 grotesque, and does it also apply to $3000, $2000 - to understand the rationale for such a statement. I can't imagine you saying the same to a friend who said "I went for a very long drive last weekend" > "What's the cutoff for long? 50 miles? 100 miles?" I can imagine asking "So how long is long?" I grew up in mid Cornwall, where a trip to Plymouth (55 miles) was generally considered a long drive. These days, I consider driving to Chamonix (780 miles) a long-ish drive, and to Istanbul a properly long drive. So knowing that my idea of a "long drive" has changed over time, and knowing my notion could easily differ from theirs, yes, I'd easily ask what they considered a long drive.

Emma_Goldman 9y ago

OK, there's two things here. First, the symbolic capital of a pen. Second, its role in political economy. IMO both are relevant to the evaluation of anybody who buys the $4000 pen. There is a distributional element (the money is better spent on those who actually need it), an ideological element (you live in a system that inculcates desires for useless commodities), a cultural element (you are playing a status game in which useless things are feted), and a character element (the third & to some extent first of these things suggests that those who buy $4000 pen's are terrible, vain people) I already addressed why I don't think there is an axiomatic answer about the 'cut-off' above: it's contextual. But clearly (in my mind, anyway) in the global political, economic and cultural conditions in which we live the purchase of a $4000 pen is grotesque.

manarth 9y ago
the symbolic capital of a pen… (a system that inculcates desires for useless commodities)… (a status game in which useless things are feted). To me, a pen is utilitarian, not useless. I can see how the additional usefulness of a $4000 pen Vs a $400 pen could theoretically be questioned, but having no experience of using either, I wouldn't like to argue that case. I don't think there is an axiomatic answer about the 'cut-off' above: it's contextual. The reason I'm specifically questioning this is that your responses seem to demonstrate an axiomatic answer: $4000. That figure (and presumably any amount above $4000) is, in your words, "obviously utterly grotesque", but there's no indication how you came to that figure. in the global political, economic and cultural conditions in which we live the purchase of a $4000 pen is grotesque Are you saying that for everyone, the purchase of a $4000 pen is grotesque? That context does not matter once the sum reaches $4000? I appreciate there may be shades of gray, but is there a range where you would start to challenge this? Say, 10 times the median price for a pen in that particular location? What's justifying that figure of $4000, other than "it's obvious"? When it comes to challenging behaviour, and especially describing certain behaviour as "grotesque", it feels like there might be a better way to separate them. The numbers matter when it comes to discussing (and influencing/lobbying) policy. The world's richest 8 people have the same wealth as 50% of the world's population [1]. Is that grotesque? Bill Gates uses some of that wealth to help some of the poorest people in the world. Does that offset his grotesque wealth? Does that justify it? In the USA, a CEO earns 2,617 times the average salary for American workers [2]. Is that grotesque? In the UK, the average FTSE100 CEO earns 129 times their average employee. 20 years ago, that figure was only 45 times, or roughly a third of the current inequality [2]. Which is fairer? What could be done to make things more fair? These questions and discussions are important, because they can inform policy. For example, tax rates and bands - such as 90% tax rate on earnings over $X (which has been done in the past, but seems to be politically untenable at the moment). If you want to call certain spending grotesque, it's helpful to have a reasonable rationale for that figure. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/worlds-eight-richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50 https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/w... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/business/britain-ceo-executive-pay.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/business/britain-ceo-exec...

vacri 9y ago

> So where should the cut-off be? Is it $3500? $350? This kind of debate tactic always puzzles me, forcing a binary state on an opinion. The quoted bit even implies a spectrum, given the adjective 'utterly'. I can't imagine you saying the same to a friend who said "I went for a very long drive last weekend" > "What's the cutoff for long? 50 miles? 100 miles?"

manarth 9y ago
forcing a binary state on an opinion. Shades are OK too. For example: "$4000 is grotesque, $400 is sketchy, anything above $100 could potentially be justified, and below $100 is safe territory". It doesn't have to be binary, but when someone states a certain figure - "$4000 is obviously grotesque" - then a binary state has already been established. $4000 and above is grotesque, below is, well, possibly grotesque, possibly not. Uncertain, clearly. That seems a sensible starting point for a discussion, to understand what makes $4000 grotesque, and does it also apply to $3000, $2000 - to understand the rationale for such a statement. I can't imagine you saying the same to a friend who said "I went for a very long drive last weekend" > "What's the cutoff for long? 50 miles? 100 miles?" I can imagine asking "So how long is long?" I grew up in mid Cornwall, where a trip to Plymouth (55 miles) was generally considered a long drive. These days, I consider driving to Chamonix (780 miles) a long-ish drive, and to Istanbul a properly long drive. So knowing that my idea of a "long drive" has changed over time, and knowing my notion could easily differ from theirs, yes, I'd easily ask what they considered a long drive.