4 ms·

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

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...

Emma_Goldman 9y ago
I am not formulating policy, so I need not act as such. Pen's are not useless. But the clear implicature of what I said is that the functional difference between an ordinary pen and a $4000 pen is negligible such that the $4000 pen is useless given that fact (i.e. one might as well go ahead and use a normal pen). That is not an axiomatic answer, it's my answer under the present state of things (I was explicit on that point). I don't really understand the point of this pedantry? I think all of the things you list are fairly grotesque. But I don't have any great interest in wandering from a discussion about conspicuous consumption to one about tax policy. To be frank: I am interested in alternatives to capitalism, and a great deal of the existing order of things bothers me profoundly. "If you want to call certain spending grotesque, it's helpful to have a reasonable rationale for that figure." I have already given you a rationale. To claim otherwise is supercilious. You may not like it; but there is one.
- enord 9y ago
  Since youre frank: >I am interested in alternatives to capitalism, and a great deal of the existing order of things bothers me profoundly. It would be prudent to articulate the specifics in order to deliteate alternatives to capitalism. This would be "formulating policy", or "pedantry". You can't have it both ways. If you just want your argument to be heard and not discuss the specifics then say just that: "I don't care about the specifics, I know how i feel about it already."
- hycaria 9y ago
  The amount of gibberish you just produced is astonishing. You're absolutely unable to give a rationale despite your claims. So reading your posts, I'm still unsure if we should we all get the cheapest option we can get for anything because money can be "better spent helping others" or not. Is buying a car that is not the cheapest one available also a "farcical, individualist act of petty self-congratulation." ? Is it impossible to fulfill altruistic as well as personal goals ? Also, why would money be better spent on "those who actually need it" (no definition is provided, from your stance and hate of wealth I'd guess people that can't afford 4000$ pens) than on elite craftmanship ? Do these craftsman, who produce something you're actively interested in (creating some kind of bond) not deserve money for their art ? Better give it away to something you have no emotional bound to ? >To be frank: I am interested in alternatives to capitalism, and a great deal of the existing order of things bothers me profoundly. Oh, really ? What a surprise ! A sadly common trait amongst hateful and judgemental people who show blatant inconsistencies coupled with a compulsive need to press reply.

Emma_Goldman 9y ago

I am not formulating policy, so I need not act as such. Pen's are not useless. But the clear implicature of what I said is that the functional difference between an ordinary pen and a $4000 pen is negligible such that the $4000 pen is useless given that fact (i.e. one might as well go ahead and use a normal pen). That is not an axiomatic answer, it's my answer under the present state of things (I was explicit on that point). I don't really understand the point of this pedantry? I think all of the things you list are fairly grotesque. But I don't have any great interest in wandering from a discussion about conspicuous consumption to one about tax policy. To be frank: I am interested in alternatives to capitalism, and a great deal of the existing order of things bothers me profoundly. "If you want to call certain spending grotesque, it's helpful to have a reasonable rationale for that figure." I have already given you a rationale. To claim otherwise is supercilious. You may not like it; but there is one.

enord 9y ago
Since youre frank: >I am interested in alternatives to capitalism, and a great deal of the existing order of things bothers me profoundly. It would be prudent to articulate the specifics in order to deliteate alternatives to capitalism. This would be "formulating policy", or "pedantry". You can't have it both ways. If you just want your argument to be heard and not discuss the specifics then say just that: "I don't care about the specifics, I know how i feel about it already."
hycaria 9y ago
The amount of gibberish you just produced is astonishing. You're absolutely unable to give a rationale despite your claims. So reading your posts, I'm still unsure if we should we all get the cheapest option we can get for anything because money can be "better spent helping others" or not. Is buying a car that is not the cheapest one available also a "farcical, individualist act of petty self-congratulation." ? Is it impossible to fulfill altruistic as well as personal goals ? Also, why would money be better spent on "those who actually need it" (no definition is provided, from your stance and hate of wealth I'd guess people that can't afford 4000$ pens) than on elite craftmanship ? Do these craftsman, who produce something you're actively interested in (creating some kind of bond) not deserve money for their art ? Better give it away to something you have no emotional bound to ? >To be frank: I am interested in alternatives to capitalism, and a great deal of the existing order of things bothers me profoundly. Oh, really ? What a surprise ! A sadly common trait amongst hateful and judgemental people who show blatant inconsistencies coupled with a compulsive need to press reply.