Totally agree, but I believe anyone who has lots of money, and wants to defend they have money because they are smart and successful should realize that merely being a consumer isn't a very impactful way to contribute to society. Using piles of money to just scale up being a consumer to an absurd level is stupid.
I also think I wouldn't shed a year if Rolls Royce went out of business. There are manufacturing, design, welding jobs out there on markets that actually make sense to scale up. Some things in life you can currently buy don't provide enough value to justify them existing at all. They simply exist as a middle finger to everyone with less, propped up by the idiots that but them.
I'm not saying make anything illegal, I'm saying I judge people who support this and would encourage everyone else to do the same.
Conspicuous consumption is _a_ primary driver of an enormous segment of the economy; it effects housing, electronics, textiles, hygiene, beauty products, liquor, and so on and on. Any luxury that can be experienced as an observer is subject to conspicuous consumption.
It's not absurd and stupid to display wealth, it's a function of being a social mammal. Moreover, it does contribute to society by way of employing legions.
When next you flip open your laptop, or publicly use your phone, or dress nicely, or discuss your vacationing, consider your own words about flaunting your wealth.
If all we can ever do is submit to our most basic instincts we will never make progress.
Thinking collectively is what created civilized society and enabled the modern world.
I agree that consumption has created a lot of good in the world, I absolutely believe in capitalism, successful ideas need to triumph over bad ones.
I also understand that many innovations start out as extremely expensive luxury goods that are eventually commoditized. This is an important part of why I don't believe we should make excessive consumption illegal.
I know there will always be people who submit to these urges and buy fancy crap, and sometimes them doing that will help society at large more than it hurts. Some things are just objectively not helpful and are just gratuitous displays of wealth. I am happy to hear otherwise, but I just don't think that Yacht building has trickled down to a bunch of consumer goods that help the world.
High end fashion and beauty products I think reasonably belong in the same category. I think there are plenty of opportunities for more decentralized markets, local designers, that would be possible if rich people weren't buying so much mindshare and influence. And that's not to say I think the government should regulate everything, some if it just has to be individuals talking about things and changing consumption behavior.
What you're missing is that "them buying fancy crap" is redistribution of wealth. I don't see how it's worse than your suggestions of investing in entrepreneurs; in both situations, something is bought and there is an expectation to extract value from it. On the one hand, they've bought a yacht; on the other hand, they've bought shares in a company.
I do not see what is objectively unhelpful about buying a yacht, or similar. Trades persons are paid, wealth is redistributed, utility and enjoyment is extracted from the product of their labour.
In all luxury consumption there is a redistribution of wealth; and _unlike_ with investment, there is no expectation to extract future wealth from the labour of others after the point of purchase.
In their own way, investors are parasites. They leverage their hoarded wealth to extract value from the labour of others.
Hit-men are people too, people don't magically get defenestrated when they speak out against Putin.
This absurdist remark is just to point out that just because people get paid to do a job, it doesn't mean it's a job we as a society want people to have.
Ok, but it's still unfair to assume that yacht builders are as good for society as farmers, simply because both food and yachts are purchased with money.
Consider an industrial farm that only produces almonds at enormous expense to the regional ecology and grossly depletes the topsoil and water table, versus a family-owned yacht builder who builds from sustainable sources.
Nom nom on those roasted almonds and slurp that almond milk, but keep in mind that yacht builder is having less of a negative impact on the planet.
That's a good point, and what I was angling for - we should be allowed to take the ethics of a job into consideration. That the existence of yachts means someone has a job making yachts doesn't automatically make yachts, or their creation, ethical.
> The only absurdist remark here is your comparison of Yacht Builders to Murderers
Yes, that is exactly what I said. I made an absurdist remark ...
But your point is merely valid in a very narrow window of your own morality. I wanted you to reevaluate your perspective and think that perhaps yacht builders, or vulture capitalists, or any number of things that are considered legal, might not be good.
I'm not even trying to say that Yacht building is bad, but a system/society which has yacht builders in it could use a look.
I also think I wouldn't shed a year if Rolls Royce went out of business. There are manufacturing, design, welding jobs out there on markets that actually make sense to scale up. Some things in life you can currently buy don't provide enough value to justify them existing at all. They simply exist as a middle finger to everyone with less, propped up by the idiots that but them.
I'm not saying make anything illegal, I'm saying I judge people who support this and would encourage everyone else to do the same.