[djsbs]

What’s obvious is economic misunderstanding.

The resources “misallocated” in luxury goods motivate and teach us to make better mass goods. The car industry is a great example. luxury vehicles have driven R&D that have made cars safer and cleaner (disc breaks, fuel injection). Tesla has put electric cars just within reach for all by charging rich people for what were (are?) bad cars with lots of status signing

Jewelry is a form of art and of adding beauty to our everyday life. I will not apologize for the $80 pearl studs my girls wear, or my wife’s shawl.

Nor is it tenable that money used on a luxury item represent resources taken away from the poor. The resources to make a Lexus or a Toyota are largely the same.

Sure, I could buy a Nissan (btw, I drive a six year old Kia and a used base manual 2013 Golf) and send a cheque to Africa. But I’ll raise you - you can drop every expenditure you have except basic needs and send the money to Africa. Like my ethic professor pointed out, that $5 beer is five child-days.

Unless you’re willing to live like an African, your position is hypocritical - jealousy masked with self righteousness. Philosophers who feel better than other, richer, people because they’ve explained away their own behavior.

Excuse my elitism, but its pop Buddhism with all the vulgarities of pop.

[shituonui]

Oh yes, the expertise of Patek Philippe will trickle down any day now.

[1123581321]

It has. Wristwatch mechanical and material expertise has greatly diffused, resulting in good watches at many price points.

[shituonui]

I'm sure that's a real benefit to all the people living paycheck-to-paycheck who wear mechanical watches.

[djsbs]

Again, sarcasm.

Patek Phillipe is 180 years old. “Normal” people used to need mechanical watches to get to work on time until 40 years ago.

Anyway, luxury goods don't have to justify themselves (at all) solely on their technological transfer. They are, PP in particular as opposed to mass produced Rolexes, works of human excellence.

There is nothing immoral in a watch that took a year of human hours to build that isn't immoral about Japanese artisanal charcoal.

[shituonui]

>They are, PP in particular as opposed to mass produced Rolexes, works of human excellence.

You are getting increasingly metaphysical.

These watches are built on antiquated technology and, by design, cannot be mass-produced, so clearly they will never lead to technological innovation.

These watches are so rare that they can provide very little beauty. The vast majority of people will never lay eyes on one.

Let me ask you a question: would you support the government purchasing Patek Philippe watches and putting them in libraries for the common people to check out? This would lead to much more beauty than letting them sit in rich people's collections and would encourage even more "human excellence". But I suspect you'd find it a waste of tax money.

[djsbs]

I dont support government support for the arts. At least not in a direct way like buying PPs for library.

Should government buildings be beautiful and be tastefully decorated? Definitely, but no art for art’s sake - it degenerates it

“ These watches are built on antiquated technology and, by design, cannot be mass-produced, so clearly they will never lead to technological innovation.”

By that criteria a Roman era neckless is worthless. Human excellence is not about technology advancement. Its about human advancement. Ill never see a PP except on a store window in NYC. I’ll probably never get around to see the Hagia Sophia either. But I’m overjoyed that humans can build the Hagia Sophia and relieved that in this era of mass produce mediocrity there still are artisans with the focus necessary to make Japanese charcoal, or PPs

[1123581321]

For the ones who want a cheap watch that works well and looks good, absolutely.

[djsbs]

OP spoke in generalities, and I answered in generalities with specific examples merely as illustrative aids.

You just used sarcasm.

[shituonui]

Sarcasm is a perfectly valid rhetorical device. If you find it rude, I apologize.

Some luxury goods are beautiful. Some are high-performance. However, many of them are prized merely because they are exclusive.

I find very expensive jewelry, almost without exception, to be gaudy and hideous. Even if it were tasteful, it could be made with artificial or semiprecious gems and clad base metals with no change in appearance.

There is nothing from high-end jewelry that can trickle down to the mass market. The entire industry is, by design, based around the work of skilled artisans. If it were possible to mass-produce jewelry, it would no longer be exclusive and would thus be less desirable.

Luxury cars are an interesting example. They are usually prized for their technical excellence. Some of the innovations may actually make it to market. The same definitely does not apply to fashion or to the majority of other luxury goods.

[djsbs]

“ Sarcasm is a perfectly valid rhetorical device. If you find it rude, I apologize.”

Its perfectly valid rhetorical device, a needlessly aggressive one that is good at putting down but never constructs. Worse of all, a rhetorical device that has become trite.

Im naturally very sarcastic. In my late 30s, I see it as a personal flaw that has brought me nothing but cheap dopamine hits.

[1123581321]

Similarly to watches, jewelry techniques, styles materials have made their way far down market. Exclusivity (or a certain designer's mark) is just one buyer preference.

Take a look at the jewelry case at Walmart or Kohl's (if you're in the United States) to see what's happened.