[gizmo]

The "new rich" counterpoints are that:

1. old money is afraid to spend frivolously because (a) they are embarrassed because they know they didn't earn it themselves and (b) they don't believe they could make it on their own if they had to. Also, old money shamelessly flaunts their wealth. Hospital naming rights, charity events, art collections, etc.

2. because old money is the opposite of meritocratic (inheritance based) they have to come up with all kinds of gatekeeping strategies to maximize the advantage of their social position.

3. social rules that keep the old monied themselves in check, to slow down the inevitable reversion to the mean.

[modo_mario]

>Also, old money shamelessly flaunts their wealth. Hospital naming rights, charity events, art collections, etc.

I think charity type stuff is seen a bit different than flashy ridiculously expensive cars and such. It's a way that might be seen as showing off but is not perceived as badly and so less likely to get you noticed in a less desirable way. Similarly those art collections unless lent/donated don't leave the estate and are hardly flashy

[gizmo]

Of course it's perceived differently, that's the entire point! A $2000 Brunello Cucinelli sweater is conspicuous consumption just like an oversized Gucci belt.

And the art world is small. People know who the collectors are.

[adamsmith143]

The difference is that every joe blow knows what Gucci looks like but only certain people, if any, can spot a sweater like that. You are signalling to completely different groups. Honestly I'd be surprised if anyone outside diehard fashion "experts" could spot a subdued Brunello sweater at all so the intent there is not to signal at all.