[jabbany]

Not really, it skips over utility based shopping entirely.

Everything in the article (after the bit about utility vs signalling) assumes the thing you're buying is primarily meant to increase social capital (as a gift or a display piece [which may still have utility]) and then explains how to get the most for your money in that case specifically.

[lo_zamoyski]

Consider clothing, which is a large class. The primary utility of clothing as such is known, but consider secondary utility. Some clothing improves safety (firefighter clothing). Some signals to others one's social role (police uniform). Some preserves cleanliness (a chef's uniform). A suit worn by a lawyer signals respect for the justice system and those participating in it, including oneself. All these have utility. Even signaling wealth is utility of some kind. Aesthetic considerations could be understood in a utilitarian way as well, as the utility is in the pleasure the beauty of a garment provides.

[lcampbell]

Less than skips over, utility based shopping is explicitly derided:

> The narrative that you just told me [about utility shopping] is “I am a very analytical person who only has book smarts and no emotions”. And that narrative is boring!

[throwaway173738]

It’s a classic example of the either/or fallacy. You either buy for status or you’re an emotionless robot min/maxing through life. As if that’s a problem when you’re buying a tool like a light truck or minivan.

The piece just reminds me of stuff I would have said as a teenager, before I had life experience and opinions about how I wanted to live.

[moate]

Idk the author’s cultural background (syntactical clues imply non-US), and I am also not rich, but this all seemed very foreign to me.