It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

hey stinging,

im glad some people in the US feel the same way you do. im totally with you. but thats normal for me, since as you know im from socialist/marxist europe ;)
Post edited January 31, 2013 by Michagogi23
Crassmaster: Well then, I assume you've never, ever spent a dime of money on anything superfluous for yourself. After all, you're so worried about others that you must have given everything you have to other people first. Right?
StingingVelvet: Can we please not do this stupid thing where being against $45k for a night of partying equates to being against all luxury spending?

If he's going to throw out some sort of implied moral superiority because he 'actually cares about other people', then no.
StingingVelvet: ...$45k for one night of liquor is WAY too far. It disgusts me. ...
In a way I think I understand it. If you "earn" millions or billions per year, you can spent 45k per night and still end up with a huge surplus. And if you don't want to give it to charity there aren't many good ways to spend it. It just means that beyond some millions you start either giving money away or spend it on quite meaningless things like buying luxury products and gifting them. It doesn't even have to mean that you want to show off. It's just what these people do everyday.
Post edited January 31, 2013 by Trilarion
Crassmaster: If he's going to throw out some sort of implied moral superiority because he 'actually cares about other people', then no.
Completely unrelated. Even if he made an absurd exaggeration your absurd exaggeration is different and no more appropriate.

Issues like this never get properly debated because people look at the extremes, not the middle. No one in this thread is out to kill all luxury spending. The most radical legislation I know of without going full commie is something like France's proposed 75% tax rate on income over a million.
Ive said it before and made some people angry, but ill say it again:

I think that (especially) mega inheritances are questionable and actually challenge the whole current idea of inheriting stuff from your parents. In my opinion parents focus should be leaving more, lets say "immaterial capital" to their children and the children should focus on plowing their own path in life, instead of waiting and counting for money/property they havent earned in the first place.

Its interesting, that many people are against forexample monarchy because "people shouldnt be born to be rulers" or "you dont become great ruler by being child of monarch" .... I dont actually see how any kind of inheritance is much different from this. If one shouldnt be able to born a king, then why one should be able be born mega millionaire? Whats the difference?

Any way, before people start blaming me of being socialist-communist or something - thats not my idea at all:

Rather, I think like your average capitalist thinks, that people should -EARN- their own wealth and -FORGE- their own fame. If the whole society could somehow miraculously work on this principle, I think everyone would be better of.

just my 2 cents
A fool and his money....etc and so on...

For some reason this thread reminded me of that girl in the UK who at 18 years old a couple of years ago, won 1.5 Million Pound sterling in the lottery

in 2 years she let go of and spent all of that money and became a heroin addict
I think if I made a thread about how mad I was that the local pizzaria didn't give me enough cheese, that in an hour (two at most) the thread would be nothing more than a steel cage, no holds barred, partisan slug fest full of little more than people chastising and insulting each other for their differing political views.
I think the most disgusting thing is that she was buying everyone Cristal and not Santana DVX. Clearly money can't buy good taste.
ABH20: I think the most disgusting thing is that she was buying everyone Cristal and not Santana DVX. Clearly money can't buy good taste.
and no Ballitorie, with 2 'L's!
It's better she spends money rather than hoarding it in an off-shore account...
Mostly good points all around.

My take is that yes, it is ridiculous. It's ridiculous that there are companies that reinforce this behavior by artificially inflating prices. It's ridiculous that some people with wealth have no concept of their own worth as humans. What did she get by doing this? A hangover, probably, and the fawning "adoration" of the hangers-on. Maybe some regrettable sex too!

She could have gone out with friends, gotten drunk, and had a good time at a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of that money, but then she wouldn't be "noticed" and "admired."

There continues to be a fallacy that people who are rich (and good-looking, for that matter) are somehow "better" than the rest of us. Saying "She did it because she could" is a rather cheap response that takes nothing into account other than the fact that she has access to a ton of money she probably had no hand in earning. The selfishness of "I got mine, so fuck off" grows quite tiresome.
DieRuhe: a rather cheap response that takes nothing into account other than the fact that she has access to a ton of money she probably had no hand in earning.
Not to mention that, underlying the fallacy, is the idea that moral virtues make people rich. Which is a way to define morality through measurable economic "productivity". While, not only many moral vitues are economically counter-productive (and/or productive on other, non-quantifyinable, levels), but also, many moral flaws can contribute to make someone economically successful.

The absurdity of this fallacy goes beyond the mere "(financial/symbolic) heir" effect. Even a self-made billionaire is not necessarily morally superior to some pauper or more humane, more worthy, more deserving, than him. And especially not proportionally to the wealth difference (someone who earns $500'000 a month is not a 10'000 times better person than someone who earns $50), because no one is.
I don't care what other people are spending their money on. But if they wanted to spend them on me, I'll be honored.

By the way, your govts. probably spend millions of dollars a year on vodka and whisky and you don't seem to care even though they spend YOUR money on booze.

In general, you should rather worry more about people who spend YOUR money than people who spend THEIRS.

Some of you, if you checked how much european parliment spends yearly on booze, you would go institutionalised.

Some of you also fail to recognize that "Being rich" is a relative term. In eyes of african kid you're rich. And every time you spend 50 bucks on a video game, the same amount of money is a matter of life and death for that kid. So yeah, you are wasting your money as well.
Post edited January 31, 2013 by keeveek
AndrewC: She has money to spend so I see absolutely no problem in her spending them. Would it have been better if she spent them on clothes? Or shoes?
StingingVelvet: I think at some point luxury spending is insulting to people who live on rice in the middle of a desert.
Dude, see, that's the problem. To people in even worse situations even the behaviour of the average middle-class or even lower-class guy may seem disrespectful. I mean, seriously: aren't you a little hypocritical when you judge rich people for the way they spend their money? I know that I spend a lot of my money on unnecessary luxuries. And I'm just glad that normally it's anybody's personal issue what he spends his money on. To be honest the journalists reporting on every piece of shit that celebrities do piss me off more than the behaviour of those rich people does as long as it doesn't directly harm other people.
Post edited January 31, 2013 by F4LL0UT
It is her money. She does not hurt anyone or create bad situation for society. Sans why I can't criticize her at all. If you find this stupid then you have to find spending 6 dollars on a beer stupid too. Assuming you make 35k a year.