New Economy rant

[kelley]

At 12:10 PM 9/26/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Fair enough.
>
>mbs
>
>
>
>I'm not for trying to stop people spending $150 for a pair of shoes,
>or $2,000 for a stereo. I think they do it out of a phantasmic
>attempt to fulfill a longing that the purchase won't fulfill, though,
>so they'll just need to buy some other overpriced commodity soon
>after. In my role as self-appointed social critic, I'm just aiming to
>point this out and suggest that buying stuff isn't really a cure for
>alienation.
>Doug

i rather got the impression that you were suggesting that it would be fine 
and dandy if folks wanted to wear a swoosh on the teeshirt but that paying 
$40 to wear the swoosh when it costs $5 to produce the swoosh and that it 
could be sold at $15 for a reasonable profit is b.s.  that $25 is money 
that might be more productively spent. instead, it goes directly into the 
coffers of those who pocket the profits who don't necessarily reinvest that 
money in productive ways.  the point is that the swoosh has to cost that 
much to obtain, for otherwise it wouldn't be as valuable.

and i don't get the stereo analogy max.  is there some clear cut indication 
that a $2 grand stereo makes for better quality listening?  people aren't 
spending that much to get better sound, they're spending it to get a whole 
bunch of other desires met or because they are stupid and thing price = 
quality.

kelley