New Economy rant

kelley kwalker2 at
Tue Sep 26 09:57:06 PDT 2000

At 12:10 PM 9/26/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Fair enough.
>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

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.


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list