From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Mon Aug 02 2004 - 05:54:08 BST
> dmb says:
> We make abstractions and generalizations in any intellectual descriptions,
> but I don't think that the larger scale associations are really any less
> real or intimate in our individual lives and individual worldviews.
Society
> is said to be more tha[n] biological man, but social level values reside
in
> individual people or they don't exist at all.
mel:
1) Over generalization to the point of meaninglessness is what
I want to avoid. Arguments/theories fall at their weakest points.
Its always some individual who
> takes on the role of father, cop, soldier, celebrity or politician. Social
> roles and social values are held by people and many of them are quite
> passionatley involved and enthusiastic about the values defended in those
> roles. Each of us can only know a limited part of the larger society, but
in
> the final analysis we are society. How could it be any other way?
mel:
2) The other way it could be as I see it, is to racognize that WE can
create the social fabric of our lives with higher quality by what
we choose to "subscribe to." Simply surrendering to an infinite
weight of nebulously imprecise society writ large seems to be
an SOM trap.
> dmb:
> I think the feeling of wrongness is not very hard to locate. Drinking a
> bottle of $20,000 champagne is obscenely self-indulgent. There are parts
of
> the world where entire families could live well for years with that kind
of
> money. To piss it away like that is outrageously immoral.
mel: <devil's advocate position>
This almost puts us in a trap of having to live by someone else's
opinion of morality. Your assertion that unknown people elsewhere
in the world can make better use of that money than the prior owner
of the bottle is no different in kind from an Imam saying that a woman
should remain covered to prevent another's temptation.
You advocate preventing the expenditure in case someone unknown
can use the money; the Imam prevents immodesty so no one unknown
is at risk of immoral thoughts. </devil's advocate position>
Seriously though, if the restaurant gets 20K they paid 10K, the
distributor paid inventory tax and sales tax, the employees etc.
The restaurant will spend most of the excess money 10K on
more food, wine, salary, etc. maybe $1,500 (15%) is profit, which
means the restaurant owner gets about $750 or so after taxes.
Most folks seeing the 20K don't know the business or do the math.
So, it looks more extravagent without looking at the burdens that
were taken on by the supply chain.
(wish I had 20K...right now)
And haven't you
> ever noticed that people do such things just so they can say they did?
This
> is exactly what Pirsig was refering in his mention of Veblin's THEORY OF
THE
> LEISURE CLASS. The book's central premise was that social status was
gained,
> throughout history but especially by the Victorians that surrounded him,
by
> having way more than one needed and by putting that surplus on display for
> all the world to notice. He called it "conspicuous consumption" and if
> drinking champagne that costs as much as a new car is not a case of
> conspicuous consumption, then nothing is.
mel:
As alluded to above, there are whole industries that spring up to
serve the STATUS CONSUMPTION. When there is enough interlocking
service and goods structure, money takes on a huge velocity. The
spill over makes the poorest americans better off than the majority of
Africans... High velocity monetary flow provides spill over or bleed
through rather than trickle down. (not a substitute for giving and
smarter resource management.)
> Ever light a cuban cigar with a $100 bill?
mel:
Only after a supermodel Monicas them for me...
>Same thing? Designer clothing with big labels outside on the
> front? Its practially an American uniform. Fame and fortune are
>intertwined in a million pathetic little ways, but it all boils down
>to social status of various degreees.
mel:
Tacky and nonaesthetic is often offensive to me, but it may
not be immoral for someone to buy upscale brands. (Levi's
to me is upscale, as is anything Swooshish, more so
big names, even though they are made in the same chinese factories... )
Point 2 above is my only significant point.
thanks--mel
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 02 2004 - 05:57:45 BST