Yes and No. Satz is correct in suggesting that some people may only focus on the cultural/brand rather than the craftsman for example. However, to do so would be to limit the possibility that 'true' lovers (those who desire the item) don't exist, when in fact they do. There are those that love the history, and craftsmanship is merely another aspect of that.

Satz in my opinion starts her response with a great introduction. She does not outright disagree with Boom's position, agreeing with him to some extent, but she goes further by ending her introduction with her thesis. By asking a question, Satz allows for the conversation to expand from one interpretation of intrinsic meaning and its connection for the lure of luxury.

I will decline to support Postrel's statement here. The way in which Postrel puts forth this idea appears slightly outdated, as people have further moved towards an 'appetite' for what represents them inside and not necessarily how they are portrayed from the outside.

After reading Postrel's response to Boom, I do agree with the start of her conclusion. When she says "The defence of luxury is ultimately not a defence of stuff, even verifiably special stuff", it makes perfect sense as it is the meaning beyond the items themselves which give them their 'personality'. However, I do not think I can agree with Postrel when she states that the defence of luxury is in turn the defence of identity, culture, and etc. For example, one might purchase an item which has a history to it, but that does not necessarily suggest that the history of the item expresses any aspect of who the individual is.

True while some things may be better with modification, in terms Boom, it is nevertheless the originality and history of the item which supersedes the newer and better item. It is the connection to the items history which provides its desirability. Furthermore, Hood's use in the next paragraph of his teenagers to provide understanding over what those seek in the desirability of an item seems to be conjecture rather than a matter of fact and research.

I am not entirely sure what Hood is trying to explain here. What is the direct connection between essentialism and what Boom is trying to say about the lure for luxury goods? Focusing on what Hood is trying to say in this argument I still believe it is not entirely clear. Yes, while the certain memorabilia is more desired in the United States due to their authentic bias, that does not go to say that other items have a greater sense of desirability in other parts of the world; but then again what is the connection between this and ones desire for luxury items. This merely appears to explain why others might find more value in certain items than others but does not go further in assessing what leads to them to desire a luxury item.

Khan's entire argument is intriguing as he widens the perspective of what we consider luxury and for what reasons, however I am not entirely sure what he is discrediting from Book, other than his interpretation of luxury. Furthermore, Khan's sudden notion of a luxury tax I believe has no bearing to Boom's original article as Boom wrote about what leads to people desiring luxuries, and therefore this placement of a tax has no correlation, particularly when it is only brought up by Khan at the end of his response.

Kahn from the start attempts to rock and discredit Boom's entire article, not by necessarily disagreeing with his perspective, but rather undercutting his argument by questioning what Boom considers as luxury. In order to create an argument, those sharing separate perspectives much first come to agreement on what it is they are arguing. Khan takes this stand by implying his disagreement on Bloom's interpretation of what is a luxury good and therefore leaves the floor open to a whole new perspective.

What terrible costs exactly? People are unlikely to purchase an item if they do not do not like the history associated with it.

In this paragraph, it is apparent that Gelman to some extent heavily believes in Paul Bloom's perspective and importance on history as the desired reason for luxury goods, inferring the value of story linked to objects. However, I would not go as far as Gelman, suggesting that spending enormous amounts of money on these goods are some how virtues. That being said, with the right circumstances, such as purchasing a luxury item so that it may be accessible for others to view (i.e. a museum), then the idea of being virtuous might be more accurately used to describe. This does on the other hand bring into question to what extent do we consider this act as a personal desire as the buyer themselves might be purchasing an item believing it is their responsibility and contribution to the world, however this creates a grey area as it does not allow us to fully evaluate what purchasing an item for personal use and desire to said individual means for them or what persuades them into making that decision, whether it being to give off a wealthy persona or truly for their own love of the history.

It appears that Christakis is undercutting the importance of history in the lure for luxuries which Paul Bloom points towards as individuals primary reason for desiring luxury goods. However, while Christakis is approaching Paul Blooms article from a more economic perspective, it is nevertheless his fixation on economics which directly links his theory for the desire of luxury goods with their monetary value, disregarding any other value sought by the individual, such as the history linked to an object.

This statement made by Christakis is interesting, however I believe he is pointing towards the rich seeking pleasure in buying luxuries in an unequal world compared to their poorer counterparts, however I do not see an example where the opposite is so as I have found that many time in an unequal world, that it is those who don't have much money who see greater interest in purchasing luxuries to appear like their richer counterparts.

This entire paragraph is essential to to position being put forward. By using children as an example, the author reiterates the notion that originality and a sense of connection either through history or experience provides a greater sensation for a specific object. Therefore, if children can recognise the value in an object which is not the latest/newest , but which instead has a greater sense of connection, then the same should be intrinsically true for adults and there approach to buying valuable items which they feel they have a connection to over the idea of 'showing off'.