Though this may be true, I believe status goods and good with certain attributes they like bring different forms of pleasure. For example, status goods may bring a sense of satisfaction to one.

I don't think someone should even be against luxuries, if we are speaking of luxuries by how Khan defines it. Even though certain luxuries may be unnecessary, such as a 23,000 dollar hermes bag, it is after all bringing a positive feeling to a human, whether it be satisfaction or gratitude.

I agree with this. Bloom implies as if luxury is meant for high ended brand names such as Gucci or Rolex. If not, money, then historic value such as old baby shoes. However, people in my village say that I should treasure my luxuries more often, and my luxuries they mean the fact that I can eat meat whenever I want while they are eating bread.

The same idea is applied with trends. People give into trends because they want a sense of inclusiveness.

Comparisons are important to us. It's what makes us feel more lifted and , in a way, reassuring to ourselves. As a society, comparison creates competition, and people thrive in competitions. If we never compared as a society, there would be no motive to be at the top.

I personally do not understand how humans need to value historical items have negative effects that lead to a situation like this. I feel he is steering away from the main point of the response

I agree with this, and the fact that there are negative consequences due to our persistence with history. Personally, it makes me as a person harder to move on and let go of my emotions, as I treasure this long rooted relationship with an object

I think this small addition to her sentence is very significant to what valuable means. Although Bloom was correct about his explanation how people respect the history and value of items, it only applies if the individual itself cares for the object. For example, if there was a lost, very rare, baseball card, a beauty guru would not have any interest in that

I agree with @cfthomas. This introduction was completely unnecessary and introducing the questioning the need for a luxury item could've been done in a much more relevant way. The relationship she gives later between social scientists and the cops is very random, and the objective of social scientists could've been explained without the usage of racism.

I do think this is a form of "signalling" to yourself, but just a different type. When you wear an expensive rolex, you think to yourself "Wow, I could afford this luxurious accessory", and feel a sense of pride and fulfilment. It works he same way with your son's original baby shoes. However, it's not about money. It's the fact that you went out of your way to keep the shoes for so many years so that you can look at it when you are older or maybe show it to your kids/grandkids. A signalling of love, you might call it.

Although this argument is valid, I think it only applies to limited items such as clothing. With clothing, you can really tel with the feel of a material whether it's high brand or not. However, if it was an expensive watch vs. a normal watch, though there may be differences such as weight, how big is the difference between their physical properties such as feel?

I agree, it reminds me of a research assignment I did for my GESM on whether a person would spend a large amount of money (i.e hundred thousand dollars) to retrieve a lost watch they treasured which belonged to their grandfather, or to keep that large amount of money for themselves. Most of the people chose to spend it on retrieving the lost watch. History has value.