Bloom never tells us exactly what he means by history, so maybe he thinks of history as synonymous with story.
I completely agree. I also questioned what Bloom meant by history. To bloom, it seemed to have a physical, celebrity meaning. Which I do not believe is a main source of the lure of luxury.
One of my favorite possessions is my father’s slide rule, an object that has no status value and not much utility but whose place on my desk makes me feel closer to my dead, beloved parent.
This is a good counterpoint to Bloom's argument. history does not have to mean an automatic premium, rather a priceless value of an object.
So maybe the Leviathan should not force equality upon us, via redistribution, but blind us to the reality of our condition. It may be a depressing thought, but consider some examples already in practice.
I agree with this statement, but how can this be accomplished? From social media to advertisements, there is no excaping implanted ideas of luxury
Our findings surprised us: inequality itself did not adversely affect cooperation, social connections, or overall economic growth in these experimental societies. When wealth wasn’t visible, all three groups converged over the course of the game to about the same low level of inequality, around 0.16 on the Gini scale. But when we made wealth visible, people became as much as 50 percent less cooperative, less friendly, and less rich—regardless of the initial level of inequality. Moreover, in circumstances of relative equality, the rich responded to visibility by engaging in fair transactions with their poor neighbors, but in a more unequal world, the rich responded to visibility by exploiting their neighbors.
This sounds exactly like what they expected to see. The first sentence merely sensationalizes their findings. When I read the experimental design, I immediately predicted this to be the case. The original forum also supports this with the signaling and sensory theories.
In our own research, Meredith Meyer, Sarah-Jane Leslie, Sarah Stilwell, and I found similar negative responses to a homeless person, someone with low IQ, someone with schizophrenia, or someone who has committed a crime. Adults typically report feeling “creeped out” by the idea of receiving an organ transplant or blood transfusion from such individuals for fear they will be contaminated or even become more like the donor. These beliefs hold even when people are assured that the organ or blood is healthy. In this case, a heart’s history is thought to carry with it negative characteristics of a group subject to discrimination.
Again, what does this have to do with luxury goods?
But the troubling point is that this same impulse arises when people come into contact with objects linked to those who are not evil but just different—not part of one’s in-group. In fact, simply thinking about such contact can be disturbing.
This argument seems to be a bit out of place. Yes, people tend to avoid buying murder houses, but that does not reflect on societie's infatuation with luxury goods. Honestly, the whole approach is off topic in my opinion.
After his run-in with the cops, that value vanished, and Christian returned the belt for a refund.
This should be expanded upon more in depth. This paragraph starts to analyze impulse buys, but stops short.
Rather, it communicates personality and social affiliation: who we are as individuals and with whom we belong, standing out and fitting in.
How is this different from the competition argument? You are still competiting to show you are better and or in a higher social affiliation.
Despite Bloom’s flattering citation of my book The Substance of Style, they do not even exhaust the motivations provided in my own work.
That had some bite...
In April 2013 a nineteen-year-old engineering student named Trayon Christian bought a $350 Ferragamo belt at Barney’s, using his debit card and money from his work-study job. Shortly after leaving the store, Christian was stopped by undercover detectives, accused of fraud, hand-cuffed, and held for two hours at a police station before being cleared and released. According to a lawsuit he later filed, the cops demanded to know “how a young black man such as himself could afford to purchase such an expensive belt.”
What? This is not an effective intro. Though it does include someone buying luxury goods, the blatant racism overpowers the argument. Now I'm just furious at those cops, not debating whether or not luxury items are worth it.
Then we asked how much they would pay for a specific object, such as a sweater, that was owned and used by this person. When our subjects were told that the object would be thoroughly sterilized before it got to them, they dropped their offers by a third.
This argument took a different direction than i was expecting. I thought it was going to be abouth celebrity endoresement, not a famous figure literally touching an object and then selling it. Sure, poeple do spend more if a celebrity touched an object, but this does not happen very often and most people would not go out of their ways to buy such an item.
If pleasure is triggered by the physical properties of what we are looking at or touching, then it shouldn’t matter what we think it is. But it does matter.
I very much agree wiith this argument. The value of an object is not the summation of the individual components, or even the labor costs. Honestly, the whole concept of a "price" is primarily determined by extrinsic forces such as corporations. Supply and demand definitely play a large role, but unecessary price increases are a result of campaigns creating a demand.Not the other way around.
It is worth thinking about why.
Why? The common question's explanation is too far removed. Why should I care?
sensory creatures
How does the author define "sensory creatures." It is not mentioned prior to this point. Does sensory mean just physical senses, or how one feels towards another object.
Oxfam
What's Oxfam? The author assumes the reader already recognizes this charity organization. Perhaps Unicef or Doctors Without Borders would be a better reference.
Why would anyone spend thousands of dollars on a Prada handbag, an Armani suit, or a Rolex watch?
This is a stong introduction. The proposed question immediately prompts the reader to respond. For me, I did think through several reasons why expensive products are and aren't worth it.