Talk:Conspicuous consumption

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
B rated as b-Class on the assessment scale
Low rated as low-importance on the assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Old talk

Needs a link from moral syndrome (in a mild form, it's one of Jacobs' symptoms). Also from list of ethics topics and list of economics topics. A kind of watershed topic.


This needs lots of editing to reach an NPOV balance.

This one's definately too long & tangential...although it is all interesting, after one brief reading I did not have a clear idea at all what 'conspicuous consumption' actually is...


I agree. It's interesting, but very muddled. Also ther are many "it is often claimed"s and "some believe"s and "it is generally acknowledged"s.

Yeah, this needs a rewrite. J.S. Nelson 07:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

what did he set out to write and what did he end up with????????sunilreddy

This certainly seems a bit disjointed... Evercat 22:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The biggest problem with this articl seems to be the lack of clarity as to whether or not conspicuous consumption is a disorder of the individual. I'd describe it as a lifestyle choice encouraged by societal factors. It is not a disorder or an addiction. Where spending is an addiction, it is more accurately described as 'compulsive spending'. The focus of this article should be social and economic factors and implications. The link to addictions, drugs, etc is tenuous. Monte 23Oct05

Inflamed hedonic expectations among the affected population can then result in normalizing of anti-social, borderline and narcissistic behaviors as economic and political processes, e.g. a "moral panic" leading to mob violence, support for religious fundamentalism, or an unexamined push to a war. Is it just me, or is this both off-topic and an anti-war POV? Spiritllama 02:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of issues here with how biased the article appears, as though this term is referring to something negative, which is clearly is not. If nobody bought items of luxury, the economy would falter, and to suggest that luxury cars are unnecessary is simply retarded. No car is really necessary besides a box on wheels, every car is a statement about who you are, the better the car, the more successful you are.

It seems that you fail to get the point of what conspicuous consumption really is. Buying a car that is more expensive than a "bare-minimum-box-and-four-wheels" for the extra comfort, extra speed or whatever is not conspicuous consumption as long as you actually use that "extra" for something other than showing off. Buying a car for its exclusivity and status is. Granted, the line can be blurred, human motives are often less than monocausal. You can buy an expensive car both because you enjoy the extra comfort and because you enjoy the status it brings. Good rules-of-thumb to find if something is conspicuous consumption is if the person loses interest when something becomes less exclusive or if he or she mostly uses the object or service when he or she has an audience.
So what's so bad about that? Well, making something that you do not truly enjoy for its qualities but for the status it brings you seems rather wasteful. Buying the most expensive wine available just to show off despite the fact that you do not have the knowledge to truly appreciate and sense the difference between good and mediocre wine, well that feels like a shame and a waste to me. The winemaker who is spending considerable effort in making a truly high-quality wine would probably also prefer that it was consumed by someone who could appreciate it for its quality rather than for its price tag. Many also feel that the show-offish behaviour in buying something you cannot truly appreciate is vulgar and garish. -Sensemaker

[edit] References

This page is short on references. I'll add a proper citation of Veblen's work. --Dystopos 16:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

The section In the context of psychoactive substances does not appear to me (IANAE) to have anything to do with the rest of the article. In any case it is very difficult to read. If someone can decipher it, perhaps they could re-write it. Otherwise it should be removed. Alf Boggis [[User_talk:Alf_Boggis|(talk)]] 21:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed the "bling bling" album cover

There was no reason cited for the "Bling Bling" album cover. It looked ridiculous there.


[edit] Paris Hilton

Paris Hilton has been added as a example of conspicuous consumption. People can easily find references about this on the biography of her on wikipedia. An article about Conspicuous consumption should have a good real-world example, and Paris Hilton is one.

Do you want to add a paragraph on that to the article, to go with the links? —Stormie 21:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Stormie, I think such a paragraph would be useful. There should be enough "evidence", if you do some google searches. (Andy) 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite see how Paris Hilton, or this particular picture, are related to conspicuous consumption. There doesn't seem to be anything relevant in her article either. Can someone explain the connection? -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the picture. It's highly misleading to single out Paris Hilton or Bill Gates as conspicuous consumers while millions of USians are wasting huge resources "keeping up with the Joneses" (i.e. competing for socio-economic status).


[edit] Missing Title

The extended quote of John Stuart Mill in the introductory section is not attributed to any work of his. Where did it come from? Rintrah 14:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It comes from his "Principles of Political Economy", book "On The Influence of Government".

[edit] For further examples, watch a current rap music video.

While funny, I doubt this fits within Wikipedia's NPOV principle. I also doubt if this is really related to this article, as the people in rap video's usually can afford whatever they show. Does anyone have a problem with removing that example? --Jonne 20:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Naw, scrap it. I was just about to remove it myself. Hyenaste (tell) 02:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] scarcity rent

The claim "In fact, conspicuous consumption may be seen as the in-kind scarcity rent of socio-economic status" doesn't seem to have sufficient context for someone not very familiar with the subject matter (e.g., myself) to understand-- the "scarcity rent" link goes to an article on rent in general, which doesn't explain the meaning of scarcity rent specifically. Could anybody add a bit to this section (or to the economic rent article) to clear it up? 68.35.68.100 15:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Binge eating?

Soemone wrote in the article: "In recent years, conspicuous consumption has also been viewed as a contributing factor to behavioral disorders such as binge eating and compulsive spending and is a major contributor to personal bankruptcies resulting from abuse and mismanagement of credit[citation needed]."

In my understanding of Veblen (I only read him in a 200-page translated summary -not his original works) conspicuous consumption might make sense as an explanation to compulsive spending. However I find it very hard to see that binge eating could be explained this way. Conspicuous consumption is spectacular, proud, somewhat show-offish spending on surfluous things to bring status. Binge eating is done in private, is generally considered disgusting and the person suffering from it is often intensely ashamed of it. Eating in moderation, with impeccable manners at a high-status, high-price, high-profile gourmet restaurant is an excellent example of conspicuous consumption. Binge eating seems to be the very opposite.

If however wrote that about binge eating does not explain him or herself or give a source, I shall remove that part.

-Sensemaker