|
Agree. And it is not about buying one more thing for status or
show.
"All human beings should try to learn before they die what they are
running from, and to, and why." (James Thurber)
I understand your naming system but underneath it all
what are you saying? Doesn't it all come down to saying that
people buy goods for status or as we say in America, to "outdo the Jones next
door"? I defend their right to do it but I do not agree that
they are significant in the flow of human history or that they have lived even
a little but up to the potential given to them when the Creator endowed them
with life. Such small minded people make lousy citizens, create
and endow poverty, racism and sexism and propagate violence with a mean
spirit. Just the sort of thing to destroy the ideal of Democracy
and herald the coming Messiah or Hero. Remember Hitler was a
Messiah to the Germans prior to WWII. And Frank Luntz sounds an
awful lot like the propagandists of both Germany and the old Soviet Union.
Ray Evans Harrell.
(Cassandro blowing in the Wind)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 1:16
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] The complete
cornucopia
At 11:13 26/12/2003 -0500, you
wrote:
Yes,
yes, either/or again. Dual thinking. The truth is
that is both. There are people who have the good taste to
appreciate the difference between a quality one of a kind good and one
made to scale but most people buy their goods by advertising and stories
about quality rather than actual examination. That is
what makes a good a "status good" in my definition. Their
knowledge is shallow and their expectations about approval are
high. That has nothing to do with my judging them but
everything to do with my asking questions about their knowledge of
it. For example how many buy IBM because it is better than
Gateway or Dell? At the same time quality is a very nebulous
term. Sometimes the assumption of quality gives a consumer the
feeling of security that the product will hold up even though they don't
have time to truly examine it. The thing I was saying is
that people who buy for status are shallow in their knowledge of the
purpose of things. I read Keith to be saying that Status
was a big reason for buying most goods.
I am now
calling these "stratum goods" in order not to confuse them with "positional
goods" -- also bought by those of high status and wealth -- as defined
by Hirsch and other economists. Initially, both stratum goods and positional
goods have rarity value and are high-priced. But positional goods always
remain scarce (and high-priced -- e.g. large diamonds or gold jewelry
private beaches, stately homes) while stratum goods are those which are
capable of mass production sooner or later and thus work their way down
through successive consumer strata. Yes, I suggest that all consumer goods
(except for food) have started out as stratum goods at one time or
another.
KSH
I disagreed and still do. Its more
complicated than that. Today the wealthy get more status by
making a deal and getting something for nothing than by paying a great
deal. It is a strategic game that came with many of them from
the lower classes and makes them very uncharitable. We even
have a term for it Nouveau Riche.
REH
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Harry
Pollard
- To: 'Ray Evans Harrell' ;
'Keith Hudson' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 4:56 AM
- Subject: RE: [Futurework] The complete cornucopia
- Ray,
- I doubt the shallowness is in the person who gets the
"status goods".
- Surely, it is the beholders who are
shallow.
- The holder of status goods may simply be enjoying
them.
- People do like buying things and why
not?
- Calling it "consumerism" with perhaps just a slight
turn of the lip doesn't make it so - except to the people applying the
word.
- I think that they are not so much to be admired as
those who buy.
- For, why shouldn't they?
- Harry
- ********************************************
- Henry George School of Social Science
- of Los Angeles
- Box 655 Tujunga CA
91042
- Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818
353-2242
- http://haledward.home.comcast.net
- ********************************************
- From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Ray Evans Harrell
- Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:56 AM
- To: Keith Hudson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Subject: Re: [Futurework] The complete
cornucopia
- This is very interesting to me
Keith.
- In my family a person who gets status from
goods is considered shallow. Rather like an adolescent being
proud of his hotrod. The only real status is from learning or
Mastery. Both of which are considered pools from which
to give to others. The only goods that are considered alive
or worthy of gifts are hand made and if someone compliments it you must
give it to them. The sole exceptions are gifts
given. If someone gives you a gift it is considered unworthy
if you pass it on. But store-bought goods are considered
"tortured" and not built with true intentions. So to give a
store bought good is being expedient or "cheap" although we all do it in
a pinch for time. You might compare it to cooking the
meal or buying storebought "cold-cuts."
- Status or Statum goods are never the
point. Quality of life is built from quality of person
rather than monetary wealth or hoarding. Money is useful as a
stimulus or capital for buying materials to hand make something or to
fund a project for the good of all. If someone compliments
an article that you made or bought it is good etiquette to give it to
them. If it was a gift you thank them for the compliment and
say that it was a gift unless you wish to insult the person who gave you
the gift. Gifts are never thrown away but they can be passed
on immediately as a statement or used for a time and then passed
on. If you don't want people to give you things then
don't compliment but quietly notice the object. Compliments
to a person are good manners as are compliments for fine
actions. If someone compliments an article and you give it
to them then rather than being a pig about it you are to give them
something of equal value in return immediately. How very
different from what you describe. Sort of like Christmas all
year round.
- Just remember, handmade objects are alive
with the energy of the artisan while machine objects are tortured into
shape. Gifts are alive while payments are
dead. Payments are accepted for work unless it is
under an Indian contract. If you work under a gift
arrangement then the attitude that you have towards acceptance of the
work is reflected in how much you are willing to give back for having
received the work. Some non-Indians who want an Indian
contract for voice lessons exhibit cheapness, wanting to take the
lessons, which seem free, and leave without giving back.
They are considered thieves. When they give back, the
quality of their giving represents the consciousness of their
understanding of what they received in the original gift
transaction. It is judged and is a form of testing for
one's values. Definitely not English wouldn't you say?
- Ray Evans
- k
---
Incoming mail is
certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.553 / Virus
Database: 345 - Release Date: 12/18/2003
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus
Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.553 / Virus
Database: 345 - Release Date: 12/18/2003
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
|
