[flagged]
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
If you want to encourage someone to do something more to solve problems, how about suggesting people give to the poor in their immediate locale -- like donating to a local shelter or poverty relief organization.
I’ve lived in rural America and if you want to help the poor, open a Walmart. Their prices were lower than the dime store and they hired people of all races and you could work there without being groped by the old owner. Of course it wasn’t perfect as there are flaws with Walmart too. But as far as utilitarian impact on the poor buying stuff can be very helpful.
Veblen goods [0] arguably create a real problem for the concept of markets being efficient. Essentially, the market signals feed on themselves, converting to hard-to-fake status signals, expending great energy at producing nothing: not as a byproduct, but as a primary effect. (Curiously, luxury goods share some DNA with Proof-of-Work cryptocurrency mining.)
Don't get me wrong, markets beat communism and mercantilism by a country mile; but as economists like to remind us, economic models are fundamentally agnostic to what people want, and people are often incentivized to treat inefficiency as a feature rather than a bug.
Since this is about status rather than the goods, it can flip on a dime to asceticism when that becomes a high status good. Monk habits, Mao suits and military uniforms are also status goods, and all broadcast the expenditure of great energy that often produces nothing, or less. Buying less can be a status symbol almost as easily as buying more.
I think similar dynamics plays out with currency, we could all still be using sea shells otherwise.
Signaling comes in many forms, and not all of it is bad; arguably, signaling eco-consciousness with a Prius or a Tesla can be a net win, even if it's just a proxy for socioeconomics. Rather, I would posit that extremes of Veblen goods (where cost and/or effort are abnormally high and positive social externalities are low) are more akin to market failure, or the Dutch tulip craze.
This is so wrong on so many levels. I pity your female work colleagues. Unless you were talking about a dad purchasing some luxury stuff for his daughter, but I guess you didn't have that in mind.
Disgusting. They are not his. Is this really how you talk about women?
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."