# data[].attributes.body
Bloom's central argument is that purchasing luxury items is perfectly acceptable whether it's for psychological or social benefit. He explains that he is "anti-anti-luxury goods" and that "the arguments against them are based on an incomplete theory of psychology, one that misses the depth of the pleasures they provide" (Bloom 11). Bloom challenges the idea that buying luxury items is wrong or shallow and that it instead reflects deeper human desires and values. This source is a secondary source.

# data[].attributes.body
Bloom references studies from social psychology that demonstrate how luxury goods can be a form of status and a way for people to signal and impress others. He also points out that luxury items can have personal connections through its history.

# data[].attributes.body
Bloom argues that an item's history can be a major influence for people to buy an item regardless of if it's luxury or not. He cites a test he conducted with psychologist Bruce Hood, where they "...fooled children into believing that [Bloom and Hood] had made perfect copies of their attachment objects and asked them which they wanted to take home" (Bloom 7). In the end, the children "...tended to want the original" (Bloom 7). This test showcased a form of personal attachment to items due to the historical connection between and explains how people value items regardless of whether it is luxury or not. This source is a primary source. He also suggests that people might want something "...if you built it yourself—the 'Ikea Effect'" (Bloom 6), "...if you purposefully chose it than if it was just handed to you" (Bloom 6), or if it has "...been touched or tried on by a physically attractive person" (Bloom 6). Bloom expresses that history can manipulate the way people see items, and adds value to them regardless if the item is a Rolex watch or a teddy bear. These are secondary sources.

# data[].attributes.body
Bloom considers the argument that people want luxury items for pleasure and aesthetics. He cites Virginia Postrel's "The Substance of Style" to explain how people's reaction to items can be "immediate, perceptual, and emotional" (Bloom 2). He also explains that buying luxury items can be a form of status. He cites evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller who says that "...the hunger for these luxury goods is a modern expression of the evolved desire to signal attractive traits—such as intelligence, ambition, and power—to entice mates..."(Bloom 3). Bloom recognizes the idea of luxury items being used as aesthetics through perception, and how it is a natural emotion for humans to possess. These sources are secondary sources.

# data[].attributes.body
Bloom argues that moral judgments against luxury consumption are often based on an incomplete theory of psychology and fail to recognize the complexities of human desire and behavior.

# data[].attributes.body
Bloom provides different point of views from someone who might be a moralist or a utilitarian. He explains that a moralist might complain that luxury items are "superficial" and that "consumer products corrodes the soul" (Bloom 11), while a utilitarian might "worry that the money spent on these goods could be better spent elsewhere" (Bloom 11). However, he counters these arguments by acknowledging that humans have deeper wants and luxury items can provide value to lives. He states that "the moralist should recognize that our appreciation of them is psychologically on par with other, more respected, human wants. The utilitarian should acknowledge that they are not pollution; they add to the value of our lives" (Bloom 11). While Bloom doesn't necessarily disagree with the views of the moralist or the utilitarian, he confronts their narrow points of views by introducing the idea of human desire. These sources are secondary sources.

# data[].attributes.body
white = central thesis

blue = claims

yellow = evidence

purple = connection

red = contradiction

# data[].attributes.body
Bloom considers the argument that luxury items provide value to humans and that it can make people happy. He cites economist Richard Layard who argues that "happiness is exquisitely sensitive to relative status" (Bloom 9). Bloom explains that luxury items evokes happiness as a form of positional goods which help identify with someone's status. This source is a secondary source.

# data[].attributes.body
Emotional pleasure and status connects to happiness because one person buying an expensive item can cause another person to feel envy and vice versa.

# data[].attributes.body
Bloom challenges Layard's assumption that economic inequality is corrosive to well-being and that what makes people happy can be constantly evolving and subject to debate. Bloom explains that "...'surfer dudes don't compete with Star Trek geeks for status'..."(Bloom 9). Bloom argues that people can experience high levels of happiness even in the presence of economic disparities through status hierarchies. This is a secondary source.

# data[].attributes.body
While Bloom agrees with the idea that luxury items can be used as a form of aesthetics or a way of signaling, he explains that "humans are not primarily sensory creatures" (Bloom 4) and that "sensory properties are relevant and so is signaling, but the pleasure we get from the right sort of history explains much of the lure of luxury items—and of more mundane consumer items as well" (Bloom 4). Bloom only partially agrees with the aesthetic theory and the signaling theory, but ultimately argues that history holds much more reason to why people purchase luxury items or items in general.