# data[].attributes.body
Paul Bloom makes the argument that what other scholars have said about people buying luxury items for their aesthetics or to signal a certain image, while it is correct, isn't enough to explain why people actually buy luxury goods. He, instead, argues that the history behind an object is the reason people buy things.

# data[].attributes.body
Postrel argues that people buy things for the sensory experience. If something feels or looks good, that is what will convince people to buy the item.

# data[].attributes.body
Some people, such as Thorstein Veblen and Geoffrey Miller, believe people buy things to signal certain traits, such as power or intelligence, to attract people.

# data[].attributes.body
"I don't think any of this is mistaken. But it is seriously incomplete. There is a further explanation for our love of such goods, which draws upon one of the most interesting ideas in the cofnitive sciences: that humans are not primarily sensory creatures. Rather, we respond to what we believe are objects' deeper properties, including their histories. Sensory properties are relevant and do is signaling, but the pleasure we get from the right sor of history explains much of the lure of luxury items--and of more mundane consumer items as well." (4)

# data[].attributes.body
Bloom says explicitly in this quote that he believes the other ideas are "incomplete", and later says that these ideas are still relevant, meaning he doesn't disagree with them, and agrees that they play a part. He then goes on to introduce his own idea, of objects being bought for their history. Bloom adds to their theories with this perspective, which is highlighted at the end of the paragraph when he says history explains, "the lure of luxury items--and of more mundane consumer items, as well." Here, he shows how history can not only explain peoples' need to buy luxury goods, but also more "regular", perhaps less expensive items, as well. This could be one of the ways he's making his idea stand out from the rest of them, since the others only explain the need to buy more expensive things. In other words, it could be a way for his to make his case that the other arguments are incomplete.

# data[].attributes.headline
Counterclaim: Aesthetics Isn't The Whole Reason

# data[].attributes.subject
Counterclaim: Aesthetics Isn't The Whole Reason

# data[].attributes.body
Bloom mentions James Twitchell before this quote, talking about Twitchell's idea that people like the suits because they have to do with people's identities. Bloom writes about how Postrel disagrees with this claim, but then writes, "Postrel is too quick to dismiss Twitchell's claim about meaning. The shoppers know, after all, that they are stroking Armani suits. Would they react the same way if reaching into the discount rack at Marshalls offered the same sensory experience?" (5)

# data[].attributes.body
While explaining the gaps in Postrel's theory using a Rolex example, Bloom also brings up Miller's theory, saying, "If the fake Rolexes are indistinguishable from the real ones, they would work just as well if one's goal is to impress others.

A defender of signaling theory might say that we don't just want to signal, but we want to signal honestly. Or perhaps--though this stretches the signaling theory quite a bit--we like to signal to ourselves, to look at our wrists and know that we are big shots. Or maybe people just don't believe that a sham Rolex will be as lasting and durable as a real one." (5)

# data[].attributes.body
Bloom uses the comparison of stroking a suit from Marshalls and an Armani suit to show how Postrel's theory doesn't necessarily always make sense. His question at the end is immediately answered in the next paragraph with a "Probably not", implying that that's the common, and even obvious answer to that question. Bloom could also be using that question as a way for the readers to relate to his claim that this is an incomplete idea. By naming store that isn't known for being a luxury brand but is still popular, he's giving the reader a relatable and understandable comparison.

# data[].attributes.body
The author's own belief is that an object's history is what leads people to buy luxury goods.

# data[].attributes.body
Bloom uses the Rolex example, where, when given the option between a $30,000 real Rolex and a $1,200 fake that's just as good in quality and looks the same, people still choose the Rolex. He describes here how signaling couldn't be the motivation due to simple logic, but also brings up a counterargument. He brings up how some might choose to interpret this theory as people wanting to signal honestly. In this paragraph, however, he shows how this isn't a very firm argument by using phrases like "perhaps" and "maybe", which are words used when hesitating. He also says explicitly that certain parts of this counterargument stretch the theory itself. Bringing up not only his counterargument, but what could be said against it helps prove how easily Miller's argument could fall apart.

# data[].attributes.body
Bloom describes the celebrity "touch" as the increase in value and demand of an object as soon as a famous figure has touched it. In a, at the time, recent study, Bloom and two other psychologists, "asked our subjects to name a living famous person they admired. (Answers included Barack Obama and George Clooney.) Then we asked how much they would pay for a specific object, such as a sweater, that was owned and used by the person. When our subjects were told that the objects would be thoroughly sterilized before it got to them, they dropped their offers by a third." (6)

According to Bloom's study, people will believe something is more worth having when it has been touched by a celebrity, and less worth having when that celebrity's "touch" has been cleaned off. Bloom brings up George Clooney and Barack Obama as the celebrities chosen in the survey, which is interesting because these celebrities are in vastly different fields. One is an actor, and one a politician. This could demonstrate how despite people's interests and likes, this mindset can still remain.

# data[].attributes.body
Bloom begins to explain how humans value the history of objects even when the objects themselves do not signal anything and aren't of any greater quality. He defines this as the Endowment Affect: "you come to value an object, such as a mug, more if you own it. You also value an object more if you purposefully chose it than if it was handed to you. And you value it less if you had previously rejected it." (5-6)

This effect discusses the value people place on objects that were chosen, as opposed to objects that weren't, or weren't chosen first. Bloom, once again, gives various examples of the Endowment Affect, instead of just narrowing it down to one specific definition.

# data[].attributes.body
Bloom also describes how history can apply to what types of items people choose to assign importance to, as well, saying, "The genius of marketing is crafting the story told about that history. Perhaps the objects are made in a special place or in a special way; they reflect family tradition; their production is a labor of love. They are in short supply; they are the oldest; they are the newest. Sometimes, the relevant aspect of history may be the connection to particular communities" (7-8)

Here, Bloom makes a connection between people's love for history and the marketing companies do. Even here, he talks about two different aspects of items having meaning: the aspect of love and care (people buying things when they feel a lot of care has gone into the item they purchased), and the aspect of age or time (people buying things because they are only there for a limited time, or alternatively, have been around for a very long time).

# data[].attributes.body
After discussing the Endowment Affect, Bloom brings up another affect that explains his theory: the Ikea Affect. He introduces it with, "Laboratory studies show that you like something more if you built it yourself--the "Ikea Effect." Other studies find that people agree to pay more for a painting, and like it more, if they think it took a long time to paint." (6)

The Ikea Affect, as stated above, is when people value things more when they were a part of the making process. This affect closely followed the Endowment affect, which this can be similar to. Both affects deal with a person's attraction to an object as a result of their actions towards that object.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Bloom, "history" can include a vast number of things, as shown above. Each of these effects themselves are such broad categories, that can relate to many different things. In this way, Bloom is able to show how, unlike the other theories, his is more complete.

# data[].attributes.body
Bloom brings up an economist, Richard Layard, who says, "our happiness is exquisitely sensitive to relative status." (9). Bloom uses the example that if he wants a car, but doesn't have it when his neighbors do, he will be upset. And while his neighbors will be happy, his emotion will outweigh their happiness.

# data[].attributes.headline
Conterclaim: Happiness Research Is Fast Moving

# data[].attributes.subject
Conterclaim: Happiness Research Is Fast Moving

# data[].attributes.body
To counter Layard's claim, Bloom says, "happiness research is a fast-moving and contentious field, and many of Layard's assumptions about the corrosive nature of economic disparity have not held up." (9).

# data[].attributes.body
In this, he's saying Layard's claims cannot be true because the most recent studies simply have not proved this. He uses the United States as an example, saying that it's a capitalist country, yet it's known as the happiest country in the world.