Project 2 by Mustafa Abdelilah

Thesis

mya36 — 2025-02-20 07:35:10 UTC

Bloom's main point/idea is that people buy luxury goods simply because they feel good and we desire to buy such goods. Humans are very emotionally driven animals; we often make decisions based on our emotions and feelings. Thus, we often tend to buy things based on our feelings and desires rather than utility or other motives, which is what Bloom is arguing. For example, Bloom states, " "Few people will ever own a Rolex or a Vermeer, but we are all sensitive to the value of history, and most of us possess at least some things that we wouldn't trade for perfect duplicates" (Bloom 11). Bloom believes that there are certain items that, subjectively, we would consider valuable/luxurious; however, objectively, they hold little value. This is due to the history and the memory that those specific items hold for us. Bloom further states that "these objects have value beyond their practical utility" (Bloom 11). This further shows that we feel that items are valuable not because they have utility or are suitable for signaling but because they have a subjective meaning and value for the buyer/holder of the item. One of the first reasons that were listed as to why people buy "luxury items" is for signaling. Signaling is buying luxury items to pull off a particular impression or appear a sure way to people. This is why people often buy high-end and expensive items such as luxury watches like Rolexes or cars like Ferraris and Aston Martins. However, the author debunks this theory by saying that people often buy expensive or lavish items; however, they can rarely be shown off due to just what the item is and can never be used in such a fashion. However, we are still willing to buy such items because we find them valuable/luxurious. Another reason why the signaling theory is false is that items that have lots of history to use can appear very valuable to us; however, to every other person, it is just regular everyday items with no particular meaning, which is the exact opposite of singling. However, we still find these items to be luxurious and valuable, showing that people do not buy luxury goods just to be able to signal to other people.

Claim 1

mya36 — 2025-02-20 08:46:34 UTC

One of the reasons why the author cites that people buy/value items based on their close personal connection to them is based on the history of the item. This is due to the fact that an item can often have a much greater hidden meaning/purpose to a person due to the time/moment it represents. It could signify a very important memory/event in a person's life, which is why the item is so valuable to them. These items would typically be irrelevant or something very ordinary to everyone else; however, because they represent such an important memory or a key part of your life, they are a luxury item for you and not anyone else. This is why items with history behind them are so appealing and provide luxury to the masses. Whether you are four or 40 years old, almost everyone sees the luxury in items with a personal history.

Evidence 1

mya36 — 2025-02-20 09:16:13 UTC

For example the author states "Then there are more personal cases. Think about your wedding ring or your child’s baby shoes. Such objects serve no practical purpose, they need not be beautiful in any sensory way, and they are useless as signals" (Bloom 7). This essentially defines the whole claim the fact that something as simple as baby shoes would not matter to anyone else but it matters to you because you saw your baby take their first steps in those shoes thus they carry great meaning and a beautiful memory with them which is why there are so valuable to you.

Claim 2

mya36 — 2025-02-20 09:40:35 UTC

Another reason the author cites why people would assign value to otherwise worthless items is who has touched/owned it beforehand. Some people have much respect and go wild over certain celebrities or popular figures throughout history. Thus, when these high-profile people own otherwise very normal and everyday items, people are willing to pay money to obtain these items. For most people, these items would be worthless, but a select few care a lot about these items and find them very valuable. This goes back to the author's point of how people tend to assign luxury to items based on the fact that it makes them feel good and that there is a very subjective value about that item.

Evidence 2

mya36 — 2025-02-20 09:44:24 UTC

When giving examples of people spending exuberant amounts of money on people buying celebrity-owned items, the author says, "in a 1996 auction, President John F. Kennedy's golf clubs sold for $772,500, and a tape measure from the Kennedy household sold for $48,875.There have been eBay auctions for Barack Obama's half-eaten breakfast and Britney Spears's chewed-up bubble gum" (Bloom 6). These examples further prove that people are willing to spend large amounts of their hard-earned money to buy seemingly normal everyday items just because they were previously owned by a celebrity they respect and/or like.

Counter Argument 1

mya36 — 2025-02-20 09:54:17 UTC

One of the first reasons that were listed as to why people buy "luxury items" is for signaling. Signaling is buying luxury items to pull off a particular impression or appear a sure way to people. This is why people often buy high-end and expensive items such as luxury watches like Rolexes or cars like Ferraris and Aston Martins. However, the author debunks this theory by saying that people often buy expensive or lavish items; however, they can rarely be shown off due to just what the item is and can never be used in such a fashion. However, we are still willing to buy such items because we find them valuable/luxurious. Another reason why the signaling theory is false is because items that have lots of history to use can appear very valuable to us; however, to every other person, it's just regular everyday items with no particular meaning, which is the exact opposite of singling. However, we still find these items to be luxurious and valuable, showing that people do not buy luxury goods just to be able to signal to other people.

Counter Argument 2

mya36 — 2025-02-20 10:01:28 UTC

Another hypothetical argument for why people buy luxury items is due to the item's aesthetics and the sensory details the item provides. However, the author can very easily debunk this argument. Essentially, the author argues why someone would spend 30 times more for a real Rolex even though the dupe is made out of the same materials and same materials and looks the same to the naked eye. At that point, it is no longer due to aesthetics and has very different motives; thus, this argument that people buy luxury items purely for aesthetics is mostly false. The key thing when looking at these other arguments/opinions is that they can be true, sometimes, but these are usually not the case and are false.

Evidence for Counter Argument 1

mya36 — 2025-02-24 04:13:47 UTC

Paul Bloom gives us many great examples of what people think of the effect of singling on people and what we think would be the outcome of buying said luxury items. Bloom gives examples of how people think other people would react to their singling in his writing. He states, "Advertisements are often pure signaling fantasies. Your neighbors gasp as your car drives by; the attractive stranger in a bar is aroused by your choice of beer; your spouse and children love you because you bought the right brand of frozen pizza" (Bloom 3). This is the fantasy Bloom is trying to explain how people think when they buy singling items. However, in reality, people do not react to other people owning such luxury items in the first place. Bloom also tries to show how the idea that people always buy these luxury items to live in this fantasy of thinking that would bring them so much attention and respect is far-fetched and most likely untrue. Sure, a few people would buy luxury items for the purpose of signaling, but the majority of people would likely buy luxury items for more subjective reasons, such as the history of the object, and this is exactly what Bloom is trying to prove. Sure, a few people here and there will buy luxury items for singles, but most of the time, people buy them for themselves and the feelings and memories it brings them.

Evidence for counter argument 2

mya36 — 2025-02-24 04:41:54 UTC

When Bloom was explaining the possible argument for why people might buy items for their aesthetics and sensory appeal, he listed multiple examples. For example, Bloom gives a quote by someone who believes that people buy luxury items for their sensory and aesthetic appeal. The quote reads, "People pet Armani clothes because the fabrics feel so good. Those clothes attract us as visual, tactile creatures, not because they are 'rich in meaning' but because they are rich in pleasure" (Bloom 4-5). Sure, this might be true in sporadic cases, but Bloom would argue that, first off, why would people prefer the more expensive Rolex watch compared to the knockoff even though they are made of the same materials, look the same, and pored the same sensory and aesthetic appeal. Also, why would people emphasize items such as their kid's first walking shoes even though they do not provide aesthetic or sensory appeal? Bloom proves that while there might be niche series where people buy luxury items for their aesthetics and sensory appeal, this is not the main reason why people buy luxury items.