Second, I suspect that I would get more pleasure out of real appreciation than out of an illusory appreciation, as my "appreciation" of wine would be.
But if you did try to become a wine fanatic, you would train your palate and your ability to distinguish wines would actually increase, not just imaginatively increase, wouldn't it?
It's not literary criticism where you interpret what someone says and there's no right answer; wine does actually have taste and you can taste it yourself, without relying on an authority to tell you what it tastes like.
And anyway, why would you get more pleasure from real appreciation than illusory appreciation?
Wouldn't Rands be better off ignoring desks and focusing his attention on something he has legitimate taste for
If you follow the Barry Schwartz and Dan Gilbert TED talks, Rands would be better off if there was one shop and it stocked one shaving cream and didn't accept refunds.
my spending $60 just creates an opportunity for unscrupulous folks to make money by overpricing wine. That might not hurt me, but it would hurt real connoisseurs.
No no no, real connoisseurs who could tell the difference would be able to tell the wine was overpriced. And if there isn't really anything to wine tasting, then they wouldn't notice and therefore it wouldn't hurt them - it would, must, be what happens now. And in either case the sellers aren't unscrupulous folk, they are making money providing the exclusive expensive wine experience that connoisseurs will pay money for, even if the wine is nothing special.
It doesn't hurt art collectors to pay more for a painting when the painter turns out to have been the brother of Richard the Lionheart. That's the sort of thing that doesn't change the picture in the slightest but does make it more valuable art and the sort of thing art collectors want.
It's easy to give away excess. Looking for expensive new ways to turn my excess into pleasure is another way of saying, "I'd better find something better to do with this money than give it to the EFF/Doctors Without Borders
Unless you are an extremely frugal minimalist you already implicitly do spend money on things which do less for the greater good than a good charity, so arguing about quite where you draw the line to 'excess' is a bit irrelevant - you could likely afford a very fancy shaving foam and still have 'excess' enough to donate to charity, and it wouldn't take much change in income to enable you to afford an antique desk and still do the same.
real connoisseurs who could tell the difference would be able to tell the wine was overpriced
As long as people like that are the ones buying most $60 wine, then wine sellers have an incentive to be honest. If people like me are buying lots of $60 wine, then there's going to be lots of plonk selling for $60, forcing connoisseurs to be more careful and less adventurous.
Unless you are an extremely frugal minimalist you already implicitly do spend money on things which do less for the greater good than a good charity, so arguing about quite where you draw the line to 'excess' is a bit irrelevant
I may gladly give in to consumer desires, but I don't feel sad when my consumer lust is not excited. I don't send out a plea saying, "Somebody, please get me excited about shaving cream. I want to spend a lot on it and feel good about it." That's like a porn fiend who has satiated himself but remains at the computer looking through porn, trying to find something that will make him horny again. That goes beyond fulfilling desire; it's addiction.
But if you did try to become a wine fanatic, you would train your palate and your ability to distinguish wines would actually increase, not just imaginatively increase, wouldn't it?
It's not literary criticism where you interpret what someone says and there's no right answer; wine does actually have taste and you can taste it yourself, without relying on an authority to tell you what it tastes like.
And anyway, why would you get more pleasure from real appreciation than illusory appreciation?
Wouldn't Rands be better off ignoring desks and focusing his attention on something he has legitimate taste for
If you follow the Barry Schwartz and Dan Gilbert TED talks, Rands would be better off if there was one shop and it stocked one shaving cream and didn't accept refunds.
my spending $60 just creates an opportunity for unscrupulous folks to make money by overpricing wine. That might not hurt me, but it would hurt real connoisseurs.
No no no, real connoisseurs who could tell the difference would be able to tell the wine was overpriced. And if there isn't really anything to wine tasting, then they wouldn't notice and therefore it wouldn't hurt them - it would, must, be what happens now. And in either case the sellers aren't unscrupulous folk, they are making money providing the exclusive expensive wine experience that connoisseurs will pay money for, even if the wine is nothing special.
It doesn't hurt art collectors to pay more for a painting when the painter turns out to have been the brother of Richard the Lionheart. That's the sort of thing that doesn't change the picture in the slightest but does make it more valuable art and the sort of thing art collectors want.
It's easy to give away excess. Looking for expensive new ways to turn my excess into pleasure is another way of saying, "I'd better find something better to do with this money than give it to the EFF/Doctors Without Borders
Unless you are an extremely frugal minimalist you already implicitly do spend money on things which do less for the greater good than a good charity, so arguing about quite where you draw the line to 'excess' is a bit irrelevant - you could likely afford a very fancy shaving foam and still have 'excess' enough to donate to charity, and it wouldn't take much change in income to enable you to afford an antique desk and still do the same.