From: punditster@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/7/2026 10:01 AM, Dude wrote:   
   > On 2/7/2026 5:04 AM, Julian wrote:   
   >> Even though Christmas is over, I’ve been thinking about the season   
   >> just gone. There is a tradition of complaining about its   
   >> commercialisation, portraying Christmas as a grotesque manifestation   
   >> of consumer excess. But it’s strange to use our seasonal extravagance   
   >> to attack consumer culture. That’s almost diametrically wrong. What   
   >> Christmas really shows is that consumer capitalism is doing a cracking   
   >> job: it’s the rest of the economy that’s a mess.   
   >>   
   >> Consider food. The median family today, even if they’d spent December   
   >> shopping at Fortnum & Mason and Daylesford Organic, would have spent a   
   >> lower proportion of their income on food than an equivalent family   
   >> would spend just to survive in the 1970s. Most consumer durables have   
   >> similarly plummeted in price. In 1973, when Wizzard first sang ‘I Wish   
   >> It Could Be Christmas Every Day’, consumerism was gearing up to grant   
   >> them their wish. So what went wrong?   
   >>   
   >> Well, just as everything we buy at Christmas was getting cheaper,   
   >> housing started to become inordinately more expensive. If food prices   
   >> had kept pace with house prices since the 1970s, six bananas would now   
   >> cost £9.50. In 1973, a colour TV cost more than 10 per cent of average   
   >> annual income; it’s now 0.8 per cent. A tumble dryer would have cost 3   
   >> per cent of annual income; today it’s 0.7 per cent. Back then, food   
   >> soaked up 31 per cent of annual expenditure rather than 13 per cent   
   >> now. A new family car is about at parity. But the average home has   
   >> risen from 371 per cent to 677 per cent of average income. We’re in a   
   >> cost-of- housing crisis, not a cost-of-living crisis.   
   >>   
   >> And in reality it’s more extreme than this. A 2025 Kia is inordinately   
   >> better than a 1973 Austin Allegro, to say nothing of improvements in   
   >> consumer electronics. But cars and televisions tend to end up on the   
   >> second-hand market, which further reduces instrumental wealth   
   >> inequality. Put simply, many consumer goods invisibly benefit other,   
   >> future, poorer people when you buy them. This is not true of housing.   
   >>   
   >> Have you ever heard anyone say, ‘We had a £900,000 house in Berkshire   
   >> but after three years we sold it to a young couple for £450,000,   
   >> because they needed a place to live’? You would think of those people   
   >> as insanely altruistic. But that’s exactly what you are doing when you   
   >> buy a new car only to sell it three years later for half the price.   
    >   
   So, I was wondering about this. Is it it more efficient to drive a new   
   car to work or a used car? Apparently, it cost approximately $75 more   
   per month to drive new cars, versus driving an older car, counting   
   maintenance.   
      
   So, there's also one factor in favor of driving a new car to work, if   
   you can afford one:   
      
   New cars start up in the morning every time so you can get to work on   
   time! That one feature is a winner for me. YMMV.   
      
   P.S. Did I mention free Toyota Care for two years?   
    >   
      
   >> Buying a new Range Rover, a huge TV or a Mulberry bag is invisible   
   >> socialism – stealth philanthropy. By contrast, if you spend your money   
   >> decorating your dining room, you are spending it purely on yourself.   
   >> There is a huge trickle-down effect when you buy a sports car or a jet   
   >> ski. This is not true of housing, which is a trickle-up market.   
   >>   
   >> And then it struck me. This is a perfect moral justification for   
   >> buying luxury goods rather than selfishly spending money on housing.   
   >> Recently I had a small windfall, and my wife wanted to redecorate our   
   >> bedroom, rebuilding the wardrobes and replacing the carpet. I had   
   >> terrifying visions of three-line-whip visits to Farrow & Ball and   
   >> discussions of colours barely distinguishable to the human eye. So I   
   >> patiently explained that, as a man, the only reason I could ever   
   >> conceive of to replace a carpet would be to remove forensic evidence.   
   >> And then gently explained that spending money on a bedroom was an   
   >> immoral and selfish act, since it would benefit no one but ourselves –   
   >> it might even risk making our flat more expensive for anyone else to buy.   
   >>   
   >> So I went out and did the ethical thing. I bought a Lotus Eletre   
   >> instead. Bright red, 600 bhp, LiDAR, 0-60 in 4.5 seconds, the works.   
   >> In the long term, I’ll sell this to someone poorer than me – it’s   
   >> really just time-delayed Marxism. And it’s a lot more fun than a carpet.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Rory Sutherland   
   >  >   
   > Finally, something interesting to read about. Thanks!   
   >   
   > Me and Rita are interested in this subject, bedroom decor, and we've   
   > discussed it for years. So, I don't usually sleep in a bedroom, I prefer   
   > the couch in the den, but when I do, I prefer hardwood floors, like Oak   
   > or maybe Canadian Maple; Rita like carpet.   
   >   
   > So, we compromised and got an oriental design area rug. Nice!   
   >   
   > We recently read Ginger Bakers book, "Hell Raiser" and apparently he   
   > drove a Range Rover all over Africa for years. So, I figure maybe we   
   > should get one too, and just bug out to Hood Mountain or Bodega. YMMV.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)