Is this immoral?

Tefal · 29 May 2013 at 19:44

bitslice said:
Already covered this? The cost is the same for this as it was for the £300 bottle of fizz. Production costs have a ceiling, the rest is down to the year and blending (and whatever else)

got any proof of that?

because i'm going to guess the bottles these things are in cost more than £300 empty, gold plated, the labels made of pewter etc.

either way if the £300 stuff is just the same how come this wins out in the blind taste tests of the top 100 champagnes?

bitslice · 29 May 2013 at 19:46

Have you ever read a review in What HiFi?

Castiel · 29 May 2013 at 19:50

bitslice said:
Already covered this? The cost is the same for this as it was for the £300 bottle of fizz. Production costs have a ceiling, the rest is down to the year and blending (and whatever else)

and the "blending and whatever else" has a value (such as land value of the vineyards, the traditional methodology employed, employing the skills of the workforce, many of whom are very specialized, materials used in bottling and labelling and so on)......a significant one. (just to point out that also implies that there is not a set ceiling on production costs, from grape to market)

plasmahal · 29 May 2013 at 19:54

Cosimo said:
No, it’s his money and it’s up to him how he wants to spend it.

Agree with this comment.....

He's earn't it, he spends how he wants.

@ OP, do you want people to dictate what you spend your earning on???

Also, put it in perspective, if he's a multi-millionaire, it may be no different to you splashing out on a round of drinks for your buddies on a night out. It's proportional to your own personal wealth.

bitslice · 29 May 2013 at 19:59

Castiel said:
and the "blending and whatever else" has a value (such as land value of the vineyards, the traditional methodology employed, employing the skills of the workforce, many of whom are very specialized, materials used in bottling and labelling and so on)......a significant one. (just to point out that also implies that there is not a set ceiling on production costs, from grape to market)

Do you fancy putting a figure on that? Because I'd regard £300 fizz as being fairly premium, and I really can't imagine what further level of human involvement is required to bring that value up to £300,000 (minus middle men costs).

plasmahal said:
@ OP, do you want people to dictate what you spend your earning on???.

Not a matter of dictating what people spend it on, more an invitation to comment on the morality of such a purchase.
In various countries you can buy children as slaves.

Greebo · 29 May 2013 at 20:00

Perhaps it's a special year and only so many bottle exist hence the added value? Does it matter though?

That money will change hands and get spent again.

bitslice · 29 May 2013 at 20:11

Greebo said:
That money will change hands and get spent again.

Depends, if a group of people continue to buy trinkets from each other, then no good is done.
A banker could take that £300K, use it, and hand him back his £300K next week. Rich dope could still buy his E-Penis, but good will have been done by the banker.

snitcher · 29 May 2013 at 20:14

hmm not bad. this has more to do with keeping up appereances with the neighbours. but then i would not judge.

Greebo · 29 May 2013 at 20:32

bitslice said:
Depends, if a group of people continue to buy trinkets from each other, then no good is done.
A banker could take that £300K, use it, and hand him back his £300K next week. Rich dope could still buy his E-Penis, but good will have been done by the banker.

And who's to say he didn't do that prior to that evening? Or put £300k on black and won?

Housey · 29 May 2013 at 20:54

Greebo said:
And who's to say he didn't do that prior to that evening? Or put £300k on black and won?

Because red won.

Castiel · 29 May 2013 at 22:00

bitslice said:
Do you fancy putting a figure on that? Because I'd regard £300 fizz as being fairly premium, and I really can't imagine what further level of human involvement is required to bring that value up to £300,000 (minus middle men costs).

Do you fancy actually proving your claims that £300 is 'fairly' premium and that productions costs are the same for all premium champagnes? Besides the Collection comprised of the equivalent of 109 Bottles the best champagne in the world so roughly £3k a bottle. I also suspect that just the person(s) who hand select the finest grapes are on a pretty penny, probably far more than your average premium £300 'fizz' as you put it.

http://www.armanddebrignac.com/the-production/blending-ageing/

What premium do you put on such exclusivity?

bitslice · 29 May 2013 at 22:31

Castiel said:
Do you fancy actually proving your claims that £300 is 'fairly' premium and that productions costs are the same for all premium champagnes?

I take it by asking a question to a question that you don't really know either?
£300 was a convenient debating number being a division of £300K, but as you ask, the average price on Amazon for Armand de Brignac fizz is oddly £300. I'm not pretending I knew that though. Clearly appending "Dynastie" to fizz made by the same people implies a spurious price hike.

What premium do you put on such exclusivity?

That is my point, this is buying exclusivity and a big e-penis
Take a look at their awkward "Lifestyle" page, it's all about people with the Top Ten largest bar bills and the sort of people buying this are the usual gangsta rappers and Russians.

It may well be the best in the world, but in a club you are not going to be able to tell expensive fizz from Lucozade, just so long as everyone in the room knows you bought something expensive (hence the silly parade and the comedy bottles :rolleyes:

).

Just because my rendition of some flowers painted using the pubes of an Essex virgin has a rarity value beyond compare, doesn't make it right for somebody to buy it for $10trillion.

The bigger picture is, is it morally justifiable to produce pointless tat solely to satisfy big egos, or does money have a better purpose in a society (there are maybe more astute ways of summing this up, I'm just running with this one).
Which is also why I'm wondering why you are quibbling over production costs :confused:

Something Else · 29 May 2013 at 22:51

Monkeynut said:
The money isn't "lost" when he spends it - it goes into other people's pockets. Why aren't those people giving it to charity? Or is it because it's one man with a lot of cash it makes him an easy target?

I agree with this more than most things I read.

One guy worked to get where he is and now that he wants to enjoy the fruits of his labour gets dragged down into the "morally superior" idiots that think he should give it to the world.

If I gained that level of cash, although I like to think I would give it to charity what would actually happen is I would keep the large majority of money to myself and donate small amounts to local causes such as dog shelters.

I despair with people thinking they are righteous because they are helping Africa with their £2 a month and think they can look down on others because of it.

Castiel · 29 May 2013 at 22:57

bitslice said:
I take it by asking a question to a question that you don't really know either?

I didn't claim to know, you however do.

bitslice said:
£300 was a convenient debating number being a division of £300K, but as you ask, the average price on Amazon for Armand de Brignac fizz is oddly £300. I'm not pretending I knew that though. Clearly appending "Dynastie" to fizz made by the same people implies a spurious price hike.

You didn't read the link and the reason why it costs more than the standard I suppose.

bitslice said:
That is my point, this is buying exclusivity and a big e-penis

I don't agree with your point. I don't think it hold much water given the extra effort and rarity involved in the product.

Things are worth what people are prepared to pay for them, and rarity and exclusivity has a value, determined by the market to which they are targeted.

bitslice said:
The bigger picture is, is it morally justifiable to produce pointless tat solely to satisfy big egos, or does money have a better purpose in a society (there are maybe more astute ways of summing this up, I'm just running with this one).

I suppose we could stop manufacturing anything that could be considered 'pointless' (although how you would decide such subject criteria I cannot imagine) and allow the industries to fall into decline and close.

As for being able to tell the difference between lucozade and champagne in a club...my taste buds don't cease to work simply because I enter a club. :confused:

bitslice said:
Which is also why I'm wondering why you are quibbling over production costs

You bought it up, I am disputing your claim that production costs are the same for all champagnes...from the evidence it appears that production cost can vary widely, they may even justify the difference in price between one champagne and another, much like they can between one car and at another..unless you can prove your claim otherwise.

The point I am trying to convey isn't that I claim to know how much something costs to produce, but that the value of something is not as simple as determining it by what a similar product may cost, there may well be different costs and processes that will increase the value of that specific product,even with the same brand, or in this case Chateau. The quality of the grapes for example, the differences in the blend and process, and also the rarity of the ingredients all add to the value of a product.

It's not really a morality question, unless you are questioning the morality of the concept of attributing value overall.

Voltar · 29 May 2013 at 23:00

It is a fairly primitive argument to make. Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them.

If you don't love or appreciate those things then it is hard to understand why people pay so much for them.

Castiel · 29 May 2013 at 23:00

Voltar said:
It is a fairly primitive argument to make. Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them.

If you don't love or appreciate those things then it is hard to understand why people pay so much for them.

Quite.

shaunad · 29 May 2013 at 23:06

It's his money, he can do what he likes, however I do see your point of view, everybody is dying and nobody do nothing about it, for example football players get paid lots of money per week, in fact more then a nurse or doctor by like 10-15 times, that's absolutely disgusting.

The World is backwards. the wrong people get all the money.

bitslice · 29 May 2013 at 23:19

Somthing Else said:
One guy worked to get where he is and now that he wants to enjoy the fruits of his labour gets dragged down into the "morally superior" idiots that think he should give it to the world.

I'm guessing you are referring to me? Try quoting if so.

I never suggested giving it to the world, Africa is a particularly pointless pit.
I specifically didn't give any examples of such a use. I'm just against the whole cycle of making overvalued tat so that rich people can reinforce the point that they effectively have unlimited wealth and can therefore waste chunks of it to prove it. Typically the sort of activity favoured by US rappers it seems.

Castiel said:
It's not really a morality question, unless you are questioning the morality of the concept of attributing value overall.

No, I don't think I'm questioning that, although that is the kind of input I was hoping you would bring to this.

Voltar said:
Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them.

Money evolved from bartering, now because people can amass an excess of it, it becomes a form of power. We have gone beyond acquiring sufficient for our needs.
It is this consolidation of power that I feel has corrupted the function of money and led to abuses like this topic.

Castiel · 29 May 2013 at 23:25

bitslice said:
No, I don't think I'm questioning that, although that is the kind of input I was hoping you would bring to this.

First the question we need to ask is 'how do we objectively determine such a subjective concept as Value?'

Danthus · 29 May 2013 at 23:31

I thought this thread was about Bob Crow.