As a (long time; I think
since about 1982) subscriber to the Wall
Street Journal, every couple of months I receive something called WSJ,
which is a slick “lifestyle” type magazine of the type one normally finds
stuffed in the back pockets of airline seats.
I don’t read this rag and wish that the Journal did not feel compelled to publish it; perhaps the price of
my subscription could be brought down commensurately if the publishers didn’t
put money into WSJ…or perhaps I’m being hopelessly naïve, which is not a trait
that I generally display. But I
digress.
As I was saying, I don’t read
WSJ (the magazine, not the paper for which WSJ is the appropriate
abbreviation); the day my life becomes so empty that I feel compelled to become
a regular reader of such a publication is the day when I’ve overstayed my
welcome in this mortal coil. But I
wanted to write something and I have the time to do so with my wife visiting
her family in New York, my daughters being in their respective college towns for
the summer or the weekend, and my son hanging out with his buddies. I figured that this issue of an estimable
publication like WSJ would provide plenty of grist for a point I’d like to
make; it didn’t disappoint.
This issue (July/August,
2015) of WSJ features ads for the following, which is only a small sampling of
the figurative large intestinal product that fills the magazine:
- $395 Ralph Lauren swim trunks
- $1,095 Gabriela Hearst chilton blouse
- $4,000 Louis Vuitton bag (which I presume is what
women used to call a purse; a bag is something into which one puts
groceries…or so I thought)
- $2,795 Chloe wool and silk knit poncho
- $4,895 Burberry Prorsum cashmere poncho
- $4,491 Berluti blazer, worn in the magazine by a
model who has some deep seated problems that manifest themselves in his
assuming the appearance of a man whose recent receipt of very bad news has
compelled him to don a wardrobe five sizes too large and to lose any
vestige of skin pigment
- $4,000 Salvatore Ferragamo coat
- $12,320 side table designed to look like a bird’s
silhouette. Don’t ask; I’m sure I
won’t know the answer.
Three thoughts come to my
febrile mind:
First, this is a joke,
right? People, especially people who
are seemingly clever and smart enough to earn the money necessary to expend
such sums, don’t excrete $4,000 on purses, $4,491 on blazers, and $12 grand on
tables that look like birds but otherwise serve no purpose, right? And, on the off chance that people do blow a
middle class worker’s monthly wage on some overpriced bauble simply because it
bears a designer name, the whole idea behind WSJ Magazine is to ridicule these
imbeciles. In any case, WSJ isn’t a
serious bid to hawk expensive manifestations of outright silliness; it’s all a
joke, a good laugh on a summer’s morning at the expense of the hopelessly cowed
and sheepish. Right?
Second, assume for a moment
that the availability, and the apparent successful hawking, of such “goods” is
not a joke. If this is indeed the case
(It can’t be, right? Please tell me this
can’t be serious!), those who have made the money necessary to pee it away on
such fluff are not helping their cause when they argue for, say, a flatter tax
code or against, say, massive government social programs ostensibly designed to
help the “poor” but really designed to enrich the pols and the hangers-on who,
one supposes, read and buy the products featured in WSJ Magazine. The point is that perfectly legitimate
arguments for enabling the wealthy to keep a greater share of the wealth they
generate are undermined when those of great wealth (or perhaps (probably) only
great income, uncontrollable urge to spend, or great willingness to go into
brobdingnagian amounts of debt) squander their wealth on such utter figurative
intestinal detritus. To put is bluntly,
people who spend so lavishly, pointlessly, and gormlessly help make the case
that the rich are just a bunch of idiots who deserve to be punished…usually by
those who will get rich punishing the rich, but that is grist for another mill.
Third, if such spending is a
manifestation of the judgment of those who have attained power and wealth in
this country, we are in big trouble. No
matter how clever a trader one might be, or even how smart an innovator or business
mind one is, one is a complete moron if one spends his or her money on $12,320
side tables designed to look like birds.
One would be far better off buying a sensible table for a small fraction
of that amount and donating the difference to, say, the Salvation Army or the
Retirement Fund for Religious, or, if one is not of the giving proclivity,
putting the money in the bank or into an index fund. (Come to think about it, one would be far
better off buying a cheaper, more sensible table and tossing the difference out
the window; some of the unfortunates who inhabit the streets could then blow
the money on cheap, rot gut hooch, which is no match for a donation to a worthy
cause or further wealth accumulation but still beats a useless table designed
to look like birds.) Yes, one can be ostensibly
smart but not at all wise, indeed, utterly bereft of good solid judgment. If WSJ Magazine is any indication of what
those of great wealth and power are thinking, we are being led by a pack of portentous
poltroons and popinjays...and one quickly develops a good idea whither they
lead us.
But WSJ Magazine is a joke,
right? Right?
