How Luxury Changes People

[Michael]

The 'Luxury Prime': How Luxury Changes People

Are people who travel in town cars and on corporate jets different—on a psychological level—from you and me? Does the availability of luxury goods "prime" individuals to be less concerned about or considerate toward others? The answer from new research seems to be yes.

HBS professor Roy Y.J. Chua and Xi Zou, an assistant professor at London Business School, suggest that luxury goods have an important effect on human behavior that is only now becoming clear—and that may have implications for addressing the continuation of objectionable choices among, for example, high-flying executives on Wall Street.

According to Chua, their research found that "people who were made to think about luxury prior to a decision-making task have a higher tendency to endorse self-interested decisions that might potentially harm others." Their findings are detailed in the HBS working paper "The Devil Wears Prada? Effects of Exposure to Luxury Goods on Cognition and Decision Making" [PDF].


Source (http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6324.html)

Interesting findings. Not particularly surprising, but it is always good to have some research to confirm or deny common sense conclusions.

It also goes a long way to explain the bizarre behavior of the titans of Wall Street (masters of the universe) when faced with evidence of their massive failures. They basically either denied the failure or said, 'who cares?' which is essentially true from their perspective - they got their million dollar bonues so what they did clearly wasn't a failure for themselves. And they don't care what you think about that.

[WFCY]

This should not surprise anybody.

It's like all the former "communist" countries including the Soviet Union always nominate their most brutal killers, gang lords and criminals to become their leaders upon taking power, and then suddenly wonder why people are being sent to gulags. Stalin was a bank robber, Mao was a mass murderer- before the revolution succeeded, and instead of saying "thank you" then sending these people to a remote island for a nice long vacation, the leftists proped them up to run the show.

whoever is complaining about Wall Street and not out there on the street demonstrating and plotting subversive direct actions had it coming. They deserve every bit of indifference and exploitation by the monsters they pay or elect.

[Michael]

This should not surprise anybody.

It's like all the former "communist" countries including the Soviet Union always nominate their most brutal killers, gang lords and criminals to become their leaders upon taking power, and then suddenly wonder why people are being sent to gulags. Stalin was a bank robber, Mao was a mass murderer- before the revolution succeeded, and instead of saying "thank you" then sending these people to a remote island for a nice long vacation, the leftists proped them up to run the show.

whoever is complaining about Wall Street and not out there on the street demonstrating and plotting subversive direct actions had it coming. They deserve every bit of indifference and exploitation by the monsters they pay or elect.

To be fair, I don't think the Russian people nominated Stalin to be their leader any more than the Chinese people nominated Mao. Indeed, in both cases, it seems that Stalin and Mao imposed themselves upon the people at the point of a gun. :shrug:

As for demonstrating against Wall Street, I fundamentally believe that is politically counter-productive. NOTHING will make Wall Street more politically powerful than to have a million demonstrators on the streets bitching about them.

A careful review of the past history of US media, public demonstrations and subsequent political results is very enlightening.

Fact is, the only people in America hated more than Wall Street financiers are public demonstrators. That's reality.

Actually, I think the 'solution' is very simple and very accessible. The high flying Wall Street financiers are entirely dependent upon special rules from Congress. That is to say, Wall Street is a direct result of US Congressional policy. You can thank the voters. If you want change, it has to come from the voters, not demonstrators. Demonstrators just reinforce the status quo (usually causing a 'doubling-down' on the policy demonstrated against).

Take your public demonstrators up a notch and turn them into subversives and you can just call out the National Guard right now and start counting the dead bodies. I don't think that's viable. Remember Ohio State? The US National Guard can and will fire on American citizens engaged in peaceful protest if ordered to.

Indeed, I doubt if anyone in America is as brave as that Chinese fellow who stood in front of a tank in Tiannamin Square. Nor do I think that if that tank was in the USA that it would have stopped. That tanker would have had an earful from his commander along the lines of "kill that motherfucker NOW!".

[WFCY]

Stalin had to struggle his way up (vs Kamenev, Zinoviv, and ofc, Trotsky), but as a matter of fact, Mao was "nominated" and elected by his party, and also a fact, he received even more passionate support from the Chinese population than from within his own party. Same can be said about Fidel and Che- I don't think they should have led the country after the success of the Cuban revolution- at least not in the long run- afterall, they were merciless killers. But the Cuban people more or less welcomed them with open arms. So that was a bad mistake.

I don't agree with your accessment of activists/the movement in general. For one thing, they are more liked than Wall Street- in fact if you simply look at the right wing activists, from gun rights, to Tea Party, they are so popular to the point that they are even embraced by mainstream media. Same is happening to the left wing activists, although at a much slower pace. As for National Guard, I will just point to Vietnam. If they had tried anything close to Tiannamin back then, the country will definitely have a revolution. That was in fact, admitted by officials in the Pentagon Papers.

Oh, and, Congress don't tell Wall Street what to do. It's the other way around. Your "voters" put Obama and a Dem Congress in power for 2 years. What has changed? Nothing. And I don't think there is a better demonstration of this fact than TARP. It should make pretty obvious how effective and meaningful "voting" is in America.

[Michael]

Stalin had to struggle his way up (vs Kamenev, Zinoviv, and ofc, Trotsky), but as a matter of fact, Mao was "nominated" and elected by his party, and also a fact, he received even more passionate support from the Chinese population than from within his own party. Same can be said about Fidel and Che- I don't think they should have led the country after the success of the Cuban revolution- at least not in the long run- afterall, they were merciless killers. But the Cuban people more or less welcomed them with open arms. So that was a bad mistake.
Germans voted the Nazis into power too.

Indeed, of the leaders you mention, only Hitler was truly put into power by the people. In all other cases, the people were not party to the choice of leadership - the people had only the choice of cheering for the new gods or be shot (or permanently be monitored/harrassed by secret police). On this basis, I'd take all that 'cheering' with a grain of salt.

I don't agree with your accessment of activists/the movement in general. For one thing, they are more liked than Wall Street- in fact if you simply look at the right wing activists, from gun rights, to Tea Party, they are so popular to the point that they are even embraced by mainstream media. Same is happening to the left wing activists, although at a much slower pace. As for National Guard, I will just point to Vietnam. If they had tried anything close to Tiannamin back then, the country will definitely have a revolution. That was in fact, admitted by officials in the Pentagon Papers.
Look at the history of US public opinion support for the Vietnam War or for the Iraq War. Both show increasing trend levels of public support for the government war policy when there are major anti-war demonstrations going on. The major nose-dive in public opinion support that doomed both wars was long removed and entirely detached from any major anti-war demonstrations going on.

The most rational conclusion from this is that mass public demonstrations can be counter-productive in a US political context. This isn't to say they always will have this effect, only that this effect has been generally demonstrated in some cases.

Oh, and, Congress don't tell Wall Street what to do. It's the other way around. Your "voters" put Obama and a Dem Congress in power for 2 years. What has changed? Nothing. And I don't think there is a better demonstration of this fact than TARP. It should make pretty obvious how effective and meaningful "voting" is in America.
I was speaking figuratively in stating that it is laws passed by Congress that Wall Street is entirely dependent upon for their extreme profits. I well understand that Wall Street prudently invests a small portion of its operating capital into Congress in order to purchase and defend such favor. But that doesn't mean that Congress can't flex its power - it just makes it more difficult. Apathy from the average citizens is the real weakness here, not the scary power of the billionaires and the mass media.

And apathy from the average citizens is essentially encouraged and subjectively justified by nihilistic, anarchistic and/or revolutionary rhetoric. This is why I intellectually reject these models and defend the principle of liberal democracy. It is not good enough to win the battle, if you lose your soul in the process (as all revolutionaries do when they justify violence as necessary).

[evanescence]

Luxury makes people lazy and self entitled. Yep. That sounds about right.