dispatches from the new world of work

"How to Spend It"

I will stack my practical credentials as "avowed capitalist pig" up to anybody's; say, Steve Forbes. Among other things, how could one have lived in Palo Alto-Silicon Valley for three decades without "turning rabid capitalist," even if one had not been before? Likewise, today, capitalism unleashed in India and China is, I am quite certain, good for the world's prospects for some modicum of peace—and is enhancing the welfare of additional millions by the month.

On the other hand, anyone who does not believe in "market imperfections" is a loony. For instance, I believe that globalization, whatever that is, is a good thing—in fact, a very good thing. On the other hand, its impact is as messy-uneven as one would imagine, given the enormity of what's afoot. And indeed we (the Chinese and Indians at home, big time, and the rest of us, as well) must squarely address said imperfections—or pay an enormous price.

Which brings me to my point—though I'm not entirely sure what I'm trying to say. If there is anything I believe in more fervently that capitalism, it is its social twin, free speech. Hence I am inalterably opposed to muzzling ... of any sort.

But I also think that even if one is a free speech and capitalism nutter, as I am, that one can vote for the occasional dose of good taste—"manners," my Mom might have called it. Which leads me by the backdoor to the purpose of this Post. Though I wish not to muzzle, I must admit to being a little bit revolted by Saturday's Financial Times magazine, which I read in the Frankfurt airport. The issue was devoted to a single topic. The cover read: "How to spend it." (A regular feature!) I am no enemy of luxury goods—as you know from recent previous Posts, Susan gave me a Kubota 4-wheeler for my birthday. But when "one" (me) reads of the world's strife in the news section, much, if not most, of it at least an indirect product of real or perceived inequities and disaffections of some sort, "one" (me) sometimes—e.g., yesterday—wishes we, the hyper-privileged, weren't so apt to shove, de facto, our joys and toys down others' throats. It's also why I'm no fan of the new Portfolio magazine, despite excellent reporting.

I don't know how I want this Post to end. Not with a recommendation, to be sure. Just as it is, as a personal "footnote" of sorts, declaring that this certified capitalist pig feels "troubled" at times by our tendency to "flaunt it" in a way that seems distasteful ... to me. (I acknowledge, too, that it's "just" human nature—I recently read somewhere, maybe Forbes or Fortune, about the billion-dollar (!) house that India's richest dude is building outside Mumbai. Ah, well ...)

Tom Peters posted this on 11/05/07.

Comments

Well said Tom â€“ I agree with you. I read an article a year ago in the Daily Mail about managers working in financial services in the City of London. The headline was that wives and girlfriends have trouble spending their partners BONUSES! The Daily Mail went on to describe multi-million pound BONUSES paid to these individuals so God only knows what the salaries of these people are. Donâ€™t get me wrong. Like everyone else I take all the money I can get for the work I do â€“ that is fair. However it makes me puke (sorry for English slang) when I read such crap as that article in the Daily Mail and the sort of rant you write here so powerfully. It is scandalous at best and shameful at worst that we can apparently stand idly by and watch 20,000 people die every day, mainly children, due to extreme poverty whilst at the same time we witness and even celebrate such appalling gain for individuals. This is a justice issue not a political issue â€“ if my rant makes me a raving socialist then I am proud to plead guilty.

Posted by Trevor Gay at November 5, 2007 10:56 AM

I take the view that if you've earned the money legally and morally, then it's up to you how you spend it. I personally prefer discretion to ostentatious displays of wealth but am well aware that there are plenty of people in the, "If you've got it, flaunt it" category. I don't agree with them, I don't like it but I defend their right to do it. (And let's not forget that there are some whole cultures that regard the display of wealth as the right and proper thing to do.)

What annoys me most is the assumption in some advertising and in some people's attitudes that you haven't "made it" unless you've purchased some item or you're in some way inferior because you prefer Brand X to Brand Y. This leads on to the problems of judging someone by his status and appearance rather than by his deeds and achievements. And this in turn seems to lead to the problem with people thinking that you've got to be rich to be happy and fulfilled. And then thinking you've got to get rich by any means.

Form over content or substance over style - I'm not sure there's an answer to this one!

Posted by Mark JF at November 5, 2007 11:39 AM

I entirely agree with Tom's take on Portfolio magazine. I have no interest in slogging through pages of glamor to find the occasional well written article. Why does business reporting have to be tied to ugly enticements to "live the beautiful rich life" - which I suspect doesn't really exist.

Posted by Andrew Taylor at November 5, 2007 12:52 PM

Mukesh Ambani had seemed a grounded guy. At least, he had made this speech.

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headlines/2004globalconf_ambani_speech.shtml

Anyways, I digress, he can flush his wealth down his (gold ?) toilet for all I care.

Even though I wish he would have used some of the money for building toilets in the Dharavi slum, the world's largest one, a few miles away. But that is just my value judgment.

And I am yet to come across any culture which 'celebrates' the tasteless display of wealth. Some insecure human beings do - and I have seen that from Mumbai to London. Most of the time, you can also see them trying to associate themselves with 'glamorous' people.

As a group, I think , the Silicon Valley guys and the technology industry as a whole have gotten it right more than anyone.

Maybe because geeks are more secure in their own skin and confident of their own worth.

Posted by Jay at November 5, 2007 1:11 PM

The sad fact, however, is that the only segment of the western economies that is growing at anything resembling a reasonable clip is the ultra-luxury category. Take the US for instance, recently it was reported that the top 1% of earners account for something like 21% of the income. And that group's income growth is accelerating much faster than the rest of the populace.

I'm guessing that the primary readers of the Financial Times are people in this segment. That being the case, it only makes sense that they would pander to their audience with a weekend puff piece about how to spend their money. Likewise, Portfolio is aimed at a similar market with lots of high priced advertising and a few articles - well-written as they may be - thrown in to justify calling it a magazine.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of the people in these segments still don't get that the rest of the economy - beyond their own personal income statements - is sputtering along and in many cases suffering for their benefit. And even when they do screw up a company and many, many people's lives, they still don't really get punished. I read today that one of the recently departed CEO's (Prince, I believe - but I could be wrong) received a $40+ million dollar severance package for losing his company billions of dollars.

Now, I'm a big fan of capitalism and think that people who earn their money well and responsibly should get as much as they can, but stories and figures like these are just more evidence that something is a bit askew in the world today.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at November 5, 2007 1:46 PM

The article on the $1 billion house was in the latest issue of Portfolio magazine. I do think the luxury pieces can be a bit much but I'd be lying if I didn't add that they sometimes inspire me to work my butt off.

Posted by Paul at November 5, 2007 5:21 PM

Hmmm. Perhaps your rant was due to sleep deprivation, but you've drawn me in nonetheless. Keep going Tom. What else is on your mind? We've seen the slides. Now let us see the soul of the man.

Posted by Tom Asacker at November 5, 2007 7:48 PM

I think there's a very simple link here to another conversation, that of sustainability. With all the grand talk about sustainability today, until we address the issue of excessive consumption--the consumer corrolary to mindless eating that was the subject of a recent book--then we'll never have a conversation about sustainability with any grit. Productive economic growth may be the key to raising the standards of living of the world's poor; but mindless, excessive, and gross over-indulgent consumption is destructive plain and simple....

Posted by Tom Ehrenfeld at November 6, 2007 11:02 AM

Success and the accumulation of wealth (through the pursuit of one's dharma, or life purpose/passion, which also is tied to contributing to society in some way) is not seen as a bad thing in Indian culture. In fact, to not do so can be seen as being negligent of your duty ("duty" is a common theme in Indian culture).

To be attached to the wealth and material things, such that your efforts are focused on producing more of these things, rather than on your core purpose (dharma), is not a good thing. In fact, Indian philosophy would lead you to believe that this sort of attachment is a prescription for a life that sucks.

So...the question in my mind is not about flaunting it or not, but rather is "How attached are they to their stuff?" If it's the fear of losing this stuff that keeps them going, then....life sucks for them.

More rambling, of course....but perhaps thought-provoking in some way.

Posted by Manoj Pawar at November 7, 2007 1:03 AM

Great point Manoj! I believe the word Nirvana literally means "to cease blowing," but I believe the essence has more to do with not holding onto; e.g. don't hold onto your breathe. Let it go.

It is the grasping - to things, concepts, etc. - that creates suffering. Letting go provides the relief. :)

Posted by Tom Asacker at November 7, 2007 2:45 PM

viagra uk cheap in defense of the ft.

next day no prescription viagra

"how to spend it" is a great title with a long tradition.

i remember coming across it first in the late 80s early 90s. that was the same time the ft ran an initiative called "lunch for a 5er" to promote the best value for money restaurants in the city district of a recession shaken british capital. generic viagra uk paypal

to me "how to spend it" still rings in the fine playfulness of its early days. - british humor and cheekiness at its best.

Posted by jens at November 21, 2007 6:33 AM