271–276 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a Russian guy want to do something similar with my shop. I bit him. It was awkward. My father told me I should have beaten him instead.
You bit him? I think something got lost in translation here...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They all seem to have decided on a "market expansion at the expense of brand dilution" strategy. Ditto most of the formerly-consistently-good clothing brands. I'm not really sure which stores/brands replace the ones that have done this, these days. [EDIT] I suspect part of this is because the cost of actually-good clothes hasn't dropped like shitty-clothes costs have, because (this is further speculation on my part)…
You'd be surprised. The cost of rubbish clothing has fallen, but then the cost of very reasonable mid-quality has dramatically fallen. I used to buy Levis, then Gap for mid range. Now, I get the same quality (and literally the same factory) jeans from Joe Fresh, for 1/4th to 1/5th of the price. Suit shirts are the same. An online tailor I've been using for a decade sells shirts at half the price of Banana Republic (c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But I’d wager 90% of people know who Picasso was and can recognise his work. But what percentage of the general public can spot a Nieman Marcus buy from a thrift-store find?
i bet more people in the world recognize the Gucci logo than can recognize a Picasso.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i bet more people in the world recognize the Gucci logo than can recognize a Picasso.
Unlikely. There are entire countries who could not care less about Gucci. Hell, I might not be able to recognize it's logo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unlikely. There are entire countries who could not care less about Gucci. Hell, I might not be able to recognize it's logo.
Which countries did you have in mind and why would they care about Picasso? Western art history is probably not all that common of a study subject around the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, this simple comment completely changed my point of view on this argument. What a beautiful, almost laconically effective analogy. edit: not being sarcastic, I just really admire effective communication (to whoever downvoted me </3)
I don't think it should have. Height is objective. I don't get taller or shorter based on other people's heights. Money isn't like that. If the amount of money in a system increases without a commensurate increase in the amount of goods and services, that could be decrease my purchasing power. Another way of phrasing it: child 1 used to be the tallest. The other children grew and now 1 is the shortest. The objective…
This seems like a propaganda term to endow the more aptly named 'working class' with a more prestigious title. In any case, the point holds: your argument about inflation is so clear precisely because you can explain it against the backdrop of the height analogy. It is a really neat way to explain the situation, even if it mostly explains why OP is wrong.