Zeus-cat
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2009
- Messages
- 4,989
- Reaction score
- 1,446
The local newspaper had a short article about the recent sale of a Paul Gauguin painting for $300 million. Someone wrote in saying that the money might have been better spent feeding the poor. I replied with this (and they published it a few days later):
I think most peoples first reaction is very similar to Jane Does (I changed the name) when they hear about the Paul Gauguin painting being sold for $300 million. Thats a lot of money for a single painting.
Like most people I would never spend that kind of money for a painting, but we all make decisions about how to use our money every day. Obviously, $300 million is more than Ms. Doe was willing to pay for the painting. However, would she have been willing to pay $290 million? What about $200 million? These are absurd questions, but what happens when we get down to $10? How many of us would pay $10 for a painting by Paul Gauguin? Or Rembrandt?
Very few of us will ever be in a position to buy a painting by Paul Gauguin no matter what the price. However, every day we make similar decisions with our money, but on a much smaller scale. Is a sandwich at a fast food place worth $3.00? For some of us it is, for others it is not. Is a specific model of a new car worth $30,000? For some of us it is, for others it is not.
And $30,000 would also feed a lot of starving people. Should we tell people never to buy a new car and instead give the money away to feed people? And if you take the argument to the absurd extreme you can make the same case about spending money on anything. Wouldnt it be better to give the money to feed starving people than to buy something? Of course, if everyone gave away all their money then none of us would have jobs as none of us could buy anything.
Some of my arguments required be taking things to the absurd extreme. But again, thats the point. Ms. Doe had a problem with the sale of this painting because the price was to the extreme. I understand her concern and I agree with her that $300 million is a lot of money. But its not her money, nor is it mine. The people in Qatar felt it was a fair price for the painting and I sincerely hope theyre happy with their purchase.
And lastly, its important to keep in mind that the money didnt disappear; someone was paid $300 million for the painting. They may use some of that money for humanitarian causes. And the money they dont donate to humanitarian causes will go to buying fast food sandwiches and cars and whatever else people decide they need.
I think most peoples first reaction is very similar to Jane Does (I changed the name) when they hear about the Paul Gauguin painting being sold for $300 million. Thats a lot of money for a single painting.
Like most people I would never spend that kind of money for a painting, but we all make decisions about how to use our money every day. Obviously, $300 million is more than Ms. Doe was willing to pay for the painting. However, would she have been willing to pay $290 million? What about $200 million? These are absurd questions, but what happens when we get down to $10? How many of us would pay $10 for a painting by Paul Gauguin? Or Rembrandt?
Very few of us will ever be in a position to buy a painting by Paul Gauguin no matter what the price. However, every day we make similar decisions with our money, but on a much smaller scale. Is a sandwich at a fast food place worth $3.00? For some of us it is, for others it is not. Is a specific model of a new car worth $30,000? For some of us it is, for others it is not.
And $30,000 would also feed a lot of starving people. Should we tell people never to buy a new car and instead give the money away to feed people? And if you take the argument to the absurd extreme you can make the same case about spending money on anything. Wouldnt it be better to give the money to feed starving people than to buy something? Of course, if everyone gave away all their money then none of us would have jobs as none of us could buy anything.
Some of my arguments required be taking things to the absurd extreme. But again, thats the point. Ms. Doe had a problem with the sale of this painting because the price was to the extreme. I understand her concern and I agree with her that $300 million is a lot of money. But its not her money, nor is it mine. The people in Qatar felt it was a fair price for the painting and I sincerely hope theyre happy with their purchase.
And lastly, its important to keep in mind that the money didnt disappear; someone was paid $300 million for the painting. They may use some of that money for humanitarian causes. And the money they dont donate to humanitarian causes will go to buying fast food sandwiches and cars and whatever else people decide they need.
uke:
