Why do people buy works of art for £50m when people are dying in the world...?

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Because people won't pay hundreds of dollars to watch a scientist do experiments.

Although... I might...

people shouldn't have that much capital to begin with.

[GePap]

Wouldn't this question apply to every single luxury item? Why do you need jewlery? Why do you need mansions, sports cars, blah, blah , blah? Of course, it would also apply to fast food, SUV's, and any other source of conspicuous consumption, now wouldn't it?

People pay 50 million becuase it is worth that much to them and they have that money to spend. Pure, and simple.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Expensive things are a symbol of wealth. People enjoy displaying their high social status.

And money to pay for expensive pieces of art does not help the economy. It goes from one rich person to another rich person and never touches the actual consumers who need it.

arty-farty left-wingers?

I like art. And I'm a lefty. But I won't defend the actions of selfish rich people. Stop labeling people, stop making stereotypes, stop assuming.

All big art collectionS end in public museum.

Unless art collectors invest only in art works, and between themselves, it is not correct to state that the proceeds of art worls sales go only to rich men; ultimately it participates in the total economy.

[Lancer]

Why do people buy $2 beers when people are starving in the world? Well, people need a beer now and again. Certainly the need of a person staring at starvation is fantasticly greater, but they are not the ones w/ the $2.

A person giving up that $2 for the need of the starving person is...

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by HisMajestyBOB
Starving Ethiopians don't look good on the wall.

Shhhhhh! You'll start a new trend if you're not careful!

[cia]

The issues are unrelated so get over it.

[Solly]

I don't really believe in the implications of the thread title BTW..just thought I'd throw it out there at is usually the left-wing art-lovers who are complaining about western governments spending money on defence instead of on Africans who won't use a condom.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Boddington's
I don't really believe in the implications of the thread title BTW..just thought I'd throw it out there at is usually the left-wing art-lovers who are complaining about western governments spending money on defence instead of on Africans who won't use a condom.

Are you going to change your user name to Houdini?

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Boddington's
I don't really believe in the implications of the thread title BTW..just thought I'd throw it out there at is usually the left-wing art-lovers who are complaining about western governments spending money on defence instead of on Africans who won't use a condom.

Yeah, why waste $50 million when you could spend £7 billion on an aircraft carrier. That's like 140 paintings!

http://www.futureaircraftcarrier.co.uk/default.asp

[Az]

money better spent.

[Solly]

Yeah, I'd prefer us to have better national security than a picture by some idiot from the elite on the wall.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Boddington's
I'm wondering what the arty-farty left-wingers are going to say.

I thought it was right-wingers that believe you should be able to do whatever you want with your money?

Why does anyone invest money, buy property, by designer clothes, etc.? Why do people build football stadiums, or watch sports, or have big cars, etc.? Because they want to, and are prepared to pay for it.

It costs that much, because that is what people are prepared to pay for an item of beauty. If there is only one of something, it will go to whoever is prepared to pay the most, and for something that a lot of people want, that will be a lot of money.

I'd throw it out there at is usually the left-wing art-lovers who are complaining about western governments spending money on defence instead of on Africans who won't use a condom.

Yes, but it's not Government money going on art, it's personal money. If someone wants to go buy an aircraft carrier, and has the money, good luck to them. I just don't want someone using my money to buy that aircraft carrier. The same with art. Besides, with the way modern art is going, it won't be long before someone uses an aircraft carrier

[orange]

i don't have a problem with the person buying the art. I have a problem with the pesron having 50 million dollars to spend. If he had less money, the price of the art would fall anyway, and the poor would have something to eat. Simply put, of course.

[Drogue]

True. I agree with that, although without forcing wealth distribution, I don't see that happening. I'm all for a supertax, maybe 70%, for high income earners, but I really don't like the idea of wealth tax. Money should only be taxed once, however highly it is, IMHO.

[Provost Harrison]

These pieces of art should be the property of the people because they are part of world heritage, and thus, shouldn't have a value...but should be accessible to all. And theft? Where are you going to sell the Mona Lisa, for example...the only exception to this is a private buyer who wants the picture...