Can luxury goods be mass produced?

[RadioRaheem84]

Or is this one of those cases where if luxury goods were available for all they woudn't be luxury?

Is there anyway these items can be stripped of their mark of exclusivity yet still retain their quality?

[xub3rn00dlex]

Or is this one of those cases where if luxury goods were available for all they woudn't be luxury?

Is there anyway these items can be stripped of their mark of exclusivity yet still retain their quality?

How do you define luxury? Technically a car or a phone or a tv is a luxury good since thy aren't necessary for sustenance. However, if you mean something like can we mass produce ferraris, then yes. We would be able to study the blueprints and produce them in massive quantites without fear of lawsuits etc. i know whenthe reventon came out, it's deemed valuable because they only produced ehat 20 something cars? They could've easily produced more, but that would've dimished the value and price of the car

[RadioRaheem84]

Well I had this thought while driving around town. I noticed that most of the ugly model cars were cheaper and the nicer looking cars were more expensive and my initial reaction was why does a car have to be ugly in order for it to be cheaper? Why cannot they just mass produce a nice looking luxury style car for cheaper?

Is there something in the design of cheap automobile that makes it cheaper?

This is one of the staples of a class society that could be abolished, no? No reason for a Gucci bag to be so out of reach for people?

I just meant things of a higher quality as luxury, used today as marks of exclusivity.

This also has to do with the fact that I am a big car enthusiast and a bit of a fashion geek, so I didn't want my ideology to clash with my preferences in cars, clothes, etc. I just figured these things could be made available to the public at a much cheaper rate/

[xub3rn00dlex]

Well I had this thought while driving around town. I noticed that most of the ugly model cars were cheaper and the nicer looking cars were more expensive and my initial reaction was why does a car have to be ugly in order for it to be cheaper? Why cannot they just mass produce a nice looking luxury style car for cheaper?

Is there something in the design of cheap automobile that makes it cheaper?

This is one of the staples of a class society that could be abolished, no? No reason for a Gucci bag to be so out of reach for people?

I just meant things of a higher quality as luxury, used today as marks of exclusivity.

This also has to do with the fact that I am a big car enthusiast and a bit of a fashion geek, so I didn't want my ideology to clash with my preferences in cars, clothes, etc. I just figured these things could be made available to the public at a much cheaper rate/

You pay for brand names, that's it basically. I've seen amazing knock offs of those desiner bags where the only way to tell was to look at the tag inside. The fabric and stitches would be the same. The fact that the name LV or gucci is on it is what drives the prices up. These luxuries are associated with wealth and power, and you know that in dog eat dog capitalism that's what attracts a lot of people to these brands. They want to show that thy are worth something, and capitalistic dogma enables them to do so by owning more possessions. Communism isn't a lifestyle, but i understand why you feel this way. These goods can definitely be made widely available, if we eliminate the profit motive and instead let poeple choose by preferences.

[danyboy27]

Its all about manpower and ressources.

if something can be massively produced in a relatively short period of time with fews ressources, its gonna be obviously cheaper.

In certain situation, good considered common could become luxury dues to the scarcity of certain ressources.

For exemple a fine batch of beer could be verry cheap or expensive, its gonna depend on the scarcity of barley.

I assume most well hand crafted item would be expensive, considering the number of hours of labor put into the thing.

If i want a finely sculpted bookshelf, i would understand the cost would be more than something more rudimentary massively assembled on a factory floor.

Its all about scarcity of a certain ressource and the number of time put into the creation of a particular good that will determine that.

[RadioRaheem84]

I understand that most luxury goods are of extremely well crafted material.

I was going to run a re-sale online shop of high end luxury clothes (it fell apart) and I noticed that top designer brands (and I mean top, top not just Armani) were not mass produced in some textile factory in Vietnam, but you saw that it was almost crudely put together by the designer themselves. You could see the fine material and where they even cut it with a pair of scissors. These items go for thousands of dollars.

I doubt there is a way for these items to be massively produced and fall outside of the banner of exclusive luxury. Yet, there is no reason as to why fashion itself has to be a symbol of high class.

For instance, my favorite store is H&M which had the brilliant concept of taking high fashion and making it almost Old Navy affordable. It took years for them to finally open one up in Texas, but the point is that it doesn't have to be a mark of exclusivity.

Americans are very image and brand conscious though. I admire the fashionable-without-labels concept Europeans live under better.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Well I had this thought while driving around town. I noticed that most of the ugly model cars were cheaper and the nicer looking cars were more expensive and my initial reaction was why does a car have to be ugly in order for it to be cheaper? Why cannot they just mass produce a nice looking luxury style car for cheaper?


But "ugly" and "nicer looking" are just your subjective tastes. I've never seen a luxury car that I found aesthetically pleasing in any way.


were not mass produced in some textile factory in Vietnam, but you saw that it was almost crudely put together by the designer themselves

Quite a lot of them are mass-produced by slave labourers managed by organised crime (particularly in Italy). Cheap labour, just like in China or Vietnam, but with massive profit margins thanks to the inflated prices on such exclusive (exclusivity is the essential mark of "luxury goods, quality is often not really better) goods.


For instance, my favorite store is H&M which had the brilliant concept of taking high fashion and making it almost Old Navy affordable. It took years for them to finally open one up in Texas, but the point is that it doesn't have to be a mark of exclusivity.

HM uses sweatshop labour, like all of the textile works do these days. Quality is not a priority.

[tir1944]

No because they wouldn't be luxury goods anymore.;)

[Quail]

I think that if the priorities of a factory changed from making as many goods as possible in order to sell as many as possible, to producing just enough high-quality goods for people then it would be possible to cheaply and easily produce things of high quality. It's just that for mass produced goods in the current society, quality isn't a priority. Most companies produce more goods than they can sell and things go to waste (car companies do this to "keep up" with each other).

I would imagine that in a different society where people don't simply aspire to own possessions, it would be preferable to make items slightly more slowly if it meant that they were of better quality. Today owning things is a status symbol, but if everyone had the opportunity to have nice things, then there would be less emphasis on accumulating useless crap so the time used for making, for example, novelty junk at Christmas, could be put into making things of better quality.

[RadioRaheem84]

But "ugly" and "nicer looking" are just your subjective tastes. I've never seen a luxury car that I found aesthetically pleasing in any way.


Well not all of them are nice looking, but I meant that their designs are more aerodynamic, made for speed, better turns, etc. I figured why not put this much effort into designing an affordable car? The amenities inside a luxury car are brilliant sometimes.

No need to disparage a luxury car because it's a symbol of class status.



Quite a lot of them are mass-produced by slave labourers managed by organised crime (particularly in Italy). Cheap labour, just like in China or Vietnam, but with massive profit margins thanks to the inflated prices on such exclusive (exclusivity is the essential mark of "luxury goods, quality is often not really better) goods.



I don't doubt this for a minute.



HM uses sweatshop labour, like all of the textile works do these days. Quality is not a priority.


I know it does but the point is that making luxury goods less a status symbol would make them truly a preferred choice for some.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Well not all of them are nice looking, but I meant that their designs are more aerodynamic, made for speed, better turns, etc. I figured why not put this much effort into designing an affordable car? The amenities inside a luxury car are brilliant sometimes.


Cars shouldn't go too fast (and car ownership ought to be discouraged in general for social, economic and so on reasons). There's no need to have people be able to drive over 140 km/h outside of designated racing facilities; daft rich scum, like little bored brats from the frizzy world of the City of London, meeting at night at a petrol station near junction 5 of the M25, readying themselves for one of their races, to give them the excitement that their drab investment-banker lifestyle doesn't provide- There's little point in aerodynamic design for cars that aren't fast (personally, I also think it looks hideous, but that's beside the point). Some slow cars are better at taking turns and offer better handling nevertheless, that is very variable; the point is, cars that go 400 km/h and have superfluous aerodynamic designs exist only to boost the egos of the upper-levels of the bourgeoisie-

When they have experienced and grown tired of that which is commonplace, they will seek the hedonistic thrill of fast cars, fifty-six bathrooms and helicopter taxis. Of idiotic races where they violate the traffic laws of one-hundred countries, driving drunk and recklessly and endangering their own and others lives to for a second feel alive, or something like that-- all nonsense.


I know it does but the point is that making luxury goods less a status symbol would make them truly a preferred choice for some. But H&M is in no way luxury goods; it's neither exclusive nor high of quality; frankly, it's shit. It's like IKEA (save perhaps not run by a fascist like Kamprad). It's quality is just as bad as anything else. It's like the clothes you grab at a Wal-Mart or whichever local store. Rags that wear out and degrade after twenty washes. Frilling at the edges- breaking at just the right time, so as to sell it again.

[RadioRaheem84]

When they have experienced and grown tired of that which is commonplace, they will seek the hedonistic thrill of fast cars, fifty-six bathrooms and helicopter taxis. Of idiotic races where they violate the traffic laws of one-hundred countries, driving drunk and recklessly and endangering their own and others lives to for a second feel alive, or something like that-- all nonsense.



When Michael Parenti asked Yugoslavian planners why they built such ugly cars, the planners thought that the people would want efficient cost effective automobiles that were sustainable. People ended up wanting something else entirely.

Does dicatating what meets society's needs best also mean dictating taste/style?

Not everyone uses fast cars for racing. The point is that why not design a car with speed that can peel out easily to avoid an accident?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

When Michael Parenti asked Yugoslavian planners why they built such ugly cars, the planners thought that the people would want efficient cost effective automobiles that were sustainable. People ended up wanting something else entirely.

Does dicatating what meets society's needs best also mean dictating taste/style?

Not everyone uses fast cars for racing. The point is that why not design a car with speed that can peel out easily to avoid an accident?

If not to use a car for racing - why should it go more than 140km/h? Safely driving cars at above around such speeds would require very extensive infrastructure that would not be worth investing in. If not to race on motorways - why else have the potential to drive at those speeds? No need to engineer such cars, they fill no purpose - they might still be produced for leisure on racing courses for those that want to do such things, of course, but there's no reason for such to be in common traffic.

Tastes are fleeting things. They change, constantly, and are shaped by culture and ideas that spread. They are not constant or natural - therefore simply mindlessly doing whatever people can be tricked into wanting (or fancy they want) is not desirable either. A non-capitalist cultural reconstruction might end with people 'wanting' other things entirely- culture dictates tastes and style, shapes it; why else would the current architectural trends be such murderous hideousness? Did the hideous deformities of post-modern "functionalism" grow out of a vacuum? It did not. It grew out of a repulsive reaction to modernism and original functionalism, becoming instead a kind of pastiche on the original.

That aside, I don't think the 70's Yugoslavian cars are ugly; Michael Parenti has a disagreeable taste.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't think - using the example of Ferraris - there would ever be a need for mass production, given that scarcity will always exist (as far as we can tell, with current levels of knowledge and foresight) at either the current level or an increased level.

I'm gonna get a bit Economics 101 on you to show why.

In a monetary society, consumption is dictated - logically - by: C = a+bY, with a being a fixed level of autonomous spending, and Y being income, of which b is a derived percentage thereof. Realistically, for luxury goods to ever be mass produced, in a monetary society, b would have to be at - or close to - 1.0 (i.e. 100% of income), which - due to the need for subsistence, and due to other logical/natural human preferences before luxuries such as Ferraris - is neither likely nor possible, probably.

The same equation can be used in a non-monetary society, but replacing income (Y) with endowment (split into betwen two and 'n' parameters: e1, e2...en). That is, people will be endowed, each time period, with labour and some other good(s)/service(s). I would imagine, due to scarcity, that people as a whole will always be choosing an amount of their endowed labour such that it makes the possibility - in keeping with the non-monetary principle 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' - of the need for such luxury goods as the Ferrari to be mass produced, frankly unnecessary.

It all depends what you call a luxury, and in this case I guess it is all relative. For a 3rd world nation, I guess a house with a tv, dvd player, ipod and similar reams of technology might be considered full of 'luxury goods', even though in the 1st world we take such things for granted and, due to a combination of the non-prohibitive price [relative to disposable income when compared with that of 3rd world per capita disposable incomes] and the (again, relatively!) widespread distribution of such goods.

It's actually an extremely interesting question, and falls under the category of the issue of scarcity, and really has not been solved by any economist hitherto. In short, I think we need to abandon utopian notions of communism, or post-money/post-class society being one of abundance of all goods demanded. It is clear that even the most idealised of communist societies/worlds will not - short of a miracle or a leap in intelligence/knowledge/technology/science that we cannot foresee - be one where everyone eats on gold plates and drives around in Ferraris.

[RadioRaheem84]

Great stuff, Stammer and Takayuki!

[S.Artesian]

Or is this one of those cases where if luxury goods were available for all they woudn't be luxury?

Is there anyway these items can be stripped of their mark of exclusivity yet still retain their quality?


Kind of the whole point of capitalism, no? Or at least capitalism as it was, take something that only can be obtained by a few-- food, medical care, footwear, coffee, sugar, computers, and produce it as a value in order to aggrandize more labor into and through greater value production.

Works like a charm. Most of the time.