If you spend $41,500 on a case of wine.....

[Bruce_Leiser_owitz]

More than a little hyperbole here, but some food for thought (or not, depending on your perspective):

If you spend $41,500 on a case of wine, you just might be a moral monster

Bruce

[Henry_Kiichli]

[Ed_Gonzales]

haters

[CFu]

But morally, it’s a different equation. If you are about to drink a $3,500 bottle of wine, you have to think for just a minute about this option instead: Drink a $100 bottle of wine that is about as good, but from a less renowned chateau. And deploy the other $3,400 to pay for malaria-preventing mosquito nets in Africa that, by one charity’s calculations, would be enough money to save about 1.5 human lives.

That applies to everything. What kind of car does this writer drive? Why not buy a used honda civic beater and donate the rest? What kind of house do you live in? What kind of computer do you use? Do you use an iPhone? etc. stupid.

[Peter_Hirsch]

“If you are about to drink a $3,500 bottle of wine…Drink a $100 bottle of wine that is about as good…And deploy the other $3,400 to pay for malaria-preventing mosquito nets in Africa that…save about 1.5 human lives.”

or

Spend the $3,500 on the bottle of wine and maybe the seller will be so happy that he’ll contribute the proceeds to a charity. Why is all the onus on the buyer? How about the seller?

[Henry_Kiichli]

@Charlie Fu

But morally, it’s a different equation. If you are about to drink a $3,500 bottle of wine, you have to think for just a minute about this option instead: Drink a $100 bottle of wine that is about as good, but from a less renowned chateau. And deploy the other $3,400 to pay for malaria-preventing mosquito nets in Africa that, by one charity’s calculations, would be enough money to save about 1.5 human lives.

That applies to everything. What kind of car does this writer drive? Why not buy a used honda civic beater and donate the rest? What kind of house do you live in? What kind of computer do you use? Do you use an iPhone? etc. stupid.

This applies at any level.

If you drink a $100 bottle, why not drink a $50 bottle and donate the rest? Or a $10 bottle and…

[Jay_Miller]

@Henry Kiichli

@Charlie Fu

But morally, it’s a different equation. If you are about to drink a $3,500 bottle of wine, you have to think for just a minute about this option instead: Drink a $100 bottle of wine that is about as good, but from a less renowned chateau. And deploy the other $3,400 to pay for malaria-preventing mosquito nets in Africa that, by one charity’s calculations, would be enough money to save about 1.5 human lives.

That applies to everything. What kind of car does this writer drive? Why not buy a used honda civic beater and donate the rest? What kind of house do you live in? What kind of computer do you use? Do you use an iPhone? etc. stupid.

This applies at any level.

If you drink a $100 bottle, why not drink a $50 bottle and donate the rest? Or a $10 bottle and…

Hey, why aren’t you wearing sackcloth and living in a tent? Selfish bastards.

[Harry_Gruber]

@Henry Kiichli

This was the Damien Hirst piece that Steven A. Cohen purchased, right?

[John_M_Fodera]

I can’t stand the kill joys and the holier than thous…

[Jonathan_Loesberg]

@Peter Hirsch

“If you are about to drink a $3,500 bottle of wine…Drink a $100 bottle of wine that is about as good…And deploy the other $3,400 to pay for malaria-preventing mosquito nets in Africa that…save about 1.5 human lives.”

or

Spend the $3,500 on the bottle of wine and maybe the seller will be so happy that he’ll contribute the proceeds to a charity. Why is all the onus on the buyer? How about the seller?

The onus is on anyone who makes the moral choice of how to spend his or her money. Look, I’m on this board, and that means I spend a fair amount of my discretionary income on wine (my limit is way south of $100 a bottle but that isn’t a moral choice). It still is at least worth pondering what that discretionary money could do if one say halved it (at whatever level) and gave the rest to whatever one thought was a worthy cause. The argument is a slippery slope and is reducible to the absurd very quickly (I fully expect messages to carry out that reductio ad absurdum). And despite that, it’s basic force, to my mind, remains intact, if not as something to be acted on literally, at least as something worth the consideration as one thinks about how one spends one’s money.

[Henry_Kiichli]

@Harry Gruber

@Henry Kiichli

This was the Damien Hirst piece that Steven A. Cohen purchased, right?

[LoriMcLaughlin]

@John M. Fodera

I can’t stand the kill joys and the holier than thous…

[ToddFrench]

The person who spends that on a case of wine might also pay for half the operating expenses at St. Jude Children’s Hospital, as well.

[Henry_Kiichli]

Remember the OP

More than a little hyperbole here, but some food for thought (or not, depending on your perspective):

[ky1em1ttskus]

@Charlie Fu

But morally, it’s a different equation. If you are about to drink a $3,500 bottle of wine, you have to think for just a minute about this option instead: Drink a $100 bottle of wine that is about as good, but from a less renowned chateau. And deploy the other $3,400 to pay for malaria-preventing mosquito nets in Africa that, by one charity’s calculations, would be enough money to save about 1.5 human lives.

That applies to everything. What kind of car does this writer drive? Why not buy a used honda civic beater and donate the rest? What kind of house do you live in? What kind of computer do you use? Do you use an iPhone? etc. stupid.

I absolutely hate this kind of logic (the writer’s, not yours). “Expensive things are a waste of money; think of the children!”

[paul_clark]

This guy needs to read Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo. I hate reading, “give your money to Africa”. It is lazy and dangerous (mosquito nets have a tendency to be employed as fishing nets resulting in over fishing after two or three trawls).

Spend the money on the wine. Serve the wine to some bigwig investors while pitching your idea of a micro finance project in Africa. Provide locals with loans to start their mosquito net company where they install them for their customers ensuring efficient allocation…and the beginning of an economy.

You got to drink a nice wine, investors were impressed by the label, lives were saved and some little community in Africa has advanced their local economy themselves providing a sense of accomplishment and the confidence to continue to do the same in the future. That’s sustainable.

[salilb]

@paul clark

This guy needs to read Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo.

Or anything by William Easterly. Lazy and dangerous is right.

[Jim_Cowan]

Jonathan’s comments above are an objective way to look at the issue.
The author however, invokes the moral high ground argument - I’m always a bit skeptical of those.
Best, Jim

[Art_K_u_o]

until someone shows me his/her financials and that every penny on top of the basic necessities are donated to a good cause, i don’t take these arguments seriously…

how much of that would be donated 3400 would actually make it to the needy anyways, after paying off all the overhead and personnel costs…

[scott_c]

@paul clark

This guy needs to read Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo. I hate reading, “give your money to Africa”. It is lazy and dangerous (mosquito nets have a tendency to be employed as fishing nets resulting in over fishing after two or three trawls).

Spend the money on the wine. Serve the wine to some bigwig investors while pitching your idea of a micro finance project in Africa. Provide locals with loans to start their mosquito net company where they install them for their customers ensuring efficient allocation…and the beginning of an economy.

You got to drink a nice wine, investors were impressed by the label, lives were saved and some little community in Africa has advanced their local economy themselves providing a sense of accomplishment and the confidence to continue to do the same in the future. That’s sustainable.