Captain Vimes's "Boots" Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness
...Or as I like to call it, Captain Vimes's "Boots" Theory of Economics. I have been threatening... er...promising this for a while. An excerpt from Men At Arms by Terry Pratchett (who is the sum of all logic and wisdom):
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ahkh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
~ Pratchett, Men At Arms
He is amazing. I even quoted from one of his books in a paper on Retributivist Justification (etc.) in law school! I also highly recommend Small Gods, Guards! Guards!, and Jingo.
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ahkh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
~ Pratchett, Men At Arms
He is amazing. I even quoted from one of his books in a paper on Retributivist Justification (etc.) in law school! I also highly recommend Small Gods, Guards! Guards!, and Jingo.
posted by ET at 5:21 PM
4 Comments:
I had heard of this somewhere, and used this reasoning to justify my assortment of Vuitton bags to my husband. They last forever! So if you take into account the "per wear" cost of a well-made purse, it is comparable, if not more affordanble than the cheaper bags. Makes sense, right?
He countered with "If one lasts forever, why do you need so many?"
Um. I'm still working on the response to that one.
Yes, that is precisely where the breakdown occurs! Because we are girls? Because they are fabulous? Guys have sports, we have handbags. Okay, and football.
Karl Lagerfeld has done some articles recently on why to buy luxury items, and I have also seen some cost-per-wear evaluations (and I can tell you my "wear" instances are a LOT higher than theirs were) in recent magazines.
But the real reason is that we are simply good citizens. Tell your husband we are working to stabilize the economy and keep people in their jobs. Of course, we are having to keep ours as well to pay for it all!
"He countered with 'If one lasts forever, why do you need so many?'"
Because we're girlie girls.
I love this theory but it just doesn't pan out in ALL instances. Like the sunglasses one doesn't pan out for me. Flip flops don't work using this theory, either.
Otherwise, genuis!
I stand by my previous sunglasses post (as a response on Rachel's site "Oddities Abound"). I have saved a TON on sunglasses by having one good pair that I keep track of.
As for flip-flops, I had to wear a pair in my sister's wedding. They were from J.Crew and I HATE HATE HATE them. They are the most uncomfortable shoes and have never been worn again. So I cannot in good conscience suggest that you spend any money on these.
Post a Comment
<< Home