Are Rolex Owners Foolish and Immoral?

[vicsdca]

Then I guess it's just as immoral to leave money in a savings account if you think about "the gifts you could give, the lives you could change" with that money. Also, you could at any point sell your Rolex and transform it into usable money. His argument makes little sense unless he considers that having money as a whole is immoral.

[CalSRQ1]

Wow- trying to appear edgy by attacking perceived excess. Retread. Yawn.

Move on nothing to see here.

[Montremoi]

This "philosopher" currently wears a <200€ Seiko, fine, that's in line with his statement.

But what I really want to know, and what actually matters, is what he does with his disposable income. Because that's not enough to avoid spending it on a luxury watch, you also need to spend it wisely.

To whom does he redistribute his income ? Which charities did he pick and how impactful are they?

As it happens, just a few minutes ago, I gave money to a research project over at Lifespan.io which aims to help cure ageing - and the many horrible diseases associated with it (cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, etc). This has the potential to reduce the suffering of billions of people.

If you restrict yourself from buying a luxury item so that you can pour that money into a project as meaningful as the one I mentionned above, then you deserve respect. But if you use that money for comparatively inconsequential stuff, you have no business judging our spending behaviour.

[Ksporty]

Who cares

[locutus49]

The author should move to North Korea or some other communist country where you cannot own a Rolex. Let's see how long he would last before begging to come back to a capitalist country.