The title of this post in no way suggests that I am endorsing naturism, or that I joined in last weeks infamous nude cyclcling protest. Indeed, had I done so, what was billed as a great symbolic protest against fossil fuels would have degenerated into a great moment in comedy.
Rather, my purpose in writing is to say that although the T-shirt I am wearing has several holes in it, it is not due for replacement. To do so would mean having to go "clothes shopping" in other words to enter the contemporary setting for Dante's inferno.
I am perhaps ludicrously proud of the fact that I was once described as "the sartorial nightmare" by one of my wife's friends. Now however, the wife, is trying to help me to redifine my self-perception away from "wonderfully free from the pressure to conform", to the arguably more realistic, "socially inept and innapropriate" status it so richly deserves.
The problem is not merely that a visit to a clothes shop has all the miseries of a purgatory without the benefit of any purification of the soul; nor that shopping centres are mind-numbingly dull, predictable, and uniformly bedecked in irritating branding and logo's. No, the problem is far worse than that.
Think on the following:
All clothes cost four times what I think they are worth.
Therefore for £25 worth of clothing you have to pay £100
Then they make you carry the stuff home with you in a bag advertising their brand for which you don't get paid. Let's charge that at a nominal £25.
The clothes will be badly made and eventually fall apart, and are of no lasting value. In fact the knowledge that they were probably made in a sweat-shop in an export processing zone in the developing world, means that along with your purchase you get guilt too!
So far we are down £100.
Then let's consider the fact that this is £100 not available to spend on things that will be of real benefit, say either your favourite 'charidee' or books and CD's.
Our imaginary shopping trip is now looking at £200 quid wasted pursuing £25 worth of goods; (sorry call it £201, I forgot the parking charges).
Next time the wife says to me, "let's go clothes shopping", I need only reply, "Do the math"!
Dear thathideousman
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree wholeheartedly with your views on clothes & the puchasing thereof, I feel I must challenge you on your mathematical modelling. The cunning argument (worthy of an accountant or financial manager) that states that
(a) I have just wasted £100 on something
(b) I could have spent that £100 on something worthwhile
(c) therefore I have really wasted £200
is alas somewhat, well, silly really. Indeed it allows you fallaciously to 'double the amount wasted' in any and all circumstance
I would advise that you recant of the error, or at least avoid playing the ruse on people unless you are convinced they are
(a) under the affluence of inkahol
(b) considerably younger than yourself ( i.e. below primary 2)
LOL, see, where you're going wrong is trying to apply logic and deduction to shopping. Shopping is akin to the female of our species in so far as logic does not apply.
ReplyDeleteMark
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't "mathematical modelling" - just a joke.
Anyway - whose side are you on? If I can't spin doctor the figures to make a point about "opportunity costs" without my so-called friends playing into the hands of my wife - what hope is there?
You're both wrong.
ReplyDeleteAs any fule kno, the "opportunity cost" of a venture is entirely subjective. Therefore the hideousman can reach his £200:£25 ratio of value by recognizing this; while Mark needs to read up on economics.
Strange as it may seem the hideous man got the right answer with the wrong calculation, while his critic got nice sums and no answer.
Dunce hats all round.
'The Economist'
Ooooh, hark at you!
ReplyDeleteDear "The Economist"
ReplyDeleteThankyou for your touching words.
Looking at your tone and subtelty, I'm just wondering if you are related to someone called "Roy" who has posted on this blog?
http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?LETTER=O#OPPORTUNITY%20COST
ReplyDeleteMark, I have just followed our economists link to "the economist".
ReplyDeleteAre you in an irretrievable self-induced condition of petard hoisting?
Certainly not.
ReplyDeleteEconomists, statisticians and those who work in the legal profession are all in league with the devil, and none of their words are to be trusted.
I am completely unbiased and in no way related to 'mark' but I am sure he is right and all those blouse wearing economists are wrong. The bottom line is that at the end of the day, and to just wind things up, thathideousman had £100,he spent £100, and ego(ignoring parking charges)is only £100 poorer All that economic speak is just smoke and mirrors.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm another totally unbiased person who knows nothing of this mark, but I think his ways are right and just & those of all others are wrong, and perhaps wicked, and indeed naughty... er... yea for mark.. that's what I say.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a little confusion here between "it's not right" and "I don't get it", which are clearly different matters altogether.
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit like an eight year old who says, "I'm glad I wasn't invited to the party, I didn't want to go - it was a stupid party anyway".
Follow the last link I posted to 'the economist' and try harder.
(incidentally, with finite resources, limitless purchasing opportunities, and value being subjective; unless you factor 'opportunity costs' into your calculations, you can't calculate the relative merits of any available course of action. Granted it may may the individual sum look, "well silly", however, it has been proven by economists (etc) to have be the best way of assessing the relative merits of varying spending options)
PS you all seem very keen to disavow this "mark". What has he done?