Thy Pyramids, Built up with Newer Might

[steepholm]

According to a programme I heard on the radio yesterday, back in the days when bankers got obscene bonuses rather than just ridiculous ones - that is to a say, a couple of years ago (and also a couple of years hence, as the programme made very clear) - they would often use them to buy property in cash. "A flat in Knightsbridge? Look at my wad!" If not property, they would buy fast cars, or Rolex watches.

Well, I do find it possible to understand spending a lot money on a flat in Knightsbridge. After all, you can then live in it, and the more you spend, the better flat you get. It's also, potentially, an investment you can resell, and maybe even make a profit. It makes sense that a banker would think in those terms.

I also find it possible to understand spending a lot of money on a fancy car, though I'd never want to do it myself. After all, you can then drive it, and the more you spend, the better car (roughly speaking) you get, or at least I assume so. Admittedly, cars depreciate rapidly in value, so it's not much use as an investment, but in the meantime you can feel the wind in your hair.

What I can't understand is why people would spend thousands of pounds on a Rolex watch. After all, you can buy a watch that will keep perfect time for, say, £30, and your Rolex won't do a jot better job of being a chronometer. Nor can you expect to resell it at a profit. The only point of a Rolex, as far as I can see, is to let people know that you're a dick rich. But if you want to do that, you'd still be far better off buying a fake Rolex at a fraction of the price. At least, that's how I imagine I would view it if I were a banker - and yet it's the bankers who buy them.

Comments

[kalypso]

It often strikes me that the only time you hear about Rolex watches is when they are stolen from the wrists of very rich person. So maybe they are really a secret strategy devised by watch-makers for the redistribution of wealth?

[steepholm]

That's as good an explanation as any I can think of.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

It's the bling thing -- they buy them to show their friends how rich they are.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

I suppose so. But it seems an awfully expensive way to do it. Why not just buy a T-shirt reading "I Get Paid £1,000,000 A Year and Am Richer than You"? It would just just as tasteful, and you could spend the money on something more interesting.

But I guess I just don't understand these things.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

The t-shirt doesn't embody money, and it looks 'cheap' and show-off-y. The watch is a way of appearing to display wealth subtly *(it isn't: it's deeply unsubtle. But it's coded as subtle).

[karinmollberg.livejournal.com]

In Germany there is a sticker one can put on one´s car (preferably the back) which says: "Eure Armut kotzt mich an" ("your poverty makes me sick").

One thinks that, combined to your almost poetic wind-in-the-hair argument, it would be enough to breeze by on the fast lane with, in say, a brand new Mercedes with all the extras money can buy (automatic toothbrush, eggboiler, etc).
But a Rolex is just kitsch.
Just as sitting in a yellow Maserati will only make the poor say "Ludenschleuder" (google gives me "loaded slingshot" as translation but in fact it is slang for "pimp catapult") and not be too mistaken about it. When, in fact, there are also these to consider: http://www.thesupercars.org/fastest-cars/fastest-cars-in-the-world-top-10-list/
Don´t know about the hair-aspect at 267 mph, though. Personally, I´d go for the Noble M600 or off course the Jaguar XJ220 but I always get these things wrong by being old-fashioned. I´d even buy an old but beautiful watch. But then, I´m a snob as Vian sang.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Ludenschleuder is now going to be a central part of my vocabulary (if not armoury).