What have we become ?

[silverclaws]

But if you can't beat them join them, the olympics after all is a money spinner ;

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/lon ... 24684.html

 

[93hero]

Given that many of the 'lucky' people nominated to carry the torch round the country had to pay for it themselves, I see no problem with them selling it afterwards to make a quick buck. Good for him.

 

[Neil G]

I can see both sides of this.

It is 'their' torch so at the end of the day it is up to them what they want to do with it but I also feel that it s slightly greedy mentality to just auction it on before it's even left your f**King hand.

 

[silverclaws]

I can see both sides of this.

It is 'their' torch so at the end of the day it is up to them what they want to do with it but I also feel that it s slightly greedy mentality to just auction it on before it's even left your f**King hand.

It was for that reason I posted here with humour, laughing at just what we may have become, but perhaps a question should be, where the hell did that mentality come from, for sure we weren't always this way ?

Tut tut, harking about the past again, perhaps a rose tinted past, but hey retro is the past and with that are we more mercenary now than we were in the past ?

 

[gregs656]

are we more mercenary now than we were in the past ?

Absolutely not. The fact the word has existed for hundreds and hundreds of years should tell you something.

Some people are, perhaps, more shrewd than others - but that has always been true.

What I don't really understand is why people are paying so much for these, they're not going to be particularly rare, and ones from old olympics don't fetch ridiculous money at all.

I suppose if you have a shop or restaurant in london it will probably pay for it's self, but a private collector would have to be stupid to pay the prices they are selling for at the moment.

 

[Neil]

are we more mercenary now than we were in the past ?

Absolutely not. The fact the word has existed for hundreds and hundreds of years should tell you something.

I disagree - I think society and people in general, are much more mercenary than they were in past times.

Whether that's Thatcherism and the 80s, and it's consequences - or really a little of that and natural evolution, I'm unsure.

But there once was a time when many (more) would have kept something like that on principle, regardless of it's monetary value.

Some people would look back on those times as people with a stupid, over-principled attitude to money and objects, with too much pomp and ceremony and not enough pragmatism and practicality.

Others may look back and be somewhat wistful that such principles of old are largely long and gone, regardless of the practicality or sentimentality of it all.

And yes, I know and I get, some people will look at what they've got, think I can sell it for X, and just look what I could do with that - but in reality, most of that is just supporting wanton consumerism, so so what.

Looking back to Dad's Army, and there was one spiv in the group - these days, that proportion would be a lot higher. Now some will say "Good" or "So what?", and some, perhaps, may look back at a more magnolia time when it wasn't the case, and grandads were these principled old duffers, that whilst not always making the most sense, were really quite fine role models.

Truth be told, I'm not critical of people selling these things - I suppose I'm a bit ambivalent - I think I just long for the time when for most it would have been more likely they would have kept such things on principle.

 

[gregs656]

On what principle though? It's not like they were a gift.

 

[Neil]

On what principle though? It's not like they were a gift.

Gift / perk - semantics.

As to the principle involved - are you quibbling as to it's nature, or disagreeing with me that in previous times people very much were more inclined to keep things for posterity, rather than flog them as soon as, to get some more money, to spend on something else that's largely just disposable.

 

[gregs656]

I don't think it is just semantics. They paid their £400, they have their memory. Not an insignificant number of the people who are selling them are donating the money to charity - and it is the charitable work these people have done that is the reason many of them were selected.

 

[Neil]

I don't think it is just semantics. They paid their £400, they have their memory. Not an insignificant number of the people who are selling them are donating the money to charity - and it is the charitable work these people have done that is the reason many of them were selected.

I don't think the people doing it for charidee are the subject of this thread. 'course I could be wrong, but for clarity you could always confirm with the OP.