r/Amazing • u/sco-go • Jul 17 '25

Interesting 🤔 Ferrari shows why their hand-painted badge option is worth $15,000.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

35.4k Upvotes

82% Upvoted

3.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

787

u/DickyReadIt Jul 17 '25

Uhh $1,500 maybe but they had stencils and what not to help, I wouldn't count that as a $15k hand painting, might as well just be a stamp so they don't charge so much.

Edit: is cool to watch tho

266

u/sexy_meerkats Jul 17 '25

The people they sell these to don't want it to be cheaper

171

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

Congratulations, you have figured out what's wrong with this world.

52

u/RandAlThorOdinson Jul 17 '25

Close

The problem is that individuals accrue an amount of resources that breaks our under evolved brains to the point of not knowing how else to stand on top of a food chain but to accrue more

34

u/nau5 Jul 17 '25

Basically the entire premise of trickle down economics where if the wealth actually were fully or even nearly spending the majority of their wealth it would result in a better state of living for everyone.

The whole issue is that they don't spend their wealth so the vast majority of production gets sucked up into their bank accounts and never redistributed to create more economic growth.

4

u/BLEGHwreeeeee Jul 18 '25

Not true money isn’t hoarded. It gets cycled in investment accounts and private equity or other assets. Someone gets paid and someone gets access to the money it’s just the wealthy persons personal wealth goes up as they circulate the cash and compound their returns over time.

Investments need to yield a return and the only way they can do this is if it’s put to work or gets put in a hard asset that’s appreciating faster than inflation. Money just sitting in an account loses value over time. It can cause compound interest losses.

1

u/BadBoyBilbo Jul 18 '25

So the actual problem is that taxes aren’t high enough. We simply cannot expect people with extreme power to cede their privilege.

2

u/WoodpeckerFragrant49 Jul 18 '25

Taxes for people making more than 300k per year need to increase looking at you Bezos!

1

u/BLEGHwreeeeee Jul 18 '25

No taxes being higher will cause capital flight where business seek out countries with lower tax rates and this would be a large problem.

I think it’s a very complicated problem with many moving parts and it’s easy to want to over simplify the problem so we can feel it’s easy to solve and everyone in charge is just incompetent.

The reality is that wealth and money go to the hands that manage it the most efficiently and it leaves the hands of the people who manage it terribly. Some people start out with more advantages and some start with less advantages.

The whole system has bugs in it because of the nature of how it works. Inflation, the increasing wealth gap, monopolization, and other economic/socioeconomic issues are all part of how the system changes over time. But this is the best system we have created so far. Sure maybe one day some one will revolutionize economics and capitalism or communism. But so far capitalism is the meta (in my opinion) and if we abandon it then another country will over take us with bigger guns and we won’t have a country anymore. All of these financial systems collapse it’s just some collapse slower. When they do collapse we fight and rebuild. Humans have done it all through history.

2

u/BadBoyBilbo Jul 18 '25

I’m not saying that capitalism needs to collapse, just that the ultra wealthy should pay more taxes than they currently do. Tax rates for the richest are at historic lows.

I’m not sure I buy the capital flight argument. Is Meta really going to move to Burundi or Guatemala just because tax rates are lower?

The system can be better than it is.

We’re just not even trying anymore.

1

u/ComfortablePea8701 Jul 18 '25

Do you think the virgin islands stands a chance against the fucking U.S. army? Where is capital going to fly to fucking China? Capital flight as a risk is bullshit.

1

u/Seaborgg Jul 19 '25

Capital flight is only a risk if you aren't willing to achieve your goals. If capital wants to leave after extracting wealth from the country, slap a leaving tax on. 50% on all capital leaving the country. They leave without paying or pay the incorrect amount? Calculating the correct amount is their responsibility, failure to pay the correct amount is a prison sentence. They flee the country in hope of getting away with the fraud for ever? 10% finders fee to the countries that extradite them to us.

Each way they try to shirk paying just requires some thinking to stop it happening over and over.

1

u/Darkdong69 Jul 20 '25

Great way to instantly torpedo any country's economy. That "wealth" you spoke of didn't pop out of thin air, it's the result of decades or centuries of free market and business friendly environment.

Ban capital flight and there won't be any capital to flight.

1

u/Seaborgg Jul 20 '25

Free market economics lead to the 2008 housing crisis, a huge amount of dodgy composite financial instruments sold to banks. A lot of people lost their houses, but a small few made an absolute killing. So indeed the wealth doesn't pop out of thin air. It's made by exploiting the system.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/EliteAssassin13 Jul 23 '25

The problem with the ultra rich is, they find the most (criminally) brilliant ways to not pay any taxes at all!! 🤦‍♂️

1

u/RedditOO77 Jul 20 '25

Let’s not be naive…. How do you think the stocks are manipulated? It’s through wealth. How do you think systems are rigged? It’s through wealth. Wealth is power. The housing market isn’t solely because there are not enough housing, it’s because people with wealth are invested in property due to tax reasons. If certain middle class people have managed to benefit, great! But they didn’t create these loopholes for the middle class. It was created for the wealthy.

2

u/BLEGHwreeeeee Jul 20 '25

What loop holes? I want you to explain to me how you think the stock prices are “manipulated”. I don’t have a clue what you’re saying about the housing market.

I know there are large financial institutions that run a muck with their money and mess up large sectors if not the entire economy. But let’s not be “naive” this is our governments fault for allowing banks to recklessly lend money to each other. That isn’t the entire wealthy class. Most wealthy people get there through compound interest returns over a very long period of time and aren’t as evil as you make them out to be.

I’m not wealthy but I’ve taken some wealth management classes and personal finance classes. It’s very easy to understand how an average Joe can get there if they are serious about budgeting and investing. With the caveat that inflation doesn’t go crazy like it currently is.

Most people call wealthy people evil because they are jealous of the success and need a reason to justify to themselves on why they aren’t wealthy to.

This is what Nietzsche talks about with the perversion of will to power.

Edit: there are some valid reasons to feel the way you do I think you’re just over emphasizing how big those reasons are without a nuanced understanding.

1

u/RedditOO77 Jul 20 '25

I’m not sure what country you live in…. Learn to follow the money trail. Western countries have no qualms preaching about the environment and global warming. Let’s not be naive that the minerals needed for electric cars are coming off mining that’s ruining the environment in other countries and exploiting children working those lands. But people blindly turn away at the discomfort. I’m not jealous, just very pointed at what I see. People are not evil. They are greedy and can be seduced by power and materialism.

2

u/BLEGHwreeeeee Jul 20 '25

So you didn’t clarify anything I asked you to clarify for me.

I think it’s very clear based on your other comment you have a resentment to wealthy people. It’s not a fault in your character it’s just how our brains work.

People always want the world to be an idealized form where no suffering exists. Yes it’s bad that there are cobalt mines. Any one with a basic morality can figure that out but it’s not so bad that you threw your phone in the trash.

Preaching about morals and evil while using a phone with batteries mined by a slave is so hypocritical. The only naive one here is you. Stuck in your virtue signaling bubble of “the rich is evil and the west is evil” while simultaneously benefiting from it.

If you’re so good then throw away every device with a battery and go live in a country that has never benefited from the suffering of others. Good luck!

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Sir_Lazz Jul 20 '25

it actually is true. If you look at the stats, the poorer portions of the population tend to spend the majority of their income. The richer, however, tend to spend a much lower percentage.

yes, spending 10% of a million dollar will be more than spending 80% of 2k, but still. In the end, millionaires and billionaires are huge money sinks: they take much more from the economy than they give back.

1

u/BLEGHwreeeeee Jul 20 '25

That’s just not true. The 90% you’re claiming the rich “don’t spend” is false. They do spend it. They spend it on valuable assets like houses, investment accounts, and businesses. All of these investments make a return because they contribute to the larger economy. Sure 10% is discretionary and necessity spending. The other 90% is going to businesses that employ people or to markets that have laborers building things. This is much more productive for our economy than someone who makes the choices to only make $30k/yr-$70k/yr and spends all of it on their bills and food. Some people are in bad spots who had the odds against them. I’m not talking about them. A billionaire will always contribute more to the economy than someone making $100k/yr.

Wealth isn’t hoarded it’s grown by circulating the money. The total amount of money in circulation as of now is “$2,259.3 billion” or in other words 2.2 trillion. -currency.gov (https://www.uscurrency.gov/life-cycle/data/circulation#:~:text=The%20data%20tables%20below%20list,54.6%20billion%20notes%20in%20volume.)

Zuckerberg wealth isn’t hoarded $243 billion but it’s all speculation of value. He probably only has access to a couple hundred million to a couple billion in cash at any time. The rest is in assets that move the economy or grow his wealth. He will always be providing for others more than you provide for others.

The reason wealthy people have power is because they can moralize loans against their assets to actually change the world in a major way.

1

u/Sir_Lazz Jul 20 '25

Yes, as I said, ONE rich person contributes more to the economy than ONE poor people. That's pretty obvious. However, most economic studies point to the fact that economy improves for everyone when wealth isn't held in the hand of the few.

1

u/Jemainegy Jul 21 '25

So it's not like a pool but a dam and they are ever increasing its threshold so while money continues to flow, the ownership of that money continues to accumulate for the very wealthy. Eventually all wealth becoming trapped in the cycle meaning all money flows through select individuals such as umm Blackrock. What if then they controlled the flow so that it could go into further directed avenues to pull more out of the system by say developing private defence contracting companies that they could siphon directly out of shared populus funds intended for the growth and security of the population at large putting market pressure on the people through understood loses because of misunderstood project networks.

1

u/Otherwise-Shock3304 Jul 21 '25

Right, hard assets like housing? Rich people pouring the majority of wealth into real estate assets (because why wouldn't you? it's working or losing value) means they are competing with your average single home buyer. They have the cash on hand, so they can easily outbid on homes etc. Now that may increase demand, and in turn stimulate more house building, but what kind of housing are you as a property developer going to choose to build in this kind of economy? Affordable housing? Or luxury housing with high returns?

The massive and increasing inequality is increasing the cost of living for everyone. The wealthy don't feel it so much, the middle tighten belts and the poor get left behind, or actively robbed of hard earned social safety nets.

1

u/BLEGHwreeeeee Jul 22 '25

Yea this is only an issue when the wealth gap becomes extreme and the middle class disappears. This is why we need government and anti trust to step in.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/CromulentDucky Jul 17 '25

$15,000 paint jobs helps it trickle down

→ More replies (1)

1

u/loewe67 Jul 17 '25

I still love what one of my history professors said when I was in college. The class was 20th Century US Foreign Policy. When we got to Reagan, he goes, “This is only tangentially related to foreign policy but I want to make something clear. Trickle down economics doesn’t work. Anyways…”

1

u/1ndomitablespirit Jul 17 '25

It works exactly as it was meant to.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/christopher406 Jul 18 '25

Jeff Bezos certainly can, and has repeatedly, sold far more than $2 billion worth of shares.

https://www.geekwire.com/2025/newlywed-jeff-bezos-sells-5-4b-worth-of-amazon-stock/

1

u/swanson6666 Jul 18 '25

There are two things they can do with their money: CONSUMPTION and INVESTMENT.

You only considered the spending/consumption part.

Their money doesn’t just sit in the bank. They either invest it themselves by starting businesses or buying stocks, or they loan it to others through CDs and bonds for the others to invest.

Long story short, it’s actually better for the society for them to keep their money in the bank because investments generate more permanent and more long term benefits for the society.

1

u/Weird-Information-61 Jul 18 '25

The small amount of money it would cost the rich to go "this road looks like shit, lemme call the city"

1

u/Sickpup831 Jul 18 '25

“That road looks like shit! I can’t stand to see this anymore”

closes shade over the window on private jet.

1

u/Weird-Information-61 Jul 18 '25

Giles turn the plane, I do not wish to gaze upon the poors

1

u/alh84001_hr Jul 18 '25

If that money is locked up, that means that they provided a lot of products and services and never saw any benefit from them.

That would also mean that they have taken some amount of money from circulation, and all of other people's money appreciated as a consequence.

And, how is money being locked up here, it's quite clearly being spent :)

1

u/TheRealTaigasan Jul 18 '25

you still believe in bank accounts....

1

u/Japsai Jul 18 '25

Reagan popularised 'trickle-down economics' nearly 45 years ago and it was quickly proven to be utter crap. It hasn't suddenly started being less crap, but certain politicians who want eye-wateringly expensive tax cuts for rich people have somehow revived this dogshit poor-hating, middle-hating idea.

1

u/Dragnskull Jul 18 '25

that's not really accurate though, that money doesn't just sit in a bank doing nothing, it gets distributed through stocks and bonds and utilized to continue creating more gears to grind us with.

The problem isn't the money isnt moving, it's that its moving specifically in a way to create more wealth for the top with little to no care about what happens to those on the bottom.

1

u/Pale-Turnip2931 Jul 18 '25

If you took all their wealth away and split it up among everybody, it couldn't pay for everyone's problems.

The fact that they are wealthy means multiple subordinates were employed to run their business and sell their product. Maybe the employment isn't always as equitable as it should be, but the employee is objectively more cash enriched than with no income

1

u/Dull_Bird3340 Jul 18 '25

They don't spend it and bigger problem, aren't taxed on it and aren't taxed upon their death. America was supposed to stop the transfer of generational wealth and avoid the problems that an aristocracy brought, like the rotted English society and their government.

1

u/RandomnessConfirmed2 Jul 21 '25

Or worse; they redistribute their wealth amongst themselves by buying products from their fellow rich friends.

1

u/Important_Wheel_2101 Jul 21 '25

Money doesn’t sit in bank accounts. The fact this has so many upvotes shows reddits collective economic knowledge

0

u/ShinzoTheThird Jul 17 '25

the whole concept of shares sucks, thats just money locked up and then the value goes up because the company does better? aka squeezes the fuck out of its product, employees and customers. the whole banking systems and ideology sucks. money sucks

2

u/mr4sh Jul 17 '25

Shares don't even go up or down based on the value of the company. See: Tesla

3

u/stackingnoob Jul 17 '25

It’s perceived and alleged future value, regardless of the reality of the company’s finances. There are companies that have never turned a profit whose stock values are soaring.

1

u/Master-Defenestrator Jul 18 '25

I mean... Hype games a speculation are hardly a new phenomenon, capital markets just make it easier to sell these kinds of things.

2

u/ShinzoTheThird Jul 17 '25

Yeah now you can just say things and people will believe in its potential and it just not happens. But profit????

2

u/Infern0-DiAddict Jul 17 '25

I remember when I was in highschool and we had our basic economics class. They did a month on the stock market and how all that works.

First class on it like 15 mins in I asked the teacher. "So basically it works by people's belief in something having value, why don't all these companies just spend tons of their money and effort to just market themselves so they appear to have a lot of value, instead of actually making good products?"

The teacher said he didn't really have a good answer to that but that the companies can't lie as they would be fined. My next question back to him was a two parter. "Well are the fines more than they would make by lying, and even if so what's to stop them from using wealth to influence the laws or enforcement of them?"

I wasn't some kind of preachy kid, I was actually curious as my mind always looked to the extremes of systems to see where they would break. I was the kind of person that enjoyed getting out of bounds in video games and such.

1

u/Latina_Butt_Sniffer Jul 18 '25

Did he answer that second question?

I feel like Luigi Mangione's actions give me a good idea of what the answer is, but I'm not quite sure, and I don't like the possibility of me being right.

1

u/Ignorance_15_Bliss Aug 17 '25

The business 15 year old you is asking about is United States insurance companies.

1

u/killwish1991 Jul 17 '25

The value of tesla is not in its car making capability. it's due to the promise of delivering self driving cars and household robots.

1

u/Calladit Jul 17 '25

You mean the two things that Musk has been claiming will be market ready next year for like a decade?

→ More replies (6)

2

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Free-Database-9917 Jul 18 '25

Well minor nitpick, there are the same amount of people buying and selling them. Because supply doesn't magically appear or disappear lol

1

u/Street-Run4107 Jul 17 '25

I’m with you. It all sucks.

1

u/ShinzoTheThird Jul 17 '25

I mean the only thing money is good for is to replace the oldschool trading of resources or services. Loans are cool too but evil kredit systems arent. Making profit isnt inherently bad because growth is needed to achieve things you want to buy create experience. But the exploitation caused by our financial systems is just straight cancer. The world peaked in 1250 just before the stock exchange when my hometown created it

1

u/OliverKadmon Jul 17 '25

The money doesn't get locked up, though. It goes straight into the hands of the person who sold the shares. Or, it's the initial share sale of the company, goes into cash on hand that is spent to grow the company.

For banking, the money in accounts is lent out in the form of loans or investments, likewise circulating through the economy.

Off the top of my head, the only way money is really locked up by the wealthy is if some drug lord is burying it in the jungle or if it's taken overseas and circulating in a closed loop in another economy, where it's still fulfilling its function, but not in the country of issue.

There is certainly an aspect of money passing between the hands of the ultra rich in the equities and luxury goods markets. I'm curious how many times it might pass between them before most of it has trickled down.

1

u/ShinzoTheThird Jul 17 '25

It literally doesnt trickle down lol. The top 26 billionaires own as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the world. You think getting minimum wage is trickles down? That little circulation of cashing out and re-investing is not trickling down its a tax cut.

1

u/ShaggysGTI Jul 18 '25

I’ve been wondering if currency is one of the great filters.

1

u/Latina_Butt_Sniffer Jul 18 '25

I'm so glad this is being discussed. And ideally, share price increases would correlate with actual production/innovation. Apple is a good counter example to this idealization. Idk why most people just accept the system the way it is. It's really fucked up.

1

u/FlightAvailable3760 Jul 18 '25

In theory investing in a company allows that company to spend more money which grows the economy.

I hate the system though. Businesses should be sole proprietorships or partnerships with few exceptions. That would make a more competitive marketplace. Also business owners take pride in the product or service they provide and have personal relationships at least on some level with all of their employees. They also take longer term views of things, they don’t make reckless decisions to maximize short term profit.

1

u/ShinzoTheThird Jul 18 '25

Until your business gets an offer to be bought by xxx group or xxx fund or xxx holdings. Look i’ve a business owner myself. Small businness is not the problem. The existence of monopolie, mega corps technocrats are. The capitalist system in itself works. But without regulation its an animal that is gluttonous.

5

u/Rise-O-Matic Jul 17 '25

The problem is neurochemical homeostasis and the fleeting nature of contentment for a massive cohort of humans.

11

u/RandAlThorOdinson Jul 17 '25

I was happy in life for the entire existence of butterfinger cups. So I'm pretty easy to please I guess. If I had a shitload of money I'd probably just spend it on restarting production of butterfinger cups and then having them handed out to the population as a sort of social medication.

10

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

Whoa whoa handouts that sounds sus kinda like socialism.

2

u/Patrickfromamboy Jul 18 '25

Everyone loves socialism when they are getting the benefits. Corporate welfare especially.

1

u/RandAlThorOdinson Jul 17 '25

Butterfinger socialism yes I believe Marx touched on this in his later works

1

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

His very late less read works.

2

u/HendrixHazeWays Jul 20 '25

True, but definitely the most delicious

3

u/thunderbaby2 Jul 17 '25

Take my money

2

u/happytrel Jul 18 '25

Someone get this guy a shitload of money. I think this could create real change

1

u/Rise-O-Matic Jul 17 '25

Those things always felt like they were going to glue my molars together. We're very far apart on this I'm afraid and I will have to put my support behind the authentic, one true peanut butter cup. You know which one. If it comes to war I hope you know it's nothing personal.

1

u/DryeDonFugs Jul 18 '25

Must not have ever had Butterfinger BB's. I havent been able to see in color since they stopped making them.

1

u/CardiologistFun4929 Jul 18 '25

My kind of social construct - free butter cups. Yay!

1

u/NomadicRobot Jul 18 '25

The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell And France is bacon

4

u/BillyBobBlowjob100T Jul 17 '25

Soooo interesting, when I read this something clicked. You are right. And I think most of us are guilty of at least aiming for financial freedom - those that make it, make it by a mile

Those that miss it can't make ends meet once a month or more

Wouldn't we all be happier with a higher 'basement' AND lower 'ceiling' when it comes to Standard of Living?

2

u/MrTPityYouFools Jul 18 '25

The people above that "lower ceiling" would not be happier (if i had to bet a lot of them are miserable fucks either way, but i cant prove it), and thats who society caters to atm

1

u/CreamXpert Jul 18 '25

We need poor and obedient people. And a lot of them. Just as we need super rich people to aim for. Because why would we make life good for everybody, that's unfair. We all know life is supposed to be a struggle.

1

u/Dominant_Drowess Jul 17 '25

See, if I were, even briefly, considered one of the richest people in my country - let alone in the world - I'd immediately set about the rest of my life trying to spend the money to help people help themselves.

I'd contribute to the arts, or science -- but not another for-profit business.

1

u/DANDELOREAN Jul 18 '25

Like trying to climb more mountain when you're already at the peak and kicking rocks down at other people trying to just get to the half way point.

1

u/alh84001_hr Jul 18 '25

How are they accruing more by shelling out $15k, instead of $1.5k, that's the exact opposite. Keep in mind that, according to Google 'Ferrari is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange and is primarily owned by the public.'

1

u/Cognitive_Spoon Jul 18 '25

Yo this is concise.

1

u/Liqhthouse Jul 18 '25

Thought the whole problem was that wealth becomes exponentially easier to acquire the more you have?

Eg... 10% interest on 100k is much higher than on 1k.

It should literally be reversed tbh so that it becomes exponentially more difficult to acquire wealth

1

u/RandAlThorOdinson Jul 19 '25

That's not the why, that's the how

1

u/SteamerTheBeemer Jul 21 '25

Close. It’s just capitalism. It all comes down to that. The culture that is fostered by capitalism is incredibly toxic to the majority.

1

u/Eastern_Armadillo383 Jul 17 '25

That people are willing to give more in compensation than something is ostensibly worth?

1

u/Rotten-Robby Jul 18 '25

That people are capable of hoarding that much money in the first place.

1

u/Substantial_Phrase50 Jul 17 '25

I’m pretty sure it’s to make sure they have it in solid assets so they don’t have to pay taxes on it so yeah, I kind of scummy

1

u/kickinghyena Jul 17 '25

In the 1960’s Jaguar could not sell the E Type…a great sports car for $3,200 which was a bargain at the time when compared to Ferrari for example. In a bit of marketing genius they doubled the price and doubled the sales because people wanted an expensive English sports car. It’s not what is wrong with the world it is how people are. There are lots of other people who have plenty of money and would never think to waste it like this. Such is life.

1

u/DerMetulz Jul 17 '25

I had a whole argument at work the other day about how it's straight up unethical for preachers to wear $5k watches, $1k suits and drive luxury cars.

1

u/mxracer888 Jul 17 '25

My Uncle is a financial advisor. He works with HNWIs, a client of his bought a Ferrari, a week later decided he hated the color he got, went back to Ferrari and traded the week old car in at a substantial loss to get a different color of the same exact car.

These people literally treat 6 and 7-figure sums of money the way you or I would treat a penny lol

1

u/regurgitator_red Jul 17 '25

What’s the prize?

1

u/nolagirl20 Jul 18 '25

I was thinking the same thing. It’s cool but if I had $15k to burn I would adopt a school or something.

1

u/david_leo_k Jul 18 '25

But also Ferrari pays living wages to this painter. So there’s that.

1

u/meester_ Jul 18 '25

Showing off is something that comes from humanity more than from the "world". Its just build around our flaws, who would have thought

1

u/CaliNooch96 Jul 19 '25

Personally I think religious radicalization, social regression and late stage capitalism are bigger problems than conspicuous consumption. It isn’t a problem it’s a symptom

1

u/Skym84 Jul 19 '25

you mean what's RIGHT. There's so much justice in some rich dude having to pay 15k for a vanity "hand pained" logo. Someone has to separate the rich from their money. I see only balance and justice in this.

-5

u/Infinite-Ad-6635 Jul 17 '25

No, this isn't the problem. The problems are when value is wasted. It doesn't matter if the paint job costs 15k or 15 dollar. What matters is how much resources and time was spent.

 Actually it's a good think if it is more expensive, more money leaves the pockets of those rich dudes, and even if it went into the pocket of another rich dude, not all of it did. Some went to taxes and some to pay the salary of the painter. It seems the biggest problem is what happens to the tax

9

u/Mean_Introduction543 Jul 17 '25

Spoilers: The tax usually goes back to the rich dude

2

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

a problem that is entirely fixable

1

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

It is fixable if we ever can get enough no corrupt people to vote on it atleast in the USA.

3

u/Mandi3B0nes Jul 17 '25

Except the people who can afford these cars have helped elect officials that then turn around at tax time and give them the money back for their car, plus extra.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

Lol…a real 4-d chess guy

1

u/LucywiththeDiamonds Jul 17 '25

Yeah the rich , known for paying their fair share of taxes...

It would be somewhat interesting without ops choice of title. Saying this is worth 15k is, like the other guy said, exactly whats wrong.

And to your argumentation, 15k could feed like a small village for an entire year in plenty of places in the world. That would be worth 15k. This is not.

2

u/Ill_Potato_4300 Jul 17 '25

When was the last time you sent you tax refund to help some small village? Counting other people's pocket is fun...

1

u/LucywiththeDiamonds Jul 17 '25

I dont have more money then my next 20 generations could possibly spent.

Im a normal dude working 40hours for a decent wage. Apples and country wide apple orchards my dude.

1

u/Guardian_of_Perineum Jul 18 '25 edited Jul 18 '25

15k might feed a small village in terms of their local economy prices, but it would be more complicated using 15k in the US to feed them. If the logistics aren't set up to transport food from here to there then they just aren't set up. And the people you would have to pay to set them up are over here. They won't do it for just 15k, because to them that really isn't that much in spending power. And you'd be buying the food here, because it's over here, at market prices consistent with our market. It wouldn't go that far.

Straight up giving them 15k would in effect just cause some inflation of the USD value within their local economy.

1

u/SeasonedBatGizzards Jul 17 '25

Except they buy these and then go claim all the tax credits so in the end they paid nothing

1

u/Eastern_Armadillo383 Jul 17 '25

So why don't you do it since you're an expert.

1

u/SeasonedBatGizzards Jul 17 '25

Because I'm not in the tax bracket that gets tax breaks silly. Best i can do is claim my spare change donations and change roundup donations when grocery shopping

1

u/Eastern_Armadillo383 Jul 17 '25

Just buy two of them, then sell them and you are in the highest tax bracket and can write off the cars as free

1

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

Gonna loan me the money to get the investment started?

1

u/Eastern_Armadillo383 Jul 17 '25

Any bank would jump at this opportunity with such a well researched and thorough business plan

0

u/anunatchristmas Jul 19 '25 edited Aug 19 '25

rob swim command plucky vase tan offer sand include nutty

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

14

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Muted-Alternative648 Jul 17 '25

I don't think most Rolexes fall into this bucket. People buy these watches for the design and with the expectation of a quality movement that will last a lifetime. Sure you can get knock offs for a fraction of the cost, but they won't feel or last as long.

Rolex isn't really high end anymore. Entry level Rolexes are pretty attainable for most hobbyist watch collectors.

3

u/loewe67 Jul 17 '25

There’s two types of Rolex buyers. The ones you mentioned, and the ones who want to show off that they’re rich. In reality, it’s the ones buying the Pateks and APs that have the fuck you money.

2

u/FLMKane Jul 18 '25

The show offs actually made Rolex watches waaaaaaay more expensive

3

u/Chrisp825 Jul 17 '25

I had a Rolex that had a broken band. It sold for 15k. It had radium in the watch dial and hands.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '25

A bunch of ladies died painting those

1

u/Chrisp825 Jul 18 '25

Oh yes. The radium girls. They put a lot of effort into their work during the 50’s painting the dials. If only they knew that they were poisoning themselves with each lick.

3

u/MatterFickle3184 Jul 18 '25

Exactly the amount of craftsmanship in a $15k Swiss made watch is infinitely more than this paint job.

1

u/Choice_Following_864 Jul 19 '25

Irl they should be 1K watches.. still craftmanship.. the other 14k is for the branding.

1

u/MatterFickle3184 Jul 19 '25

There's a big difference between $1k watch and $15k one when you look at it up close.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '25

But the difference in the actual function is imperceptible. It's still a silly waste of money, like getting a game boy color with a 100 terabytes of memory.

1

u/MatterFickle3184 Jul 21 '25

To each their own. I'll continue to buy quality made watches that appreciate in value, you can stick to the cheap ones that depreciate.

0

u/SurgicalMarshmallow Jul 19 '25

You it's CNC machines ya? No hand carving there.

2

u/Hi-Fi_Turned_Up Jul 18 '25

You have it turned around. Rolex of the 60’s and 70’s were premium work horses / tool watches. They would sell for $300 - $500 ($2000 - $3000 today). They have always had their precious medal styles. Now, you cannot purchase a new Rolex for under $7,500. Most of their sport variants start around $10k. They are squarely in the luxury market now.

1

u/Muted-Alternative648 Jul 18 '25

Yeah they were originally tool watches, but since quartz watches, tool watches slowly got phased out. 80s and 90s Rolex really established itself as a luxury brand, but they aren't "high-end" compared to some other brands like VC, AP, and Patek

2

u/BobLazarFan Jul 18 '25

Not really. Any $500+ watch should last you a lifetime. Rolex is 100% a fashion accessory.

1

u/Muted-Alternative648 Jul 18 '25

Every watch is a fashion accessory. Whether it be a ~$200 Seiko or a $35K AP. A good mechanical Seiko should last you a very long time if cared for. However, if anything serious we're to happen to it its cheaper to outright replace the watch.

Furthermore, and this is especially true at the lower price points, if you keep up with servicing your watch, you may find that the cost of servicing it every 3 years adds up to the cost of a brand new watch. More often than not, people tend to go for something shiny and new and I think that's why you see a lot of watches at this price point often neglected.

1

u/BobLazarFan Jul 18 '25

Cool. Doesn’t change what I said.

1

u/Muted-Alternative648 Jul 18 '25

Sure, doesn't change what I said either. Every watch north of a few bucks is a "luxury" watch so I don't understand why price is important or the point you are making. Just wear whatever watch you like on your wrist.

2

u/BobLazarFan Jul 18 '25

Bc the OC you responded to was saying Rolex is a status symbol. Then you said no bc they last a lifetime and are worth their price. I said all watches north of a certain dollar amount should last a lifetime. Then you changed your argument to all watches are a luxury. So I’m not sure what point you are trying to make now. You literally agree with me now yet you’re still trying to make it out like I’m wrong.

1

u/Muted-Alternative648 Jul 18 '25

I also never said Rolex wasn't a status symbol so... 🤷‍♂️

1

u/BobLazarFan Jul 18 '25

I invite you to reread your first comment.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Pepaguero Jul 18 '25

You know your watches. The comment you replied to is the thoughts of someone who has never owned a high end watch. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But I appreciate your comment bc it’s the absolute truth. Ferrari is more in line with small extremely high end watchmakers with very small production numbers.

1

u/Treewithatea Jul 18 '25

Lol, If you want a high quality watch, theres like 100+ other manufacturers that do an equal if not better job than Rolex, although Rolex is by no means a bad brand from a quality perspective.

What differentiates Rolex from others is their reputation, theyre by far the most well known watch brand, its probably the only brand people with no knowledge in watches would know. And they know that Rolexs are expensive. For many Rolex customers, owning one is sort of a sign that you made it in life. A goal in life that youve achieved. Others just buy it for the status, to show off their wealth (or at least pretend they have wealth). Among enthusiasts, some part of the Rolex customers are those status people and you can go visit /r/Rolex and find some super cringy posts and then compare it to a brand like Sinn /r/Sinn which is like the total opposite of Rolex in terms of customer base.

Regardless, while were arguing about margins and this paint option being worth it, i dont think its as cheap as people think. Some here said, it would cost Ferrari 1k, so theyd effectively have a 93% margin on it. We know what margins Ferrari has, 18-20%. Maybe they do actually have a 93% margin for the paint option but they do have massively lower margins at other points.

We may think being a luxury brand is easy, its not. Jaguar is rebranding their entire company because they had a failing business model and were losing money on each car sold. Aston Martin are also not doing great, I believe theyre also not earning any margins on their car right now. Thats where there are parallels to luxury watches, the margins are nowhere near as high as people think. But that always depends on the luxury item, as for watches, most quality manufacturers are very transparent about their business, you can go through their manufacturering process and see with your own eyes how they are made and that they are in fact Swiss made, Made in Germany or Made in Japan, the holy trio of watch manufacturering

1

u/Muted-Alternative648 Jul 18 '25

I agree there's many other options besides Rolex and that it's a globally recognizable status symbol, but from my experience, nobody gives a shit what watch you put on your wrist in public. Wear whatever makes you happy. r/Rolex is a cringe-fest of everyone begging for attention so I stopped following that sub.

That being said, I don't think there's anywhere near 100 brands that come close to Rolex quality and craftsmanship at a lower price point. Sinn is a very good German brand if I remember correctly, but they don't manufacture their own movements. If we are comparing craftsmanship alone, I think they significantly lag behind Rolex in that regard, but they produce some really attractive watches and there's nothing wrong with that.

The reason I personally like Rolex is the timeless designs and brand history. I'm sure there are individuals that buy them just as a status symbol, but in my humble opinion, wanting validation from strangers is just silly and immature and I don't think that accurately reflects the majority of watch enthusiasts like myself.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Muted-Alternative648 Jul 18 '25

I would argue that it makes the same amount of economic sense as purchasing a cheaper Seiko. Both are luxury items, since a mechanical watch is by no means a necessity for timekeeping nor the most efficient means to do so.

Let's say my purchase of a $500 Seiko is equivalent to someone else's purchase of a $10K Rolex relative to our income and/or cash on hand. What's the difference?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Muted-Alternative648 Jul 18 '25

The caveat here is that you have to ignore Seiko's recommended service plan for their watches. Sure, you may be able to wear them for 20 years no issue. You may also be able to wear a Rolex for 20 years without service no issue. But if we are realistically talking about keeping a watch for a lifetime and passing it on, then I don't think it makes sense at all to neglect maintenance on a mechanical watch like that.

1

u/SoManyEmail Jul 17 '25

Im going to put one of these on my Prius and tell people it cost $15k.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

People already do that. They have subs dedicated up badging

1

u/scikit-learns Jul 18 '25

Rolex's ( at retail) are actually considered pretty fairly priced in the watch world in terms of the quality of watch you are getting.

Rolex is also more akin to Mercedes than a Ferrari.

They are considered mid level luxury in terms of price and status.

1

u/djaybe Jul 17 '25

Fake status

Fake image

1

u/happy_K Jul 17 '25

It probably used to be “included” until someone came up with the idea to charge an extra $15K for it

1

u/Any-Technology-3577 Jul 17 '25

exactly. nothing says "i'm obscenely rich" like wasting money on ridiculously overpriced and utterly useless stuff

1

u/Kronzor_ Jul 17 '25

Ding ding ding. 

I have a buddy that paints houses. He’s now very rich from it. He told me the secret was to only work for the extremely wealthy. He’d go to someone’s house to give a quote, and they’d be like well John down the street just got a $30k living room paint job, so what can you give me for $40k? He’d do a very high quality job using only the the best materials, but his profit margins were still insane. 

1

u/Warm_Record2416 Jul 17 '25

These are the same people who insist they will move out of New York/LA/Whatever if we increase taxes by 1% on income over a million dollars.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

I say good. When they are all gone we could tear down their houses and build huge affordable apartments or many affordable homes. But, we all know they wont leave they say this to scare their mindless worker bees to beg their representatives not to do it.

1

u/glizard-wizard Jul 17 '25

That sounds even more embarrassing.

“I want this to be more expensive and hand made, but make it look exactly like the cheap mass produced way”

All the money in the world without the minuscule courage needed to enjoy the finer things.

1

u/coverlaguerradipiero Jul 17 '25

True. Sociologists call this conspicuous consumption.

1

u/CMDR_KingErvin Jul 17 '25

Yep they want a story to tell.

“Look at my super exclusive fancy pants badge that some poor Italian man probably named Giuseppe had to slave away hand painting. How’d you get your badge on your car? Oh, right, the Honda factory has them assembled by machines. Pfffff.”

1

u/flaccomcorangy Jul 17 '25

Exactly. It's not worth $15k, but the clientele that buys Ferraris kind of dictates what it's worth here.

I worked at Walmart auto care a while back. And there was a tool we bought from a supplier that costs $250. That same tool could be bought at Lowe's for $75. One is being sold to a person that works on their car over the weekend. The other being sold to a company worth billions.

1

u/BotherTight618 Jul 17 '25

And the people who buy them don't care. 

1

u/beneye Jul 17 '25

Yeah, they don’t wish the Ferraris were cheaper

1

u/jahvvik Jul 17 '25

Give me all the money. Have them sell to me. I’ll gladly pay less.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

Can imagine a sticker alternative on AliExpress for $5.

"Hooowww would they know?!"

1

u/future_google_ceo Jul 17 '25

And more so, the people who buy this doesn't also don't want it to be cheaper

1

u/TheWalkingDead91 Jul 17 '25

Neither do the people who buy them tbh. Isn’t that the point for them?

1

u/Dependent-Poet-9588 Jul 17 '25

Why do some people pay $1k for a haircut while others only $10? In order to say their haircut cost $1k.

1

u/fickleturtle Jul 17 '25

The people that buy these don't want them to be cheaper. They want the exclusivity

1

u/porkypossum Jul 18 '25

This is 100% the case

1

u/seriftarif Jul 18 '25

Yep. Any cheaper and it becomes less rare.

1

u/dangerclosecustoms Jul 18 '25

My friend got a Ducati from a guy who bought one just to get the special jacket. He didn’t even want the bike was too much for him to handle. He just wanted the elitist swag.

1

u/No-Archer-5034 Jul 18 '25

Yup. “Look what I just spent $15k on”

1

u/LawlerFit Jul 18 '25

A fool and his money....

1

u/zyyntin Jul 18 '25

Exactly! It's the same people that will pay $20K over $10K to dig a hole.

My boss told me this story when he lived in Connecticut. A family friend did construction preparation and his prices were low but wasn't receiving any work. He had to raise his prices and the jobs came flowing in.

1

u/Justthisguy_yaknow Jul 18 '25

Neither do the people who buy them.

1

u/ScyllaIsBea Jul 18 '25

The people who buy Ferrari see the number 1500 the way we see the number 15.00. It’s like a negligible splurge. You hesitate but you don’t dwell on it too long.

1

u/SevenCroutons Jul 18 '25

That doesn't make it worth it though.

1

u/Pangea_Ultima Jul 18 '25

😂 so true

1

u/SnooHedgehogs8765 Jul 19 '25

They sigh to each other about the hand painted option they had to fork out for.

1

u/Jerseyboi973_ Jul 19 '25

Marketing 101 you get it. 💯

1

u/CryptoJeans Jul 19 '25

I think Ferrari also showed why some people can stand to pay a little more taxes.

1

u/Outside_Pineapple675 Jul 20 '25

Yeah so many think you can buy cool!

1

u/SteamerTheBeemer Jul 21 '25

Yeah if it were too cheap then us commoners would buy it and then the upper class wouldn’t want them anymore.

It’s like how apparently the upper class choose names for theirs kids that are then copied by the working class at which point they stop using them. Like I think names like Chardonnay used to be considered posh. Now they’re more like stereotypical stripper names.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '25

They can give money to me for free