The Economist: Fakes and status in China →
MOST shop windows proudly showcase what can be bought inside. The window of the Silk Street Market, a touristy shopping centre in Beijing, is a bit different. It displays a pair of official notices advertising what cannot be bought inside. These non-offerings include luxury brands such as Prada, Louis Vuitton and Burberry. The notices are meant to save customers from buying fakes unwittingly. But many still buy them wittingly. You could almost say that counterfeits remain Silk Street’s trademark, despite the market’s efforts to stamp them out. On the ground floor, a purple “Paul Smith” polo-shirt from a Guangzhou factory was offered to your correspondent for 1,285 yuan ($200), a price which eventually fell to 150 yuan. It is not easy to walk away from such bargains. Especially when the stall holder will not let go of your coat.
Clever, clever, clever. Given China’s malinvestment practices, the article points out China’s massive mal-consumption practices as well, given that the Chinese adore fakes and being wasteful with their money (spending over 30% of their budget on gifts and festivals).
I agree that this is true - but — a little juxtaposition would have been nice. Do citizens of other countries not decide to spend all of their money on gifts and festivals and luxury goods should they come into a little bit more cash? Also, many Chinese people at least save up the money for these splurges, leaving little to be taken from loans, banks, etc. I can’t say the same for people in other countries (most of the world right now) who are in debt because they were spending money that they didn’t have. A little food for thought before we go around pointing fingers.
