I gave you an upvote on a charitable interpretation, because I think it’s actually a humbling observation: how much money some motivated individuals are willing to spend on objects with no bona fide “value”.

That is, things that are not edible (food) and do not produce something edible (fire, farming tools, soil), that do not shield you from the elements or help produce such goods that do.

We all possess things that are basically irrational to possess. Many even pay for the opportunity to possess and protect things with no boba fide value.

For me, it’s books and records, in spite of easy access to the library and the internet. For others, it’s clothes, exotic food ingredients, streaming services/TV, season passes, and Pokémon cards.

I used to think like this, judging people by their value functions. But as I’ve gotten older, I increasingly find it unfair to knock people for the irrational things they choose to possess, as long as it brings no unreasonable harm to others (i.e. it’s OK to shame the person who invests their life savings in Pokémon cards, using it as a vehicle for speculation, but I still think it’s wrong to say they have no life).