I was reading about the “big spenders” in the latest issue of the Female magazine. I pick up magazines every month to keep abreast of the local fashion coverage for my writing. This article about the ‘big spenders’ left me feeling a little, well, disconcerted.Don’t get me wrong, I am not against having money, living a luxurious lifestyle or being well groomed. I, for one, am a woman who likes my retail therapy, my grooming routines and my little indulgences.  The distaste is towards those who put on a casual nonchalance about the $54,000 massage machine, flaunting the $10,000 hairdo but claiming ’stealth wealth’) and the $600 pedicure. Class and breeding are not commodities bought by the abundance of money. I find the arrogant flaunting of wealth extremely vulgar and ‘Beverly Hillbilly’.

This is also a reason why I am glad I am not officially working in magazines - for fear of offending with the truth of what I feel. I will not be able to say that I have a real distaste towards the vulgar materialism that some ‘taitais’ exhibit. I will not be able to express that some of the richest ‘taitais’ I know will not dream of strutting around in such obscene displays of vulgarity. For them, a dignified and luxurious elegance is paramount and loud displays of wealth is considered vulgar.

Most importantly, a glaring difference between the old money and nouveau rich is their attitudes towards charity. While old money is known to give millions away on the quiet, the nouveau rich glorifies in the opulence and extravagence of haute couture gowns, ostentatious jewellery and designer stylists. The logic that the money spent on showing off and one upping each other could have been better put to use if it had been directed to the objective of the ball - the charity cause itself.

Perhaps my distaste is furthermore brought on by the fact that I come from a family that advocates the importance of working hard, humility and a general aversion towards boastful extravagence. Perhaps I have found that the truly rich tend to be discreet and it’s those who  are loud, arrogant or flashy tend to be well, somewhat lacking. Indeed, I cannot help explain my natural distaste of people flaunting how much they paid for anything and a comfortable acceptance of people with fortunes many many times of mine.

I leave you with this picture and a question:

Obama is obviously more wealthy than Palin. Why do the Americans not begrudge him his riches? Why then is he deemed more credible and able than Palin?

The answer is Substance.