Value of tragety?

The Columbia thread led me to think of this, and I thought maybe a seperate thread would be better........


When one thinks in terms of collectables, and especially collectables obtained for investment purposes, death can be an instigator of value.

For example, a "collectable" samurai sword has a specific value, but one carried by a Japanese soldier during WWII is worth more.


This lead me to the question, are these people "capitalizing on death"? If so, is that wrong?

Obviously selling wreckage parts from the shuttle Columbia is just wrong, but what about, say, the guy with a commemerative coin?

Assume he bought it with the intent of selling it after a noticable increase in value. If that increase is now, is it morally wrong to sell it at this point?

 

Hi CF. I won't repeat what I said in the Columbia tragedy thread. Suffice it to say my cynicism doe's not decrease the accuracy of what I said.

And consider: Since when has business ever let morals to get in the way of profit?

 

What about John Wayne Gacey clown art?? It is collectible and some people pay huge sums just because of the name associated with it. It's not neccesarily the piece that is valuable, it's the history behind it. Could you imagine how much someone would pay for the Luger that blew out Hitler's brains?

 

or mulders keyboard

 

Here's one person's value of tragedy:

"For us it will have a devastating effect, because most of our business is backcountry skiing, and the people who do backcountry skiing are our regular customers."

This endearing person's first thought is about profits. The above quote is from a news interview regarding the deaths in my avalanche thread.

 

I think we all agree, and are equally disgusted, at the "direct" examples. (Like in PC's last post)

What started me thinking were those "once removed" situations, so to speak.

The person selling the Columbia collectable coin, the person who owns stock in Gen. Dynamics because there may be an increase in F-16 orders (since some could/will be lost in the looming conflict).

Another example:

After Princess Diana died there was an auction of her dresses. Surely part of the "value" came from the fact that she would not be around to wear any more of them. What was there was all there would be.

Do we view those people in the same light as Mr/Mrs "no more backcountry skiing"?


Rockin mentioned Hitlers luger. That is pretty direct. How about someone who sells one actually carried by a Nazi soldier?

Are all of these people "vultures who profit from death"?


I realize this is really a "mental masturbation" subject, but thought it would be an interesting diversion from the war threads.

 

It has a lot to do with greed -vs- the legitimate collection of valuable items.

The day Dale Earhardt died, I bought 2 diecast cars. $119.00 for one, and $99.00 for the other.

I must admit, that, even though I was grieving, my intent was that of greed. I really liked Dale, and cried more than a few times over his passing. I couldn't sell the cars.

But now, 2 years later, they have appreciated in value. But the wound is still too fresh today.

In 20 years, I imagine they might be worth upwards of $1,000.00 each. Perhaps then I will profit from that choice I made. But it was a legal choice, and I have not attempted to profit from the sorrow of people's grief. Is that greed? I think not. Time will make the investment nothing more than a collectible piece like a coin.

However, a missing piece of Columbia could actually CAUSE harm to future astronauts. This is the ultimate greed. It is a felony, and should be punished to the extent of the law.

Which in this case is $250,000.00 fine and up to 10 years in prison.