I fully agree with F. You boldly put England as first in your list and conveniently ignore the fact that England very famously thoroughly exploited India for example…. Italy did not just get created on its own either – I shall remind you about Roman Empire and it’s conquests and exploitations as well… There isn’t a single “first world” country that at one point or another did not exploit other nations

“We are the first to send humanitarian aid during disasters and have historically moved to defend weaker nations. Also, I CAN name a country that wasn’t founded on raping another country………England. Italy. Switzerland.”

Actually England colonized more than just Hong Kong. Early English settlers also took over Canada, India, South Africa, the British Virgin Isles, Australia, and the United States (to name a few) in search of land, resources, and wealth. Sometimes these colonialists exploited the original inhabitants. (i.e. slavery, residential schools for First Nations people, etc…) Italy colonized Somalia and Libya in the late 1800s (among other small countries) for land and resources. As you can see, many present day Third World problems indeed stem from exploitation, laws, and culture imposed by one group onto another group. Please review your history before you boldly declare “facts”.

(1) Women out there yearn for a bag and WILL pay $20,000 for the bag.

which leads to -

(2) The increase in the value of the bag and the brand to charge that kind of price for a bag. (because women DO pay for it).

which leads to -

(3) Counterfeits springing up and the growth of the counterfeit goods market.

which leads to -

(4) Third world countries being exploited.

So, if you look at the chain, it’s the women out there who would pay $20,000 for JUST a bag that are the root of the problem. Come on, brand or no brand, finest leather or PVC, it is STILL a bag. It has no additional functions other than to carry one’s personal belongings.

IF these women STOPPED paying that kind of money for a bag. It would be worth nothing and counterfeits would not be produced and third world countries would be less exploited.

In my opinion, it is morally wrong to pay $20,000 for a bag, because (1) that sum of money is equivalent to some families’ annual income that feeds many mouths and (2) it encourages the counterfeit market which hurts the 3rd world countries.

I come from a small Asian country where counterfeit apparel are rampant and are widely accepted. People don’t have a problem seeing someone carry fake stuff and we don’t judge that person at all.

It’s just a matter of personal choice. Over here, we all know that 90% of the apparel out there are Made in China and the prices are just ridiculously marked up because of a brand. I’ve just bought a winter jacket for a $450, and my friend just laughed and said it was made in China and I could have gotten the exact looking thing for $20 tops in Beijing, maybe even with the label on.

Two of my colleagues were having tea with me last week and I was gushing at their gorgeous Panerai watches. Until they started comparing whose watch was a better A grade fake. It was really funny. And these two guys are the top bankers in our company and have networth in the millions. They do drive real BMWs though.

Some of us just hold the opinion that it is ridiculous to pay that huge price tag for a bag, but we still like to copy the look because it looks good.

The weird thing is while we have no problems with fake apparel out there, this is a community that frowns on fake boobs, fake chins, fake noses, fake teeth, fake faces and fake hair. In fact, up till about two years ago, even fake eye colour was not well accepted. In my country, I would be judged if I did botox of had a nose job, not if I was carrying a fake LV.

It’s all a matter of perception and it’s really subjective how “fake” is or should be tolerated. I have carried both the real and fake stuff before and frankly, they didn’t make me feel better or worse for the day and I didn’t particularly feel prettier or more attractive because of a bag. Seriously, I think it would be pathetic if one’s mood or self-esteem for the day is determined by a bag.

Like I said earlier, it’s all a matter of personal choice.

Thanks for reading!

Is the mere act of CARRYING a fake handbag wrong? No (although it is tacky). But it is not morally wrong. However, the fact that you bought it off of some street vendor in Chinatown IS morally reprehensible, because you just helped someone commit a crime and an illegal trade.

I wish that the act of buying counterfeit bags was punishable by law. It would make people think twice about helping a illegal trade to flourish.

Mademoiselle Coco Chanel wore knock offs of her own line. Mind you, she was very open about it. Now what does that say about her as a designer? She did that to prove to women that it doesn’t matter if what you’re wearing is real or fake. What matters is how you feel in what you are wearing. Her belief was that fashion should be accessible to everyone, as it should be. Just because you cannot afford to buy a Chanel suit doesn’t mean you’re not worthy enough to be stylish.

There is and will always be an ever present stigma that the best fashion=more money. I feel sorry for the women that have to work overtime just to get that LV and for the women who lack confidence because they can’t afford everything in the pretty magazines.

I think true ’style’ encompasses not just fashion but your ‘lifestyle’ as well. Given the present economic conditions, many people in debt are young professional women who frivolously spend their money on the transitory ‘it’ pieces. It’s very sad watching a pretty girl carrying a LV ordering from the dollar menu at McDonalds. I’m pretty sure if Mademoiselle Chanel was still around she would be appalled at how women are becoming more and more slaves to fashion.

As an aspiring fashion designer I want so much to change how the world perceives what is beautiful and what is real. What a beautiful world it would be if everyone wore their raw emotions.

Some of the criticisms of the study miss the point. His study did not test whether people who choose to use counterfeit products are different from people who don’t. It also didn’t address the moral “goodness” or “badness” of people who use versus don’t use counterfeit products. The experiment simply tested whether people who were persuaded or induced to use a product that they believed was counterfeit would be more likely to behave dishonestly in other domains than would people who believed that they were using the real brand. The experiment showed that this was in fact the case–the people who believed that they were using the counterfeit were more likely to cheat in other unrelated areas.

The experiment doesn’t really need a “control group” for the purpose of determining whether knowingly using a counterfeit product increases the likelihood of dishonesty. The two experimental conditions (”fake” versus “real”) are sufficient to make the causal inference that knowingly using a counterfeit product increases dishonesty. It would have been useful to use a third group to determine the “base rate” of dishonest behavior absent the knowing use of either real or fake products. But overall, I think this is a very interesting study with implications for consumer behavior generally.