Writing
The allure of luxury, writing assignment help

Question Description

there are 2 different essay that need to be reading, then write a new paper .

1 it must contain one thesis statement in the end of first  paragraph,  then have to 3 body graphs with topic sentence in order to support the these statement. 

 2 one body paragraph need 2 quote that choose in different 2 essay, and quote should set up, integrated, punctuated, and cite properly, the quote should  analyze it not summarize it.

 3 In the essay, no 'I' or 'In my opinion', no' people '.

 4 In the first paragraph, the author need introduce about  2 essay, and summarize their points in 1st paragraph.

 5 Transitions between paragraphs are not just mechanical, but explain real connection between real ideal in paragraph.

 6 all body paragraphs effectively support the thesis.

7 essay need MLA style, and i will give you a sample writing that i have been written, please follow that format.

8 this essay should have 5 paragraph, 1 introduction paragraph, 3 body paragraph, and one conclusion


Unformatted Attachment Preview

The allure of luxury (james, b. Twitckhell) At length I recollected the thoughtless saying of a great prince who, on being informed that the country had no bread, replied, “Let them eat cake.” —Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Confessions Well, okay, so Marie Antoinette never said, “Let them eat cake.” When Rousseau wrote those words, Marie was just 11 years old and living in Austria. But Americans used to like the story that, when the French queen was told by an official that the people were angry because they had no bread, she responded, “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche.” We liked to imagine her saying it with a snarl and a curled lip. She was a luxury bimbo whose out-of-control spending grated on the poor and unfortunate French people. We fought a revolution to separate ourselves from exactly that kind of uppercrustiness. She got her just “desserts.” But that was 200 years ago. Now cake is one of our favorite foods, part of the fifth food group, totally unnecessary luxury consumption. We’re not talking about a few crumbs, but the real stuff. Brioche by the loaf. Not for nothing has Marie become a favorite subject for current infotainment. Novelists, historians, biographers, and even hip young filmmaker Sofia Coppola are telling her story, not because we want her reviled but because we want to be like her. And we’re doing a pretty good job. Luxury spending in the United States has been growing more than four times as fast as overall spending, and the rest of the West is not far behind. You might think that modern wannabe Maries are grayhairs with poodles. Not so. This spending is being done by younger and younger consumers. Take a walk up Fifth Avenue, and then, at 58th, cross over and continue up Madison. You’ll see who is swarming through the stores with names we all recognize: Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Prada, Dior, Coach. . . . Or cruise Worth Avenue or Rodeo Drive, and you’ll see the same furious down-marketing and up-crusting. This is the Twinkiefication of deluxe. You don’t have to go to these streets of dreams to see who’s on a sugar high. Take a tour of your local Costco or Sam’s Club discount warehouse and you’ll see the same stuff, only a day old and about to become stale, being consumed by a slightly older crowd. Observe the parking lot, where shiny new imported sedans and SUVs are parked beside aging subcompacts. Or spend an hour watching the Home Shopping Network, a televised flea market for impulse buyers. Its call centers now have some 23,000 incoming phone lines capable of handling up to 20,000 calls a minute. The network no longer sells cubic zirconia rings. It sells Gucci handbags. We’ve developed a powerful desire to associate with recognized objects of little intrinsic but high positional value, which is why Martha Stewart, our faux Marie, is down at Kmart introducing her Silver Label goods, why a courtier the likes of Michael Graves is designing toasters for Target (pronounced by wits, with an ironic French flair, tar-ZHAY), why the Duke of Polo, Ralph Lauren, is marketing house paint, and why suave Cole Porter–brand furniture is appearing on the floor at Ethan Allen stores. Look around, and you will see that almost every category of consumables has cake at the top. This is true not just for expensive products such as town cars and McMansions, but for everyday objects. In bottled water, for instance, there is Evian, advertised as if it were a liqueur. In coffee, there’s Starbucks; in ice cream, Häagen-Dazs; in sneakers, Nike; in wine, Chateau Margaux; in cigars, Arturo Fuente Hemingway, and well, you know the rest. Having a few TVs around the house is fine, but what you really need is a home entertainment center worthy of Versailles, with a JBL Ultra Synthesis One audio system, a Vidikron Vision One front projector, a Stewart Ultramatte 150 screen, a Pioneer DV-09 DVD player, and an AMX ViewPoint remote control. Hungry for chow with your entertainment? Celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck has his own line of TV dinner entrées. Ironically, what this poaching of deluxe by the middle class has done is make things impossible for the truly rich. Ponder this: A generation ago, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor surrounded themselves with the world’s finest goods—from jewelry to bed linens to flatware. The duchess, the twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson, would never be queen, but that didn’t prevent her from carrying off a passable imitation of Marie. In the Windsor household, the coasters were Cartier and the placemats were Porthault, and the pooches ate from silver-plated Tiffany bowls. When Sotheby’s auctioned more than 40,000 items from the Windsors’ Paris home in 1997, the remnants of their royal life went out for bid. Most of the items listed in the Sotheby’s catalog are still being made, either in the same form or in an updated version. In other words, the duchess’s precious things are within your grimy reach. From her point of view, she might just as well take ’em to the dump. • Chanel faux-pearl earrings given to the duchess by the duke can be picked up for about $360 at Chanel stores. • The duchess’s Cartier love bracelet in 18-karat gold with screw closure, which was presented by the president of Cartier to the Windsors and other “great lovers” in 1970 (among the other recipients: Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, Sophia Loren and Carlo Ponti), is yours for $3,625 at Cartier boutiques. • T. Anthony luggage, the Windsors’ favorite (they owned 118 such trunks), is still being manufactured and can be bought in Manhattan. • Hand-embroidered Porthault linens are stocked at your local mall. • The Windsors’ stationery from the Mrs. John L. Strong company, complete with hand-engraved monogrammed pieces on pure cotton paper, can be yours for $80 to $750, depending on the ornamentation. • The duke’s velvet slippers can be purchased for $188 at Brooks Brothers, which owns the London company that made them. Instead of an E for “Edward” below the embroidered crown, the slippers have a BB. • Okay, okay, you’ll never own as many scarves and gloves as the duchess did, but Hermes and Balenciaga sell exactly the same ones she wore for upward of $300 a pop. Here’s the takeaway: There is very little cake a rich person once gorged on that a middle-class person can’t get on his plate. You name it; I can taste it. So I can’t afford a casita on Bermuda, but I can get in on a time-share for a weekend. No, I can’t own a stretch limo, but I can rent one by the hour. Maybe Venice is out this year, but I’ll go to the Venetian in Vegas instead. I can’t afford an Armani suit, but what about these eyeglasses with Giorgio’s name plastered on them? Commodore Vanderbilt said that if you have to ask how much a yacht costs, you can’t afford one, but check out my stateroom on my chartered Majestic Princess. True, I don’t have my own Gulfstream V jet, but I can upgrade to first class on Delta with the miles I “earn” by using my American Express card. Is that my own Lexus out front? Or is it on lease from a used car dealer? You’ll never know. Lux populi may be the end of deluxe. “Real” luxury used to be for the “happy few,” but in the world of the supra-12,000 Dow Jones industrial average, there are only the minted many. “Sudden Wealth Syndrome,” asThe Los Angeles Times has called it, is not just for dot.com innovators or contestants on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, but for a generation that is inheriting its wealth through the steady attrition of the Generation Who Fought the War. The “wealth effect,” as former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan termed it, drives more and more money to chase after goods whose production can hardly be called beneficial and cannot now even be called positional. There’s a story, perhaps apocryphal, that when Tom Ford, chief designer for Gucci in the 1990s, was passing through the Newark airport (what the hell was he doing there?!), he saw one of his swanky T-shirts on the tummy of a portly prole. He immediately canceled the clothing line. Too late. Perhaps the social construction of luxury as a material category has already been deconstructed into banality. The very unreachableness of old luxe made it safe, like an old name, old blood, old land, an old coat of arms, or old service to the crown. Primogeniture, the cautious passage and consolidation of wealth to the firstborn male, made the anxiety of exclusion from luxe somehow bearable. After all, you knew your place from the moment of birth and had plenty of time to make your peace. If you drew the short straw, not to worry. A comfortable life as a vicar would await you. Or the officer corps. The application of steam, then electricity, to the engines of production brought a new market to status objects, an industrial market made up of people who essentially bought their way into having a bloodline. These were the people who so disturbed economist Thorstein Veblen, and from them this new generation of consumer has descended. First the industrial rich, then the inherited rich, and now the incidentally rich, the accidentally rich, the golden-parachute rich, the buyout rich, the lottery rich. Call them yuppies, yippies, bobos, nobrows, or whatever, the consumers of the new luxury have a sense of entitlement that transcends social class, a conviction that the finest things are their birthright. Never mind that they may have been born into a family whose ancestral estate is a tract house in the suburbs, near the mall, not paid for, and whose family crest was downloaded from the Internet. Ditto the signet ring design. Language reflects this hijacking. Words such as gourmet, premium, boutique, chic, accessory, andclassic have loosened from their elite moorings and now describe such top-of-category items as popcorn, hamburgers, discount brokers, shampoo, scarves, ice cream, and trailer parks. “Luxury for all” is an oxymoron, all right, the aspirational goal of modern culture, and the death knell of the real thing. These new customers for luxury are younger than clients of the old luxe used to be, there are far more of them, they make their money much sooner, and they are far more flexible in financing and fickle in choice. They do not stay put. When Richie Rich starts buying tulips by the ton, Nouveau Riche is right there behind him picking them up by the pound. In a sense, the filthy rich have only two genuine luxury items left: time and philanthropy. As the old paradox goes, the rich share the luxury of too much time on their hands with the very people on whom they often bestow their philanthropy. Who knows, maybe poverty will become the new luxury, as the philosophes predicted. Wonder Bread becomes the new cake. Once you’ve ripped out all the old patinaed hardware, once you’ve traded in the Bentley for a rusted-out Chevy, once you’ve carted all the polo pony shirts to Goodwill, once you’ve given the Pollock to the Met, once you’ve taken your last trip up Everest and into the Amazon, there’s not much left to do to separate yourself but give the rest of the damned stuff away. Competitive philanthropy has its allure. Why do you think there are more than 20 universities with multibillion-dollar pledge campaigns? Those bobos sure as hell can’t do it. Little wonder that Warren Buffett dumped his load rather casually on top of a pile amassed by another modern baron, almost as if to say, “Top that.” Now that’s a show stopper. Even The Donald can’t trump that. Wang 1 Jiaju Wang Iris EAD155 December/09 /2015 Slovick 1461 Final People in Society What is the society? Society is a group of people involved in persistent interpersonal relationships. People need to contact with other people in the society, they need to do some work to make livings, for example, students go to school in order to get some knowledge, people work in order to get some money to live. Sometimes, when people do something, they may need to choose, to consider whether it is worth to do. However, sometimes people may not have good choices, then they need to do something that they are not willing to do. In the article “Dog Lab”, McCarthy does the dog lab in order to get experience about medical knowledge. Even though she hates to kill a dog to get experience, she does the dog lab. She is afraid of getting bad grades and missing good studying opportunity. In an other article “Shooting an Elephant”, Orwell talks about the experience that he killed an elephant when he was a police officer in Burma. In fact, he also did not want to kill an elephant, but, thousands of people wanted the elephant killed and people expected him to kill it. In that situation, if he did not shoot that elephant, people will think Orwell as an idiot, and Orwell felt he would lose the limited authority he possessed. People will have many varied experiences in their lives. It is general for people to do something that they hate to do. Both authors did what they didn’t like, they killed animals which they didn’t want to kill. Why? Sometimes, people have no choice. In some situation, Wang 2 people may reduce their lines to get what they need, or, they may change their moral line by accepting other people’s influences. First, people might reduce their line that they use that line to define themselves to get some advantages. Sometimes people get what they want by doing something that they are not willing to do. In the article “Dog Lab”, the author dislikes using a dog in order to get some knowledge, nevertheless, she did the dog lab in the end. She knows that behavior is wrong, but she wants get experience, she didn’t want to miss any chance to learn. As what she wrote: “ I didn’t want to kill a dog, but, I certainly want to take advantages of every learning opportunity offer me. And despite the fact that the course instructor had said our grades wouldn’t be affected if we didn’t attend the lab, I wasn’t sure I believe him, and I didn’t want to take any chances.”(McCarthy, 481) Things have different sides which have advantages and disadvantages. She wants to get experience, to get good grades, as the same as, she needs to kill dog to do the lab. She believes that the price of doing this is that she needs to kill a dog. Actually, she really doesn’t like to kill animal, she was so sorry for what she did to this dog. More, Orwell has similar experience in “Shoot an Elephant”. He gets social status through shooting an elephant. If he didn’t kill uncontrolled elephant, he thinks many of people would disdain him, look him as an idiot: “I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool.” (Orwell, 463) Orwell brought his rifle because he thought the noise might be useful to threaten the elephant, but, people think that he prepared to shoot the Wang 3 elephant. Two thousands of people follow his steps, and hope the elephant will be killed. In that situation, if Orwell didn’t shoot the elephant, people will look him like a fool. He did not want people to laugh at him, he wants to be sure of his social status, so, he shot an elephant. More, he also thinks his behavior is representative of the European, he can’t let Burmese laugh at European, because he is the policeman work for Europe. In short, people may satisfy their demands by doing some things that they are reluctant to do. Moreover, sometimes, people allowed themselves to do some wrong things in order to get what they want, because they are influenced by other people. We can know from article of “Dog Lab” that medical students may need to do the dog lab in the second year. There is the sentence that: “When the second-year students talked about Physiology, they always mentioned ‘Dog Lab’. They mentioned it briefly but significantly, sharing knowing looks.”(479) From this sentence, we can find that students do dog labs as normal. More and more medical students do the dog lab to learn knowledge. People know that killing dog to do lab is not reasonable, but, all students do the lab, then they will slowly think that behavior is reasonable in their mind. plus, the author wants get all chances to learn. Even though she felt guilty about dog, she accepted to join this lab. To some extent, she might be influenced by other students, since many of people do the lab too, she may feel better to do dog lab. Additionally. In the article of “Shooting an Elephant”, Orwell finally shot the elephant, a part of reason is two thousands of people hoped he can shoot, people have high enthusiasms on Wang 4 shooting elephant, because they can see how the elephant be killed and they can divide the elephant meat, more, if he didn’t shot, he will be laugh. He wrote: “A thousands suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people excepted it of me and I had got to do it; I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly.” ( 461) people might give him a ideal that he should shoot the elephant. When he was influenced by other people sayings, he shot the elephant. However, he has no purpose to shoot elephant when he brought the rifle, he just wanted to threaten the elephant with noisy shot. People live in our society, they are influenced by many things all time, we can’t avoid. In general, we might do some unwilling things pass getting others influences. However, when we change our moral line to gain some benefits, we may feel something wrong for us. In the article “Shooting an Elephant”, Orwell doesn’t want to kill the elephant. Not only is the elephant worth a hundred pounds at the time, but also the elephant has already calmed down. He was guilty to the elephant: “But I did not want to shoot the elephant. I watched him beating his bunch of grass against his knees, with that preoccupied grandmotherly air that elephants have. It seemed to me that it would be murder to shoot him.”( 462) when he came to the accident, the elephant do not hurt anyone, elephant’s behaviors are normal. There are no reasons to kill the elephant, but, he doesn’t hope people make fun with him, and he has responsibility to his country, he can not make people laugh at his country. So, he decided to shoot. After he shot, he Wang 5 realized he killed the elephant in order to get his benefits. He murdered the animal, then he was sorry about that elephant. More, he felt guilty to elephant owner, the owner lost many money. Another, McCarthy felt sorry for the dog as same as. In the “Dog Lab”, she received better opportunity to learn by killing a dog. She wrote a long sentence express her sorry for the dog: “I was disappointed in the lab and disappoint in myself for doing it. I knew now that doing the lab was wrong. Maybe not wrong for everyone—it was clearly a complicated and individual choice—but wrong for me.”(485) McCarthy are so sorry for dog. She realizes that kill a dog to do research is unmoral. The dog is innocent, killing a dog to do lab is dehumanization. All in all, people might make some reluctant choices that broken their moral basis, then they feel guilty, like both Orwell and McCarthy did. In conclusion, “Dog Lab” and “ Shooting an Elephant” describe similar story. Both author do unwilling choice, after they did their works, they felt guilty. McCarthy uses a dog life to do research, Orwell shot an elephant to ensure his reputation. Orwell not only didn’t want people disdain him, but also he have responsibility to his job, his country. If he wants to get what he wants, he will have no choice in that situation, he must shot elephant. In our daily life, we will make many difficult chooses, sometimes, we change our definitions of ourselves, we would love to reduce our basic standards to gain benefits, and we might do unrea ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Final Answer

Hello....Here are the papers at its best and as early as you
requested. Thank you and please feel free to contact me anytime for further
assistance.



Insert Surname Here: 1
Name:
Instructor’s Name:
Course:
Date:
The allure of luxury:
INTRODUCTION:
Imperative research indicates that luxury spending in America has been a growing trend
over the past few years. According to this article; the author argues that the consumers of the
new luxury have become a major phenomenon in the past years. Today; a large number of
population have turned into luxury spending by buying things that they do not need which
continues to increase the allure of luxury.
BODY:
Irrespective of the changing conditions across the globe; it has been proved that luxury
brands have managed to achieve a high performance level and its global competitiveness
continues to make them resilient in the global market. The allure of global luxury encompasses
consumer segments with homogenous needs, motivations as well as needs hence; enabling it to
achieve a global allure of luxury which helps in mitigating the negative consequences o
economic crisis. Irrespective of the market crises; it is evident that luxury brand still operates and
continues to flourish in the global market.
This article was meant to provide evidence the allure of luxury has gained a competitive
advantage in the global market. According to the author; luxury brands has gained a main

Insert Surname Here: 2
competitive advantage in the market which makes it hard to avoid and despite being declared a
luxury; a large population will be seen purchasing things they do not require. According to the
author; the luxury brand has been cited as source of modulate message which according to
research is designed to allure consumers in media to luxury things.
A large number of population own things that they do not need or have an idea about yet;
they cannot resist from buying them. This has been cited as a major source of luxury according
to this article. In this article; the author acknowledges that it is worth thinking about such
purchase which may affect their economy or financial status. Basically; the author;
acknowledges that such purchasing are motivated by status enhancement.

CONCLUSION:
To sum it up; the allure of luxury inspires a powerful critique of consumerism. The
contemporary customers for luxury are the young generation who are living far behind theirs
means. The allure for luxury has prompted a large population to buy ...

eizabeth12_88 (2337)
New York University

Anonymous
Return customer, been using sp for a good two years now.

Anonymous
Thanks as always for the good work!

Anonymous
Excellent job

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors