Statement;but of what ?

Innit?

I wish I had balls big enough to put a boot up the big boys..

I have no problem with Naim making the Statement products and people buying and enjoying them - I would if I could.

I am, however, uneasy with the use of anecdotes to imply food banks are somehow not a good thing as everyone who uses them drives a Jag and has a huge tv with a Sky subscription. The issue of poverty merits more serious consideration and concern.

If I was going to criticise Naim on moral grounds, it wouldn't be for Statement, I would look to the other end of the scale. The Muso is made in China, obviously to save costs, which has an atrocious record of human rights, workers rights, environmental protection etc.

It's that bloomin' auto correct up to its evil ways again! Too FAR! 

Regarding dietary teaching, that was one of the best things about the wonderful Sure Start centres, which this Government seems intent on starving of funds. 

As as others have said, so many of these stories are promulgated by the hateful stream of invective that emanates from the Daily Mail, and are believed by those too dense to see through it. 

Perhaps Naim could organise a 'day of contrasts' - work the morning at a food bank and then listen to the Statement in the afternoon as a reward. Then those who think that food bank users are Jag driving scroungers could interrogate the customers on their financial position and quiz them on their suboptimal lifestyle choices.

 I'm sitting on my lovely Multiyork sofa, with my feet cosy on my new wool carpet, listening to my wonderful stereo. I'm not going to pass judgement on those less fortunate than me, and perhaps others should think a bit more before making harmful judgements on others, when in reality they have not got the first clue about the lives of the poor. 

In the plant kingdom there are trees that grow big and strong like the mighty oak. There is a lot of grass.

In the animal kingdom the mighty lion reigns supreme. There are many gazelle. 

This is the law of nature

But we are allegedly intelligent beings and should know better. A society is judged by how it treats its least fortunate. Something the Bullingdon club bully boys need to learn.

Exactly, using the presence of food banks today as anecdotal evidence of "the poor getting poorer" is rather unfortunate. The rich can always get richer but when you have precisely nothing, that's it, there really is nowhere to go. I can speak from personal experience and not from a newspaper of any perceived quality.

I think this is an excellent question posed by the OP. 

My view, for what it's worth (which isn't much), is the the existence and development of such luxury products in itself says nothing about society as a moral creature. It is the balance how people strive for luxury items and to the degree they exclude other moral considerations that is the pertinent issue.

Without luxury items, few would feel the desire to strive and achieve more which in turn creates wealth. If we take it to extremes and commoditise the quality of everything the number of people attempting to be high achievers will diminish and with fewer high achievers, there are fewer people with accumulated wealth and influence to also act as forces for good in the world.

There will always be those rare individuals that will attempt to achieve for achievement's sake and not for what the achievement can get them. I am truly in awe of those types because I am not one. The problem comes where there are too many of the opposite type who accumulate and achieve, fill their asset list with Statement, private yachts, an island or two and yet do not have any benefit to others beyond the trickle down effect of their purchasing habbits. 

Most of us, if we're honest are somewhere in the middle. We enjoy achieving and and doing a good job; enjoy being rewarded for that and buying ourselves a treat, and our gains to some degree benefit those around us either indirectly through our spending habits or directly by altruistic activity.

So to me, the Naim Statement is fine. If I could I would. But, I'm not about to step on starving orphans to get one. But at the some token, don't feel like I have a responsibility to dedicate my disposable post-tax income to those less fortunate either. But perhaps, after thinking about it I should feel obliged.

Having started the thread ostensibly because of where I find myself morally & intellectually I am finding the level, tone and interest both refreshing and stimulating...

I Manage a range of services for adults with learning and mental health diagnosis which quite possibly places me a little closer to the 'state of the nation' than most ?

However, like all of us I love music when played via Naim equipment and the company and product...& I guess like lot of us I ,prior to discovering Naim, have dabbled (often with significant expense) with the mixing and matching of amps,interconnects,sources etc. Suffice to say I won't be treading that path again and will remain faithful to Naim despite (or because of ? ) the Statement...

There are huge contrasts here in Vancouver. On may way to listen to the Statement (which, with speakers etc. was probably a $750,000 setup), I realised that the street in which the HiFi Centre is now located is essentially on the boundary between rich and poor in downtown Vancouver. Turn right, and walk half a block past newly developed/renovated $1m+ loft apartments for sale and a high end furniture and lighting store and then on to the HiFi Centre, or go straight ahead and literally across the street into what is probably largest congregation of homeless people in the city.

The argument rests on the notion that wealth will "trickle down" to the bottom rungs of society. We now know that it doesn't work like that. Inequality is increasing everywhere, the top 1%, or 0.5%, or whatever, are getting very rich - and yes, poverty is a relative value. There's no such thing as "absolute" poverty, you are richer or poorer than your neighbour, and today the gap is widening. I'm also a "woolly liberal Guardian reader", I'm afraid... and well off. Incidentally, I thought social Darwinism was dead and buried...

I think the OP is being lambasted somewhat unfairly for what I believe was a fair philosophical question, rather than a criticism of what Naim are about or doing with Statement.

I'd like to buy one.  But if I could afford ten, I'd like to think I was also contributing to global change in a meaningful way.  Even if that was itself still a drop in the ocean.....

...thanks karlosTT.

I've been around the block a few times thus my skin is thick ! & there is nothing woolly (Frenchnaim or HH) about having a conscious and believing the world and humanity would be a far better place if it were just a little more equal...I have a friend who works for Princess Yachts in Plymouth and during the recession they are building the largest 'boats' that they have ever built and the order books are burgeoning...spot the theme?!

Most of us on this forum are privileged and financially well-off. Whether through birth, good fortune or hard work is irrelevant.

We choose to allocate some of our wealth on bringing high-quality music into our homes. Some via a £1k mu-so through to some via a £250k-£400k Statement-system.

Whether we have a Statement or not, we are already making a statement to others - few others in a similar state of existence to ourselves will allocate the resources that we do, to home entertainment !

Quite separately is the issue of how people with wealth or influence, use those commodities in relation to others. Do they deny others the opportunity to improve, or do they help others to improve. Do they they limit their help to a few individuals or do they operate on a wider, even global scale.

Consider Cameron and Corbyn. They both have influence. One clearly has wealth and isn't coy about it, The other might have wealth - probably somewhat similar to many on this forum, but goes out of his way to disguise whatever wealth he does have. Both say they want to improve the lives of UK citizens.

Where do you stand in the bigger scheme. How do you use your wealth and influence ?

Most humans would consider a £125k amplifier to be a statement of absurdity, especially if you consider it in terms of being able to buy at that price some kind of dwelling instead (small house or apartment) in some but maybe not all parts of the UK.  To me it is way too extreme to see a £125k amplifier which will only serve to give 2-channel stereo amplification, rather than shelter or a place to call home (unless a buyer was intending to live inside their amplifier).  But then this is just one example amongst many many others of extreme materialism: whether it be an amplifier, a watch covered in blood diamonds or those handbags made out of dead kittens.  It is sad that not all efforts of mankind, including using the advancements in science technology and engineering have led to reducing the gap between the poorest and the richest.  Instead the opposite seems to happen.  Anyway you are to be commended The Dude for raising the question.  May I suggest we all dedicate some listening time to Tracy Chapman debut album, including "talkin' bout a revolution" as this thread sets you in the mood for it