Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Style and beauty

Looking for style advice? Chat all about it here. For the latest discounts on fashion and beauty, sign up for Mumsnet Moneysaver emails.

The Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Unfairness

8 replies

worldgonecrazy · 17/07/2012 09:16

For anyone who hasn't read Terry Pratchett, Sam Vimes is in charge of the local police force, and ultimately ends up married to the richest woman in the country. Here is his theory of Economic Unfairness

The reason the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ..... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

As we are nearly at boot-buying season I thought I would remind myself of this fact when being tempted by cheap plastic boots. (Though I should point out that I have no intention of spending more than a month's salary on a pair of boots!)

I strongly believe this theory also applies to coats.

OP posts:
Westcountrylovescheese · 17/07/2012 09:18

Here here...! Note though that this does NOT necessarily apply to electrical items. Hint hint DH.

Sam Vimes advice should be followed in a cultish way IMO. Wink

mirpuppet · 17/07/2012 18:37

It is the old buy cheap by twice isn't it?

RealityStrikesAgain · 17/07/2012 18:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Iatemyskinnyperson · 17/07/2012 19:25

So true. The clothes I have for years are the good quality items. The really expensive things are the primarni tat you wear once if at all...

Saying that I've gotten a good few things at TK Maxx that are good quality but didn't cost a lot (cashmere sweaters, leather bags etc). You have to have time and luck with that shop though...

sybilvimes · 17/07/2012 19:31

He is a genuis my Sam, but he snores like a hog.

CardiCorgi · 18/07/2012 12:48

Plus it saves you the hassle of shopping. Especially the rugby scrum that is H&M (have never been into a Primark but I image that it is as bad.)

Very tempted to spend a month's salary on a pair of very very nice boots. But then I'd worry about ruining them and need a cheaper pair to wear in the rain.

hazchem · 18/07/2012 13:09

Yesterday I threw out a pair of shoes.

I brought them in 2003 for AUS$90. They were Italian leather I wore them to death. I was sad to see them go.
A week ago I threw out a pair of shoes I brought in April 2012 for £10. They were canvas/synthetic. I was really cross. I felt like an idiot for wasting money but it was a good reminder that I shouldn't buy cheap shoes.

comeintomyworld · 18/07/2012 13:43

The smart thing to do is to stock up on things like winter boots and coats in the sales, so you get it at the same price as the cheap boots but with excellent quality. It does mean you're in last season's wear but for classic things that are supposed to last, it shouldn't matter so much. I am always a bit surprised when you get threads on S&B about having to buy clothes for the new winter/summer season, most of my clothes have lasted years so I don't need to buy more every year.

Then again, I do have some bits from Primark, New Look etc which have lasted for several years with care, or were so trend-led that it wouldn't matter if they lasted well because I wouldn't want to wear them again the next season.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page