(see: supreme luxuriousness)

A few classes ago, there was a discussion in our lecture that related to the way in which the company Tesla Motors could best advance to grow their company. A group that presented before the whole class suggested that they work on methods to cut costs and lower prices so as to make their vehicles more attainable by the general public, with the intent of selling more. However, this got me thinking. If it is Tesla’s goal to sell a brand of cars, which are both high performance and luxury, does this not develop a level of exclusivity within the brand? In other words, if Tesla’s cars become more accessible to the general public financially, to what extent do they become less exclusive and move away from the goal of the brand? This theory, of course, applies to all luxury brands with similar foundational values. The entire basis for legitimizing luxury brands is that they are exclusive, and therefore only those with the means to buy their products have access to them. Should Tesla’s goal really be to sell as many cars as possible? Or is it more in-line with their values and the basis of their company if they leave the hefty price tag, and retain the exclusivity factor of their vehicles? I would suggest the latter, begrudgingly of course, because that makes it all the more difficult for me to own a Tesla myself.

link to image: http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/299b849c02ea5e301c4088b5f7e2528e/200308646/01-2012-tesla-model-s-fd-1347336745.jpg

The regulation circumventing techniques employed by Goldman Sachs as outlined in the New York Times article pose questions regarding the delicate balance between pursuit of profit, and blatantly acting in a corrupt/unethical fashion. Goldman Sachs demonstrates, through their manipulation and artificial inflation of the price of aluminum, the way in which businesses will push the boundaries of morality in order to attain their financial goals. This begs the question, however: though Goldman Sachs is essentially hoarding stocks of resources, which is blatantly illegal, is it still wrong if they technically aren’t doing anything illegal? Should the boundaries of ethics in business be defined strictly by the law itself; or should “ethics” refer to a standard code of decency, superseding written rules, that businesses should adhere to regardless of the loopholes that they can find themselves taking advantage of? Goldman Sachs would certainly plead the former, but as a consumer who finds himself faced with artificially rising prices putting more money in the pockets of those who have more than they would/should ever need, I’m not so sure.

link to image: http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/09/0904_first_jobs/image/goldman_sachs.jpg