My impression is that most of this stuff is bought by shallow people to show off their wealth to other people. Meanwhile, many others waste a significant portion of their income on them. These gullible people buy overpriced clothes simply to keep up because, through very skilful marketing, this ordinary apparel is held up as something that you should desire or be impressed by.

In the end though, it’s just money that flows from an invested individual’s income to feed a disinterested hedge fund’s balance sheet. It is pretty cringe, and sad on a large scale imo.

I mean, some people are legitimately impressed by those brands, so they serve their purpose no?

I mean that was a pretty recent sale in the grand scheme of their company, so I’m not sure if that’s really fair. Regardless, if their designers are still making products that represent their principles I would think that’s okay. I personally don’t wear Branded clothing but I understand the appeal of their brand.

On the other hand Apple has always had a similar mystique and they’re one of the largest companies ever. I think you’re conflating underground/cool with hip/street wear. I don’t get the hate either way. Let people express themselves without judgement :)

I don’t really agree that Apple is similar. I am no Apple fanboy, but if you want hardware will all the same features, complexity and polish; in particular a phone, there is no competitor that can make an identical clone. Printing vinyl on a hoodie though, that’s a pretty well solved problem.

As for expressing yourself, does it really count? These brands are marketed at you in a million different ways. Then by purchasing what are you expressing?

I'm talking about their branding/advertising and cultural norms, not actual innovation, as in they are considered hip and cool. And yes, that is exactly what marketing is trying to do and it has a clear effect on what people think about the brands and the products and therefore about the purchase of them.

> Let people express themselves without judgement

I find it interesting and rather sad that people equate buying things with expressing themselves.

They were acquired by VF Corporation last year.

https://www.vfc.com/investors/news-events-presentations/pres...

Good point. Didn't catch that.

Too old to recognize the brand, but I'm not following the logic here at all. What kind of clothing manufacturer do you find most appropriate for a street tough?

I'll bite... why would that matter?

As hinted in the OP, people buy Supreme products because they (the buyer) view the product as being ‘street’ (not Big Corp) and, therefore, ‘cool’. When, in fact, the opposite is true - Supreme is the epitome of Big Corps bilking kiddies and dummies for $100 Fruit of the Loom t-shirts with shoddy graphics.

I don't think you're aware of the value of the brands then...

Because for example, the people do pay hundreds for Fruit of the Loom or Gildan hoodies with graphics when albums come out. And it's not a secret either, people like that it's a common well established brand making the clothes the graphics go on.

What makes them cool is exclusivity and authenticity (as in being from the brand). After all, no one thinks Supreme made a factory to manufacture bricks: https://stockx.com/supreme-clay-brick-red

Yeezys are also considered cool but they're also by Adidas... a giant boring multinational compared to the image Yeezys portray

It makes as much sense to criticize adidas for being "a giant boring multinational" as to criticize nike.

However, it makes no sense to compare adidas to the carlyle group.

I'm not comparing them?

I'm saying the owners behind the scene don't matter. The brand is the brand, and the owners are the owners.

Supreme could be owned by Blackstone and I don't think anyone would care.

I am very aware of what idiots will pay for brand names, but that has nothing to do with any sort of inherent or quantifiable value a product has. I think we, as a society, need to get better at calling people out for being beyond irresponsible with their money. A Supreme block logo slapped on a $1.00 Gildan cotton shirt does not add $99 of value because ‘exclusivity’. Things like the meteoric rise and fall of things like Beanie Babies help illuminate this fact.

You can pay $700 for a North Face Supreme jacket that can be purchased for $120 without the branding... but you’re an idiot for doing so.

Ultimately, it’s just the difference between being financially intelligent and not - the financially smart people are selling the lemmings the products...

Edit, to add a complete tangent: I watched this video of a $100 vs $10,000 guitar today - do you hear $9,900 in price differnece between the 2, or is the value created elsewhere? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KDA9iw4po1c

> The ego of some people on HN never ceases to amaze me

The hypocrisy is strong with this one.

Your comment is 10x more arrogant than the comment you're replying to, as far as I can tell.

From your perspective, so long as you can sell it and make money, you're providing value to the world as an entrepreneur. Not only that, but you pride yourself on it.

But to me you're just a parasite maximizing profit by exploiting people's ignorance for your own personal benefit. The fact that you pride yourself on this leads me to believe you are likely a psychopath.

Also holy fucking shit, you're condescending to someone for being "working class."

One thing is obvious. Money can't buy class.

> so long as you can sell it and make money, you're providing value to the world as an entrepreneur

Totally! The only reason someone willfully gives you their hard earned money in exchange of something is because whatever this something is, they value it more than the cash.

> to me you're just a parasite maximizing profit by exploiting people's ignorance

Funny, because to me, people living off my tax money are the parasites! Getting something in exchange of nothing, just because they have a pulse and they're still breathing.

> Also holy fucking shit, you're condescending to someone for being "working class."

Well, yeah!! I mean, if you haven't made it yet, don't try to give me life lessons. Because all I can see is someone who's failed (or not succeeded yet), trying to pretend their principles are better than the cash I made - but then how comes their principles can't keep them fed and warm, while my cash does?

If it helps losers not feel too bad about their own failures, I can play along and pretend with them, but it shouldn't be taken too seriously, as that's giving very bad advice to the young and passionate people who browse HN.

That's where I draw the line: not giving wrong advice, the kind of advice you know that is wrong and won't lead to success, but is socially valued (social signaling, being politically correct and all that)

> Money can't buy class

I won't pretend to have any, as "class" is often a shorthand for being good at pretending to be what society wants you to be. I'm my own man, and I don't play nice with those who don't, and I don't care about their excuses of being born poor or whatever. No one is entitled to anything except opinions- and in my opinion, by not accepting reality as it is, you are condemning yourself to the working class.

But as long as you know it and it makes you happy, so be it! Who I am to suggest you live your life differently?

> Many people start companies this way, by noticing and exploiting a trend, and eventually stop working.

But that also requires exploiting people. Someone is always left holding the bag when these trends fizzle out.

"Street" doesn't mean anything about the manufacturing entity. Polos, Nautica, Tommy Hilfiger, Ralph Lauren, Timberland all have company origins that are anything but street. But their brands took hold in the streets. I mean, Nautica is all about sailing imagery, what street level individual gives a damn about a schooner?

Eh, it's sort of like your brand being anti-establishment, but you're owned by the establishment.

They go with the rims on my car.