[scottishcow]

> Then I don't understand who this question is supposed to be directed at:

To the HN community of course.

> My answer would be that none of the activities you list (with the possible exception of the kind of wannabe entrepreneurship the paper is talking about) are conspicuous consumption.

That’s a valid response, although I don’t agree. Note that I’m not regarding these activities to be entirely about conspicuous consumption, just like the paper doesn’t claim all of entrepreneurship is veblenian. Fwiw the paper does cite another work that claims some internships can be viewed as a form of conspicuous consumption.

[pdonis]

> Note that I’m not regarding these activities to be entirely about conspicuous consumption

If your definition of an activity being conspicuous consumption is that somebody, somewhere, can use it for conspicuous consumption, I think you're right that it's going to be hard to find an activity that isn't "conspicuous consumption" by this definition. But I would say that's a problem with your definition.

[scottishcow]

Well surely it's a matter of degree (and also chronological trends) we're talking about here. My writing may not be perfectly clear but other commenters seem to understand my point, nuanced discussions may be difficult but not impossible if we're engaging in good faith.