Unwise Spending vs. Extravagance
Throughout history, many people have often been criticized for their “extravagance”, accused of vanity, wastefulness, and fostering societal decay. Yet in my view, extravagance, when accompanied by substance, utility, refinement, and enduring value, can still be deemed worthwhile. What is truly destructive is not extravagance itself, but the incompetence in spending: spending vast sums only to receive no real value in return, squandering wealth while procuring disaster, and investing effort only to end up with emptiness.
There are three great harms in not knowing how to spend.
1. Spending without visible results.
In former times, when vast sums were spent on gardens or halls, the results could be seen — pavilions, jade wares, lacquered treasures, imperial inscriptions — many of which survive today, bearing witness to the peak of Chinese taste and craftsmanship. Visitors may still walk among these wonders centuries later.
By contrast, certain incompetent power of today spend billions, yet leave nothing behind. They call themselves “infrastructure champions”, but their bridges collapse and buildings decay. They claim “modernization”, yet their public works are but crumbling facades. When questioned where the money went, the answer would be: “Already spent”. When asked what has been accomplished, the answer would be: “Please see our press release”. This is not real spending. It is burning gold to feed the wind.
2. Spending without meaningful benefit.
In the past, even lavish expenses served courtly ceremony, diplomatic prestige, or state authority. Though costly, they reinforced a visible and dignified image of the state. Today’s waste, however, often goes toward empty slogans and theatrical facades — investments not in the people, not in culture, not in national dignity, but in hallucinations of self-importance.
3. Spending that brings harm.
Extravagance may provoke criticism, but rarely inflicts deep harm. By contrast, spending incompetently can lead to real disasters — social unrest, economic collapse, and popular discontent. A palace banquet may spark gossip; a failed public housing project may ruin thousands of lives.
Conclusion
Today’s rampant misuse of funds is often disguised under the name of “people’s projects” while in fact it brings forced relocations, land seizures, suppression of dissent, and a breakdown of public trust. Its consequences go far beyond the forgivable sins of extravagance.
True extravagance — if refined, ordered, and rooted in cultural depth — is a “bearable offense.” Incompetent spending, by contrast, is a sign of decay, moral failure, and ruin.
I therefore declare: the inability to spend wisely is multiple times more dangerous than mere extravagance. One seeks attention; the other ensures collapse. One leaves behind beauty; the other, only dust. Let the discerning not condemn all extravagance blindly, but instead recognize the real source of ruin: waste born of incompetence and pretense, not taste or splendour.
————————
世人每每譴責主位之「奢」謂之鋪張浪費敗壞風氣 然於余觀之「奢」若有其質有其用有其品有其傳 尚可稱之為「值」 最可怕者非徒奢侈 而是不會花錢 —— 花了錢卻得不著寶物 撒了金卻買來禍患 一番操辦卻換得虛空
不會花錢者 其害有三
一曰花之不見其物：昔以萬金修園 修則有園 以重金造宮闕訂寶物寫御筆 百年之後諸物尚存 今日遊人入園 猶能觀水榭樓台玉器翡翠宮扇漆盒佛龕玉璧 所費雖巨皆為中華品位之巔 反觀某無能之權動輒花費億萬卻無一物可觀 名曰「基建狂魔」橋斷樓塌 名曰「現代化」市政如豆腐渣 問其錢去何處 答曰「已花完」問其成果何在 答曰「請看報導」此「花」非真花 乃焚金於風中也
二曰花之不見其益：昔日之所奢或為政令威儀外交體面宮廷典章 雖重金制寶冠玉座冊封之物 然使朝廷有其儀有其形有其尊 今之濫費則投資於無底之口號 此等所費非為百姓非為文化非為國威 乃為自我麻醉之幻象
三曰花之致人災禍：奢者多受批評 然至多「形象不佳」不會花錢者 則可釀國殤民怨
今日某些地域之荒費常以「民生工程」為名 實則截流徵地強拆民宅壓制異聲 導致民憤四起信任崩塌 災民無所歸 納稅者無所知 其後果遠超「奢侈」之可恕 奢侈若有品位有秩序有文化底蘊則為一種「可承擔之非」 不會花錢則為失能之政敗德之象亡國之兆 故余斷言 不會花錢遠比奢侈更可怖數倍 一為過度取寵一為徹底敗家 一仍可見餘芳一早已成塵土 願世人莫再以「奢侈」一詞空泛抨擊 而當識別真敗壞之源 無能而浪費虛偽而鋪張 才是真正之國殃民毒
