King of bling

Reader question:

In this headline – China’s luxury boom: The Middle Blingdom (The Economist, February 17, 2011) – what does Blingdom mean?

My comments:

The Middle Blingdom is the new name for 21st century China, hitherto known as the Middle Kingdom.

“Bling” because it rhymes with “king”, signifying the Chinese are to become the new kings of the world.

Kings, and queens for that matter, of bling.

Merely a word play, perhaps, but it is revealing as China is on pace to become the No. 1 consumer of luxury goods.

Or in American slang, China will be the next superpower of bling. “Within three years,” says the Economist, “China’s domestic market for bling will be bigger than Japan’s. By 2020 it will account for 19% of global demand for luxuries.”

Bling, you see, is the rattling sound we hear when, say, diamonds hit against each other. Hence, bling, or bling-bling, refers to the many heavy, ostentatious ornamental pieces people wear, earrings, necklaces, etc.

In other words, worthless baubles.

Or costly trifles, as the Economist puts it. It says:

If you include the baubles Chinese people buy outside China, the nation’s share of the global luxury market will triple, to 44%, by 2020, predicts CLSA. The wealth of China’s upper-middle class has reached an inflection point, reckons Mr Fischer. They have everything they need. Now they want a load of stuff they don’t need, too.

Well, they may not need it, but who are we to judge?

I mean, what do you expect? Do you expect the Chinese nouveau riche to read Shakespeare?

I’m afraid the Chinese wealthy are merely doing what they know what to do with their money, like people elsewhere who flaunt their wealth in this way. That is, not on edifying themselves by learning an inspiring art, but then you can say the same about the rich in the West also, as Schumpeter points out in the same issue (Business has much to learn from arts, The Economist, February 17, 2011):

Many businesspeople, for their part, assume that artists are a bunch of pretentious wastrels. Bosses may stick a few modernist daubs on their boardroom walls. They may go on corporate jollies to the opera. They may even write the odd cheque to support their wives’ bearded friends. But they seldom take the arts seriously as a source of inspiration.

I mean, how can you be nitpicking when, even though the Chinese rich may be armed to their golden teeth with cash, their mind, like the fourth or fifth house they own, remains largely empty?

Anyways, the thing to remember today is the word “bling”, and here’s another example for you to see it in use (The Rich In Washington Will Drop Plenty Of Money On Bling, WUSA.com, February 24, 2011):

If diamonds are forever, then the Washington’s wealthiest are set. Dropping $100,000 on a necklace might seem ridiculous to the average shopper. But it’s just another day in the life of DC’s other half.

For a mere $20,000 to $25,000, you will get around 12 carats of diamonds. “Any type of necklace, all diamonds, that normally has a drop to it, it is dresser,” said Darryl Boone, president of Boone & Sons Jewelers. “Could you wear this to dinner? Sure. To a formal function? Sure. But during the day? I doubt it.”

While most people are still dealing with or slowly coming out of the recession, Washington’s other half is ready to spend. Business is picking up at Boone & Sons in Chevy Chase, Md. “We recently sold a yellow diamond that was thirteen carats,” Boone said, “and it was in excess of $100,000.”

…

When it comes to expressing a new love, Washington’s other half is not scared to spend. Stylist Toni Leinhardt helped secure an engagement ring for one client with a big budget. Big spenders will drop “up to $150,000” Leinhardt said. “It will get you good bling, that is for sure.”

About the author:

Zhang Xin is Trainer at chinadaily.com.cn. He has been with China Daily since 1988, when he graduated from Beijing Foreign Studies University. Write him at: zhangxin@chinadaily.com.cn, or raise a question for potential use in a future column.