See this guy? He's wondering, "Now that I've wasted $4,500 on a stack of rags, who else has garbage for sale? I have gobs and gobs of money burning a hole in my pocket!"

(According to this article, it costs $4,600; maybe that's if you provide your own rags to "personalize" it.)

Yes, the Droog Rag Chair by Tejo Remy uses fabric most of us would use to wipe our floors or clean up dog vomit to create a chair. I don't have a problem with the concept itself; re-using something that might otherwise go to waste is a good idea, not a bad one. Also, it may very well be comfortable, although I can't picture someone like Dilf's grandma or my own father getting into or out of it. It might even be pleasant to look at, from someone's point of view.

But we're talking $4,500 (or $4,600) for a chair made of garbage. It's not even historically relevant garbage. So, in my opinion, anyone who buys it is too stupid to have that much disposable income. Their money should be confiscated and redistributed.

Hey, they won't mind -- they're into reusing found objects! We'll just find their money and reuse it to fund schools, museums, parks -- hey, we'll find dozens of ways to reuse their money! Obviously, they are improper stewards for it.

In fact, we can set up stores to find and trap these people who have too much money. That Tribune magazine from Sunday was filled with good ideas for bait, like a gardening trowel for $200. We can easily find, trap, and liberate funds from these people quickly and neatly.

Not fair, you say? Redistribution of wealth is wrong? Well, I think it's wrong, and offensive, that someone has a spare four to five thousand dollars to waste on waste.