I went on the Star Jones show yesterday. They rang, at the last minute, looking for someone to defend spending huge amounts of money on really expensive stuff made by big brands. "I'm your girl," I said. "Lauren Goldstein Crowe, defender of the rich." In truth, I was there to take the opposing viewpoint to Dana Thomas, whose book, Deluxe, How Luxury Lost Its Luster" is now on the New York Times bestseller list. I've known Dana for years. When I was Time, she was Newsweek (she still is). Our regular greeting to each other was: "I never read what you write." So, true to form, I never bothered to request a review copy of her book. And I certainly wasn't going to buy one. So, I'd never even glanced at it when I got the call. But I didn't let that stop me. Oh no. It's TV for goodness sake and everyone who has ever been on TV knows that too many complex thoughts just messes up what could have been a perfectly nice soundbite.

This is print, and since I still haven't read it, I can't comment on Dana's book as a whole, but the points that most interested Star were:

1. A lot of the things you pay for when you buy a luxury brand have nothing to do with the product themselves. (Queue Dana talking about fancy stores, bags and ad campaigns).

2. Luxury has become a big business. Really big. (Queue Dana quoting growth statistics about LVMH).

3. The quality of luxury goods has been compromised because of this growth. (Queue Dana talking about factories in China that make both goods for the middle market and goods for the luxury market).

4. Consumers are getting ripped off. (Queue Dana talking about a pair of Prada trousers that fell apart on her. When she called a friend at the company, he told her they were using cheaper thread in order to save money. This really amused Star.)

I vaguely remember talking, but have little idea of what I said. In any case, it wasn't as much as I wanted to. So, here's what I would have said, had we had more than six minutes.

1. Well, OK. But the same can be said of iPods, breakfast cereal, Tylenol, and those goodie bags of cheap socks, ear plugs and plastic toothbrushes you get in transatlantic flights whether you want them or not... you get my point. At least the stuff luxury goods come wrapped in is paper, not plastic. H&M may give you plastic bags (this is better?), but I'm sure their ad campaigns cost every bit as much. (Interesting trivia point: In their move to become more earth-friendly, Louis Vuitton has started to make its packaging heavier. Thicker, with features like drawers, in the hopes that consumers will find alternative uses for it at home instead of just binning it.)

2. LVMH has grown into a big business. Well, so have Apple and Starbucks, and the Prius and other things consumers like. This is America. Since when is big necessarily evil?

3. I do remember asking Dana to tell us which luxury goods companies she was referring to. She said she couldn't. Huh? This is not Watergate, for crying out loud. It seems a primary premise of her book, so she should name names. But, regardless, I'm all for manufacturing luxury goods in China, so long as it is done well. There's a Savile Row tailor that sells a suit that is fit and cut in London then sewn in Shangahi and shipped back to London. It costs 2/3rds less than their standard suits. Why shouldn't luxury goods be made in China if they can be made just as well for less money? I know why luxury c.e.o.'s are so scared to try it -- consumer perception. They say their customers want things that were made in Italy. Personally I can't see any reason why a Chinese hand can't hold a needle just as well as an Italian or British one. Or even better, given that they're so much smaller.

4. The Quality Question. This is a big one. One I've spent a lot of time thinking about. It is so big, I'm going to give it its own post.

I'm going to read Dana's book sooner or later (she gave me a copy), but so far I can't see exactly what her point is. "Luxury has lost its luster"... for whom? Luxury goods now attract a greater audience than ever. Does that make them less appealing? I am all for luxury goods. I want to see more and more people buying nicer and nicer things and spending more and more money on them. If an average teenage girl saves her money to buy a pair of Donna Karan sunglasses does that make them less luxurious? Dana might say they're not luxurious because they're made by the same company that makes Ray Bans, therefore not worth the bigger mark-up. But Donna Karan sunglasses aren't Ray Bans. They're Donna Karan's. They've got a different design, they, yes, come in a better case. Who are we to say they're not luxury if the girl in question thinks they are? Shouldn't everybody have the right to define for themselves what luxury is?

The question I practiced, but wasn't asked, was about counterfeits. What is so bad about buying counterfeit goods? The luxury goods executives that Dana has traveled China with want you to believe that sales of these goods go to fund terrorism. Do they? Frankly, I have no idea. But I do know that when you buy a fake bag or a knock-off version of a designer style that there's an immediate frisson of excitement -- like you're getting away with something. A feeling not dissimilar to cheating on a test. But I also know that those are the first things that go into the bin when the excitement has worn off. My wide-leg, thick wool, Prada trousers may not have been in fashion since the early 1990s, but they're still in mint condition and in a box for that day when, like all good trends, they come around again. And from what I saw on the runways for this fall -- that day is coming this winter. And you know what I'll wear them with? A no-name cashmere sweater my mother bought in Kansas before I was born. They're both luxurious to me.