Page 1 of 1

Eating Rich vs Eating Well

Posted: 2016-01-03 05:26am
by Zor
There is a Russian Joke: Two Oligarchs come together. One of them says ""Check out this tie, it cost $10,000!" The other snorts and says "That's Nothing! I got the same tie and I paid $50,000!"

This illustrates a point that is common in many cultures. A fair number (but by no means all) of rich people have this tendency to show off that they are rich as publicly as possible. Get two such individuals together and they'll try to one up each other in their conspicuous displays of wealth. Sometimes this can produce magnificent works of art, other times the best thing that can be said about it is that it keeps money in circulation. This manifests itself in a wide variety of ways from fancy pants clothes, cars, homes and food. In extreme examples this gets downright farsical. In Ancient Rome the elite of the eternal city would eat dishes of peacock tongues and would buy animals who died in the arena for meat. This was not because these foods were tasty but because they were foreign and exotic. In modern times this attitude persists, most notably in eatable gold...
Image
...there is zero nutritional value or taste in gold and indeed it in large quantities it is toxic, even so eating gold is considered a sign of wealth and so people with more money than brains eat the stuff.

On the other end of the spectrum there are schools of thought which are called "Peasant Dishes" in France and "The Kitchen of Poverty" in Italy. Basically imagine some pre-industrial farming family with a small plot of land and a vegetable garden. They can't afford a lot of fancy pants ingredients but they can grow things and get their hands on odds and ends, which they get good of making the most out of. For example in France they might have some beef or chicken stock, some onions, a few cloves of garlic, a couple leaves off the bay tree as well as some stale bread and leftover cheese. A little creativity and culinary experimentation and you got French Onion Soup.
Image

Likewise in southern Italy they work out that with some basic bread dough, basil, leftover cheese and sausage and the fruits from that new tomato plant they could make this...
Image
...basically a lot of very good dishes that are well loved today around the world had their start with poor trying to make a presentable meal with what they had on hand. All of which are far better than eating expensive crap simply because it is expensive.

Zor

Re: Eating Rich vs Eating Well

Posted: 2016-01-03 01:19pm
by Borgholio
I'm not poor, but I'm not wealthy either. My wife and I are on a budget and don't have a shit-ton of money to throw around. From our perspective, going out for sushi is a culinary treat. We believe that food is meant to nourish and should taste good. If it only does the former, then it's a necessity. If it only does the latter, then it's a luxury. If it does neither, it's pointless. :)

Re: Eating Rich vs Eating Well

Posted: 2016-01-03 01:22pm
by Elheru Aran
Most of those uber-rich dishes are for people who want to make a Statement (TM). The great majority of well-off people eat pretty much the same stuff we do, except someone prepares it for them, generally, and perhaps with somewhat more attention being paid to nutrition and ingredients. You can make a $500 chicken soup if you try, or a 50-cent soup if you know what you're doing. It's just a matter of scale and taste.

Re: Eating Rich vs Eating Well

Posted: 2016-01-03 01:24pm
by LadyTevar
I will point out that even before Tomatos appeared in Europe, flat breads were topped with meat and cheese for thousands of years. The tomato-topped pizza didn't really take off until the 1700s. Before then, tomatos were considered poisonous (they are part of the nightshade family).

however, another "poor man's food" that you forgot was Pasties. They have other names, but they are all hand-sized pockets of dough stuffed with meat and/or vegatables, sometimes with cheese. Indian samosa, East European knish, Russian Pirozhki, Italian calzone/panzerotti, etc etc.

Re: Eating Rich vs Eating Well

Posted: 2016-01-03 01:26pm
by Borgholio
Before then, tomatos were considered poisonous
Wasn't that because people ate on lead or pewter plates and the acidic tomato juice leeched the lead out of the dishes and was then consumed, causing lead poisoning?

Re: Eating Rich vs Eating Well

Posted: 2016-01-03 01:46pm
by LadyTevar
Borgholio wrote:
Before then, tomatos were considered poisonous
Wasn't that because people ate on lead or pewter plates and the acidic tomato juice leeched the lead out of the dishes and was then consumed, causing lead poisoning?
No. It was simply because of their appearance and relation to the Nightshade. In 1500s Italy, they were actually grown only as an ornamental garden plant, since at that time they were all small "cherry" tomatos in yellow or red varieties. (Giovanvettorio Soderini, Florence)
In England, John Gerald's "Herbal", published 1597, convinced most of England and English colonies that the tomato was at best unfit to eat, and at worst deadly. It wasn't until the 1800s that English cuisine started using them in stews and soups. British colonies brought the tomato to the Middle East and Asia in the early 1800s, and by 1881 it had become well-used in native cuisine. Today, you can't have tubbuleh without tomatos.

Re: Eating Rich vs Eating Well

Posted: 2016-01-03 04:21pm
by General Zod
There's only so much you can do to justify the price markup of food to the point where it stops tasting better and is simply lining the pockets of the market.

Re: Eating Rich vs Eating Well

Posted: 2016-01-03 05:46pm
by Jub
We should include lobster under, used to be exclusively for poor people. They used to be so common that they were just mashed up and fed to prisoners.

Re: Eating Rich vs Eating Well

Posted: 2016-01-04 03:19pm
by Starglider
I confess I do enjoy the 'sprinkle ground black truffle on everything' school of extravagent dining. I don't have it all that often so it's a bit of a treat and has improved pretty much everything I've tried it on. Gratuitous injection of caviar, on the other hand, is worse than useless. Cavair is an acquired taste on its own and doesn't mix well with most things. Using more than one kind of caviar at once is spectacularly pointless, as it's just going to make a salty mess.

Production quanties of those gold encrusted food items are virtually zero I'm sure, as they're purely for some particularly tacky person to make a statement about how willing they are to overpay for the occassion.