Having It and Flaunting It
The first thing to say is that expecting the rich not to flaunt their wealth is, of course, unrealistic.
If your sense is that the rich were more restrained in the 50s and 60s, well, thats because they werent nearly as rich either absolutely or relatively. The last time our society was as unequal as it is today, giant mansions and yachts were every bit as ostentatious as they are now theres a reason Mark Twain called it the Gilded Age.
Beyond that, for many of the rich flaunting is what its all about. Living in a 30,000 square foot house isnt much nicer than living in a 5,000 square foot house; there are, I believe, people who can really appreciate a $350 bottle of wine, but most of the people buying such things wouldnt notice if you substituted a $20 bottle, or maybe even a Trader Joes special. Even really fine clothing derives a lot of its utility to the wearer by the fact that other people cant afford it. So its largely about display which Thorstein Veblen could, of course, have told you.
...
...If you feel that its bad for society to have people flaunting their relative wealth, you have in effect accepted the view that great wealth imposes negative externalities on the rest of the population which is an argument for progressive taxation that goes beyond the maximization of revenue.
And one more thing: think about what this says about economic growth.
We have an economy that has become considerably richer since 1980, but with a large share of the gains going to people with very high incomes people for whom the marginal utility of a dollars worth of spending is not only low, but comes largely from status competition, which is a zero-sum game. So a lot of our economic growth has simply been wasted, doing nothing but accelerating the pace of the upper-income rat race.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/having-it-and-flaunting-it/