Of conspicuous consumption that actually indicates the opposite? No, which is why this strikes me as weird.
But thinking about it, the existence of brands which exist purely for the purposes of conspicuous consumption, where some of them are highly popular within demographics that don’t have much money, there must surely be other examples.
Well, Macs became “cool.” But they never indicated one didn’t have money (especially as they became increasingly expensive). They lacked “nerd cred” - which was the only thing that made one type of computer cool, until there was the cultural shift where computing devices also became fashion accessories. (Which allowed this weird dynamic with the iPhone in China.)
Certainly it’s the opposite of conspicuous consumption, though part of that is because Trump-branded-goods are cheap shit (even if they’re overpriced). They’ve hit this other, related paradox of simultaneously being aspirational goods while also being cheap shit.
