Paris Hilton has been criticized for shopping. She spent a little under $4,000 during a 40-minute shopping outing in Australia.
Local charities accused her of callous excess but Hilton Wednesday defended the splurge.
"I'm in Australia, I think it's important to help out, you know, the economy out here, everywhere in the world," she told reporters, ahead of her New Year engagement.
"And what's wrong with doing a little shopping? It's New Year's, I need a New Year's dress."
Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard, questioned during a news conference Tuesday about Hilton's shopping spree, commended the socialite for recognising Australia's attraction as a fashion and shopping destination.
"I heard that a politician said that," Hilton said. "I thought that was very sweet and it's true."
The article says that Paris Hilton was paid $100,000 Australian dollars (about $69,000 U.S.) to appear at a New Year's party in Sydney. She is expected to make a splash and so she needs a new dresses to do that. The people throwing the party obviously felt Paris Hilton would make their party more memorable and Paris Hilton doesn't want to to let them down by showing up in an outfit she already wore to another party. Paris herself has also said she doesn't wear a dress more than once.
The way out of this economic mess is spending. Spending by those who can afford it should not be ridiculed. If as a society we act like a vise on the purses of Paris Hilton, other celebrities and the wealthy then we are going to make this recession longer, deeper and more painful than it is already going to be. Paris Hilton buying a dress is not the same as AIG splurging on spa treatments after getting a bailout. Paris is just trying to go about business as usual.
And another thing - why on Earth did they write an article about Paris Hilton shopping for dresses without telling us what dress she bought?
