It is better to give than recieve?

New York fashion week got Jennifer Lopez, Posh, Natalie Portman, Claire Danes, and Mary-Kate and Ashley. So far, London’s got Peaches Geldof and Pixie Geldof. Not quite the same league, are they? Madonna, Gwyneth, Uma, Elle, a bunch of European royals, and countless other A-listers live in London either full or part time—so where are they? Not watching shows at the Natural History Museum, that’s for sure. And, arguably worse for the show and partygoers—where’s the swag? Back before the credit crunch, the front rows were dotted with charming little bags full of stuff to take home and enjoy (or give to the hard-working nanny). But no more. At the Graeme Black show, attendees such as Amy Sacco and Michael Roberts were given a dried flower. And a sad-looking one at that. And at the Stephen Jones party at Dover Street Market, the goody bag was empty.
This sorry piece of vitriolic bile is from here
It raises two issues for me
1) Why is the success of a fashion show based on it's celebrity quota? Surely the most important people viewing any show are the store buyers and the magazine and newspaper editors. Celebrities rarely dress themselves so I would imagine the stylists are pretty important guests too. I can see that a celebrity can generate a little free press, but it seems fleeting to me compared to the coverage generated by the clothes themselves.
2) What IS this obsession with goodie bags? At a time when half the world is on it's knee with starvation and poor living conditions, I find the whole goodie bag thing obscene.
Why should those people with money get freebies? (half of which end up on EBay) when they clearly do not need it. Is it not enough that the food, drink and entertainment are free? The best thing to put inside a goodie bag is surely a donation to those that do need it. If as it looks some designers are paring down this offering, surly they should be applauded rather than derided by commentators such as Afsun Qureshi.