I know this is probably heresy to say so, but $21 is pretty close to the most I would spend on a flashlight simply because my uses don't require an expensive, hard anodized, military grade light that costs $150. If I had a genuine need then I would spend the money of course, and it's always interesting keeping up with the latest and greatest even if I'll never buy it. However, I'm an eminently practical person (i.e. cheap) who will never spend more than I have but will spend at least what I need to. Sure, I understand a person having a hobby. That's fine. LEDs are one of my hobbies, and I've probably spend over $400 on discrete LEDs in the last year and a half. However, those LEDs will give my many more hours of pleasure than just buying two or three expensive flashlights for the same amount of money. I guess with me it's a matter getting the most bang for the buck, so to speak. And as for the price of a good light being just the price of a good dinner, I wouldn't spend $200 on a dinner, either. Heck, I can probably feed myself for two months on that if pressed to.
All that being said, as hobbies and indulgences go, I don't consider that most of the people here spend an exorbitant amount of their hobby. Other vices are far worse. Solstice mentioned shoes. I never understood the reasons for having a closet full of shoes at all. Ditto for more than a few changes of clothing. And like idleprocess said, autos seem to be the biggest and most universal indulgences of all. Every time I've gone through the math of owning a car, I came to the conclusion it costs way more than it's worth, and I don't understand why so many choose to own their own transportation, and to live in places where it's almost a necessity. First at least a few thousand dollars to buy, and then insurance payments of over a thousand dollars a year whether you use it or not, and fuel and repairs on top of that. I think of all the subway trips I can take just on what the insurance costs. Yep, when it comes to their cars, people are as illogical as ever. I spent less than $100 on transportation last year. That's the beauty of the subway-if you don't use it you don't pay for it.
Interestingly, since I've been visiting this site I've noticed contradictions even among flashaholics when it comes to spending money on lights. For example, the same person who will buy a U2 for $249 will balk if I suggest putting in a linear T-8 fixture costing $50 instead of replacing the incandescents in their existing fixture with CFLs. This is despite the fact the the new fixture will pay for itself in terms of bulb replacement and electricity costs within a few years, and will also be something they'll use more hours per day than the U2. Go figure. Or perhaps the biggest inconsistency of all-getting anal over tint. I see people here who will go on a holy grail quest to get the perfect white tinted LED flashlight but who will light their home with yellow incandescents or warm white CFLs. Either you like white or you don't. Sure, I wouldn't light my home with even perfect tinted Luxeons either, but that has more to do with color rendering. I still like a similar shade of white to light where I live. And then there's this whole obsession with throw. I find for most of my uses an area light like my 4W fluorescent camping lanterns is better. I really don't care if I have a light which can focus on something 200 years away. For most people throw is practically immaterial. Anyway, my point in all this is that while it may annoy many here if the general public considers $21 too much to spend on a flashlight but not on a Britney Spears CD, I've found loads of interesting similar illogical behavoir amongst the flashlight-loving crowd, and no offense intended to anyone here. We all have our idiosyncrasies, including myself.