A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

Society does not necessarily always value rational things, and others are able to profit tremendously off of the stupidity/ignorance/ect. of the masses that support it. Examples of this are Musicians, actors, athletes, celebrities ect. ect. that in a rational society, are definitely not necessarily more deserving than an Engineer for instance (as our modern world is based on Science and Tech, not Rap/Justin Beiber-type Pop music, Kim Kardashian's ass, ect. ect).

Consider, a huge portion of the nation's wealth is being put into sectors of society that serve no real productive purpose/lack in value while areas of high value such as intellectual pursuits are dramatically underfunded and discouraged (in many respects). This is due to society at large sharing the same collective delusions and valuing trivial bullsh't over serious, productive endeavors. This will always incentivize and produce a non-rational society unless structures are fundamentally challenged/altered.

Lets take Professional athletes as the first example:

NBA- Out of 456 players in the league in 2017-18, 120 make $10,000,000 or more for one years worth of work and 389 make more than $1,000,000. The minimum salary for a 1st year player is over $800,000 per year. Links here:
A. ESPN: The Worldwide Leader in Sports
B. Minimum Salary Scales under the 2017 CBA

NFL- Minimum salary for 1st year players is over $450,000 per year. 656 players make at least $1,000,000 per year or more. Links here:
A. NFL Minimum Salaries for 2017 | The Daily Spot
B. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/salary.htm

MLB- 112 players make $10,000,000 or more per year. Out of 251 players total, 240 make $1,000,000 or more per year

Actors and musicians that "make it" get huge salaries and the ones that don't get salaries on par with other "common" jobs.

Now, contrast that to absolutely necessary fields such as Science & Maths, Engineering, Architecture, Construction Work, Waste Management, Medical Doctors, Teachers, Repairs, Farming, Electricians, Labor Intensive work, ect. ect. and fields that, although not necessary, should be prioritized/held in high esteem in a non-superficial, deep, passionate, engaged society (i.e. rational) such as Literature, History, Philosophy, Art, ect. ect.

Consider the process of becoming a Scientist (which, depending on the subject matter, is perhaps the chief field pushing innovation forward that makes all of our lives orders of magnitude more comfortable than our ancestors could have ever dreamed of--as well as revealing deep truths about the nature of our existence and the universe). One must first pay large sums of money to attend a school for 4-5 years, then proceed to further schooling for another 5-7 years (while attempting to live off of a stipend of $15,000-$25,000 or so per year--i.e.very poor), then must find a post-doc position for another 3-7 years or so which is typically only $20,000-$35,000 a year, by which time a person has been nearly dirt poor for a 15 years or more and then, finally, may find a research/professorship position (however there is absolutely no guarantee since the funding is so low due to the irrationality I have discussed--thus competition is fierce) or they very well may end up empty handed (no Science research job and/or professorship) even after that approaching two decade long process. Here are some of the fundamental questions involved:

Why in the Hell do we treat some of the greatest minds amongst us doing work that is absolutely imperative so poorly? Why do we treat others doing necessary work (e.g. Construction Workers, sewer management, ect.) so poorly? Why are we putting people who do not contribute anything to the productivity of society and/or our expanding knowledge about ourselves/the Universe up on a pedestal (e.g. Katy Perry, Kardashians, Pro Athletes, ect. ect.)?

Do you see any problems with this, or do you believe that the Market is the best determining agent in matters such as this?

xMathFanx said:

A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

Society does not necessarily always value rational things, and others are able to profit tremendously off of the stupidity/ignorance/ect. of the masses that support it. Examples of this are Musicians, actors, athletes, celebrities ect. ect. that in a rational society, are definitely not necessarily more deserving than an Engineer for instance (as our modern world is based on Science and Tech, not Rap/Justin Beiber-type Pop music, Kim Kardashian's ass, ect. ect).

Consider, a huge portion of the nation's wealth is being put into sectors of society that serve no real productive purpose/lack in value while areas of high value such as intellectual pursuits are dramatically underfunded and discouraged (in many respects). This is due to society at large sharing the same collective delusions and valuing trivial bullsh't over serious, productive endeavors. This will always incentivize and produce a non-rational society unless structures are fundamentally challenged/altered.

Lets take Professional athletes as the first example:

NBA- Out of 456 players in the league in 2017-18, 120 make $10,000,000 or more for one years worth of work and 389 make more than $1,000,000. The minimum salary for a 1st year player is over $800,000 per year. Links here:
A. ESPN: The Worldwide Leader in Sports
B. Minimum Salary Scales under the 2017 CBA

NFL- Minimum salary for 1st year players is over $450,000 per year. 656 players make at least $1,000,000 per year or more. Links here:
A. NFL Minimum Salaries for 2017 | The Daily Spot
B. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/salary.htm

MLB- 112 players make $10,000,000 or more per year. Out of 251 players total, 240 make $1,000,000 or more per year

Actors and musicians that "make it" get huge salaries and the ones that don't get salaries on par with other "common" jobs.

Now, contrast that to absolutely necessary fields such as Science & Maths, Engineering, Architecture, Construction Work, Waste Management, Medical Doctors, Teachers, Repairs, Farming, Electricians, Labor Intensive work, ect. ect. and fields that, although not necessary, should be prioritized/held in high esteem in a non-superficial, deep, passionate, engaged society (i.e. rational) such as Literature, History, Philosophy, Art, ect. ect.

Consider the process of becoming a Scientist (which, depending on the subject matter, is perhaps the chief field pushing innovation forward that makes all of our lives orders of magnitude more comfortable than our ancestors could have ever dreamed of--as well as revealing deep truths about the nature of our existence and the universe). One must first pay large sums of money to attend a school for 4-5 years, then proceed to further schooling for another 5-7 years (while attempting to live off of a stipend of $15,000-$25,000 or so per year--i.e.very poor), then must find a post-doc position for another 3-7 years or so which is typically only $20,000-$35,000 a year, by which time a person has been nearly dirt poor for a 15 years or more and then, finally, may find a research/professorship position (however there is absolutely no guarantee since the funding is so low due to the irrationality I have discussed--thus competition is fierce) or they very well may end up empty handed (no Science research job and/or professorship) even after that approaching two decade long process. Here are some of the fundamental questions involved:

Why in the Hell do we treat some of the greatest minds amongst us doing work that is absolutely imperative so poorly? Why do we treat others doing necessary work (e.g. Construction Workers, sewer management, ect.) so poorly? Why are we putting people who do not contribute anything to the productivity of society and/or our expanding knowledge about ourselves/the Universe up on a pedestal (e.g. Katy Perry, Kardashians, Pro Athletes, ect. ect.)?

Do you see any problems with this, or do you believe that the Market is the best determining agent in matters such as this?

Click to expand...

And all those hard working doctors, teachers, scientists, construction workers and other vital members of our society? At the end of of those long, stressful work days, what do most of them turn to in order to decompress and unwind so they can stay productive without completely burning out? They turn to things like watching sports, listening to music, reading books, and watching tv shows and movies. I get it. You don’t like watching the Kardashians. I don’t either. But millions of people do and those people should be able to unwind in whatever manner they wish that doesn’t harm others.

Skeptic Bob said:

And all those hard working doctors, teachers, scientists, construction workers and other vital members of our society? At the end of of those long, stressful work days, what do most of them turn to in order to decompress and unwind so they can stay productive without completely burning out? They turn to things like watching sports, listening to music, reading books, and watching tv shows and movies. I get it. You don’t like watching the Kardashians. I don’t either. But millions of people do and those people should be able to unwind in whatever manner they wish that doesn’t harm others.

Click to expand...

You have missed the point entirely.

The entire modern Global system (all/overwhelming majority of the luxuries of modernity, as well as the dangers) is predicated on the fruits of Science and Tech. Now, I can only conclude that a person responding like this fails to understand just how precarious our situation is.

For example, there are only about 10,000 Physicists in the world (not all of which are great researchers--there is a standard distribution like in any other population). Without Physicists, we would have next to none of our modern inventions that we currently depend upon nor would we be able to push innovation forward. Therefore, the "basic" research and work of such people is extremely valuable (and there is currently hardly anyone equipped to do it). The standard/average Engineer learns enough Physics, Chem, ect. to harness what we have learned about Nature in a useful manner (however, the overwhelming bulk of this work in no way approaches the depth of understanding in Physics, Chem, ect. and they are highly limited in what they can do). If you just gathered up the one million people most eager, persistent, and qualified to do the sort of research that our modern world depends upon and removed them from the planet, we would be left with very few people (if any) capable of sustaining our current system (and one million is a very generous number). That is a huge problem, and one that is nearly never discussed (accept for in the Scientific community itself, which discusses this matter perpetually) simply because people are taught that their collective delusions in some way make sense, and are viable ideas to organize their lives around (when in reality they are non-sensical and self-destructive).
Also, others such as intensive laborers, many "Blue Collar" professions are imperative in order to keep society functioning and they are looked down upon (often are disincentivized) due to people's simple-minded prejudices. This is an inherently unstable structure as well as unjust (because the people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work are not the ones benefiting from the system).

Basically, my argument is simply: the people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work should be quasi-proportionally related to the ones reaping the benefits (which is not at all our current model)

Your argument is basically, "If people are stupid/ignorant and make horrible decisions as a consequence of this, then let them be stupid/ignorant and make horrible decisions. Who are you and/or the people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work that allows society to function, pushes it forward and lets us survive to voice disapproval/complain about that? Who are "they" to promote intervening with the system in order to course correct this scheme even if people's collective ignorance/stupidity and horrible decision making is objectively running humanity off of a cliff (as well as the ecosystem at large) all while oppressing the people doing all the work?" (Note: That is not a straw-man of what you are suggesting/implying)

I would add, based on my reading of you current position, the 10,000 physicists number likely doesn't bother you one bit. What if it were 1,000? 500? There is an enormous problem having the information that society is based upon being that arcane. You must see that? Also, it is important to note, these few people in fields such as this are not at all treated like Athletes, Actors, Celebrities, ect. but rather are largely treated very poorly. If someone wants to go into such a field at the moment it has to be in spite of the profound hardships they are bound to encounter (even if they are genius level like Alan Guth for example).

Also, Construction Workers and the like are often treated similarly awful even though our society absolutely depends upon their hard work and continued existence (which is largely taken for granted)

The 'free market' system is absolutely and deeply flawed as it inherently must be as a semi-democratic allocation of wealth and value with all the attendant emotional, self-interested and irrational aspects that accompany it.

The huge disparities in wealth between Nobel Laureates/other great scientists and engineers, those who revolutionize society and advance human progress by staggering bounds and about unambiguously add the most true value to it, and entertainers, ball kickers, people who shuffle around financial products/assets (I'm one of them!) and so on are absolutely among the most glaring instances of its failings, nevermind the boom and bust of countless bubbles of all kinds predicated on herd mentality, fear and greed, and other forms of malinvestment.

That having been said, the current mixed economic model we exercise in most countries today is absolutely better than the alternative of a Soviet-style centralized/planned economy which is unfortunately pretty unworkable due to the immense and exploding complexity of the modern global economy, not to mention the ambiguity of the 'optimal'; when computing power becomes effectively unlimited that may change, but we're not quite there, and even then finding a consensus on the 'optimal' to inform the objectives of such a planned economy would still prove confoundingly elusive.

There are no free markets except along the margins of civilization where the rule of law and state control do not exist. The athletes, celebrities and trend setters serve to distract citizens from thinking about how to improve their faulty or even disfunctional economies and societies and also serve to bleed off wealth from being accumulated into real political power in the wider population through advertising and consumerism of non-utilitarian wants. Distraction and the rechannelling of wealth allow political and economic oligarchs to maintain the power to skew the market system in order to favour themselves at the expense of the wider public. The game is fixed and the public must be distracted by entertainment and exhausted by earning and consumerism in order to protect the rigging and the riggers.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Capitalism is like a dog: A well-trained, well-behaved, housebroken dog is an asset to any home. But a wild, undisciplined dog can be dangerous to humans.

xMathFanx said:

A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

Society does not necessarily always value rational things, and others are able to profit tremendously off of the stupidity/ignorance/ect. of the masses that support it. Examples of this are Musicians, actors, athletes, celebrities ect. ect. that in a rational society, are definitely not necessarily more deserving than an Engineer for instance (as our modern world is based on Science and Tech, not Rap/Justin Beiber-type Pop music, Kim Kardashian's ass, ect. ect).

Consider, a huge portion of the nation's wealth is being put into sectors of society that serve no real productive purpose/lack in value while areas of high value such as intellectual pursuits are dramatically underfunded and discouraged (in many respects). This is due to society at large sharing the same collective delusions and valuing trivial bullsh't over serious, productive endeavors. This will always incentivize and produce a non-rational society unless structures are fundamentally challenged/altered.

Actors and musicians that "make it" get huge salaries and the ones that don't get salaries on par with other "common" jobs.

Now, contrast that to absolutely necessary fields such as Science & Maths, Engineering, Architecture, Construction Work, Waste Management, Medical Doctors, Teachers, Repairs, Farming, Electricians, Labor Intensive work, ect. ect. and fields that, although not necessary, should be prioritized/held in high esteem in a non-superficial, deep, passionate, engaged society (i.e. rational) such as Literature, History, Philosophy, Art, ect. ect.

Consider the process of becoming a Scientist (which, depending on the subject matter, is perhaps the chief field pushing innovation forward that makes all of our lives orders of magnitude more comfortable than our ancestors could have ever dreamed of--as well as revealing deep truths about the nature of our existence and the universe). One must first pay large sums of money to attend a school for 4-5 years, then proceed to further schooling for another 5-7 years (while attempting to live off of a stipend of $15,000-$25,000 or so per year--i.e.very poor), then must find a post-doc position for another 3-7 years or so which is typically only $20,000-$35,000 a year, by which time a person has been nearly dirt poor for a 15 years or more and then, finally, may find a research/professorship position (however there is absolutely no guarantee since the funding is so low due to the irrationality I have discussed--thus competition is fierce) or they very well may end up empty handed (no Science research job and/or professorship) even after that approaching two decade long process. Here are some of the fundamental questions involved:

Why in the Hell do we treat some of the greatest minds amongst us doing work that is absolutely imperative so poorly? Why do we treat others doing necessary work (e.g. Construction Workers, sewer management, ect.) so poorly? Why are we putting people who do not contribute anything to the productivity of society and/or our expanding knowledge about ourselves/the Universe up on a pedestal (e.g. Katy Perry, Kardashians, Pro Athletes, ect. ect.)?

Do you see any problems with this, or do you believe that the Market is the best determining agent in matters such as this?

Click to expand...

I get tired of people ragging on athletes and actors for what they earn. The reason Michael Jordan made so much is few people in the world could do what he did at the level he did it. He brought in millions X millions more than he was paid. I would think liberals would be happy to see owners sharing the profits. Isn't this exactly what you pretend to champion every day? Profit sharing..... Tom Hanks makes multi millions per movie because he's a virtual guarantee of millions and millions and millions more in profit. Why begrudge him his fair share of the profit? Is it jealousy?

The reason scientists, teachers, doctors make less than star athletes is because most anybody of average intelligence can go into those occupations, and they don't make anywhere near the return the stars do. Engineers are a dime a dozen. So while they are well paid by world standards, there is nothing special about them. Besides, I always thought they went into those occupations to be helpful and not for the money. Are you saying teachers, scientists, and doctors should be in it for the money? Some are, and they make rock star money, maybe a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon... but to make that money they have to be at the top of their game, just like a Jordan or Hanks; one of a few in the entire world that good at what they do.

The free market makes perfect sense.

Waddy said:

I get tired of people ragging on athletes and actors for what they earn. The reason Michael Jordan made so much is few people in the world could do what he did at the level he did it. He brought in millions X millions more than he was paid. I would think liberals would be happy to see owners sharing the profits. Isn't this exactly what you pretend to champion every day? Profit sharing..... Tom Hanks makes multi millions per movie because he's a virtual guarantee of millions and millions and millions more in profit. Why begrudge him his fair share of the profit? Is it jealousy?

The reason scientists, teachers, doctors make less than star athletes is because most anybody of average intelligence can go into those occupations, and they don't make anywhere near the return the stars do. Engineers are a dime a dozen. So while they are well paid by world standards, there is nothing special about them. Besides, I always thought they went into those occupations to be helpful and not for the money. Are you saying teachers, scientists, and doctors should be in it for the money? Some are, and they make rock star money, maybe a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon... but to make that money they have to be at the top of their game, just like a Jordan or Hanks; one of a few in the entire world that good at what they do.

The free market makes perfect sense.

Click to expand...

Playing basketball is fun, people should play all the basketball they want......but it is not very productive to society, these mega millionaires who entertain us. We need to get some bang for our bucks, we the society do. When money is frivolously spent bad things follow usually.

As compared to what, exactly? I voted yes when compared to something like China has.

xMathFanx said:

A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

Society does not necessarily always value rational things, and others are able to profit tremendously off of the stupidity/ignorance/ect. of the masses that support it. Examples of this are Musicians, actors, athletes, celebrities ect. ect. that in a rational society, are definitely not necessarily more deserving than an Engineer for instance (as our modern world is based on Science and Tech, not Rap/Justin Beiber-type Pop music, Kim Kardashian's ass, ect. ect).

Consider, a huge portion of the nation's wealth is being put into sectors of society that serve no real productive purpose/lack in value while areas of high value such as intellectual pursuits are dramatically underfunded and discouraged (in many respects). This is due to society at large sharing the same collective delusions and valuing trivial bullsh't over serious, productive endeavors. This will always incentivize and produce a non-rational society unless structures are fundamentally challenged/altered.

Lets take Professional athletes as the first example:

NBA- Out of 456 players in the league in 2017-18, 120 make $10,000,000 or more for one years worth of work and 389 make more than $1,000,000. The minimum salary for a 1st year player is over $800,000 per year. Links here:
A. ESPN: The Worldwide Leader in Sports
B. Minimum Salary Scales under the 2017 CBA

NFL- Minimum salary for 1st year players is over $450,000 per year. 656 players make at least $1,000,000 per year or more. Links here:
A. NFL Minimum Salaries for 2017 | The Daily Spot
B. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/salary.htm

MLB- 112 players make $10,000,000 or more per year. Out of 251 players total, 240 make $1,000,000 or more per year

Actors and musicians that "make it" get huge salaries and the ones that don't get salaries on par with other "common" jobs.

Now, contrast that to absolutely necessary fields such as Science & Maths, Engineering, Architecture, Construction Work, Waste Management, Medical Doctors, Teachers, Repairs, Farming, Electricians, Labor Intensive work, ect. ect. and fields that, although not necessary, should be prioritized/held in high esteem in a non-superficial, deep, passionate, engaged society (i.e. rational) such as Literature, History, Philosophy, Art, ect. ect.

Consider the process of becoming a Scientist (which, depending on the subject matter, is perhaps the chief field pushing innovation forward that makes all of our lives orders of magnitude more comfortable than our ancestors could have ever dreamed of--as well as revealing deep truths about the nature of our existence and the universe). One must first pay large sums of money to attend a school for 4-5 years, then proceed to further schooling for another 5-7 years (while attempting to live off of a stipend of $15,000-$25,000 or so per year--i.e.very poor), then must find a post-doc position for another 3-7 years or so which is typically only $20,000-$35,000 a year, by which time a person has been nearly dirt poor for a 15 years or more and then, finally, may find a research/professorship position (however there is absolutely no guarantee since the funding is so low due to the irrationality I have discussed--thus competition is fierce) or they very well may end up empty handed (no Science research job and/or professorship) even after that approaching two decade long process. Here are some of the fundamental questions involved:

Why in the Hell do we treat some of the greatest minds amongst us doing work that is absolutely imperative so poorly? Why do we treat others doing necessary work (e.g. Construction Workers, sewer management, ect.) so poorly? Why are we putting people who do not contribute anything to the productivity of society and/or our expanding knowledge about ourselves/the Universe up on a pedestal (e.g. Katy Perry, Kardashians, Pro Athletes, ect. ect.)?

Do you see any problems with this, or do you believe that the Market is the best determining agent in matters such as this?

Click to expand...

Okay...I get it, though I don't agree with you. But tell me, what is your solution?

xMathFanx said:

A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

Society does not necessarily always value rational things, and others are able to profit tremendously off of the stupidity/ignorance/ect. of the masses that support it. Examples of this are Musicians, actors, athletes, celebrities ect. ect. that in a rational society, are definitely not necessarily more deserving than an Engineer for instance (as our modern world is based on Science and Tech, not Rap/Justin Beiber-type Pop music, Kim Kardashian's ass, ect. ect).

Consider, a huge portion of the nation's wealth is being put into sectors of society that serve no real productive purpose/lack in value while areas of high value such as intellectual pursuits are dramatically underfunded and discouraged (in many respects). This is due to society at large sharing the same collective delusions and valuing trivial bullsh't over serious, productive endeavors. This will always incentivize and produce a non-rational society unless structures are fundamentally challenged/altered.

Lets take Professional athletes as the first example:

NBA- Out of 456 players in the league in 2017-18, 120 make $10,000,000 or more for one years worth of work and 389 make more than $1,000,000. The minimum salary for a 1st year player is over $800,000 per year. Links here:
A. ESPN: The Worldwide Leader in Sports
B. Minimum Salary Scales under the 2017 CBA

NFL- Minimum salary for 1st year players is over $450,000 per year. 656 players make at least $1,000,000 per year or more. Links here:
A. NFL Minimum Salaries for 2017 | The Daily Spot
B. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/salary.htm

MLB- 112 players make $10,000,000 or more per year. Out of 251 players total, 240 make $1,000,000 or more per year

Actors and musicians that "make it" get huge salaries and the ones that don't get salaries on par with other "common" jobs.

Now, contrast that to absolutely necessary fields such as Science & Maths, Engineering, Architecture, Construction Work, Waste Management, Medical Doctors, Teachers, Repairs, Farming, Electricians, Labor Intensive work, ect. ect. and fields that, although not necessary, should be prioritized/held in high esteem in a non-superficial, deep, passionate, engaged society (i.e. rational) such as Literature, History, Philosophy, Art, ect. ect.

Consider the process of becoming a Scientist (which, depending on the subject matter, is perhaps the chief field pushing innovation forward that makes all of our lives orders of magnitude more comfortable than our ancestors could have ever dreamed of--as well as revealing deep truths about the nature of our existence and the universe). One must first pay large sums of money to attend a school for 4-5 years, then proceed to further schooling for another 5-7 years (while attempting to live off of a stipend of $15,000-$25,000 or so per year--i.e.very poor), then must find a post-doc position for another 3-7 years or so which is typically only $20,000-$35,000 a year, by which time a person has been nearly dirt poor for a 15 years or more and then, finally, may find a research/professorship position (however there is absolutely no guarantee since the funding is so low due to the irrationality I have discussed--thus competition is fierce) or they very well may end up empty handed (no Science research job and/or professorship) even after that approaching two decade long process. Here are some of the fundamental questions involved:

Why in the Hell do we treat some of the greatest minds amongst us doing work that is absolutely imperative so poorly? Why do we treat others doing necessary work (e.g. Construction Workers, sewer management, ect.) so poorly? Why are we putting people who do not contribute anything to the productivity of society and/or our expanding knowledge about ourselves/the Universe up on a pedestal (e.g. Katy Perry, Kardashians, Pro Athletes, ect. ect.)?

Do you see any problems with this, or do you believe that the Market is the best determining agent in matters such as this?

Click to expand...

What do you want, socialism? That's failed everywhere it has been tried.

*sigh*

I get tired of this, too. Are entertainers *worth* the same as doctors and such? No. Their contribution to society is hardly critical. But then they have millions of people willing to pay outrageous prices to watch them work. Sorry, it's demand.

But even me, at my lowly "dime a dozen" profession, can go to the store and have literally dozens and dozens of tasty breakfast cereal choices at my disposal, all for me to easily purchase at my whim. And that's just one example. No other system provides this. Entertainers may get overpaid, but my life is pretty damn good, too.

Hello xMathFanx,

I understand what you are saying and actually agree with the the principles you lay forth. Someone bounces a basketball or throws a touchdown pass and they make $10 million or more per year....a research scientist looking for a cure for cancer that went to school for 12-14 years ...racked up debt in some cases makes a six figure or below income. In a perfect world where reason prevails and controls every aspect of everyone's life ....this would be the rule. But here's the problem; you are comparing apples with oranges. Many scientist and researchers are funded by the government or have funds that go to the institution they work for...not all...there are exceptions but when comparing that to 'entertainment' you get into trying to mix two species. People peal out money to go to NFL games and NBA games because they like or enjoy the entertainment. There's no entertainment watching a research scientist find the 'God particle' or discover a warp engine to go to the extremes of our galaxy. Now, the free market has made millionaires of people that would by all practicality be making modest salaries. These enterprises create income for other's to enjoy such as advertising, product sales for clothing and/or food, drink...etc...it goes on and on. Government can't create those jobs and those jobs provide tax money to go to the doctors, scientist, teachers, etc. Really, I agree....some make way too much money...and I don't buy their tickets or watch them on ESPN. Be it good or be it bad...the market makes the rules in a free society and until a better way is tried and proven....for my part will stick with it. When it gets out of wack enough, it will correct itself.

best regards,
seax

Waddy said:

I get tired of people ragging on athletes and actors for what they earn. The reason Michael Jordan made so much is few people in the world could do what he did at the level he did it. He brought in millions X millions more than he was paid.

Click to expand...

Did you even read my post that laid out the example of Physicists? There are only about 10,000 Physicist in the world, even though Physics research has been the "God-Father" of our modern society which is based on harnessing Maths & Science to useful ends. There is actually hardly anyone in the world (as of current) that understands that material and is capable of performing that kind of work (which is absolutely necessary for society to continue functioning and/or progress). And look how we treat them... You are committing the same flawed reasoning that I am condemning by taking this for granted..

Hawkeye10 said:

Playing basketball is fun, people should play all the basketball they want......but it is not very productive to society, these mega millionaires who entertain us. We need to get some bang for our bucks, we the society do. When money is frivolously spent bad things follow usually.

Click to expand...

How do you know? Sports promote physical fitness and are enjoyed by millions. Maybe spending money going to a concert or ball game isn't your idea of responsible spending but that's just you. I was greatly inspired by the first Star Wars movie, and have been inspired by many other movies. We also learn from entertainment. And sports is a great outlet. Some of my best memories are taking my kids to ball games.

The great thing about capitalism, the free market, and democracy is everyone gets to spend their money as they see fit. Well, the money the government doesn't confiscate, that is. The market sets value. It's not dictated by someone like you.

Moderate Right said:

What do you want, socialism? That's failed everywhere it has been tried.

Click to expand...

That is not what I am arguing for.

"Capitalism" as it is generally used, is consistent with both a "Free Market" system and various forms of "Constrained/Regulated Market" systems. I am arguing for a form of "Constrained Market" system (in the short term) as I think they still have usefulness and are feasible to implement in the current climate/Zeitgeist. However, it is important to note that the type of "Constrained Market" system I am proposing is very different than typically conceived of by people such as Sanders, Green Party, ect. ect. (which I will elaborate on).

First note, many people's distractions also fall in line with what is currently incentivized/glorified/respected/honored in our society. Many people will always have trouble "breaking the mold" of societal norms (in my view) because there is good reason to believe that average range human intelligence or below is only intelligent enough to understand the rules of the society for which they were born into or otherwise are later introduced to and become acclimated with (although even this, the latter, falls into the higher range of average human intelligence compared to the former). Now, even with this dynamic, we can produce a highly healthy, rational, productive, intellectual, creative society if the framework is properly structured (e.g. think Star Trek).

Second, consider, athletes, actors, ect. is that they are not what allows society to continue to function. In fact, they are taking advantage of the "toys" provided by the very few Scientists and Engineers, held together by the necessary labor intensive workers, and are simultaneously sh'tting on these people (even if they are not aware of it). Furthermore, it is really inverting the pyramid of who works harder and allows society to function. Construction workers are so much more important than Baseball players even though our current system would lead an outside observer to conclude the opposite (based on factors such as wealth, status, resources, living comfort, ect.)

Now, the economy already is "rigged", so all you would have to do is "rig" it in a different direction (as well as the imperative of getting people more interested in productive, creative, activities rather than frivolousness--note, rigging the economy would in it of itself shift peoples interests due to the incentive structure). That is, jobs that have high utility value (e.g. "Blue Collar" laborers, Architects, Scientists, ect.) objectively contribute far more to society than Justin Bieber (although the current system incentive structure would suggest that this is the other way around). The current Market system is based on preference value while I am arguing for a utility value system.

It would still be a market system, there would still be an abundance of greedy, self-interested people, ect. ect, However, by necessity, the work they would be doing if they wanted to increase their wealth would be productive and actually benefit society rather than frivolous--e.g. Models would not be paid much at all in such a society while being a Construction worker, many "Blue Collar" intensive labor, Scientist, Architect, ect. ect. would be paid well (just nearly flip everything on its head, roughly speaking)). This is why I said such a system is feasible in the short-term given the current climate/Zeitgeist. It would essentially be like a Social Democratic society but rather than the type of "Inverse Capitalism" that Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein/Green Party, ect. promote, it would be based on a productivity/utility value incentive structure rather than the preference value structure that we currently operate on.

ttwtt78640 said:

As compared to what, exactly? I voted yes when compared to something like China has.

Click to expand...

I'm not comparing it China or even any other system currently in place (although there are strong similarities with Social Democratic systems--the most relevant factor is switching off from a preference value system to a utility value system, and having the economy "constrained/regulated" to incentivize this dynamic. Please see my other posts for more information.

America and most of the world doesnt operate in a free market system. It's been a mixed economy for decades. Basic Econ 101.

Waddy said:

How do you know? Sports promote physical fitness and are enjoyed by millions. Maybe spending money going to a concert or ball game isn't your idea of responsible spending but that's just you. I was greatly inspired by the first Star Wars movie, and have been inspired by many other movies. We also learn from entertainment. And sports is a great outlet. Some of my best memories are taking my kids to ball games.

Click to expand...

It is objectively factual, as I have already explained. That is:

Consider for a moment if society had to start from scratch tomorrow. Now, if you want to survive there are certain necessities that are required such as food, protection, shelter, ect. This requires contributors, at minimum people who find and prepare food, construct/find some form of shelter that gives some level of protection from the environment and/or other animals, care for the young, ect. This is very rudimentary however it still requires people to step-up and work, not guys that simply goof around and wrestle with each other all day (i.e. athletes) or perpetually gawking over some hot chick's ass to the point that you give them all your resources (i.e. celebrity culture).

Now, unless you want to live in a perpetually primitive state (i.e. quasi Anarcho-Primitivism), than you require people of practical intelligence (i.e. architects, engineers, scientists, ect.) to plan and organize with workers willing and able to put such plans into motion (i.e. construction workers, "blue collar" laborers, farmers, repairs, waste management, ect.). After a certain level of advancement is achieved, then this will sufficiently free things up for other creative/intellectual work (i.e. artists, other intellectual pursuits that lack practical application but nevertheless are highly enriching, ect.). Even then, society does not require much of what goes on in Celebrity culture and the like (e.g. think of ET network, reality TV, ect. ect.) which serves no purpose to society other than being harmful.

Note, our Modern World only feels disconnected from the thought experiment described above, however this remains our situation--we are just starting from a framework that is already in place rather than scratch. Now, is it a scientific fact that describing some courses of action for society rather than others is more rational?--No. However, that doesn't mean that it is entirely arbitrary either and anyone with even the most rudimentary Philosophical sophistication would comprehend that. We need to (at least) start incentivizing people to use their Frontal Lobes (if not demanding it)--you know, behave like Homo Sapiens rather than Bonobo Apes (the latter being quite seriously how our current society is largely structured around/product of and this is how people largely behave in a "Free Market" as well as many versions of "Constrained Markets" that don't fundamentally challenge the underlying dynamics at work)

PoS said:

America and most of the world doesnt operate in a free market system. It's been a mixed economy for decades. Basic Econ 101.

Click to expand...

I'm well aware of that and have actually already addressed it

i chose "other." the market works in some situations and not in others. same thing with the public sector. it's a fluid and nuanced balance.

seax said:

Hello xMathFanx,

I understand what you are saying and actually agree with the the principles you lay forth. Someone bounces a basketball or throws a touchdown pass and they make $10 million or more per year....a research scientist looking for a cure for cancer that went to school for 12-14 years ...racked up debt in some cases makes a six figure or below income. In a perfect world where reason prevails and controls every aspect of everyone's life ....this would be the rule. But here's the problem; you are comparing apples with oranges. Many scientist and researchers are funded by the government or have funds that go to the institution they work for...not all...there are exceptions but when comparing that to 'entertainment' you get into trying to mix two species. People peal out money to go to NFL games and NBA games because they like or enjoy the entertainment. There's no entertainment watching a research scientist find the 'God particle' or discover a warp engine to go to the extremes of our galaxy. Now, the free market has made millionaires of people that would by all practicality be making modest salaries. These enterprises create income for other's to enjoy such as advertising, product sales for clothing and/or food, drink...etc...it goes on and on. Government can't create those jobs and those jobs provide tax money to go to the doctors, scientist, teachers, etc. Really, I agree....some make way too much money...and I don't buy their tickets or watch them on ESPN. Be it good or be it bad...the market makes the rules in a free society and until a better way is tried and proven....for my part will stick with it. When it gets out of wack enough, it will correct itself.

best regards,
seax

Click to expand...

The current system is taking as a given the notion that a preference value system is inherently more "just" than a utility value system (while this is not at all obvious and I have raised a large number of profound concerns of the logical consequences in valuing people's individual preferences rather than their productive contributions).

In fact, most of my argument is centered around this fundamental Philosophical point

xMathFanx said:

It is objectively factual, as I have already explained. That is:

Consider for a moment if society had to start from scratch tomorrow. Now, if you want to survive there are certain necessities that are required such as food, protection, shelter, ect. This requires contributors, at minimum people who find and prepare food, construct/find some form of shelter that gives some level of protection from the environment and/or other animals, care for the young, ect. This is very rudimentary however it still requires people to step-up and work, not guys that simply goof around and wrestle with each other all day (i.e. athletes) or perpetually gawking over some hot chick's ass to the point that you give them all your resources (i.e. celebrity culture).

Now, unless you want to live in a perpetually primitive state (i.e. quasi Anarcho-Primitivism), than you require people of practical intelligence (i.e. architects, engineers, scientists, ect.) to plan and organize with workers willing and able to put such plans into motion (i.e. construction workers, "blue collar" laborers, farmers, repairs, waste management, ect.). After a certain level of advancement is achieved, then this will sufficiently free things up for other creative/intellectual work (i.e. artists, other intellectual pursuits that lack practical application but nevertheless are highly enriching, ect.). Even then, society does not require much of what goes on in Celebrity culture and the like (e.g. think of ET network, reality TV, ect. ect.) which serves no purpose to society other than being harmful.

Note, our Modern World only feels disconnected from the thought experiment described above, however this remains our situation--we are just starting from a framework that is already in place rather than scratch. Now, is it a scientific fact that describing some courses of action for society rather than others is more rational?--No. However, that doesn't mean that it is entirely arbitrary either and anyone with even the most rudimentary Philosophical sophistication would comprehend that. We need to (at least) start incentivizing people to use their Frontal Lobes (if not demanding it)--you know, behave like Homo Sapiens rather than Bonobo Apes (the latter being quite seriously how our current society is largely structured around/product of and this is how people largely behave in a "Free Market" as well as many versions of "Constrained Markets" that don't fundamentally challenge the underlying dynamics at work)

Click to expand...

What an arrogant elitist you are. Speaking of more primitive times, the minstrel was the most welcome visitor to any medieval castle or town, or even a village made up of huts. I suspect even cave men enjoyed the wall art and the singalongs around the campfire. Once a civilization progresses beyond the sustenance level people begin to specialize; and their worth is determined by the market. Storytellers and poets were the rock stars of their day. The Greeks had their Olympics. Once civilization progresses people are freed up. So what should they do? People should do what they do best. That's the genius of capitalism, the free market and democracy; you are free to market yourself however you want. No one dictates what you will do. If you are good at growing things be a farmer. If you like machinery become an auto mechanic. If you have a flair for music or sports then by all means......... and if millions of people appreciate your talent then good for you. It's doubtful, though, that millions will flock to your auto repair shop; there are lots of mechanics around, but you should be able to make a good living. If, on the other hand, you can sink a lay-up like no one else on the planet, and millions of people follow your sport, you will be rich. Good for you.

Man does not live by bread alone; we also need diversions and entertainment, among other things. And Katy Perry draws a much larger customer base than your average auto mechanic or farmer, or even inventor. And for every Katy Perry who "makes it", there are hundreds of thousands of wannabe's. Maybe millions. They should keep in mind that happiness is usually dependent on how you handle "plan B".

In all of this audience size is key. We have news anchors in the USA who make $20-30 million a year. But there are also news anchors in England (They call them newsreaders). But they aren't paid a fraction of what the Americans make. Why? Because the audience in England is relatively small. That's why actors and musicians and everybody else likes to come here; it pays better. Same is true for engineers, doctors and scientists; we pay better because we offer a more affluent audience (customer base) for what they do.

When the auto mechanic has 30,000 people lined up at his door every morning he will make as much money as Katy Perry or Tom Hanks, or even Michael Jordan.

I voted YES, and will explain why.

Most people work necessary jobs for the functioning of society, as you very effectively described.

This is why our DISTRACTIONS (fluff) seem to grab our attention more.
Being a red-blooded American man, I will check out an attractive woman any chance I get, unless at work.
So her ass is very important to me and what shape it is in.
Be it on the silver screen, on TV, or walking down the street.
It matters greatly.

Sports are the same way. General Montgomery was once attributed as saying we take our SPORTS much more seriously that any damned war. That is why grown men and women paint themselves up in team colors and sit on a wooden bleacher freezing their tails off. It is serious business.
In Texas you will see near fistfights over sauce or no sauce on BBQ.

Then after a black eye (shoulda seen the other guy) we go home and enjoy our TV, hot showers, warm beds, good music and other comforts the rest of the Joe Paychecks provide for us.

This is just my opinion, so don't get all bent out of shape if you disagree with me.

radcen said:

*sigh*

I get tired of this, too. Are entertainers *worth* the same as doctors and such? No. Their contribution to society is hardly critical. But then they have millions of people willing to pay outrageous prices to watch them work. Sorry, it's demand.

But even me, at my lowly "dime a dozen" profession, can go to the store and have literally dozens and dozens of tasty breakfast cereal choices at my disposal, all for me to easily purchase at my whim. And that's just one example. No other system provides this. Entertainers may get overpaid, but my life is pretty damn good, too.

Click to expand...

This is probably the best answer to the thread's question.
The Cereal Box Solution to economy.
:thumbs: