| If you're measuring it as "how many people own superyachts" that's probably different from how most people want to measure "how well is the planet being run". > And she's probably more efficient in spending it than the practical alternatives. Why? This seems like an odd statement. Why is a singer more efficient at doing this than a team of analysts? > Yes to all of the above. I assume. I have to point out that you are likely looking at the world in a drastically different way to most. You think that 1. We should be pushing for more superyachts, as an immediate measure of efficient allocation of resources 2. Taylor Swift is being rewarded for efficient allocation of capital and not her songwriting, singing, etc. 3. Taylor Swift, who has been singing for many years at lower amounts of wealth, would stop if her fortune dropped and she had to release songs in order to gain more wealth 4. Taylor Swift is making music because there is something she wishes to purchase that she is saving up for. She does not wish to make music, and is putting up with it to finally afford something. I think most people believe that musicians who are extremely popular for their music would continue to make music if they could live an extremely lavish lifestyle without a care in the world for money but their net worth didn't increase. I think that most people would prefer some measure of how well things are going that look at their own life, or how many people have food. |
A disturbing number of people are financially incapable to the point where they struggle with concepts like spending less money than they earn. There is a significant tension between what they want to measure and what economic optimal looks like. The economy is there to maximise peace and prosperity, the people who think otherwise should be kept well away from the levers of power.
> Why? This seems like an odd statement. Why is a singer more efficient at doing this than a team of analysts?
I assume she's got a team of analysts working on it. I doubt she manages her own money directly. They're probably pretty good.
> You think that
> 1. We should be pushing for more superyachts, as an immediate measure of efficient allocation of resources
I think that a world where one person has a superyacht is better than a world where nobody does. In much the same way that a world in the 60s someone probably owned a really expensive mainframe and there'd be people moaning about how outrageous it was that someone could spend so much money on a big calculator. The market doesn't seem to want to give everyone a superyacht, and I doubt it would be efficient to jump right in to it. For obvious reasons
Points 2 to 4 though seem like an accurate restatement. With the caveat that my knowledge of Swift is patchy and distant.