A N Other

Are Professional Athletes Economically Productive?

33 posts in this topic

Just to be clear - not in any subsidiary activity, such as investing their huge wages; I mean in their primary activity, playing baseball or whatever. Are movie stars and TV personalities economically productive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to be clear - not in any subsidiary activity, such as investing their huge wages; I mean in their primary activity, playing baseball or whatever. Are movie stars and TV personalities economically productive?

They provide a product, that product is entertainment. People like the product that they provide and people purchase that product. That in itself is an economic exchange that is productive. How is it productive? The money that the actors get will then buy something from someone else (a car perhaps) and then that car salesmen will buy from someone as well (Lunch perhaps) ect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to be clear - not in any subsidiary activity, such as investing their huge wages; I mean in their primary activity, playing baseball or whatever. Are movie stars and TV personalities economically productive?

They provide a product, that product is entertainment. People like the product that they provide and people purchase that product. That in itself is an economic exchange that is productive. How is it productive? The money that the actors get will then buy something from someone else (a car perhaps) and then that car salesmen will buy from someone as well (Lunch perhaps) ect.

A farmer grows corn and raises cattle and chickens for food. A miner extracts ore and a foundry smelts it and produces steel for buildings. All these lead to economic exchanges too. But a perfectly lofted wedge to 1' from the cup seems a different thing than food, clothing, shelter,etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to be clear - not in any subsidiary activity, such as investing their huge wages; I mean in their primary activity, playing baseball or whatever. Are movie stars and TV personalities economically productive?

They provide a product, that product is entertainment. People like the product that they provide and people purchase that product. That in itself is an economic exchange that is productive. How is it productive? The money that the actors get will then buy something from someone else (a car perhaps) and then that car salesmen will buy from someone as well (Lunch perhaps) ect.

A farmer grows corn and raises cattle and chickens for food. A miner extracts ore and a foundry smelts it and produces steel for buildings. All these lead to economic exchanges too. But a perfectly lofted wedge to 1' from the cup seems a different thing than food, clothing, shelter,etc.

They are economically productive because they produce money. Economic productivity revolves around the creation of money. What good is having barns full of corn if the product cannot be sold for a profit? What the athletes do is they sell there talents for entertainment and they obtain money. With that money they obtain they fuel this consumer driven economy. Therefore, they are productive. Productivity is not confined to the production of tangible goods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There can be an economy without money. Granted, it may be less sophistcated and less productive without the use of money. You can have a one person economy wher there is production, consumption, identifiable costs, opportunity costs, scarcity, time value of what's produced etc. So it appears economic production has primacy over money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There can be an economy without money. Granted, it may be less sophistcated and less productive without the use of money. You can have a one person economy wher there is production, consumption, identifiable costs, opportunity costs, scarcity, time value of what's produced etc. So it appears economic production has primacy over money.

I stated that there is no economic production without money. You reply by citing an example, that being a one person economy doesn't need money. With that said I must ask how you define an economy? Because I define an economy as system in which two individuals trade. Could you explain your one man economy further?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There can be an economy without money. Granted, it may be less sophistcated and less productive without the use of money. You can have a one person economy wher there is production, consumption, identifiable costs, opportunity costs, scarcity, time value of what's produced etc. So it appears economic production has primacy over money.

I stated that there is no economic production without money. You reply by citing an example, that being a one person economy doesn't need money. With that said I must ask how you define an economy? Because I define an economy as system in which two individuals trade. Could you explain your one man economy further?

One man alone faces a number of economic problems which must be met. Going after the fat succulent fish in pool one loaded with sharp corral and swimmer's itch vs. accepting skinny, bony fish in pool two; he must balance costs and returns. If he barters with another man, they may establish an exchange rate, a price, one fat, succlent fish for two sharp bamboo spears and eight bamboo shoots. If the fat fish go farther offsore and now the danger of deep water is added, the price may go up - driven by costs - to three spears and twelve bamboo shoots.

The point is many economic phenomenon- costs, prices, substituions and more come into play without money.

I'd rather defer an expilicit definition for now and see if there are other thoughts. How one defines economic production will supply much of the answer to the first question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are economically productive because they produce money. Economic productivity revolves around the creation of money. What good is having barns full of corn if the product cannot be sold for a profit? What the athletes do is they sell there talents for entertainment and they obtain money. With that money they obtain they fuel this consumer driven economy. Therefore, they are productive. Productivity is not confined to the production of tangible goods.

Professional athletes are productive, but I suspect you agree with that for incorrect reasons. There's a vast difference between "produce money" and "obtain money." When you then say "they fuel this consumer driven economy," it sounds like there are some mistaken economic ideas underlying your statements.

There's no such thing as a "consumer driven economy." If there were, spending would unfailingly end recession, which has never been, and can never be, the case. Production is primary - if nothing is produced there's nothing to consume, no matter how much money is in existence.

An athlete, indeed anyone who provides entertainment or, frankly, anything else of economic value, tangible or not, produces something which someone is willing to trade for. But the purchaser must first produce in order to have something to trade for the product, or the athlete can't get anything in return for his production. (That money is the medium of exchange is essentially incidental.)

To "produce money" is to create value where before there was none - that is the origin and meaning of the phrase "to make money." Obtaining money requires nothing - this morning, in fact, I obtained ten cents by finding a dime at a playground. That an athlete obtains money for his production of entertainment means nothing if there are no goods produced to back that money, i.e. to give that money value - no matter what he uses it for. If it's paper money (which is really currency, not money) I suppose he could burn it in lieu of the energy that hasn't been produced to provide him heat (especially if he plays for Green Bay :)). Other than that, though, he won't be fueling anything without the purchaser's production coming first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Are movie stars and TV personalities economically productive? "

Why do you doubt entertainment as productive? They give someone something they want. They meet a need. That need can be emotional or material. Entertainment is emotionally rewarding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Are movie stars and TV personalities economically productive? "

Why do you doubt entertainment as productive? They give someone something they want. They meet a need. That need can be emotional or material. Entertainment is emotionally rewarding.

I am tempted to a definition along the lines of: economic productivity is the production of something of value to oneself or to another or others.

So professional athletes and entertainers are economically productive. So are philosophers and novelists. So, it could be asserted, are politicians and social workers and Catholic priests.

I think the answer to what is bothering me lies in a prior question: of value to whom and for what? So the philisophical question IS prior to the economic question.

The public discussion of some issues bother me. "Government workers are not [economically] productive." I would say that as a generalization that statement is false. Given the way the delivery of some goods and services are organized - water, sanitary serwers, courts, even public school systems, SOME government emploees are quite productive. Others are inefficient, even in comparison to to other governments and some are corrupt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Are movie stars and TV personalities economically productive? "

Why do you doubt entertainment as productive? They give someone something they want. They meet a need. That need can be emotional or material. Entertainment is emotionally rewarding.

I am tempted to a definition along the lines of: economic productivity is the production of something of value to oneself or to another or others.

So professional athletes and entertainers are economically productive. So are philosophers and novelists. So, it could be asserted, are politicians and social workers and Catholic priests.

I think the answer to what is bothering me lies in a prior question: of value to whom and for what? So the philisophical question IS prior to the economic question.

The public discussion of some issues bother me. "Government workers are not [economically] productive." I would say that as a generalization that statement is false. Given the way the delivery of some goods and services are organized - water, sanitary serwers, courts, even public school systems, SOME government emploees are quite productive. Others are inefficient, even in comparison to to other governments and some are corrupt.

Well, even a raving communist can be productive if one isolates a particular endeavor of his. The question of HOW productive, is another matter. If one looks at the full context of government workers, say the environmental department, then the net result is usually harmful to production. It really does depend on how wide one makes the scenario, as that determines the end goal. For example, recycling does reduce the rubbish going to the dump if that is the end goal. That can be regarded as productive in a limited context, but in a wider consideration, it may be uneconomical - hence unproductive.

Perhaps the simplest answer is that money freely earned and exchanged involves production. Taxes are not freely paid, and 'production' may thus not apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Are movie stars and TV personalities economically productive? "

Why do you doubt entertainment as productive? They give someone something they want. They meet a need. That need can be emotional or material. Entertainment is emotionally rewarding.

I am tempted to a definition along the lines of: economic productivity is the production of something of value to oneself or to another or others.

So professional athletes and entertainers are economically productive. So are philosophers and novelists. So, it could be asserted, are politicians and social workers and Catholic priests.

I think the answer to what is bothering me lies in a prior question: of value to whom and for what? So the philisophical question IS prior to the economic question.

The public discussion of some issues bother me. "Government workers are not [economically] productive." I would say that as a generalization that statement is false. Given the way the delivery of some goods and services are organized - water, sanitary serwers, courts, even public school systems, SOME government emploees are quite productive. Others are inefficient, even in comparison to to other governments and some are corrupt.

Well, even a raving communist can be productive if one isolates a particular endeavor of his. The question of HOW productive, is another matter. If one looks at the full context of government workers, say the environmental department, then the net result is usually harmful to production. It really does depend on how wide one makes the scenario, as that determines the end goal. For example, recycling does reduce the rubbish going to the dump if that is the end goal. That can be regarded as productive in a limited context, but in a wider consideration, it may be uneconomical - hence unproductive.

Perhaps the simplest answer is that money freely earned and exchanged involves production. Taxes are not freely paid, and 'production' may thus not apply.

I believe that the word 'productive' is to broad of a work to pin down any solid conclusion on the matter at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Are movie stars and TV personalities economically productive? "

Why do you doubt entertainment as productive? They give someone something they want. They meet a need. That need can be emotional or material. Entertainment is emotionally rewarding.

I am tempted to a definition along the lines of: economic productivity is the production of something of value to oneself or to another or others.

So professional athletes and entertainers are economically productive. So are philosophers and novelists. So, it could be asserted, are politicians and social workers and Catholic priests.

I think the answer to what is bothering me lies in a prior question: of value to whom and for what? So the philisophical question IS prior to the economic question.

The public discussion of some issues bother me. "Government workers are not [economically] productive." I would say that as a generalization that statement is false. Given the way the delivery of some goods and services are organized - water, sanitary serwers, courts, even public school systems, SOME government emploees are quite productive. Others are inefficient, even in comparison to to other governments and some are corrupt.

Well, even a raving communist can be productive if one isolates a particular endeavor of his. The question of HOW productive, is another matter. If one looks at the full context of government workers, say the environmental department, then the net result is usually harmful to production. It really does depend on how wide one makes the scenario, as that determines the end goal. For example, recycling does reduce the rubbish going to the dump if that is the end goal. That can be regarded as productive in a limited context, but in a wider consideration, it may be uneconomical - hence unproductive.

Perhaps the simplest answer is that money freely earned and exchanged involves production. Taxes are not freely paid, and 'production' may thus not apply.

I was thinking more of clean water, efficient wast disposal, even courts, police and fire, roads,etc. Any or all could logically be provided by private agencies. I have a great many friends who are teachers, firemen, one who runs water and sewer for the county I live in, all of whom are industrious, honest, productive people. The reflexive attacks on "government workers who don't produce anything" are not helping the case with these kinds of people.

An economic good is one which is created by a person or people, at a cost, including a portion of their lives, which is of value to another. If that definition sticks, anyone who makes the REFLEXIVE statement above has a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was thinking more of clean water, efficient wast disposal, even courts, police and fire, roads,etc. Any or all could logically be provided by private agencies. I have a great many friends who are teachers, firemen, one who runs water and sewer for the county I live in, all of whom are industrious, honest, productive people. The reflexive attacks on "government workers who don't produce anything" are not helping the case with these kinds of people.

With the exception of courts and police, all those people would definitely be more productive if their work were privatized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was thinking more of clean water, efficient wast disposal, even courts, police and fire, roads,etc. Any or all could logically be provided by private agencies. I have a great many friends who are teachers, firemen, one who runs water and sewer for the county I live in, all of whom are industrious, honest, productive people. The reflexive attacks on "government workers who don't produce anything" are not helping the case with these kinds of people.

With the exception of courts and police, all those people would definitely be more productive if their work were privatized.

I agree. I worry about the possibility of enlisting people who are good people other than having a "government" job against the back drop of vitriolic attacks on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not just entertainment, but (like most art), inspiration and therefore a rise in productivity. I would say 80% of the tycoons, entrepreneurs, great investors etc. that I have heard about are rabid sports fans of some kind or other and the remaining 20% poker experts (a form of mind sport).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are athletes productive? And I suppose those huge stadiums that produce construction jobs and food vendors employed there and transportation system developed to get people into and out of the locations where athletes perform are not tangible assets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that they make money without the use of force is proof of their economic production.

Ellsworth Toohey made money without the use of force but he was, in fact, destructive. I would amend your statement like this: The fact that they make money from rational customers without the use of force is proof of their economic production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that they make money without the use of force is proof of their economic production.

Ellsworth Toohey made money without the use of force but he was, in fact, destructive. I would amend your statement like this: The fact that they make money from rational customers without the use of force is proof of their economic production.

If they weren't providing value, they would receive none in return.

Toohey provided value to someone in his writing. The fact that he caused "destruction" does not take away the value some socialist sitting on their porch received when reading his writings.

So it doesn't matter if you see the valuation of athletes as rational, the fact that others clearly value them suggests they are productive.

The thread title is redundant, and answers its own question. The fact that someone is a "professional" means their work is productive so long as their revenue is $0.01.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toohey provided value to someone in his writing. The fact that he caused "destruction" does not take away the value some socialist sitting on their porch received when reading his writings.

His writings may have been subjectively valuable to the socialist, but they were not objectively valuable for anyone's life qua rational being. Economic production should refer to the creation of objective values that promote man's life; if you call the satisfaction of any old irrational whim production, then pretty much anyone acting on his whims is being productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toohey provided value to someone in his writing. The fact that he caused "destruction" does not take away the value some socialist sitting on their porch received when reading his writings.

His writings may have been subjectively valuable to the socialist, but they were not objectively valuable for anyone's life qua rational being. Economic production should refer to the creation of objective values that promote man's life; if you call the satisfaction of any old irrational whim production, then pretty much anyone acting on his whims is being productive.

According to Ayn Rand a value is something you try to get or try to keep. So even thoroughly bad, destructive and nasty ideas can be values, at least for the persons to try to acquire or keep them. Rapists, thieves and murderers have values. But it is those values that make them a hazard to life and limb. And evil values can be just as "objective" as better value. They can be clear, definable and identifiable. They can be plain as daylight.

Just because something is a value or even an "objective" value does not mean it is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toohey provided value to someone in his writing. The fact that he caused "destruction" does not take away the value some socialist sitting on their porch received when reading his writings.

His writings may have been subjectively valuable to the socialist, but they were not objectively valuable for anyone's life qua rational being. Economic production should refer to the creation of objective values that promote man's life; if you call the satisfaction of any old irrational whim production, then pretty much anyone acting on his whims is being productive.

It is still value. The standard may not be life or wellbeing, but it is value nonetheless.

All consumed goods result from the creation of value, which is economically productive. I am not sure where some of you all get your definitions of value from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All consumed goods result from the creation of value, which is economically productive. I am not sure where some of you all get your definitions of value from.

The word "value" can mean ANYTHING a person acts to gain or keep (the general definition) and also the narrower concept of proper values with life as the standard. Both are validly used in the sentence: "What he values isn't really a value."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites