11–20 of 133 posts
What this is saying is that creativity is privileged and (unlike other forms of labor) should be given more than the market says it's worth. Why should non-creatives go along with this?
What this is saying is that creativity is privileged and (unlike other forms of labor) should be given more than the market says it's worth. Why should non-creatives go along with this?
If you control the market, and have a direct way of influencing what the law considers the market, that is by definition not a competitive (and/or mostly free) market.
The name for this scenario is known as "Hobson's Choice"[0].
Also, the word for a market where you have only a couple of buyers (all colluding with each other) is called a monopsony.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
No it isn't. It's the nature of about 30% of people, who can't be happy without knowing that someone else is worse off. Many of the characteristics that you ascribe to stupidity are actually examples of selfishness, and you're leveraging the existence thereof to rationalize your own selfishness.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600451
Your wealth likely derives from a mixture of raw talent, hard work, luck, and preferential attachment, and imho wealth and fitness (in the technical sense) are poorly correlated in modern society.
What this is saying is that creativity is privileged and (unlike other forms of labor) should be given more than the market says it's worth. Why should non-creatives go along with this?
We shouldn't. Art has historically been vastly overvalued and I like that its perceived/demanded value has been sharply declining over the past several decades and especially now with the advent of "AI".
I'm sorry if anyone reading this is an artist and I just twisted your pantaloons, but artists don't serve any valuable role in society. Artists exist strictly because society can afford to waste surplus time and resources on frivolous occupations, art is an intangible luxury.
What this is saying is that creativity is privileged and (unlike other forms of labor) should be given more than the market says it's worth. Why should non-creatives go along with this?
How about fuck the market, which produces terrible outcomes across the board. It's not the toy 'supply and demand' model of economics classes or anything resembling a pure meritocracy, it's heavily shaped by cartels and asymmetric contractual relations.
What this is saying is that creativity is privileged and (unlike other forms of labor) should be given more than the market says it's worth. Why should non-creatives go along with this?
>Why should non-creatives go along with this? We shouldn't. Art has historically been vastly overvalued and I like that its perceived/demanded value has been sharply declining over the past several decades and especially now with the advent of "AI". I'm sorry if anyone reading this is an artist and I just twisted your pantaloons, but artists don't serve any valuable role in society. Artists exist strictly because soc…