91–100 of 133 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If economic value is defined through markets, how then does one argue against markets' ability to assign value? What words should be used other than value?
You want to do something that makes no sense? You figure it out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you realize what a hellscape the world without art would be.
We’d go outside? Derive pleasure from being around people near us instead of seeking external validation and watching shows crafted by Hollywood midwits? Maybe we’d have more hobbies and do sports?
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, tools are cheaper, but the big barriers to entry remain the hours invested in learning whatever creative craft is at hand.
I mean barriers in the sense of market access. Studios used to be able to gatekeep the market because they controlled expensive studio time and distribution networks. That’s not true anymore.
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…
Before the printing press, a poet was valued and valuable; today, the feeling of valuation remains, but instead of each village of 160 looking after their own poets and bards, it's a power-law distribution where Taylor Swift and J. K. Rowling are worth hundreds of millions to billions while the person at the end of the top 100 best-seller lists absolutely needs a second job.
It just comes down to the fact that music is cheap. Outside of a very small cohort of star artists, musicians just don't create anything that people at large value to any significant extent. Only a very small portion of your fans would be willing to pay for a CD or a T-shirt; most just have a song or two in a playlist somewhere, and if you make your music unavailable on that steaming platform, they won't even notice.
How about this. Take away all the musicians and their music and see what Spotify and all its software developers are worth by themselves. Now do the opposite. Figured it out yet? Music is one of the most universal and important things in our culture. People define themselves and their identity with it, and most certainly value it and will pay for it. How we structure our economic systems determines if it’s “cheap” or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try arguing with substance instead of hyperbolic (and specious) comparisons. Preferential attachment is a well-documented economic phenomenon, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_attachment
This is a feature, not a bug. In our system, capital tends to concentrate and flow to people who are good stewards of it. Many of the rich train their children to provide value and allocate capital efficiently. This is somehow a bad thing? The comment I responded to was the typical collage freshman “eat the rich” bs which is rooted in communistic ideation. Those ideas are generally worthless and go down a shitty path…
The comment I responded to was the typical collage freshman “eat the rich” bs which is rooted in communistic ideation.
Then you should have directed your remarks to the person who wrote that instead of to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How about no? The evidence is that markets are essential. Attempts to use central planning instead have been universally disastrous, for reasons that were predicted ahead of time.
Attempts to use central planning instead have been universally disastrous
Nobody mentioned central planning except you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean barriers in the sense of market access. Studios used to be able to gatekeep the market because they controlled expensive studio time and distribution networks. That’s not true anymore.
You clearly didn't read the article either. The studios still control market access, as they control Spotify.
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…