[Potemkin]

My argument holds to the extent an athlete's paycheck is determined by his relative superiority over competitors. I understand that some athletes might be particularly charismatic or have a particularly attractive way to play.

It's determined by how much revenue he can bring in for his promoters, his management team, and the venues, and nothing else. The only 'measure' of how successful an athlete is (in the context of how much he or she 'should' be paid) is how many people are willing to pay how much money to see him or her perform. That's ultimately determined by supply and demand - top level athletes are in short supply, and there is a high demand for them. The few top level athletes who exist and are in peak condition are therefore well paid for what they do. Arguing whether their salaries are 'fair' or 'unfair' is irrelevant in the context of the capitalist system, which is how people's salaries are decided.

[Crantag]

Anthony Joshua has all the goods, and so did Mike Tyson. Indeed, all of the guys I mentioned were huge phenomenons which, extend well beyond their prowess in the ring.

A boxing match is really just a boxing match. I find boxing quite enthralling, but you can go to Tijuana to see very healthy scraps. There is something special about each of the fighters I mentioned, which truly has the power to captivate the masses.

The same goes for the Kobe Bryants, the Messis, the Ronaldos, the Peyton Mannings, etc., etc., etc. But in the case of the team sports, the ability to help the team win games (no one likes a losing team), as well as to advance to and through the playoffs, directly contributes substantially to huge boosts in the way of revenue.

Every sport is different, but as for Bolt, he is another sporting phenomenon, and he would not have been so if he did not smash records, as well as competitors.

[Rugoz]

It's determined by how much revenue he can bring in for his promoters, his management team, and the venues, and nothing else. The only 'measure' of how successful an athlete is (in the context of how much he or she 'should' be paid) is how many people are willing to pay how much money to see him or her perform. That's ultimately determined by supply and demand - top level athletes are in short supply, and there is a high demand for them. The few top level athletes who exist and are in peak condition are therefore well paid for what they do. Arguing whether their salaries are 'fair' or 'unfair' is irrelevant in the context of the capitalist system, which is how people's salaries are decided.

Well, (neoclassical) economic theory does concern itself with efficiency (Pareto efficiency to be precise). As with public goods, the consumption of positional goods imposes an negative externality on others and therefore market efficiency goes out of the window. Besides, since when is market clearing (supply = demand) a sufficient criteria for efficiency?

[Potemkin]

Well, (neoclassical) economic theory does concern itself with efficiency (Pareto efficiency to be precise). As with public goods, the consumption of positional goods imposes an negative externality on others and therefore market efficiency goes out of the window. Besides, since when is market clearing (supply = demand) a sufficient criteria for efficiency?

I didn't say it was a good thing; merely that it's the mechanism which determines levels of remuneration in a capitalist system. Complaining that it's 'unfair' that a top athlete is paid more than, say, a fireman or a brain surgeon, is to wish to abolish that mechanism, or even to abolish capitalism tout court. If you don't wish to abolish capitalism, then it would be better not to complain about the "unfairness" of its mechanisms. That would just be annoying.

[Rugoz]

I didn't say it was a good thing; merely that it's the mechanism which determines levels of remuneration in a capitalist system. Complaining that it's 'unfair' that a top athlete is paid more than, say, a fireman or a brain surgeon, is to wish to abolish that mechanism, or even to abolish capitalism tout court. If you don't wish to abolish capitalism, then it would be better not to complain about the "unfairness" of its mechanisms. That would just be annoying.

Salary caps are quite common in professional sports, have we abolished capitalism already?

[Potemkin]

Salary caps are quite common in professional sports, have we abolished capitalism already?

Abolished? No. Interfered with? Yes.

[Drlee]

That's nice, but doesn't contradict anything I said. They surely wouldn't have the same audience if they weren't winning over competitors.

No. Just no.

We have contradicted virtually everything you said about professional sportsmen.

[Sivad]

I don't think it is, because the point wasn't that we should just accept it, the point was that the Marxist's diagnosis and prescription is false. They say pareto distribution is a flaw in capitalism when it isn't it's a flaw, if it is a flaw at all, with the very nature of the universe. They say the cure for pareto distribution is to take everyone's private property and make it the property of the government and make everyone into tenants and employees (if not even just slaves) of the government and that will magically fix it. Show me the equality between a gulag victim and comrade Stalin. That solution doesn't work, pareto distribution rules even there.

Understanding that pareto distribution is far more pernicious than just the existence of normal trade and property conventions, far more rooted into the very fabric of the universe, is the first step to being able to do something about it, if indeed that is even possible.

Okay, now I see where you're coming from. I agree that it is a pernicious problem for all large complex social systems, though I don't think it's such a big mystery. With capitalism it's fairly obvious how the problem arises and Peterson gave a decent abbreviated explanation of that in the video. State capitalism's solutions are pretty straightforward - progressive taxation, redistribution, antitrust regulations, etc. And they are fairly effective at mitigating the problem when they're actually implemented. The trouble is they're only implemented for brief periods after a major crisis.

It's a little murkier with government and bureaucracy but it's still pretty well understood. The sociologist Robert Michels gives an in depth analysis of it in Political Parties and he arrives at the iron law of oligarchy. I'm not that pessimistic, I think it'll always be a problem but it's a manageable problem with the implementation of well known structural reforms that would improve civic engagement, transparency/oversight, democratic accountability, rule of law, balance of power, etc.

The reason this problem is so acute in state capitalism and state socialism is that the systems, I think, are intentionally designed to foster oligarchy. There's a concept in sociology called meta-power which is power not just within social structures but the power to shape the structure of society itself. Up to this point in history it's always been the economic and intellectual elite that have designed the structures of society so it's no surprise that their designs would serve to promote and perpetuate some form of oligarchy.

[SolarCross]

Okay, now I see where you're coming from. I agree that it is a pernicious problem for all large complex social systems, though I don't think it's such a big mystery. With capitalism it's fairly obvious how the problem arises and Peterson gave a decent abbreviated explanation of that in the video. State capitalism's solutions are pretty straightforward - progressive taxation, redistribution, antitrust regulations, etc. And they are fairly effective at mitigating the problem when they're actually implemented. The trouble is they're only implemented for brief periods after a major crisis.

It's a little murkier with government and bureaucracy but it's still pretty well understood. The sociologist Robert Michels gives an in depth analysis of it in Political Parties and he arrives at the iron law of oligarchy. I'm not that pessimistic, I think it'll always be a problem but it's a manageable problem with the implementation of well known structural reforms that would improve civic engagement, transparency/oversight, democratic accountability, rule of law, balance of power, etc.

The reason this problem is so acute in state capitalism and state socialism is that the systems, I think, are intentionally designed to foster oligarchy. There's a concept in sociology called meta-power which is power not just within social structures but the power to shape the structure of society itself. Up to this point in history it's always been the economic and intellectual elite that have designed the structures of society so it's no surprise that their designs would serve to promote and perpetuate some form of oligarchy.

I don't think you appreciate how much pareto distribution is created bottom->up rather than top->down. The OP is a musician, so let's talk about pareto distribution in popular music. Who is an example of someone on the winning edge of pareto distribution in music? I think the all time winner is probably John Lennon, when he was shot in 1980 he had 400 million pounds in the bank. He didn't inherit that and he didn't have another trade so that was all from music royalties. Who made him such an obnoxious pareto distribution winner? Was it Joe Stalin? Was it the Queen of England? Was it the prez of america? No it was untold millions of little people who all chose to like JL's jingly jangly pop tunes better than the random next guy's tunes. The OP himself has probably put a few quid into JL's dead pockets. JL was made by the fans not by the government or the "oligarchy".

[Sivad]

I don't think you appreciate how much pareto distribution is created bottom->up rather than top->down.

I understand that it's bottom up, but it can be and is exploited from the top.

JL was made by the fans not by the government or the "oligarchy".

You don't think the oligarchs of the music industry made JL? They didn't fund him? heavily promote him? give him all kinds public exposure and air time? put him together with the best producers and artists? They made that guy. There's endless criticism of the oligarchical nature of the culture creation industry. JL wasn't one in a million, he was one of a million. JL was just another talented musician, there's lots of them, the studio system made him a star.

[SolarCross]

You don't think the oligarchs of the music industry made JL? They didn't fund him? heavily promote him? give him all kinds public exposure and air time? put him together with the best producers and artists? They made that guy. There's endless criticism of the oligarchical nature of the culture creation industry. JL wasn't one in a million, he was one of a million. JL was just another talented musician, there's lots of them, the studio system made him a star.

I think they try to bet their money on winners and they back more than one horse just in case. JL wasn't the only guy to get a record contract. It's a virtuous circle. JL plays a gig, the crowd loves it, record exec notices him, signs him up, he plays more gigs to bigger audiences, more people discover him, execs feel confident enough to front him money to cut a record, the record makes more fans and so on round and round up and up.

[Sivad]

It's a virtuous circle. JL plays a gig, the crowd loves it, record exec notices him, signs him up, he plays more gigs to bigger audiences, more people discover him, execs feel confident enough to front him money to cut a record, the record makes more fans and so on round and round up and up.

Except that's not what happened. The Beatles weren't well known until they signed with a major label. The label turned them over to a producer who harnessed whatever raw talent they had and churned out a dozen or so pop songs. Then the label got them air time on radio stations across the country, national distribution of their recordings, and heavily publicized concert tours at large venues. If the label didn't pick them up we never would of heard of them. There was nothing bottom-up about their success, their success was entirely contingent on being selected by the gatekeepers and owners of the culture industry.

If instead of centralized ownership and control of culture there was a system of decentralized public access I doubt there would be the kind of stardom we have under this system. There'd be too much competition and too little exclusive national exposure. Think of how different culture would be if we only had the internet and no national media conglomerates to selectively promote a few talents and personalities, how many of us would have heard of the stupid Kardashians? Things would be very different, the culture would be broader, richer, much more diversified, and the 80/20 phenomenon just wouldn't happen.

[SolarCross]

Except that's not what happened. The Beatles weren't well known until they signed with a major label. The label turned them over to a producer who harnessed whatever raw talent they had and churned out a dozen or so pop songs. Then the label got them air time on radio stations across the country, national distribution of their recordings, and heavily publicized concert tours at large venues. If the label didn't pick them up we never would of heard of them. There was nothing bottom-up about their success, their success was entirely contingent on being selected by the gatekeepers and owners of the culture industry.

If instead of centralized ownership and control of culture there was a system of decentralized public access I doubt there would be the kind of stardom we have under this system. There'd be too much competition and too little exclusive national exposure. Think of how different culture would be if we only had the internet and no national media conglomerates to selectively promote a few talents and personalities, how many of us would have heard of the stupid Kardashians? Things would be very different, the culture would be broader, richer, much more diversified, and the 80/20 phenomenon just wouldn't happen.

They aren't gatekeepers and it isn't centralised. They are just enablers and there are no laws preventing anyone from having a go. It's just that it is a winners take all game. If rec execs could maximise sales by supporting 10,000 different bands equally they would but fans lead them to a few dominant bands and shun the rest. Decentralised public access is something you just made up but if was a real thing it would be the live music pub circuit, it exists already but still it produces pareto distributions.

[Crantag]

Except that's not what happened. The Beatles weren't well known until they signed with a major label. The label turned them over to a producer who harnessed whatever raw talent they had and churned out a dozen or so pop songs. Then the label got them air time on radio stations across the country, national distribution of their recordings, and heavily publicized concert tours at large venues. If the label didn't pick them up we never would of heard of them. There was nothing bottom-up about their success, their success was entirely contingent on being selected by the gatekeepers and owners of the culture industry.

If instead of centralized ownership and control of culture there was a system of decentralized public access I doubt there would be the kind of stardom we have under this system. There'd be too much competition and too little exclusive national exposure. Think of how different culture would be if we only had the internet and no national media conglomerates to selectively promote a few talents and personalities, how many of us would have heard of the stupid Kardashians? Things would be very different, the culture would be broader, richer, much more diversified, and the 80/20 phenomenon just wouldn't happen.

I pretty much agree with your view on how the pop music industry works.

I've kind of felt the same as you for a long time now.

A lot of music is computer generated, and a lot of musicians don't write their own songs, and possibly don't even sing with their own voice.

It's in large part an image industry, with a person strapped to the grill of the machine, as the face of it.

This is especially the case with respect to the most commercialized pop music; and moreover is not the case with all artists.

I also think it has become more prevalent than it use to be. I'm no real music buff personally, but I always thought of bands like the Monkeys as forebears of this approach.

I think of guys like Jimmi Hendrix, among a lot of others as the antitheses (meaning Hendrix is one example of a real, genuine-to-the-core big-time artist. Again, such antitheses to the heavily commercialized were I think much more prevalent in previous eras).

In the present era, independent labels are also antithetical to the mass-commercialized music model.

Also, it is often easy to recognize music produced by the commercial music mills, by its 'sampling' of older songs. Often these days, the music itself is likely produced by computer algorithms, I would tend to suspect.

In previous eras though, you can recognize it too. I went through a phase of listening to a lot of Hank Williams, and it seems as though many of his songs were later copied and remixed by the commercial music mills, for example.

[SolarCross]

How to make the music industry more egalitarian:

1. Cap record sales to 10,000 per title.
2. Make it illegal for a musician to receive more than $100,000 in a single year from any source.
3. Make it illegal to build venues with a seating capacity in excess of 500.
4. Make it illegal for anyone to collate or publish sales information with the exception of tax authorities and music regulatory authorities.
5. Make it illegal for anyone to communicate an opinion on the quality of any artist or their works.
6. Require fans to register with a regulatory body to have their musical tastes issued to them.
7. Just shoot everyone in the back of the head, because real equality only happens when we are all dead.

[Crantag]

Actually the effect of limiting pay for athletes, musicians, and other entertainers would only be to further tip the balance in the favor of the promoters and managers which get obscenely rich off exploiting the talents of said performers.

Mind you, I have for one never implied it would be desirable to cap salaries of entertainers, whatsoever. That'd strike me as a right wing, corporation lover notion if I have ever seen one.

It's a misnomer if one is seeking to imply that this would be consistent with any notions of leftist ideals. There's plenty of cream to go around, and I have no issue with those who happen to strike it rich in sports or music being rich. At the same time, the culture of celebrity worship I find very distasteful, and I attribute it to the decadent nature of societal conventions in a general sense.

On the related topic of mediocre musicians lucking into being pop stars, this is a function of the marketing machinery. We have seen in industry after industry how the 'sales effort' can effect the sales of anything (it's a simple arithmetic problem of reaping more in sales than you spend on advertising and other marketing activities, regardless of the gross sum which you lay out, in absolute terms), and so the entertainment industry is no different. The major marketers can sell anything to the gullible public and shitty music is no different.

[SolarCross]

What if we stopped our culture of worshipping equality instead? It's basically just a death cult under the hood anyway. Why not celebrate life instead with all its glorious spontaneous variety?

[Crantag]

What if we stopped our culture of worshipping equality instead? It's basically just a death cult under the hood anyway. Why not celebrate life instead with all its glorious spontaneous variety?

The dominant culture is one which worships the rich and famous, as if they were royals. That's why people like Anderson Cooper, for example, sometimes sees utility in interviewing movie stars to ask them about their political views, as he fauns over their delicate words.

[Truth To Power]

CEOs are also to a significant degree paid in stock options, and their pay is thus linked to their overseeing the movement of share prices, i.e. through stock buybacks. This is a strategic arrangement whereby the interests of management have been made to align with those of 'shareholders' (that special euphemism for 'financial oligarchs').

Not really. It's true that stock buybacks are a major way CEOs kite the prices of their own companies' shares to wring obscene overpayment from them, but statistical research shows that about 75% of the variance in stock prices is due to the market trend, 5% to the sector trend, and only 20% to anything that is actually happening at the company. So tying CEO compensation to stock price mainly rewards socially well connected parasites for warming their seats while the central bank kites the stock market for them.

What if we stopped our culture of worshipping equality instead?

Paying lip service is hardly worshipping. All the noise about excessive inequality of wealth, income and condition -- i.e., outcomes -- in our capitalist societies is just to distract people's attention from the rank inequality of rights and access to opportunity.

[Truth To Power]

Professional sport is essentially a zero sum game. Sure, talented players might make the sport as a whole more attractive, but in general they just take home more of the cake because they're slightly better than the competition. They don't grow the cake.

No, stars do grow the cake. People who would not normally go to a game or even watch a match on TV will make the effort to see a star perform.

In contrast, a highly-paid entrepreneur or CEO might actually earn what he gets. That's not to say they generally do, some might just be faster to establish a dominant market position.

The greater the accumulation of private wealth, the lower the probability that any significant part of it was earned by commensurate contributions to production. "Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac

Stop moving the bar.

I didn't. I just pointed out that pro athletes' overpayment was an example of a more general rent-collection phenomenon.

My comment was about professional athletes, not "other entertainers". That is a different thing.

The economic forces involved are similar, because the relevant privileges are similar.

You are wrong.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course I am not "wrong," as you put it. I have identified the relevant facts and their logical implications.

And I will go so far as to assert that your comment "subsidies, monopolies and other privileges", though wordy, is just about meaningless.

No, you just choose not to know the facts it identifies, because you have already realized that those facts prove your beliefs are false and evil.