EPTAsk and answer stupid questions here! - Page 535
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 01 2016 07:53 SoSexy wrote: Do famous people get even richer because people let them do stuff for free? I.e. I suppose a restaurant in my town would offer Obama/Paul McCartney the dinner just for visibility, just as car brands for using their cars, clothes, etc. They don't get "free stuff" People pay them with "stuff" in order to gain marketing metrics because its more cost effective than hiring a marketing team. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9299 Posts
On December 01 2016 08:04 JimmiC wrote: Yes, Also often free clothes and so on from brands looking to get visibility. That being said many still manage to spend more then they make. Thinking about Poland from the earlier comments I was wondering what countries are their biggest sport rivals. Russia? Germany? And then it got me thinking, who would be everyone's biggest sport Rival? For Canada it is the USA with a little of that big/little brother rivalry. With Russia sneaking in for hockey going back to the super series. For hooligans it's definitely Russia because it's hard to find naughty Germans to start shit with. For normies it's 50/50 between Russia and Germany. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On December 01 2016 07:53 SoSexy wrote: Do famous people get even richer because people let them do stuff for free? I.e. I suppose a restaurant in my town would offer Obama/Paul McCartney the dinner just for visibility, just as car brands for using their cars, clothes, etc. while the president gets their suits custom made by this guy. no idea who actually pays him though. Typically the first lady is dressed by famous designers and I assume they don't pay for that. If you're a politician there's all sorts of rules about what you can legally accept and stuff. Ted Stevens got a felony conviction for having somebody work on his house and charging him way too little money for it (although it was eventually overturned but by that point I think he was dead so nobody thought it was worth appealing or anything). There are pretty strict rules about what you can and can't accept. I'm not an expert but for example nobody can give you a car without you paying fair market value for it. Rules get ludicrous when it comes to college football recruits and players. one team got in trouble for providing too much pasta to their players (I'm not making this up, it led to an actual rule change). | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 01 2016 16:40 JimmiC wrote: How is it not free? If you don't pay it is gree, whether or not get get vale is a completely different discussion If the famous person does not actively make it publicly known or even outright endorse it, then they don't get it. Ever notice how "movie stars" can always tell who and what their dress and jewelry are? Ever wonder how every restaurant they go to gets slammed into social media? Those are not accidents. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 02 2016 06:32 JimmiC wrote: Lots of shit gets sent to them with the simple hope that they will wear it. And you would be stupid as a restaurant to not post it on social media. None of what you said does not make it free (cost no money). Your argument is it's not free because the person who gives it gets some value. Then you can go into some long philosophical argument about how nothing is free, because you only give love when you get it back and blah blah blah. He was asking to famous people get shit without paying money for it and the answer is yes, lots of clothes, products, food, drinks bought for them at bars so on. Being famous is not a passive process. Everything they do, say, eat, and enjoy is under a microscope. Very very little of what they do outside the home or even inside the home is them "just being normal" because its part of the job of being famous. They are not naturally good looking They are not naturally stylish They are not naturally doing cool things All of those performances is part of the work of being famous. Assuming that the "stuff they get" is this free thing they get without the effort needed to procure it is simply dishonest. Its like saying "athletes don't work, they just play a game" | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5161 Posts
On December 02 2016 07:55 Thieving Magpie wrote: Being famous is not a passive process. Everything they do, say, eat, and enjoy is under a microscope. Very very little of what they do outside the home or even inside the home is them "just being normal" because its part of the job of being famous. They are not naturally good looking They are not naturally stylish They are not naturally doing cool things All of those performances is part of the work of being famous. Assuming that the "stuff they get" is this free thing they get without the effort needed to procure it is simply dishonest. Its like saying "athletes don't work, they just play a game" There are definitely famous people that are naturally good looking, stylish and do cool things. Also, being under a microscope is a burden, sure, but is that a high price to pay so you can get free stuff, attention (albeit this not always being fun, sure), and get to hang out with all the other good looking people? What is the treshold of capital you need to cross so that minimal effort (or input) -of capital, but not this per se- can get the maximal profit (or output). Is there a treshold where no effort is needed at all? For example, let's say you have 500k or 1M, and whatever you do, if you do it sensibly, you just start gaining shit tons more. Just because you have that many more options on how you can spend it. Does such a treshold even exist? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 02 2016 08:30 Uldridge wrote: There are definitely famous people that are naturally good looking, stylish and do cool things. Also, being under a microscope is a burden, sure, but is that a high price to pay so you can get free stuff, attention (albeit this not always being fun, sure), and get to hang out with all the other good looking people? What is the treshold of capital you need to cross so that minimal effort (or input) -of capital, but not this per se- can get the maximal profit (or output). Is there a treshold where no effort is needed at all? For example, let's say you have 500k or 1M, and whatever you do, if you do it sensibly, you just start gaining shit tons more. Just because you have that many more options on how you can spend it. Does such a treshold even exist? That's a more complex question which immediately moves towards "are we supposed to dislike our job for it to be work?" "Is the level of enjoyment in required actions what determines how that action is defined?" etc... The answer is we don't know, especially since this isn't really the kind of thing people have studied in the same way we study derivatives manipulation (ie your "we have 1million in the bank, lets play stocks") or the way we study business management (ie your "we have 1million in the bank, lets start a business!") Like, Jennifer Laurence looks as good as she does because she works out enough and is careful enough of her lifestyle so that she maintains her looks while minimizing sacrifices. Is it really a boon if a diner gives her a burger after she spent a few hours being yelled at by her personal trainer? If she does enjoy the burger, eats it, and now goes back on the treadmill to maintain her looks despite the free burger--is it free? Etc... It gets very very murky when the discussion is "business spends resources to increase visibility" It would be different, for example, if the store owner gave her the burger because he was a fan and did not care if anyone noticed. Even if Jennifer still has to do the same exchange, its a different resource exchange since the store owner is not requesting or wanting anything back from said exchange. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 02 2016 10:16 JimmiC wrote: Funny for you to say a more complex question when you are the one adding all the complexity. You clearly have a certain person or type in mind but people can be famous for many reasons including Athletics and they also get free shit. That in your opinion it's earned does not make it less free. I go to the bar girl buys me drink. Is it not free because she wants my body? Is nothing free.. blah blah I am not complicating anything. People who become famous becomes so because they are either really good at something, are part of a product that is successful, or are actively engaged in selling their image. To maintain that popularity requires effort, and the value given to those people comes directly from that effort. As a reward, they get stuff, that stuff being both abstract and physical; i.e. Fame and Fortune. It also boils down to the smallest levels of fame. When a good looking girl goes to a bar and gets a free drink, it's because she went through the effort of making herself good looking, and is rewarded with a drink. Much like a diligent student does the work needed to get an A in a test. Everything is an economic exchange to some degree of you see exchanges of resources as economic in nature; i.e. you describing celebrities getting "free stuff." But it's not actually free, because efforts are made to create and maintain that image, and that type of image is rewarded, hence why it is sought after. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18292 Posts
On December 03 2016 02:17 JimmiC wrote: Please describe something that is free then. And you are totally over complicating he wanted to know if celebs got extra stuff they didn't need to spend money on. You went into a philosophical rant on what "free" really is. In Dutch there's a saying: "voor niets gaat de zon op". It literally translates to "the sunrise is for free", and means that the only thing that's free is the sunrise. And yes, trust the Dutch to have that saying  | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18292 Posts
On December 03 2016 03:01 xM(Z wrote: everything is free; people just like putting prices on things because they're assholes. This seems like a rather unorthodox view on economy. Even Marx didn't go so far. He valued labor. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On December 03 2016 03:01 xM(Z wrote: everything is free; people just like putting prices on things because they're assholes. While this is true of the UFP, I'm not sure it's true around these parts. Scarcity is a real thing in our world. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
 | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18292 Posts
On December 03 2016 03:11 opisska wrote: You guys should take that to the EU politics megathread, Incognoto and xmz are eagerly waiting there to have exactly this kind of talk, as Acrofales would surely know Whitedog is no longer with us, so it's not fun anymore. | ||
| ||
