Bra £6.5 million - Supermodel Priceless - Page 3

Cam · 11-07-2002, 06:32 PM

So here's an interesting question if we are going to talk about salary. Who do you think deserves the money they make for what they do, Models or Football Players.

(I'm using football players because baseball and Basketball's salaries are so astromonimcal they don't belong in this discussion. )

SteveDallas · 11-07-2002, 09:31 PM

Well... if you want a idealistic free-market perspective... they all deserve it.

Why?

Because someone was willing to pay it to them. It's as simple as that. You can't have one team offer a football player $1 million and another offer him $1.2 million dollars, and then say he only "deserves" $100,000.

It's like CDs. Everybody knows CDs are overpriced at $16 or whatever. Well every time somebody walks into a store and buys one, they prove that the CD is indeed worth what they paid for it simply because they paid for it.

Now, where this leads into problems, if you ask me, is if you happen to be in favor of a strict free market economy, and you also think certain things are repugnant and immoral. Whether it's Eminem, Penthouse magazine, the lastest Britney Spears video, pay-per-view porn in hotel rooms, or the Victoria's Secret fashion show (coming on at 8 PM instead of 10 PM this year, I read in the paper this morning), if you buy (pardon the pun) into a free market ideology, these things all exist because people want to pay for them. "But," someone says from the peanut gallery, "that's ridiculous. We have to have some moral standards." Then you get to pick whose standards to use (like the infamous community standards test for obscenity). And once again, you run into trouble, because it's a very short step from applying a couple "moral" standards (which of COURSE everybody agrees on

) here and there to outright censorship of controversial political ideas.

So we have complete chaos and lack of standards (aka freedom) on one side, and thought police on the other. I don't like either choice, but I can deal with A philosophically better than B.

I'm pissed off about several things at the moment. Pardon me if my stream of consciousness is incoherent.

11-07-2002, 06:32 PM	#31
Cam dripping with ignorance Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Grand Forks ND Posts: 642	So here's an interesting question if we are going to talk about salary. Who do you think deserves the money they make for what they do, Models or Football Players. (I'm using football players because baseball and Basketball's salaries are so astromonimcal they don't belong in this discussion. ) __________________ After the seventh beer I generally try and stay away from the keyboard, I apologize for what happens when I fail.

11-07-2002, 09:31 PM	#32
SteveDallas Your Bartender Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Philly Burbs, PA Posts: 7,651	Well... if you want a idealistic free-market perspective... they all deserve it. Why? Because someone was willing to pay it to them. It's as simple as that. You can't have one team offer a football player $1 million and another offer him $1.2 million dollars, and then say he only "deserves" $100,000. It's like CDs. Everybody knows CDs are overpriced at $16 or whatever. Well every time somebody walks into a store and buys one, they prove that the CD is indeed worth what they paid for it simply because they paid for it. Now, where this leads into problems, if you ask me, is if you happen to be in favor of a strict free market economy, and you also think certain things are repugnant and immoral. Whether it's Eminem, Penthouse magazine, the lastest Britney Spears video, pay-per-view porn in hotel rooms, or the Victoria's Secret fashion show (coming on at 8 PM instead of 10 PM this year, I read in the paper this morning), if you buy (pardon the pun) into a free market ideology, these things all exist because people want to pay for them. "But," someone says from the peanut gallery, "that's ridiculous. We have to have some moral standards." Then you get to pick whose standards to use (like the infamous community standards test for obscenity). And once again, you run into trouble, because it's a very short step from applying a couple "moral" standards (which of COURSE everybody agrees on ) here and there to outright censorship of controversial political ideas. So we have complete chaos and lack of standards (aka freedom) on one side, and thought police on the other. I don't like either choice, but I can deal with A philosophically better than B. I'm pissed off about several things at the moment. Pardon me if my stream of consciousness is incoherent.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)