Hmm, at first I thought: If you have a billion dollars you can get 50,000 people in a stadium screaming your name. I mean, you could get me to scream your name

Hmm, at first I thought: If you have a billion dollars you can get 50,000 people in a stadium screaming your name. I mean, you could get me to scream your name for $20k easy, and I don't even like stadiums that much. But, ok, that's a fairly prohibitive expense. Musicians can get that and have the audience pay for the privilege. They can do so repeatedly, which certainly qualifies as some kind of asset. So call it a type of capital, a social capital, maybe... ability to muster crowds? It would be interesting to see a graph of how much "muster" varies across a given population. Follows Zipf's Law like everything else, I'd wager. Most people would have to buy an audience. A tiny few can get audiences to pay. There's a growing middle-class sitting at the zero-pivot--emerging indie bands and popular academics--they pull in audiences, but only for free. Once we formalize all that we'll of course need some sort of exchange rate for muster, USD:MST, before we can get down to the important work of comparing the relative capital of a superstar and the super-rich. Take note young econ grad students: the to-be-written papers on the liquidity of muster are the stuff careers are made of!