3 ms·
> But the resources spend on both running the sports betting systems and on producing Titanic are gone. Those work hours of those thousands of professionals tha
by piva00 3y ago
> But the resources spend on both running the sports betting systems and on producing Titanic are gone. Those work hours of those thousands of professionals that worked on Titanic don't come back. They are a cost, not a benefit.
Isn't velocity of money a question in this though? The spending on producing Titanic pours the money into pockets (workers and businesses) who will spend it faster into the larger economy (consumption/hiring others to do projects) than what the sports betting company will, the spending from the wages of those workers will, on average, be more diluted into other productive means which will support other businesses and workers. In my view this is a more beneficial way for society than the accumulation of the same capital into a sports betting company, while betting has many more negative impact to society (addiction, for example) than watching Titanic has.
- eru 3y ago> Isn't velocity of money a question in this though? No, that's pretty much irrelevant. I was giving an example of someone digging a hole to dump their money in. That money's velocity would be pretty much zero. The central bank will just print more money to make up the shortfall. It's the same, but less extreme, if velocity falls to eg half of what it was instead of zero: the central bank notices that inflation is below target, and prints more money. The net result is that the overall nominal (!) spending in the economy is whatever the central bank wants it to be. For that total nominal (!) spending figure, decisions by individual economic actors are pretty much irrelevant; because there's a control system with a negative feedback loop.