3 ms·
How about it's a zero-sum game: Entertainment money could be spent elsewhere. Actual economic impact is building a better tool or bringing in the harvest. Payin
by UweSchmidt 13y ago
How about it's a zero-sum game: Entertainment money could be spent elsewhere. Actual economic impact is building a better tool or bringing in the harvest. Paying this or that entertainer to do their thing is meaningless.
(The Gross Domestic Product and other economic figures do not account for this and treats each economic transaction as equal. Additionally the knee injury hospital bill of the young player who never made it to the NFL also increases the GDP, adding to the confusion what "economic impact" is.)
- massysett 13y agoEntertainment is essential; through the ages societies have allocated economic resources to entertainment in various forms. That's what the Romans did in the Colosseum. Without entertainment to unwind, people are less happy and they just might riot rather than bring in the harvest. So entertainment is just as essential as building a better tool. Entertainment like anything in the economy benefits from greater efficiency, and modern economies deliver great value for the resources they spend on entertainment. There is cheap plentiful music everywhere, and lots of quick video available. Pro sports also provide quite efficient entertainment, as people spend tons of time not only watching the events but also tracking them and talking about them. It gives people a lot of enjoyment.
- mathattack 13y agoI concur that it's largely a zero-sum game, but it still can make local sense. New York can see economic activity that another city might not.