I wonder what she thinks of her fellow traveler Bernie Sanders owning three houses *which he does not rent out*. Surely that's more selfish and greedy than someone who buys houses in order to rent them out.
I wish someone would work out the economics of tennis as it is real world Nozick example that you have perfect process fairness and still have outcomes with huge inequality. That is, if one claims there is "too much" inequality in earnings among tennis players or that Federer didn't "earn" a billion dollars then it would be interesting to look at the sources of the earnings differentials: tournaments are organized by people who want to draw viewers and advertisers, people choose their willingness to pay to see which events (live or on TV), players get paid for winning matches as a scale that depends on tournament and depth into the tournament. And then Federer (or the others) win lots of matches deep into high quality tournaments and make a lot of money. (and then get famous and get ad deals). But where in that was anything that was not fair to anyone? Tennis and golf are good illustrations as are there are no teams (and questions of co-production), no team owners, no franchises, no taxpayers building stadiums, nobody lobbying anyone about laws, just guys in shorts playing their best each other and the winners win more than the losers and that results in inequality.
Lant! Only LIV golfers are allowed to wear shorts! Seriously, I know it's not a clean example, but NBA players are concerned with inequality. Players association has agreed to salary caps, max contracts, veteran's minimums etc. Got so bad the super-stars started getting more involved with the union. At least they are getting 47% of the overall revenue compared to the poor tennis players who are stuck in the low 20s for the majors.
Perhaps your very best Substack piece. Bravo!
I wonder what she thinks of her fellow traveler Bernie Sanders owning three houses *which he does not rent out*. Surely that's more selfish and greedy than someone who buys houses in order to rent them out.
“If you have to price at marginal cost, then you dang sure ain’t gonna be a billionaire!”
Its possible (marginal cost isnt average cost). Key is volume.
What about Taylor Swift? Or Roger Federer? This is just so stupid.
I wish someone would work out the economics of tennis as it is real world Nozick example that you have perfect process fairness and still have outcomes with huge inequality. That is, if one claims there is "too much" inequality in earnings among tennis players or that Federer didn't "earn" a billion dollars then it would be interesting to look at the sources of the earnings differentials: tournaments are organized by people who want to draw viewers and advertisers, people choose their willingness to pay to see which events (live or on TV), players get paid for winning matches as a scale that depends on tournament and depth into the tournament. And then Federer (or the others) win lots of matches deep into high quality tournaments and make a lot of money. (and then get famous and get ad deals). But where in that was anything that was not fair to anyone? Tennis and golf are good illustrations as are there are no teams (and questions of co-production), no team owners, no franchises, no taxpayers building stadiums, nobody lobbying anyone about laws, just guys in shorts playing their best each other and the winners win more than the losers and that results in inequality.
Lant! Only LIV golfers are allowed to wear shorts! Seriously, I know it's not a clean example, but NBA players are concerned with inequality. Players association has agreed to salary caps, max contracts, veteran's minimums etc. Got so bad the super-stars started getting more involved with the union. At least they are getting 47% of the overall revenue compared to the poor tennis players who are stuck in the low 20s for the majors.
https://substack.com/@cavemaneconomist/note/c-256330931?r=2k15a&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web