CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I think they are. Compared to jobs that save lives such as Policemen and Fire fighters, they have it easier and usually get more respect, money, and even power.
Unfortunately, then this is clear evidence that you don't understand how markets work, celebrities are subjected to markets while policeman and firefighters are not.
You have a point. I understand how the market works. I am just basing my argument upon the mere importance of their role in society as a whole and not only their function in the market.
Yeah, as for the society role. Even if they just act in front of the TV and do movies, they still play a vital role in promoting our economy. They help in doing the advertisements for other countries, which is not done by policemen and firefighters. If not for the help of those celebrities in promoting our economy, then we would have a big problem with it.,
Who decides what is important in society? Who says police are more important than celebrities.
The mere existence of police and firefighters doesn't make them more important than any other part of society, and they have no function in the market because there is no choice.
Why, is someone who enterains me on TV getting paid so much? Yet, Teachers get paid little. Firemen get paid little. Police, ambulance drivers. They all get paid little. Why pay these people so much more?
Why pay these people so much more? Because the free market has determined their worth to be much higher than that of someone in public service. The mechanisms of a free market is such that the perceived value of something may have little or nothing to do with its intrinsic or actual value.
Celebrities are the royalty of the United States: we revere them and praise them; we scorn them and ridicule them. We pay them by seeing their films, watching their games, buying the products they endorse, by being interested in them.
Americans want to be entertained, and the dirty work of public service is rarely fun to watch. When it is, we're all too happy to capitalize with reality TV shows and late-breaking news specials. We'll pour our dollars into it, then. But when the dust has settled, and the work-a-day resumes, our money is quietly redirected to Honey Boo Boo or some other such bullshit.
He never said anything about a, "Correct" amount. He simply stated what every Socialist believes. As I stated in my argument below, why is someone such as a Star getting paid more then a police man?
Well, that's another story. But it does not take a lot of expertise to realize that celebrities do not usually work overly hard. I just think the harder you work and the more you contribute, the more you should get paid. If hard work was equal to better pay in this world, all the millionaires would be immigrants with leaf blowers.
Money doesn't fall from the sky unless you are government. Or Dagny Taggart from the Libertarian erotica novel "Atlas Shrugged;" the Taggart family rode on the wealth of Papa Taggart and his vast railway. Dagny used his wealth to finance one new line, in an effort squash competition and defeat the moochers who were guilty of doing the exact same thing she was doing; attempting to form a monopoly.
Seriously, where did ridiculous comment come from? First, money is not wealth, it is a medium of exchange, so goods and services are source of wealth. Actually, if you actually read the book, you would know that Dagny worked her up to the top of the company working many blue collar jobs. How would it be his wealth, he died before the events that took place in the book, plus I am sure that he voluntarily willed the children the money and company. Also, Dagny was not even the boss, that was her moocher brother, James.
OMG, we went over this already that voluntary monopolies are impossible.
First, money is not wealth, it is a medium of exchange, so goods and services are source of wealth.
Wealth is an abundance of valuable material possessions or resources. Money, being a medium of exchange, can constitute wealth.
Actually, if you actually read the book, you would know that Dagny worked her up to the top of the company working many blue collar jobs.
I did read that horrible drivel, and every main character (including Francisco d'Anconia) would have had nothing if it weren't for their inheritances. Dagny worked as the VP of operations for Taggart Transcontinental, as well as a few stints in switch-houses and phone booths.
How would it be his wealth, he died before the events that took place in the book...
It was his wealth (although, you don't seem to think large amounts of money constitute wealth) prior to his passing.
voluntary monopolies are impossible. Due to Federal regulation.
Adam Smith, in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, described wealth as "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society". This "produce" is, at its simplest, that which satisfies human needs and wants of utility. In popular usage, wealth can be described as an abundance of items of economic value, or the state of controlling or possessing such items, usually in the form of money, real estate and personal property.
What is so wrong with inheritance? I haven't said a thing against inheritance. I'm only disputing the idea that inheritance is earned. Neither of the Taggart siblings did anything to earn their wealth other than to be borne unto the Taggart fortune.
Federal law has eliminated one single voluntary private monopoly, federal law only grants monopolies through force.
Federal anti-trust legislation prevents such monopolies from existing, contrary to your assertions.
1. the city or town that is the official seat of government in a country, state, etc.: Tokyo is the capital of Japan.
2. a city regarded as being of special eminence in some field of activity: New York is the dance capital of the world.
3. capital letter.
4. the wealth, whether in money or property, owned or employed in business by an individual, firm, corporation, etc.
5. an accumulated stock of such wealth.
Rand never said that inheritance is earned. And much to her detriment, since every protagonist in her novel relies on inheritance to advance in the world. Without their inheritance, they would not have been able to do anything of any importance at all; they would have been moochers by Ayn's own standards.
Again, already been through the monopoly thing before. Indeed you have, and you are still wrong.
Economic capital is a factor of production that is not wanted for itself but for its ability to help in producing other goods aka capital goods, and financial capital is money used by entrepreneurs and businesses to buy what they need to make their products or provide their services or to that sector of the economy based on its operation.
And much to her detriment, since every protagonist in her novel relies on inheritance to advance in the world.
Not true at all, Howard Roark, the protagonist of the Fountainhead.
Indeed you have, and you are still wrong.
No, it was obvious that you are wrong given the proper definition of monopoly.
Not true at all, Howard Roark, the protagonist of the Fountainhead. Good thing I didn't cite the Fountainhead.
No, it was obvious that you are wrong given the proper definition of monopoly. I disagree; although no corporation has successfully instituted a monopoly, a complete implementation was largely due to anti-trust legislation.
OH, you meant only Altas Shrugged, John Galt was not rich from inheritance, matter of fact, he was never rich.
although no corporation has successfully instituted a monopoly, a complete implementation was largely due to anti-trust legislation.
How would a private institute a monopoly without force and the choice of consumers, therefore, all anti-trust legislation has done nothing to the sort.
I didn't say or imply it was monopolistic. Taggart Transcontinental was in the process of trying to establish a monopoly on rail service before Dagny parted ways with her brother and established the John Galt line (which she wasn't able to maintain anyway)
Actually, you did imply the new line was monopolistic here, "Dagny used his wealth to finance one new line, in an effort squash competition and defeat the moochers who were guilty of doing the exact same thing she was doing; attempting to form a monopoly."
Dagny manages to finance the new line from Hank Rearden and other Colorado companies.
Even that is wrong. The job they do is essential, entertainment is essential. All abilities, for whatever occupation, are essential. But, they are paid far too much.
I think a better question would be "why does our society value celebrities more than we value firefighters, ambulance drivers, cooks, maintenance people, teachers, and police officers?" We won't stop paying them more until we stop valuing their services so highly, so the root problem is that our society is more concerned with entertainment than with public services, protection, education, and such.
In some ways yes, but mostly no. If you really look at it, TV actors get payed less, yet have way more acting hours than movie stars. And there are more TV actors than movie actors.
Well, I wanted to ask this on a universal degree, such as from the A-list starts to the D-list. You can even compare them with other foreign celebrities.
There is nothing wrong with sex, drugs and rock n roll in moderation. If you're one of those British kids who thinks that having sex once gets you an STD, listening to one guitar solo makes you go crazy and taking a hit of weed makes you an addict beyond repair, please, leave and come back when you understand how things work.
Let`s be realistic! Celebrities take apart in the famous movies, which give as a profit a lot of million dollars and we can say that it is because of them because of their talent! That`s why they see benefit of their work! And also because we ourselves create such kind of situation, celebrities for us adorable people, whe we love or even worship. That`s they have a lot of money, because the audience require them and that`s why every creator of own deal will try to do everything or give more money in order to get this exactly celebrity for own project, which at the end will give more profit!!!
Celebrities take apart in the famous movies, which give as a profit a lot of million dollars and we can say that it is because of them because of their talent! That`s why they see benefit of their work
We can't say it's because of their hard work. If hard work led to success than the migrant farm-hand who picks fruit for 16 hours a day would be a millionaire and celebrities would be just scraping by; they actually do very little work hour to hour compared to the rest of us.
And we can't say it's because they have talent, either; their talent just happens to be more popular than, say, the talent of fixing cars really well. But celebrities aren't generally any more talented than auto-mechanics (or any other job) their profession is just very popular.
So then the question becomes: even though celebrities work less than everyone else and are no more or less talented than the general population, why is their profession considered more important and more popular than the professions of teaching children, saving lives, or generally making the gears of society keep turning?
Also, one more thing, opposite side always mention that teachers and doctors have little salary, so help them! If you (I mean) audience do that celebrities now are overpaid, then help teachers and doctors but on th other way, pay more taxes and then government send them to their salary as the reward for that they save our lives, teach us and our our children!
