Monetary value of things

[PsiKik]

It pisses me off when I hear _blank_ movie
earned X $ over the weekend.
Everything in this fucking society is valued
in terms of its monetary value.
An endangered woodland is valued in terms of
the value of the trees turned into lumber or
how much money could be earned by charging tourists
to view it - things that are valuable are valued
in terms of money that ultimately causes
them to be seen as less worthy.

In the case of the movies why not
have some kind of scale based on responses
by those who saw the movie?

What is this thing, this culture that has to define
everything in terms of money? How else
could we value things?

[Shai Gar]

hanson, spice girls, good charlotte, five, backdoor boys, brittany spears, and avril lavigne all make fucking huge amounts of money

does this make them quality singers? nope, not a chance in hell.

how do we decide what is quality? how long they last in the mainstream.

singers need to remain popular for more than 5 years, a movie, more than 2 years (to be on a level good) and 10 years to be legendary, there are other ways of rating things but i prefer this survival of the fittest method

[waxwing]

I see what you mean, PsiKik.

In the present tense, how can we determine value? I know how I personally would do it, but in a society that often values overpaid "artists" for barely mediocre work, and the price of an endadgered woodland (to determine importance) instead of it's qualities and effects on nature as a whole, I'm not sure how we'd counter that mindset.

Deciding whether a movie, book, or artist stands the test of time is helpful, but it still seems like it would be possible for an "artist" who produces cliched work to be mainstream for quite some time. Honestly, I think we have to wait until the person is either dead or not working in entertainment anymore. I think of some of the great writers througout 19th and 20th century. Several were completely misunderstood and even rejected until much later. Now their works, while still largely misunderstood, are considered classics.

[Shai Gar]

when it comes to art there is only one opinion that matters. your own.

[waxwing]

Is there a difference between artistic value and a personal value judgment (made about the art)?

[mgb]

singers need to remain popular for more than 5 years, a movie, more than 2 years (to be on a level good) and 10 years to be legendary, there are other ways of rating things but i prefer this survival of the fittest method

But some people are good singers right away. Same with movies. Hence the phrases "instant star" and "instant classic". They are just that good and quality is the type of thing that should be encourage.

The real problem is the marketing machine behind everything. Josie and the Pussycats did a great job of poking fun of that. People like having their information spoon fed to them. They like going to a movie because everyone else is. They buy music because it gets constant airplay on the radio until the tune is ground into their heads. Then their only worry is competing with all their friends on who can have the best stuff.

[Shai Gar]

those sure, but only non ditzes can make value statements like that. people said britany was an instant star. what a load of shit. i loved jose and the pussycats. "if you're happy and you know it clap your hands"

and waxwing, no there is no difference.

[PsiKik]

I am hoping that we can get into the habit of questioning a things value whenever we
hear it valued purely in terms of money. Think how else it could be valued.

I am trying to think as abstractly as possible. I gave two examples, the movie and endangered land.
Another would be the price of a human life eg. when a car is recalled because of dangerous design. The auto companies say it will cost X$ to return and may kill
Y people if not recalled. The calculation is purely done in terms of money, how much they will have to shell out in either lawsuits or cost or the recall.

I just want people to start thinking of other ways to value things. The trend to value absolutely everything in terms of money has reached absurd levels.

[mgb]

I am hoping that we can get into the habit of questioning a things value whenever we
hear it valued purely in terms of money. Think how else it could be valued.

I am trying to think as abstractly as possible. I gave two examples, the movie and endangered land.
Another would be the price of a human life eg. when a car is recalled because of dangerous design. The auto companies say it will cost X$ to return and may kill
Y people if not recalled. The calculation is purely done in terms of money, how much they will have to shell out in either lawsuits or cost or the recall.

I just want people to start thinking of other ways to value things. The trend to value absolutely everything in terms of money has reached absurd levels.

Thinking of things that way keeps most people pacified. In doing or not doing a recall people can say that it's an economic decision and shift the responsibility off of any one person.

[coffeezombie]

Well, money earning is a bad measure to begin with for a movie because it doesn't take into account how much it took to make the movie. Profit margin is a better measure.

Actual, real profit margin is the best measure. The movie that has made the most "real" money is Gone With the Wind, when factoring in inflation.

You have to measure "quality" of movies by money... it's how much people would pay to sit in front of a movie and be mesmerized for a couple of hours. Not everyone has INTP standards and INTPs have to learn that... lots of idiots out there. Also, movie earning figures are unduly influenced based upon what kids and teenagers want to see. Lots of adults don't go to movies anymore.

[sbw]

But some people are good singers right away. Same with movies. Hence the phrases "instant star" and "instant classic". They are just that good and quality is the type of thing that should be encourage.

The real problem is the marketing machine behind everything. Josie and the Pussycats did a great job of poking fun of that. People like having their information spoon fed to them. They like going to a movie because everyone else is. They buy music because it gets constant airplay on the radio until the tune is ground into their heads. Then their only worry is competing with all their friends on who can have the best stuff.

I LOVED josie and the pussycats! (And not just because drunk-ass tara reid is hot, either)

Scott

[Claverhouse]

Persons and actions were once valued according to honour gained and merit acquired. Even if it beggared them.

More tangible things like art and landscape should be primarily valued by beauty and time-honoured age.

I'd say that Avril Lavergne might well be respected for her inanimate beauty, if not for her singing.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Boneca]

Persons and actions were once valued according to honour gained and merit acquired. Even if it beggared them.

More tangible things like art and landscape should be primarily valued by beauty and time-honoured age.

I'd say that Avril Lavergne might well be respected for her inanimate beauty, if not for her singing.But who decides what is beautiful? There is no standard scale for beauty (and will hopefully never be), so how could that be used to compare two things?

[nBT]

the problem with money is that you can trade it for everything, its a trade wildcard. valueable things (like beaty) are those things that cant be traded. shame that we usually find out by trading it.

[Biff_Loman]

I am hoping that we can get into the habit of questioning a things value whenever we
hear it valued purely in terms of money. Think how else it could be valued.

How about: this patch of forest is worth spilling the blood of x virgins?

This becomes an interesting thought exercise once you let go of the idea of "exchange" or commerce. Example: watching a particular movie would be worth lowering the world's overall biodiversity by what percentage?

Man, I could kick around these weird-ass measures of value all day.

[PsiKik]

the problem with money is that you can trade it for everything, its a trade wildcard. valueable things (like beaty) are those things that cant be traded. shame that we usually find out by trading it.

What I think is that some really important things, not abstracts like beauty, love etc, are being valued in monetary terms and that this is dangerous.
It really seems that there is a lowest common denominator kind of mentality
emanating from the corporate realm to value everything in their bottom line.
Eg allowing companies to start emiting more polutants because it makes them more profitable, but at what real cost?

[nBT]

What I think is that some really important things, not abstracts like beauty, love etc, are being valued in monetary terms and that this is dangerous.
It really seems that there is a lowest common denominator kind of mentality
emanating from the corporate realm to value everything in their bottom line.
Eg allowing companies to start emiting more polutants because it makes them more profitable, but at what real cost?

capitalism applied to non quantitative 'goods'? money is as i said vewry generic. a landscape or clean air is unique. no landscape exists ever agian. only reproducable things can be sold. sex is sold, love cannot be sold. it is unique, it exists the instant you expierience it. and only in this specific situation. an enjoyable landscape only exits for a minute, then the sun shifts. holidays are sold by pictures, and people expect the same picture once they get there.

you cannot sell a time frame in advance.


(hmm a reproducable part and a non-reproducable part of goods)

[nBT]

Te created capitalism and socialism

[indie]

I remember seeing a trailer for that movie that just came out, The Pacifier, thinking that has *got* to be the lamest movie ever made. Who in their right mind would want to see that. . . pay money to see that? Then I saw a commercial the other day that said it was the number one movie in America!

Ridiculous.


I am trying to think as abstractly as possible. I gave two examples, the movie and endangered land.
Another would be the price of a human life eg. when a car is recalled because of dangerous design. The auto companies say it will cost X$ to return and may kill
Y people if not recalled. The calculation is purely done in terms of money, how much they will have to shell out in either lawsuits or cost or the recall.

That reminds me of one of the theoretical "examples" one of my econ teachers used to bring up. There's a certain area where traffic is really bad, and that area is in desperate need of a traffic light, not the stop sign it currently has. The cost of the project is factored to include the costs of emergency personnel to "clean up" accidents as well as the construction of the traffic light itself. There's actually a point where it's more cost efficient for the city to *not* install the traffic light, and to merely clean up the accidents, regardless of how many people may die.

Ridiculous again.

[C.J.Woolf]

There's actually a point where it's more cost efficient for the city to *not* install the traffic light, and to merely clean up the accidents, regardless of how many people may die.

Ridiculous again.
In economic terms it's ridiculous only if you think they're putting too low of an economic value on human life. Econ theory can be very cold-blooded and ghoulish that way.

There's a real-life example of that. The Ford Motor Company knowingly sold Pintos with exploding gas tanks figuring the cost of settling several lawsuits would be less than the cost of correcting the problem. They didn't figure the indirect cost of the bad PR, though...

Indirect costs and benefits are a thorny issue in ecomomics because they are hard to quantify.

[Heather Harrison]

I am sick and tired of society's increasing devotion to money. Money tends to debase and devalue that which is really important. I agree with what has been said here, especially in relation to the value of irreplaceable natural environments and the value of human life. It is immoral and irresponsible to put a cold monetary value on such things - doing this gives the impression that the destruction of life or the environment has a set cost, and it is morally acceptable to pay the cost and proceed with the destruction.

It would be a major improvement to civilization if money could be put in its place (as a necessary evil) and not be allowed to run, and ultimately ruin, everything.

I guess I am just an impractical and idealistic NT/NF hybrid. SJs rule the world. [Insert your favorite deity] help us all.

Heather Harrison

[tragula]

In a world where 80% of people are S, then tangible things like money will always be the yardstick...

I agree that it sucks!

[Claverhouse]

They didn't figure the indirect cost of the bad PR, though...
'Buy a Ford, and Die Young !'

No....

'Go Like a Rocket !'

Probably not.

'Free Cremation Included !'

Suckers do love free extras factored in...



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[C.J.Woolf]

How to turn a problem into an opportunity. :rofl:


'Buy a Ford, and Die Young !'

No....
'Only the good buy Fords!'