Singing doesn't increase GDP.
Yes it does.
GDP is generally calculated by expenditure not income:-
"The total market value of all final goods and _services_ produced in a country in a given year, equal to total consumer, investment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports."
It is a service that has a value, and so is counted.
>Sure, you're making chips, and as has already been pointed out - that takes vastly
>more power and resources to acheive than making bottles.
What if your bottle plant is so fantastically inefficient that you burn just as much power?
Why are some companies chips worth less than others even when they're made by the
It's not the energy that makes the chip special.
>But its also ignoring the fact that people still need bottles, so someone else now has
>to make those, so ultimately there is MORE sand being used by your new endeavour.
No, because the chips are driving the computerised bottle plant to ever greater efficiencies.
>And the singer one is even worse.
>Unless it applies to singers performing in tiny rooms in little houses where no amplification
>is required, your new career needs power for your mic, pre-amps, mixing console, any effects
>(eq and compression are virtually ubiquitous, even in live performance) and the PA.
The singers economic worth is not in correlation to their resource consumption though is it?
I could use Madonna's gear and burn half the national grid yet still not get paid a bean for it.
>For the singer to increase the value that they add, they must either increase the rate at which
>they add value or the time spent adding value. To increase the rate, they will need to have a
>larger hall or start to use amplification (which will both increase the rate at which they use
No, they can charge more for their service by producing a better product.
- It doesn't necessarily take longer, just more skill.
- It doesn't need a bigger building, they may even choose to ditch the building completely.
- They don't need amplification, they may just charge a smaller number of people a larger
amount for their service.
Finally, if you divided the megastars total production by their resource consumption relative to a more minor star they will produce more per resource unit than the minor star, they have increased efficiency.
Tims flaw (and NS's apparently) is that GDP doesn't equate to standard of living.