[Distraction] Controversial sociological hypothesis

[azekeil]

I was having a 'discussion' earlier this morning with my cow-workers over my theory that you can estimate a lower limit for someone's intelligence by how much they earn. With the exceptions of dumb luck, illegal activities and third world countries that don't have first world job opportunities. I challenged them to provide counter-examples (ie. someone that is dumb that earns a lot) to disprove my theory and they did eventually manage to come up with footballers and porn stars, and for a different reason artists.

I think the ability to earn money, however you do it, is a good measure of the lower limit of someone's intelligence because at the end of the day there is only a finite amount of money in this country as defined by the Bank of England¹ and therefore we are all in indirect competition for it. This is achieved by value being placed on goods and/or services and that being represented by an income.

So with the footballer and porn star arguments, it just shows what strange things humans place value in! Art I believe has its own value, but not one that many modern-day capitalists have much time for.

---

¹ - On a side note, how do they govern and introduce new money into the economy? I realise that introducing more money without controls makes inflation spiral and devalues the currency against foreign currencies, but where does it enter the economy? With the government? UPDATE: This seems to give a good idea of how it works (and the effects of hyper-inflation) - through loans to businesses.

Comments

[sepheri.livejournal.com]

I wonder how much you get paid to be the President of the United States of America? ;P

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Touché ;)

This touches on another theory of mine that people can be individually bloody clever and have all the answers to the sociological problems of our times, but put people together and they're thick as pigshit and get it horribly, horribly wrong.