Given a fixed amount of money and increasing productivity, the value of money rises relative to the value of other goods (all caveats apply). The consumer sees this valuation change through falling prices at the checkout line.
Interestingly, given a fixed amount of points and improving performances in Olympic events, the value of each point rises relative to the underlying set of skills (jumps, spins, etc.). The viewer see this through falling points at each subsequent Olympics.
So, while Shawn White’s recent halfpipe performance was valued at over 48 points, the exact same performance will be worth something less in four years.
It’s a wonder that the Chicago School hasn’t advocated some standard (say 5%) increase in available points per year in order to achieve Olympic point stability.
{ 6 comments }
In the same way that an economy with 5% inflation can be stable?
Interesting thesis.
Personally, I don’t consider events without at least one objective criterion determining the winner (e.g., time, goals, etc.) to be a “sport”. To be sure, half-pipe snow boarding, figure skating, etc., are very difficult and physically demanding, but if you can win simply based of the opinions of others (e.g., judges), then it’s not really a sport.
Good thing for him that he keeps getting better… only a 46.8 in the last olympics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3Uc3dg0nQM
What a idea you have! People put money in the bank and use the money in the future.
I really would like to see that happen in the Olympic Games. Just use Shaun White as an example. He needed only 46 points to win this time. So, he applied 46 of the 48 points the judges gave him to get the gold medal this time. He puts 2 points in the Olympic Bank to be used in 2014. Perhaps the Olympic Bank would even pay him interest in the next four years.
Sure he could. And if he saved his points he could retire at 90 and still win the gold just by cashing in his points.
You are all nerds.
Comments on this entry are closed.