imported post
By the way, the "loss of value" argument is fallacious.
An economy is not a zero-sum game. Value is an arbitrary human construct. Value is created any time parties engage in a transaction in which both parties believe they benefit. An economy is simply the sum total of all possessed value, and any exchanges thereof. Therefore, an economy grows as a function of the net sum of all value created by individual transactions which are of mutual perceived benefit to the participants. An economy is more than the amount of currency in play. (This, by the way, is the proper argument for currency inflation -- to match the growth of the economy. Not to devalue the existing currency and "redistribute" wealth, as some here have argued.)
Prostitution has as much "inherent" value (i.e. utility) as fine art. However, since value is an arbitrary construct, a prostitute contributes as much to the economy, and thus society, as an artist or musician. There's really no concrete difference between the value of something intangible like a live musical performance, and prostitution. The only difference is the moral value that some of us assign.
Yet nobody argues live music acts victimize society because of "loss of productivity".
Both the prostitute and the musician, however, contribute to the happiness of the customer. And, the money they earn is redistributed into the economy through other mutually beneficial transactions.
AWDstylez's zero-sum "loss of productivity" model relies on false assumptions about the nature of value. But then, what else to expect from a Keynesian?
