Lots of executives aren't judged on their final contribution to the bottom line but the size of their 'empire' or project 'successes' they can point to.

There are also plenty of examples of work that is profitable to a company but that doesn't create value to consumers:

* Campaign Donations / Lobbying for favourable regulations.

* Softbank style monopoly creation (it's just moving investor money to consumers).

* Patent Trolls and lots of semi-patent trolling games. (Think Amazon buying Kiva)

* Misleading / Emotive advertising. (Which I'd argue is the majority of it.)

If you're hell bent on thinking markets are inherently fair you can contort yourself to show these things _can_ be productive but to think they're always productive?

> Lots of executives aren't judged on their final contribution to the bottom line but the size of their 'empire' or project 'successes' they can point to.

Who is incentivized to hold executives responsible for the bottom line, board members and shareholders?

> If you're hell bent on thinking markets are inherently fair you can contort yourself to show these things _can_ be productive but to think they're always productive?

I agree, insomuch that many 'profitable ventures' don't increase the aggregate material wealth of the country.

I can think of a number of reasons:

1. The firm has enough growth to cover it up (downturns can finally bring about layoffs here)

2. Measurement is difficult or not practiced at certain firms vs others

3. Subsidies or contracts from the government specifically cancel out negative productivity and so make it worth it

etc

Another word for negative productivity is overhead.

Many administrative, HR and IT workers are overhead, but still needed.

They are not negative productivity. Internally consumed product is still product.