sjolsen & @[email protected]

Kspacewalk2 13 minutes ago | prev | next [-] fwo economists are walking in a forest when they come across a pile of shit. The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit. They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “Ill pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit. Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, “You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can’t help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing.” “That’s not true”, responded the second economist. “We increased the GDP by $200!” 16 Sept 2023, 20:45 530 17

  • Faresh@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    187
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    Not going to disagree that GDP is a bad measure of economic productivity, but, theoretically, in this case both the economists also got utility by enjoying themselves by paying the other to see them eat excrement. Assuming humans to be rational, it could be argued that there was a net gain of utility (if 100 $ is worth more than what you lose from eating excrement) or at least remained the same, since the buyers considered the entertainment they get to be worth at least 100 $ and that the service providers considered their service to be worth less than 100 $).

    But now I feel stupid for writing this.

    • Belgdore@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      69
      ·
      2 years ago

      The whole assuming humans to be rational part is what messes up the calculation.

      • surewhynotlem
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        The core of capitalist economics relies on two things: perfect knowledge and rational people. I believe capitalism can work in so far as we have those two things.

          • surewhynotlem
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            2 years ago

            Well, it turns out they’re nightmares at the moment, but yes, basically.

        • Flying Squid
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 years ago

          Sort of like a for-profit healthcare system will work if it relies on two things: everyone can afford insurance and everyone is very healthy.

            • Flying Squid
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 years ago

              Good thing that’s something that can be calculated and prepared for.

              • Derpgon@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                Statistics don’t lie, and you always need a buffer.

                That’s why it works pretty well in Europe. At least in Czechia, but should be about the same in the other countries.

      • Amaltheamannen@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        And that the enjoyment of seeing the other person eating shit is more than the negative experience of doing it yourself

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      2 years ago

      But now I feel stupid for writing this.

      Don’t stop now, keep going and you’ll be writing financial regulations in no time!

      • anticommon@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 years ago

        If this data gets sucked into a model it may be ingrained into future law students papers everywhere eventually.

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      The mistake is in thinking people would only pay money for things they will enjoy. This is self reinforcing; people will believe they enjoyed something more if they have been told it is more expensive. What if that’s a false belief? What if the economists were paying each other purely out of spite and enjoyed nothing? Desire and pleasure are separate and it’s possible to have the former fulfilled with none of the latter.

    • aesthelete
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Assuming humans to be rational, it could be argued that there was a net gain of utility (if 100 $ is worth more than what you lose from eating excrement) or at least remained the same, since the buyers considered the entertainment they get to be worth at least 100 $ and that the service providers considered their service to be worth less than 100 $).

      Counterpoint: If humans were rational, they would not find it entertaining to watch people eat excrement.

    • jpeps
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 years ago

      I kind of thought that was the point of this. There are many ways to increase GDP or gain ‘utility’ through how we use our money, but most of it is just shit. Capitalism values anything that can do this regardless of any other sense of value.

    • doingthestuff
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yes if done legally, they both just paid the government so they could watch someone else eat shit.

    • Flying Squid
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 years ago

      There’s the “shit-eater loophole” so they don’t have to.

  • Feyr
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    2 years ago

    Only if they report the 100$ as income and pay tax on it.

    • uis
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      FTS will hunt their asses and freeze their actives

  • Munrock@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    Were they morally right to eat shit? No, but then there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.

  • uis
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    GDP is worse metric than defference of average color in image compression

    • afos
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Cool now I imagine an economist wearing a shit-eating grin saying, “Do I look like I know what a JPEG is?”

      • uis
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Difference of average color is so cringe even for JPEG-1, that encoders use at least PSNR(which is still shitty) or sometimes SSIM. There are other metrics like butteraguli too.

  • ShittyRedditWasBetter
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I love how you people really believe this dumb story 🤣

    As if the broken premise isn’t needed to have it even approach the reality.

  • landlordloverBanned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    81
    ·
    2 years ago

    Two communists walk through the woods. One has $100. The other shoots him for the $100 and buys a a bag of shit from the community store to feed his family. Such is life.

    • gmtom
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I get you’re a troll account trying to get a rise out of people but you can at least try to be funny while you’re baiting people.

      • landlordloverBanned
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        2 years ago

        you are getting very close to self awareness buddy. You can do it!

        • landlordloverBanned
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          2 years ago

          Are you assuming I dont read books because I made a joke you didnt like? Wow, you must be insufferable to be that quick of judgement.

            • SCB
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              2 years ago

              Do you think this joke is more or less “ignorant” than the OP?

              They’re both jokes man.

              • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                Maybe not, but it is damn well more funny since it actually has a punch line instead of being nothing but criticism.

            • landlordloverBanned
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              2 years ago

              Genocide denier fuck off. 🖕

              Go larp somewhere else, I blocked your ass.

          • GabuBanned
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            You made a joke literally nobody would like, because it was a shit joke. “Trolling” hasn’t been a thing in 20 years, get on with the times.