sjolsen & @sjolsen@tech.lgbt

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
    177
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year 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
      66
      ·
      1 year ago

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

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 year 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
        ·
        1 year 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
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year 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.