this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
978 points (98.4% liked)

Microblog Memes

5736 readers
1666 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ReadyUser31@lemmy.world
aeronmelon@lemmy.world
978
The Economy (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by ReadyUser31@lemmy.world to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Faresh@lemmy.ml 183 points 1 year ago (6 children)

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 69 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So only in our dreams. Got it

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

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

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] derpgon@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There just need to be enough people to cover the costs of the unhealthy.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] derpgon@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What statistics would those be?

[–] derpgon@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

About patients, diseases, injuries, and other medical emergencies. These companies do massive data calculations to make sure they are not in the negative.

They don't just eyeball their prices and hope for the best.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Please present these statistics which can accurately predict, for example, a global pandemic which would overwhelm hospitals.

[–] derpgon@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are going into unnecessary details.

If you are so keen on sources, tho.

The last pandemic was H1N1 (bird flu) in 2009. Before that was 1968 (H3N2). ^1^ Obviously, this cannot be predicted, which I am sure you know, but just want to troll me on this one.

The statistics, of course, I do not posses (as I am not a health insurance company nor do I work for one). These statistics are mainly maintained by these insurance companies. But like I said, the prices are calculated based on one's health and chances of an insured event happening. ^2^

^1^ https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/basics/past-pandemics.html

^2^ https://www.kotaklife.com/insurance-guide/health-insurance/how-is-health-insurance-cost-calculated

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If they can't be predicted ahead of time and the system relies on healthy people, the system will break down when that happens.

[–] derpgon@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's when the country steps in, as was with COVID. I am not sure why why do you keep sticking with the whole "but pandemics are unpredictable" narrative - as if it happened every year or so. They are unpredictable, but still rare enough that the health system doesn't collapse. Most of the time it's people breaking bones or having other health problems - like respiratory issues, missing limbs, teeth problems, operations, some kind of organ failure, meds, or doctor visits etc.

If the system is so fragile as you say, why hasn't it collapsed by now? And why hasn't it collapsed during COVID? Nothing is perfect, but it works so far.

I would understand if you are from the USA or somewhere where universal healthcare doesn't work.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

but still rare enough that the health system doesn’t collapse.

We haven't had a pandemic serious enough to test that with the modern healthcare system. There sure was collapse going on during the 1918 flu.

[–] derpgon@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A collapse of a non existent system that began around 1950? Sure Mr. Troll. Back to the cave now.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You're claiming there was no healthcare in 1918? And I'm the troll?

[–] Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago

So long as we never have to use this time machine, it works perfectly!

[–] Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

So you're saying capitalism will literally never work? Based.

[–] Amaltheamannen@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year 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 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 8 points 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 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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 12 points 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.

[–] RyeMeadow@lemmy.world 110 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I immediately remembered this comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-01-14

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

That was excellent, thanks for sharing lol

[–] smeg@feddit.uk 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I hope they each paid income tax on those earnings!

[–] doingthestuff@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

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

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

There's the "shit-eater loophole" so they don't have to.

[–] Feyr@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] uis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

FTS will hunt their asses and freeze their actives

[–] Kokolores@feddit.de 21 points 1 year ago

Also they got to see someone eat a pile of shit. Worth it.

[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I dub thee Macroeconomia!

[–] uis@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] afos@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] uis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

[–] francisfordpoopola@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

This is a bit misleading.