The joke doesn’t work because both transactions were welfare enhancing. In the end, both of them agree that eating shit is worth it to see the other do it. At least $200 of value was created.
The joke doesn’t work because both transactions were welfare enhancing. In the end, both of them agree that eating shit is worth it to see the other do it. At least $200 of value was created.
Yes. And after overanalyzing it I realized that’s the second level of the joke.
The Economics 101 idea is that value is defined by how much money someone is willing to pay for something. And the satire of that idea is vicious. Because by every measurable standpoint those two economists are worse off coming out of the forest than going in - they’ve both had a exceptionally unpleasant experience and are now at risk for parasites and food poisoning and other health concerns. And yet they’re patting each other on the back saying they created value for the economy.
And there are people on this thread - like you - seriously arguing that watching someone eat shit is worth $100 by definition because someone was willing to pay $100 for it, and therefore the two economists really did create $200 in value.
If that’s what capitalism means by “welfare enhancing” it uses a different definition of welfare than any rational human being ever.
But that’s why economists are the butt of the joke, I guess.
And if you agree with the characters in the joke, the joke is on you.
This falsely assumes that economic actors necessarily have sound judgment about value. Imagine someone who has had a bad day at work going and spending $10 for the privilege of being rude to a fast food clerk. If given the option would they directly trade the humiliations they themselves endured to earn that money to be able to inflict the same? Probably not, but their workday is already over, they don’t see a way to translate the cash they have onhand into an overall better life, and this is what they feel like doing in the moment.
Increase in GDP is very often assumed to be a positive thing and represent an improvement in society, and as far as I can tell the point of the joke is that this is a false assumption.
I mean sure, in this contrived scenario. If a major source of GDP for some country was literally taking turns eating shit, that country would have some serious issues for sure. Fortunately, GDP isn’t the only useful metric of economic output.
The joke doesn’t work because both transactions were welfare enhancing. In the end, both of them agree that eating shit is worth it to see the other do it. At least $200 of value was created.
Yes. And after overanalyzing it I realized that’s the second level of the joke.
The Economics 101 idea is that value is defined by how much money someone is willing to pay for something. And the satire of that idea is vicious. Because by every measurable standpoint those two economists are worse off coming out of the forest than going in - they’ve both had a exceptionally unpleasant experience and are now at risk for parasites and food poisoning and other health concerns. And yet they’re patting each other on the back saying they created value for the economy.
And there are people on this thread - like you - seriously arguing that watching someone eat shit is worth $100 by definition because someone was willing to pay $100 for it, and therefore the two economists really did create $200 in value.
If that’s what capitalism means by “welfare enhancing” it uses a different definition of welfare than any rational human being ever.
But that’s why economists are the butt of the joke, I guess.
And if you agree with the characters in the joke, the joke is on you.
This falsely assumes that economic actors necessarily have sound judgment about value. Imagine someone who has had a bad day at work going and spending $10 for the privilege of being rude to a fast food clerk. If given the option would they directly trade the humiliations they themselves endured to earn that money to be able to inflict the same? Probably not, but their workday is already over, they don’t see a way to translate the cash they have onhand into an overall better life, and this is what they feel like doing in the moment.
Does this matter in the context of this post? I.e. are GDPs “the sum of shit people pay for” or do they get adjusted for “sound judgment of value”?
Increase in GDP is very often assumed to be a positive thing and represent an improvement in society, and as far as I can tell the point of the joke is that this is a false assumption.
I mean sure, in this contrived scenario. If a major source of GDP for some country was literally taking turns eating shit, that country would have some serious issues for sure. Fortunately, GDP isn’t the only useful metric of economic output.
What if a major source of GDP for every country was metaphorically taking turns eating shit?
And what can anyone do with that $200 of vaour that was “created”