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
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 $).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.