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
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.
The whole assuming humans to be rational part is what messes up the calculation.
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.
So only in our dreams. Got it
Well, it turns out they're nightmares at the moment, but yes, basically.
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.
There just need to be enough people to cover the costs of the unhealthy.
Good thing that's something that can be calculated and prepared for.
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.
What statistics would those be?
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.
Please present these statistics which can accurately predict, for example, a global pandemic which would overwhelm hospitals.
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
If they can't be predicted ahead of time and the system relies on healthy people, the system will break down when that happens.
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.
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.
A collapse of a non existent system that began around 1950? Sure Mr. Troll. Back to the cave now.
You're claiming there was no healthcare in 1918? And I'm the troll?
And that the enjoyment of seeing the other person eating shit is more than the negative experience of doing it yourself
Don't stop now, keep going and you'll be writing financial regulations in no time!
If this data gets sucked into a model it may be ingrained into future law students papers everywhere eventually.
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.
Counterpoint: If humans were rational, they would not find it entertaining to watch people eat excrement.