5 ms·
I mean… yes. That is how this works. The problem with its implied understanding is that the economists don’t appear to have gained anything from the work they p
by jncfhnb 3y ago
I mean… yes. That is how this works. The problem with its implied understanding is that the economists don’t appear to have gained anything from the work they paid the other to do. GDP is generally a pretty decent stat because people tend to pay things to do things that provide them with some sort of value.
With notable exceptions for things like war.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoHealthier gut biome, people pay for this stuff.
- civilitty 3y agoIt’s supposed to go in the other end though. Stomach acid is unforgiving.
- kbutler 3y agohttps://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-orally-administered-fecal-microbiota-product-prevention-recurrence-clostridioides#:~:text=The%20administration%20of%20fecal%20microbiota,orally%2C%20for%20three%20consecutive%20days https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr.... """ The administration of fecal microbiota is thought to facilitate restoration of the gut flora to prevent further episodes of CDI. The dosing regimen of Vowst is four capsules taken once a day, orally, for three consecutive days. """
- civilitty 3y agoThat’s the pharmaceutical version. When going organic, you gotta make compromises. (I’m kidding. Obviously we don’t put probiotic foods up our butt, even though I do find yoghurt works great as a lubricant)
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago[dead]
- mensetmanusman 3y agoTo be pedantic, if you ate it fast enough in large chunks as economists do, the inner core might survive as the outer core dissolves at some rate (faster rate but thicker shell to compensate compared to the pharmaceuticals).
- Llamamoe 3y agoJust in case anyone ever needs to DIY a stool transplant, double encapsulation with inner gelatin and outer enteric coated capsules works. Do a colonoscopy prep the previous day and try to take repeat doses throughout several days and in between meals rather than all at once.
- ascorbic 3y agoRight. Presumably in that scenario both economists thought it to be at least $100 worth of entertainment to watch the other eat shit, while both also thought $100 was enough compensation to eat it. Everyone is better off.
- epylar 3y agoJust because you think you're better off doesn't mean you're better off though.
- simmerup 3y agoWhy not? What we think is pretty much all that matters
- fatfingerd 3y agoPerhaps cumulatively, but in a particular moment? A infectious disease specialist may further raise GDP in this story, moments or years later.
- vkou 3y ago> GDP is generally a pretty decent stat because people tend to pay things to do things that provide them with some sort of value. Only if the net value is positive-sum. Setting a city on fire, or giving cancer to a million people, or just going down the street, smashing every parked car's window with a tire iron will likely increase national GDP. Liekwise, people pay a lot of money for net negative-sum industries - the health insurance industry in the US immediately springs to mind. We'd all be better off without that parasite.
- pfisch 3y agoI mean, we have to pay someone to guarantee coverage in the event of catastrophic losses. You might even call them insurance companies.
- kspacewalk2 3y agoIf only there was a way to have just one of those insurance companies, maybe run as a government agency of sorts... Wait, I got one of those where I live, it's called the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. It is not amazing but it easily clears the extremely low bar of being better than the US health insurance setup. Over in Manitoba they've got one of those for car insurance too. Amazingly, people continue driving there just the same, the government insurance plan never needs subsidies and Manitobans pay way less for insurance. Almost as if the concept of the free market being the best solution for market X needs to be tested once in a while just to be sure, and results may be surprising.
- robertlagrant 3y agoIt's possible for really motivated individuals to run a government department well, if you have people of excellent character, work ethic and competence doing so, but there's not a load of incentive for them to be run well outside of that unlikely combination.
- kspacewalk2 3y agoWell, while we're on the topic of insinuations that totally don't give away underlying biases, it's possible for really ethical individuals to run a number of competing corporations well, though there's not a load of incentive for them to steer clear of regulatory capture, cartel-like collusion and various other forms of customer-screwing behaviour. The larger point being: there are many areas of the economy in which the free market approach is clearly better, and there are many other areas of the economy in which the free market approach is clearly deficient and a government-run agency is superior. Insurance is in neither of these convenient buckets. "Unlikely" is an opinion on a hypothetical; it is not necessary when real-world examples abound.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y agoBut wouldn’t that be true of any kind of performance art? What value is created by me paying to watch a musician/movie/baseball? Fundamentally seems the same as watching someone eat shit for my amusement.
- jncfhnb 3y agoYour enjoying of it. The economists in the story don’t acknowledge enjoying making the other eat shit. It is valuable to society to do things that create joy. Shit eating may not hold up specifically.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y agoIs that not the implicit agreement of capitalism? If I trade X dollars for a thing, I got something I value for it. Joy, revenge, boredom, or just a lighter load in the wallet. Something must have been gained. By definition, it seems that both economists gained the experience they wanted of watching the other debase themselves.
- jncfhnb 3y agoYes. And GDP is a rough measurement of how much value is being created, in dollars.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- elgenie 3y agoOne of the advantages of money is that the enjoyment is implicit in the exchange, with no explicit acknowledgment necessary. The enjoyment derived by the watcher must exceed that of having $100 and using that money in the future, or he wouldn’t have paid out. The disgust of the eater is more than compensated by the $100, or he wouldn’t accept that payment and do the job. Both coprophages have thus derived utility from the exchange. From an economic standpoint, eating shit is just a form of working.
- orwin 3y agoA at-home dad get paid nothing to take care of his children. He takes a 50k job, pays à baby-sitter 20k (said babysitter couldn't find a service job that could pay him 50k, weirdly), and voilà, 70k GDP.
- jncfhnb 3y agoI’m not going to argue that GDP is a perfect metric, because it clearly is not. But I feel obliged to point out that 5/7 of the GDP created in your own scenario is a guy doing presumably valuable work, and 2/7 is the baby sitter doing previously unaccounted for work; which is also based on wages, perhaps more fit to their skills. It would be great if we could measure work done without exchange of goods however that is generally not so large as to totally distort the general numbers. To no discredit of the work parents do.
- riku_iki 3y ago> He takes a 50k job so, he produces 50k value somewhere