4 ms·
The joke is that there is something there. For example in a presidential election, I'm indifferent between my preferred candidate having $1 more and the opposin
by orangecat 3y ago
The joke is that there is something there. For example in a presidential election, I'm indifferent between my preferred candidate having $1 more and the opposing candidate having $1 less. If it were possible to honestly negotiate with my counterpart who supports the other candidate, we could either save our money or agree to both donate to a mutually agreeable charity, and everyone would be better off.
- jnwatson 3y agoThe US certainly spends a lot on elections, and one might debate whether that's too much or not. But what is certain is that campaign money contributes to the GDP. It funds a lot of salaries. I'd rather that money go to people instead of a faceless cryptofund. I think that's the joke.
- orangecat 3y agoBut what is certain is that campaign money contributes to the GDP. It funds a lot of salaries. This is the broken window fallacy. If you have two groups with diametrically opposed goals, giving them each more money to spend "increases GDP" in a local sense, but the result is that a bunch of people spend a lot of effort for a net result of zero, when it could have gone toward something useful. I'd rather that money go to people instead of a faceless cryptofund. I think that's the joke. Yeah, the crypto piece is just for additional silliness. For a real version of this you'd need, like, a spreadsheet with two columns.