4 ms·

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37395566 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37395566

sssilver 9mo ago
An important thing that this joke misses is that both economists now also owe federal income tax and social security tax.
- TedDoesntTalk 9mo ago
  Were the payments considered income?
  - direwolf20 9mo ago
    Yes, but they just didn't tell the IRS and nobody was any the wiser
  - jermaustin1 9mo ago
    Yes, but they were under the 1099 reporting limits, while they both owe taxes on them, neither were required to report it to the IRS... assuming this is the one and only time they paid each other for services rendered.
- RobotToaster 9mo ago
  If they routed the payments through a shell company it would be written off as business entertainment expenses.
satvikpendem 9mo ago
The replies explain all there is to explain in that example. If each economist thinks that eating shit is worth $100 then, well, that's what it's worth.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- latexr 9mo ago
  It is fascinating that someone can tell an obvious joke with an obvious point, where the characters themselves spell out what’s wrong, and yet we can be certain someone will genuinely believe and defend that “no no, actually eating a random pile of shit you found on the floor makes sense and is worth it”. Has it occurred to you, especially since one of the economists in the joke admits they feel they ate shit for nothing, that they actually do not feel the exercise was worth it? Have you never spent money on something, thinking it would be worth it, then afterwards realised it was a waste of money? Have you also never taken a job and then realised “I didn’t charge enough for the trouble”? I’m reminded of a bit of news I heard a while back, where one teenager challenged a friend to eat rat shit they found on the street. The eater died shortly after, because the poop contained rat poison. I doubt any of them found it worth it.
  - charcircuit 9mo ago
    It's not an obvious joke. It seems closer to a puzzle in that the reader must discover that the $100 was for entertainment. This is a common class of puzzle where money changes hands between two people and results in a surprising conclusion.
    - wiseowise 9mo ago
      Bro, there’s something really wrong with your head if you seriously believe that the gist of the story is “eating shit is entertainment”.
      - charcircuit 9mo ago
        A better gist may be the value of entertainment is temporary. If instead it was just one person and they went to a movie theater. If you ignore the entertainment value it may just look like the person through away the admission cost.
      - satvikpendem 9mo ago
        Why else would the economist offer the other to eat shit if not for entertainment? Like what other purpose would it reasonably be?

An important thing that this joke misses is that both economists now also owe federal income tax and social security tax.

TedDoesntTalk 9mo ago
Were the payments considered income?
- direwolf20 9mo ago
  Yes, but they just didn't tell the IRS and nobody was any the wiser
- jermaustin1 9mo ago
  Yes, but they were under the 1099 reporting limits, while they both owe taxes on them, neither were required to report it to the IRS... assuming this is the one and only time they paid each other for services rendered.
RobotToaster 9mo ago
If they routed the payments through a shell company it would be written off as business entertainment expenses.

satvikpendem 9mo ago

The replies explain all there is to explain in that example. If each economist thinks that eating shit is worth $100 then, well, that's what it's worth.

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
latexr 9mo ago
It is fascinating that someone can tell an obvious joke with an obvious point, where the characters themselves spell out what’s wrong, and yet we can be certain someone will genuinely believe and defend that “no no, actually eating a random pile of shit you found on the floor makes sense and is worth it”. Has it occurred to you, especially since one of the economists in the joke admits they feel they ate shit for nothing, that they actually do not feel the exercise was worth it? Have you never spent money on something, thinking it would be worth it, then afterwards realised it was a waste of money? Have you also never taken a job and then realised “I didn’t charge enough for the trouble”? I’m reminded of a bit of news I heard a while back, where one teenager challenged a friend to eat rat shit they found on the street. The eater died shortly after, because the poop contained rat poison. I doubt any of them found it worth it.
- charcircuit 9mo ago
  It's not an obvious joke. It seems closer to a puzzle in that the reader must discover that the $100 was for entertainment. This is a common class of puzzle where money changes hands between two people and results in a surprising conclusion.
  - wiseowise 9mo ago
    Bro, there’s something really wrong with your head if you seriously believe that the gist of the story is “eating shit is entertainment”.
    - charcircuit 9mo ago
      A better gist may be the value of entertainment is temporary. If instead it was just one person and they went to a movie theater. If you ignore the entertainment value it may just look like the person through away the admission cost.
    - satvikpendem 9mo ago
      Why else would the economist offer the other to eat shit if not for entertainment? Like what other purpose would it reasonably be?