Re:Emissions are no longer following the worst case scenario
by Aerbil313 on Friday May 26, 2023 @07:13AM
(#36082617)
Two economists were walking down the street. One saw a dog s*t on the ground, and told the other: “If you eat that, I’ll give you thousand dollars.” Other guy looked at it, thought “It’s bad, but I’ll get $1000”, and ate it. His friend paid him, although he still regretted it because it was really bad. After some time, they encountered another dog s*t. This time the guy who ate it before offered $1000 for eating it to his friend. He accepted, thinking “I’ll gain the $1000 I lost”. He ate it and got paid. After some time, they stopped for a while, and one said to other, “I feel like we just ate dog s*t for nothing”, the other replied “Oh, come on! We just contributed to the GDP by $2000, it was not for nothing!”
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Emissions are no longer following the worst case scenario
by s1artibartfast on Friday May 26, 2023 @01:11PM
(#36086944)
Makes sense. GDP captures money spent on services, not philosophical judgment on if that money was wisely spent or produced net happiness.
In a more realistic examples, alcoholics purchasing booze, obese people overeating, and people wasting their lives watching TV all contribute to GDP.