The joke doesn’t work because both transactions were welfare enhancing. In the end, both of them agree that eating shit is worth it to see the other do it. At least $200 of value was created.
This falsely assumes that economic actors necessarily have sound judgment about value. Imagine someone who has had a bad day at work going and spending $10 for the privilege of being rude to a fast food clerk. If given the option would they directly trade the humiliations they themselves endured to earn that money to be able to inflict the same? Probably not, but their workday is already over, they don’t see a way to translate the cash they have onhand into an overall better life, and this is what they feel like doing in the moment.
The joke doesn’t work because both transactions were welfare enhancing. In the end, both of them agree that eating shit is worth it to see the other do it. At least $200 of value was created.
This falsely assumes that economic actors necessarily have sound judgment about value. Imagine someone who has had a bad day at work going and spending $10 for the privilege of being rude to a fast food clerk. If given the option would they directly trade the humiliations they themselves endured to earn that money to be able to inflict the same? Probably not, but their workday is already over, they don’t see a way to translate the cash they have onhand into an overall better life, and this is what they feel like doing in the moment.
Does this matter in the context of this post? I.e. are GDPs “the sum of shit people pay for” or do they get adjusted for “sound judgment of value”?