Obligatory Michael Lewis quote, from Boomerang (2011):

> Yet another hedge fund manager explained Icelandic banking to me this way: you have a dog, and I have a cat. We agree that each is worth a billion dollars. You sell me the dog for a billion, and I sell you the cat for a billion. Now we are no longer pet owners but Icelandic banks, with a billion dollars in new assets.

▲

cucumber3732842 5 hours ago | parent [-]

That's just a variant of this old one:

Two economists are walking through a cow pasture.

The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit.

They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit.

Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing."

"That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP by $200!"

	▲	jerf 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Except the GP quote actually happens. For example, if you've ever wondered why useless art trades at such eye-watering valuations, the answer is that the high valuations are fictions that governments will accept for tax purposes, from which you can derive a variety of exciting tax consequences: https://naturalist.gallery/blogs/journal/understanding-the-f... more-or-less because they agree among themselves what the art is valuated at for their own benefit.
	▲	lesuorac 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Well while the pile of shit makes it a joke, isn't there a real advantage here of legibility? Like you have a measure (GDP) and it can't accurate measure things unless a sale occurs. So even if the money is a wash there was an actual activity occurring in the economy and now it's recorded.
	▲	lotsofpulp 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That scenario does not work for this discussion because the first economist has no reason to expect the second economist will ask him to eat shit for $100.