The Pareto principle is an economics idea - something is considered Pareto efficient if you can make someone better off without making someone else worse off, and you are at a Pareto optimum when you can’t make anyone better off without making someone worse off. Of course, because “better off” and “worse off” are entirely up for interpretation, people argue that taxing the rich to improve the lives of the poor is not Pareto efficient because you’re worse off if you have less money regardless of how much money you have left. So the only Pareto efficient solution is to grow the economy until all the poor people make enough money.
The Pareto principle is an economics idea - something is considered Pareto efficient if you can make someone better off without making someone else worse off, and you are at a Pareto optimum when you can’t make anyone better off without making someone worse off. Of course, because “better off” and “worse off” are entirely up for interpretation, people argue that taxing the rich to improve the lives of the poor is not Pareto efficient because you’re worse off if you have less money regardless of how much money you have left. So the only Pareto efficient solution is to grow the economy until all the poor people make enough money.
Boy is that some head stuck up their own ass economist shit.
this is easily solved:
See, now #2 is efficient, because the alternative is their immediate death, which would be worse than giving up money.
economists don’t want you to know this 1 neat trick
I believe this is yours
The original reddit gold…
curtseys
i really have to thank the academy for this fine, tiny, golden man
That’s really dumb. the end result is literally identical, because money would have to be worth less afterwards for the math to work.
Yeah, it’s not what I’d describe as a serious attempt at problem solving.