I wonder why they chose this description for Pareto inefficiency:
There exists another page that will make everyone better off without making anyone worse off.
Instead of the correct
There exists another page that will make someone better off without making anyone worse off.
Makes me wonder if all the descriptions I know less about are all subtly wrong on purpose.
I think this is just a tongue in cheek description, implying that "nobody needs this page and the `other one` makes everybody happy".
Nice catch and a nice reminder of the quality control fails with broken feedback mechanisms, a common state of affairs! (what, you think they "asked some leading economists."?)
Dislike that textual noise filling the blanks since empty space is the best indicator of nothing. Also happens with various search engines slapping full-page animations visually tricking you into thinking you've got the fish
This should just be a single phrase
This took me back nearly fifty years to my Econ classes, and I have been re-traumatized.
Their request IDs seem to be chronological when sorted alphabetically.
All bases covered but only one of these is "correct"
>Game theory info
By not viewing this page you help everyone else get better pages.
I'd blame it on liquidity trap. Technology team decided to keep money instead of using it to fix the issue.
This was a nice refresh of my economies classes.
The socialism one seems to be in bad faith, like not even trying to be in line with how socialism would explain it analogously to the others.
...It's just a generic bland error page?
They dont understand socialism or lie on purpose