• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What good is a high GDP?

A

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
It means things are more expensive, it doesn't measure cost effectiveness (e.g., making low cost high quality products for niche markets), and it doesn't take waste into account (e.g., bullets manfactured to be wasted in useless wars). It also takes government contractors into account.

Shouldn't we be aiming for a significantly lower GDP?
 
Anarchist420 said:
It means things are more expensive, it doesn't measure cost effectiveness (e.g., making low cost high quality products for niche markets), and it doesn't take waste into account (e.g., bullets manfactured to be wasted in useless wars). It also takes government contractors into account.

Shouldn't we be aiming for a significantly lower GDP?
Click to expand...

So how are you going to eat if you're not working?
 
GDP can certainly be misleading. As the Adbuster's ad used to say "Every time someone is diagnosed with cancer, the GDP goes up".
 
The best comment I've seen on GDP is from Robert Kennedy.

"Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product ... if we should judge America by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.


"Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."
Click to expand...

It also matters where the growth go. For 30 years, it's all gone to the top.

Robert's brother John said 'A rising tide lifts all boats'.

Progressives would like for it to do so again.
 
IronWing said:
GDP can certainly be misleading. As the Adbuster's ad used to say "Every time someone is diagnosed with cancer, the GDP goes up".
Click to expand...

GDP is absolutely misleading...but it's one of the few ways to quantify a country's wealth.

of course it tells you nothing about how that wealth is distributed, standards of living, etc.
 
Fenixgoon said:
GDP is absolutely misleading...but it's one of the few ways to quantify a country's wealth.

of course it tells you nothing about how that wealth is distributed, standards of living, etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and it also doesn't tell you much about how that wealth is gained, i.e, if you get a credit card and buy a bunch of crap, your GDP looks good.

As for standard of living, this is a better argument, and our health care system is a perfect example. We are spending too much for what we get, and that boosts GDP. But since we are spending too much on health care, that gives us less money to spend on other things, lowering our standard of living.
 
Fenixgoon said:
GDP is absolutely misleading...but it's one of the few ways to quantify a country's wealth.

of course it tells you nothing about how that wealth is distributed, standards of living, etc.
Click to expand...
GDP only quantifies wealth when all wealth is consumed, or at least depreciates very rapidly. Of course the entire marketing industry is pushing society towards such a state, but it doesn't have to be that way by definition. If we as a society could bring ourselves to not feel compelled to rip out kitchens every 10 years, use a rag and bucket instead of Swiffers, and buy fewer - but more durable - clothes, etc. we would find that GDP has very little to do with our stock of wealth at all. I don't bother seriously hoping that such a thing could happen to the USA, but it's an important point if for nothing other than perspective.
 
One of the things that affects a GDP is what we purchase from outside the country. When our imports grow too much that means that people cant find work and our money is funding someone elses economy. Nothing wrong with imports, but everything should be in moderation. Sending communists and socialists our hard earned money is putting our own people out of work. The more we pruchase imports the less we should expect our children to be able to find work.
 
If I sell something I own (mind you I didn't make it) to someone for $20 on Craigslist and then bought something else for $20 from that same person a day later, did GDP just go up $40?
 
her209 said:
If I sell something I own (mind you I didn't make it) to someone for $20 on Craigslist and then bought something else for $20 from that same person a day later, did GDP just go up $40?
Click to expand...

I don't believe the calculations quite work that way.

It's more like a double-entry ledger of national accounts. 'Snapshots' are taken monthly, quarterly and annually (up to 5 years back IIRC to reconcile GDP as specific numbers are available).

Though folks fixate on the quarterly BEA GDP ("advance" estimate) reports, the second 'estimate' for the quarter (given one month later) incorporates better statistical data.

Twenty-five percent of the "advance" estimate reflects 'trends' in the economy, and with the second estimate this is reduced by half.

The biggest point of contention is normally the Export/Import Account (with our trade imbalance reflecting as a drag on overall GDP).

Back to your question: In your 'ledger' you would credit $20 to your Personal Income Account that would be offset by $20 to your Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) account.




--
 
Anarchist420 said:
It means things are more expensive, it doesn't measure cost effectiveness (e.g., making low cost high quality products for niche markets), and it doesn't take waste into account (e.g., bullets manfactured to be wasted in useless wars). It also takes government contractors into account.

Shouldn't we be aiming for a significantly lower GDP?
Click to expand...

How would it make goods most expensive?
 
Infohawk said:
GDP is like a grade in school. It tells you that you've done well but it doesn't tell you how to do well.
Click to expand...

But does it really? If GDP goes up by 5%, does it really mean we created 5% more wealth* than we did the previous year or does it just mean that inflation is at 5% and we produced the same amount we did the previous year only now everything costs more?


* Bear in mind that money is not wealth, goods are wealth
 
her209 said:
If I sell something I own (mind you I didn't make it) to someone for $20 on Craigslist and then bought something else for $20 from that same person a day later, did GDP just go up $40?
Click to expand...

If the guy you sold the $20 item to valued that item at $30 then the GDP increased by $10. Reason being is that you now have the item you would have spent $30 on for $20, plus $10 left over to buy something else. It's called comparative advantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top