3 ms·
I like the general idea. However, the problem with giving people a share of the GDP is that GDP is a terrible measure of useful economic production. As a trivi
by alasdair_ 9y ago
I like the general idea. However, the problem with giving people a share of the GDP is that GDP is a terrible measure of useful economic production.
As a trivial example: GDP goes up if I sneak into a car lot one night and set fire to all the cars.
We need a better measure of "useful" economic production.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> As a trivial example: GDP goes up if I sneak into a car lot one night and set fire to all the cars. Directly, it doesn't change at all. If it results in people being hired to cleanup and the card being replaced, it does if you consider things one step out, but that might not be the result and, in any case, things get more complicated as you consider more distant effects even if the one step out effects would increase GDP.
- BenoitEssiambre 9y agoGDP does not go up on destruction. That's the broken window fallacy. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fa... Reconstruction after destruction becomes part of GDP if it is performed but this reconstruction usually takes production resources that would have gone elsewhere otherwise. The person to pay for the reconstruction will spend less elsewhere.