3 ms·
I'm confused what this has to do with the national income and product accounts. The point of my post is that any product produced and traded falls on both sides
by cynicalkane 16y ago
I'm confused what this has to do with the national income and product accounts. The point of my post is that any product produced and traded falls on both sides of the product/income balance. If a gold miner decides to eat that dollar later (or sell it to the Federal Reserve) that's a monetary phenomenon.
My guess is that you wanted to throw out some vaguely gold-bug sort of thing out there, and protect yourself from downvoting by marking it "side note".
- eru 16y agoPlease let me explain. I do not really disagree with your main points. yummyfajitas comment about only expenses on services showing up in income was probably not very well worded. I guess he's not using the economist's definition of income. If you substitute wages for `income' in his statement, it makes some sense. Also I do see that income and production have to be equal (modulo effects of moving wealth in and out of the system, perhaps). Different consumption patterns may lead to different distributions of income and wages, even if the sum stays the same. (I don't know whether `the debt fuelled boom' that was mentioned, depresses the median income while boosting the rich.) My side note was really just a side note. The central bank does create and destroy money. I am not a gold bug. If you want commodity based money, tie your currency to a basket of commodities. Even the BigMac index is better than useless gold.
- eru 16y agoP.S. I only mentioned gold because you mention gold.