Maybe I'm being ungenerous, but I think this is purely a know-it-all response to articles, kind of a troll-lite. It's like commenting on sample sizes, for artic

Maybe I'm being ungenerous, but I think this is purely a know-it-all response to articles, kind of a troll-lite. It's like commenting on sample sizes, for articles reporting on some preliminary study. It's not too different from the other "really important" point this article makes: $1trn is not more remarkable than $999.99bn. Profound. Imagine going to some online Q&A and asking a "piece of string" question: "How much does it cost to film a documentary?" You can bet a shilling that one of the first comments will be "stupid question. It depends." It's easy. It's obvious. It'll get some karma. In person it would be a little power play, because you are correcting/berating. Online, it's a little troll. Even if it isn't trolling, it is a boring tangent. Who cares if the analogy is optimal. BTW (2 tangents and we get back to topic)... This is interesting (to me) "No one think it's actually possible for a country to produce a company as an output." In some senses, they do. That is, companies exist now that did not exist previously. The company itself and stock in that company is a sort of "product." When politicians say they want jobs, economic growth and such... Are they saying the economy should output more companies. There are relationships between revenues, profits and market cap so it'll always be possible to represent it the other way if we want. Still...