2 ms·

One has to be careful with this line of thought. If I spend all my money on necessities or have to work 80 hours a week to sustain myself, then I can't visit th

One has to be careful with this line of thought. If I spend all my money on necessities or have to work 80 hours a week to sustain myself, then I can't visit that forest unless I live so close that visiting costs me almost nothing in terms of time or money. It's possible for there to be slippage between GDP and whatever metric you imagine, but they're well connected.

cimmanom 8y ago
There is value to be had from a forest other than visiting it. That includes the things we can learn from its ecosystem (e.g. antibiotics developed from jungle fungi that are going extinct); improved air quality; and impact on climate, erosion, etc.
- hyperpape 8y ago
  I was just responding to the parents' particular example, not trying to come up with a complete theory of the value of forests. That said sick and dead people and climate change are typically not good for GDP.
  - PeterStuer 8y ago
    Sadly, they are. GDP is a measure on transactions. Most of the things you mention have substantial transactions coupled to them. GDP is a good indicator of opportunity for rent-seeking in an economy, which is directly linked to the opportunities of the financial class.
    - hyperpape 8y ago
      The argument that you are making has been a named fallacy in economics for over 150 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window. But aside from economic theory, everyone who has ever cared for a sick relative should have the evidence to see that it doesn't raise GDP. Yes, you spend money on healthcare. That's good for the doctors you buy from. But you give up time at work, you give up vacations, you cut back elsewhere. Every cent that you spend on that healthcare isn't going to wherever else you would've spent it. This isn't a counter-intuitive finding. It's just common sense.
      - PeterStuer 8y ago
        You assume that all money would be constantly spent. Maybe in the US, but in other parts of the world people do save money for these 'unforeseen emergencies', and that money is then 'unlocked'.
        hyperpape 8y ago
        In which case, GDP in the US isn't overstated because of the costs of caring for the sick. That's a bit awkward for your point of view, since the US has the largest economy in the world, and the highest per capita income of any large country[0]. Where does the GDP is overstated line apply? [0] 10 million or more people, by my current arbitrary definition of "large".
      - cimmanom 8y ago
        It’s a cost for the individual but not a cost for the corporation whose cut corners are responsible for the illness. What’s good for profits isn’t necessarily good for health, even if in the big picture and long run what’s good for health is good for the economy as a whole.
        hyperpape 8y ago
        Often true. But not relevant to whether it increases or decreases GDP.
        cimmanom 8y ago
        Unless it increases GDP in the short term (higher profits) but decreases it in the long term (fewer people to consume goods and drive the economy).

cimmanom 8y ago

There is value to be had from a forest other than visiting it. That includes the things we can learn from its ecosystem (e.g. antibiotics developed from jungle fungi that are going extinct); improved air quality; and impact on climate, erosion, etc.

hyperpape 8y ago
I was just responding to the parents' particular example, not trying to come up with a complete theory of the value of forests. That said sick and dead people and climate change are typically not good for GDP.
- PeterStuer 8y ago
  Sadly, they are. GDP is a measure on transactions. Most of the things you mention have substantial transactions coupled to them. GDP is a good indicator of opportunity for rent-seeking in an economy, which is directly linked to the opportunities of the financial class.
  - hyperpape 8y ago
    The argument that you are making has been a named fallacy in economics for over 150 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window. But aside from economic theory, everyone who has ever cared for a sick relative should have the evidence to see that it doesn't raise GDP. Yes, you spend money on healthcare. That's good for the doctors you buy from. But you give up time at work, you give up vacations, you cut back elsewhere. Every cent that you spend on that healthcare isn't going to wherever else you would've spent it. This isn't a counter-intuitive finding. It's just common sense.
    - PeterStuer 8y ago
      You assume that all money would be constantly spent. Maybe in the US, but in other parts of the world people do save money for these 'unforeseen emergencies', and that money is then 'unlocked'.
      - hyperpape 8y ago
        In which case, GDP in the US isn't overstated because of the costs of caring for the sick. That's a bit awkward for your point of view, since the US has the largest economy in the world, and the highest per capita income of any large country[0]. Where does the GDP is overstated line apply? [0] 10 million or more people, by my current arbitrary definition of "large".
    - cimmanom 8y ago
      It’s a cost for the individual but not a cost for the corporation whose cut corners are responsible for the illness. What’s good for profits isn’t necessarily good for health, even if in the big picture and long run what’s good for health is good for the economy as a whole.
      - hyperpape 8y ago
        Often true. But not relevant to whether it increases or decreases GDP.
        cimmanom 8y ago
        Unless it increases GDP in the short term (higher profits) but decreases it in the long term (fewer people to consume goods and drive the economy).