3 ms·

> It misses out the service economy. No it doesn't, labor aristocracy is literally one of the predictions on the summary. > But that misses out the money bein

> It misses out the service economy. No it doesn't, labor aristocracy is literally one of the predictions on the summary. > But that misses out the money being made in finance. It misses the Googles making billions from advertising. None of those produce anything, they are entirely dependent on actual production. > Look at the richest GDP per capita countries [1] GDP per capita is just the GDP divided by population, and GDP itself is not necessarily about production at all.

benj111 7y ago
We still have farms, most economies aren't regarded as agrarian as most of the money is made elsewhere. "None of those produce anything, they are entirely dependent on actual production" They might not produce something physical, but then neither does a musician, or a writer. They're a part of the economy though, my entire point is that your link ignores non physical bits of the economy, but that is now the dominant part of the economy, so the theory is at least outdated. "GDP per capita is just the GDP divided by population, and GDP itself is not necessarily about production at all" How would you like to measure production then? Cars per person? Per nation? Is a Tata equivalent to Ferrari? I know what GDP per capita is, that's why I used it, have you got any particular reason why I should be using absolute GDP figures?
- esailija 7y ago
  > They might not produce something physical, but then neither does a musician, or a writer. No I mean they do not literally produce anything. A musician or writer produces music or writings. An ad is like a mudpie, nobody wants it. Does ads maximize profits in capitalist economy? Yes but that requires the assumption of capitalist economy. In real terms it is pure overhead and does not achieve any social or environmental need. If you need ads to buy something you don't need it by definition. > They're a part of the economy though, my entire point is that your link ignores non physical bits of the economy, but that is now the dominant part of the economy, so the theory is at least outdated. No actual production is the dominant part of the real economy, but money hides it because imperialism allows super explotation where the real producers are paid virtually nothing compared to the value produced. E.g. 1000 trillion worth of value is bought at 2 trillion. You cannot at the same time acknowledge the exploitation and think that some bullshit rent-seeking is what is producing most value in economy. > I know what GDP per capita is, that's why I used it, have you got any particular reason why I should be using absolute GDP figures? You should not be using GDP or any monetary value at all to measure anything real. Behind it is the assumption that money is same as social or environmental value, but the relationship is often not there or inversed.
  - benj111 7y ago
    " An ad is like a mudpie, nobody wants it." Except the people who pay for them. Google isnt some tech unicorn which might make money one day, it's one of the biggest companies in the world, it's one of the biggest companies in the world because it sells a valuable service. "1000 trillion worth of value is bought at 2 trillion" Who decides that? Someone is more than welcome to come along and pay 3 trillion. And looking at it from the other side am I being exploited for paying 1000 trillion for 2 trillion worth of goods? Why don't I go to the producer directly? What's a reasonable price? Am I being exploited when I buy an iphone? It's twice the price as an android phone for the same amount of material? The fact is that the west at least is immensely wealthier than the 1800s and most of us don't build anything anymore. The most practical job I've had is serving drinks, which isnt exactly making things, and the chances are, you don't make anything either. "No actual production is the dominant part of the real economy" "You should not be using GDP or any monetary value at all to measure anything real. Behind it is the assumption that money is same as social or environmental value" If you want to talk about the real economy, I'm going to (legitimately) talk about GDP. If you want to talk about some softer measure then fine let me know what that is, and I will bet now Luxembourg does better than the average.

benj111 7y ago

We still have farms, most economies aren't regarded as agrarian as most of the money is made elsewhere. "None of those produce anything, they are entirely dependent on actual production" They might not produce something physical, but then neither does a musician, or a writer. They're a part of the economy though, my entire point is that your link ignores non physical bits of the economy, but that is now the dominant part of the economy, so the theory is at least outdated. "GDP per capita is just the GDP divided by population, and GDP itself is not necessarily about production at all" How would you like to measure production then? Cars per person? Per nation? Is a Tata equivalent to Ferrari? I know what GDP per capita is, that's why I used it, have you got any particular reason why I should be using absolute GDP figures?

esailija 7y ago
> They might not produce something physical, but then neither does a musician, or a writer. No I mean they do not literally produce anything. A musician or writer produces music or writings. An ad is like a mudpie, nobody wants it. Does ads maximize profits in capitalist economy? Yes but that requires the assumption of capitalist economy. In real terms it is pure overhead and does not achieve any social or environmental need. If you need ads to buy something you don't need it by definition. > They're a part of the economy though, my entire point is that your link ignores non physical bits of the economy, but that is now the dominant part of the economy, so the theory is at least outdated. No actual production is the dominant part of the real economy, but money hides it because imperialism allows super explotation where the real producers are paid virtually nothing compared to the value produced. E.g. 1000 trillion worth of value is bought at 2 trillion. You cannot at the same time acknowledge the exploitation and think that some bullshit rent-seeking is what is producing most value in economy. > I know what GDP per capita is, that's why I used it, have you got any particular reason why I should be using absolute GDP figures? You should not be using GDP or any monetary value at all to measure anything real. Behind it is the assumption that money is same as social or environmental value, but the relationship is often not there or inversed.
- benj111 7y ago
  " An ad is like a mudpie, nobody wants it." Except the people who pay for them. Google isnt some tech unicorn which might make money one day, it's one of the biggest companies in the world, it's one of the biggest companies in the world because it sells a valuable service. "1000 trillion worth of value is bought at 2 trillion" Who decides that? Someone is more than welcome to come along and pay 3 trillion. And looking at it from the other side am I being exploited for paying 1000 trillion for 2 trillion worth of goods? Why don't I go to the producer directly? What's a reasonable price? Am I being exploited when I buy an iphone? It's twice the price as an android phone for the same amount of material? The fact is that the west at least is immensely wealthier than the 1800s and most of us don't build anything anymore. The most practical job I've had is serving drinks, which isnt exactly making things, and the chances are, you don't make anything either. "No actual production is the dominant part of the real economy" "You should not be using GDP or any monetary value at all to measure anything real. Behind it is the assumption that money is same as social or environmental value" If you want to talk about the real economy, I'm going to (legitimately) talk about GDP. If you want to talk about some softer measure then fine let me know what that is, and I will bet now Luxembourg does better than the average.