3 ms·
As I see it GDP measures national revenue, not national profit. The closest proxy to national profit has historically been net exports, which is why every coun
by daniel-cussen 7y ago
As I see it GDP measures national revenue, not national profit. The closest proxy to national profit has historically been net exports, which is why every country wanted to export a lot but import very little.
Frankly, if "the economy" falls 0.1% in a Great-Depression (as alluded to by the current Democratic presidential candidate) scale catastrophe (for reference, the Great Depression was more believably 25% of GDP) maybe we've massaged the statistics too far. So frankly, why not just gauge "the economy" not by GDP but by estimating actual human profits of working, the money they have left over after rent is paid, food is on the table, and health taken care of. Further, take into account diminishing marginal utility of surplus income. How much do people have left over and how does that change over time?
- third_I 7y agoYour ideas are both beautiful and delusional. Beautiful in that they're painting a much better approach. Delusional because they address the symptom but stop short of even talking about the underlying cause. Why do you think this massaging happens? Why do you think we carefully make it so everything always looks good or "not that bad"? That we ignore realities and focus of KPIs basically? Follow the money, whose interests does that serve? Surely, some economists for decades have been asking for exactly this shift in perspective. Evidently, it hasn't happened, and there is no reason to assume the reasons why have changed. If anything, they just rose in importance for the short-term, as now is less the time for reform than the time to avoid massive, uncontrollable panic. But hold that thought, really do. Its time will come, and I suspect before too long now (this decade possibly, conservatively the next).