4 ms·
Not exactly: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/10/25/were-doing-gdp-wrong-facebook-and-google-add-zero-to-the-economy/?sh=2fed35539b99 https://www.
by boh 6y ago
Not exactly:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/10/25/were-doing-gdp-wrong-facebook-and-google-add-zero-to-the-economy/?sh=2fed35539b99 https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/10/25/were-doi...
And as far as Microsoft: software was only added after 1999 and its relevance is only measured in sales not actual productivity. GDP assumes the production of more of something is growth--software doesn't work like that so its inclusion still fails as an accurate measure.
- BoiledCabbage 6y agoI'm trying hard to understand your point, but it still feels to me like you're off the mark here. GDP is not a measure of productivity. It's a measure of output per capita. If you're saying that productivity when up due to software, then output (per capita per hours worked) must have gone up somewhere due to using that software. And as a result it would be captured in GDP. Imaging for example I sold a manual tool to tend the field when growing crops. If I suddenly invent a new tool that makes you twice as productive, then yes I may sell the exact same number of tools (so it's not captured in GDP), but now every farmer buying it will be making twice a much crop which will be captured in GDP. Or they'll be making the same amount of crop in half the time which would show up as reduced hours worked (which is not what we see).
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y agoHaving twice as many crops may decrease the price per unit of crop. So, in this economy consisting of nothing other than the crop, we might not see 2x dollar valuation in products sold even though the technical innovation doubled the number of crops. Diminishing returns, etc.