8 ms·

GDP is not the only metric that matters when estimating country’s wealth. For example, good public healthcare and transport can lower the country’s GDP and imp

GDP is not the only metric that matters when estimating country’s wealth. For example, good public healthcare and transport can lower the country’s GDP and improve it’s citizens wellbeing at the same time. I’m not saying that France/Italy have it better for their citizens, but treating GDP as a main metric is terribly flawed.

deepstack 6y ago
right on the money. One index that is far from perfect that give an alternative view is https://happyplanetindex.org https://happyplanetindex.org I'm not saying it is more accurate than the GDP measure, it just offer a different view.
- nly 6y ago
  Norway seems to fair well on both metrics.
  - ath92 6y ago
    It's the combination of being a Nordic social democratic + having large oil reserves.
    - kwhitefoot 6y ago
      Sweden is doing pretty well too. No oil there.
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        Sweden is a pretty impressive industrial exporter.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      And more importantly: not spending the money from that oil wealth in a stupid way but setting it up to generate future revenue streams that benefit everybody. As opposed to other countries which squandered their riches on short term stuff.
      - antwerpz 6y ago
        To be fair, there is not really any other country to compare them to on this. No country which was already rich, stable, democratic and well-educated has ever received such a large resources windfall as Norway did from North Sea Oil.
        jacquesm 6y ago
        NL, UK.
        antwerpz 6y ago
        NL has a far, far smaller share of North Sea Oil than Norway (and 3 times the population) The UK has a similar share (actually slightly smaller) with over 10 times the population.
        jacquesm 6y ago
        All the more reason to use that windfall responsibly and to preserve the proceeds. NL in particular was extremely wasteful, especially with their natural gas resources which were sold for a ridiculously low amount to foreign customers, and which they now re-import at much inflated prices.
        antwerpz 6y ago
        You seem to be making a political point about the Netherlands which is completely separate from the fact which I presented, and which you incorrectly contradicted.
        jacquesm 6y ago
        Haha. Good luck with that attitude here.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
atoav 6y ago
Like selling your house, living on the street and bragging how rich you now are, a high GDP with crumbling infrastructure really begs the question: Was it really that smart of a decision in the long run?
mrweasel 6y ago
It's also an average, someone like Bezos technically raises the average by a lot. It just doesn't make the people working in a warehouse any richer. For the vast majority of people, living in a wealthy country, where that wealth is more equally distributed, will be much more attractive than living in country with just a high GDP.
- jaspax 6y ago
  I don't think that Bezos, as an individual, has any measurable impact on the US's GDP. The headline number for Bezos is his fortune of $190B, but that's the total value of his assets, not his yearly income. Furthermore, GDP primarily measures spending, not wealth, and I would be surprised if Bezos actually spent even $1B per annum (though this might be different depending on what exactly we count as "spending", as he might make stock trades in that range). In either case, he's having a very small impact on the measured GDP of $21T, something in the range of 0.01%. Meanwhile, the difference between the US and Europe in the article is around $10K per person--hundreds of times larger than the distortion created by the billionaires.
  - antwerpz 6y ago
    GDP measures income, not spending. If someone outside the US spends money on Amazon, and a portion of that money becomes part of Bezos' income, that portion is counted in the US GDP, not the foreign country's GDP. His income last year was around $60 billion, or $200 per person (of any age) in the United States. While last year was exceptional, all of his wealth ($600 per capita) was income in the last 20 or so years, most of it in the last 10. And his ex-wife Mackenzie Scott kept 25% of their combined wealth when they separated. So it's simply not true that his contribution to GDP looks completely trivial even when compared to total US GDP.
    - jaspax 6y ago
      Every source that I can find says that US calculates its GDP based on the "expenditure" approach, meaning that it measures spending, not income. Eg: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp Secondarily, capital gains is not really the same thing as income (at least, not in the tax code, and also not in GDP calculations), and most of his $60B "income" is increases in Amazon stock price. And even if it were actual cash income, the GDP difference between the US and Europe is still fifty times larger than that. Look: I was an American by birth, but I moved to Europe as an adult. I get the attraction, and I'm not trying to bag on Europe. But it's simply false to suggest that America is not overall richer than Europe, or to say that America's extra riches are all concentrated at the top.
mytailorisrich 6y ago
Well, GDP is at least a good metric to estimate the capacity of a country to finance good public healthcare, transport, education, etc. If GDP does not grow, with time it will be more and more difficult to finance all of these services because of inflation, etc. GDP is a measure of production and thus an indication of spending power (you need to earn before you can spend). Whether a country chooses to use its economic output to finance these services is another question.
galfarragem 6y ago
> GDP as a main metric is terribly flawed On the short term it may be true. On the long term you need a strong GDP to sustain quality of life. COVID showed Europeans how dependent they are from China industry and US tech. Quality of life is still an order of magnitude better than in most countries in the world but I don't believe it will remain like this ad infinitum. Most Europeans know that Europe is declining and sinking slowly.
- colinb 6y ago
  Oh for goodness sakes. I don't know where you're writing this from, but Europe a is a big place. And lots of it is doing reasonably well - modulo lock-downs. I'm not convinced at all that Europe is declining, though I am convinced that China and India are rising (as they bloody well should after the horrible history Europe has given them in recent centuries) though I'm worried that this isn't accompanied by a freer, fairer society in those places, just a richer one. Being richer is a good thing of course; freedom being of limited value to a starving child. Which leads me to ask what your basis for comparison is? Because I've lived in wealthy parts of the US - much wealthier than anywhere I've lived in Europe - and seen streets paved with metaphorical gold, but I've visited plenty of places in the US that seemed pretty backward, poor, soaked in ignorance and hopelessly broken. When 2 million people in the richest country in the world don't have indoor plumbing then something is wrong with that country's measure of wealth.
  - galfarragem 6y ago
    > I don't know where you're writing this from, but Europe a is a big place. I know that Eastern Europe is "killing it" regionally by a mix of good policies, EU funding and geoarbitrage - I've lived there - but European Union as whole is slowly declining. Yes, we are still the world leader on lifestyle and culture - I don't want to create roots anywhere else - but I don't believe this will be enough to guarantee a bright future for my children.
    - mantas 6y ago
      So far it feels like Western europe is becoming a fashion house / museum / resort / rich oligarchs clubhouse for the rest of the world. Which, while may sustain high enough living standards for them for some time, looks tragic to say the least. 10 years ago I'd have said Eastern European spirit may turn the ship around. But today I'm not so sure. It feels like too many people got comfy enough and sign off on Western's idea. The sad part is that we're still pretty poor and that comfiness will be gone even faster. Both in terms of wealth and geopolitics.

deepstack 6y ago

right on the money. One index that is far from perfect that give an alternative view is https://happyplanetindex.org https://happyplanetindex.org I'm not saying it is more accurate than the GDP measure, it just offer a different view.

nly 6y ago
Norway seems to fair well on both metrics.
- ath92 6y ago
  It's the combination of being a Nordic social democratic + having large oil reserves.
  - kwhitefoot 6y ago
    Sweden is doing pretty well too. No oil there.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      Sweden is a pretty impressive industrial exporter.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    And more importantly: not spending the money from that oil wealth in a stupid way but setting it up to generate future revenue streams that benefit everybody. As opposed to other countries which squandered their riches on short term stuff.
    - antwerpz 6y ago
      To be fair, there is not really any other country to compare them to on this. No country which was already rich, stable, democratic and well-educated has ever received such a large resources windfall as Norway did from North Sea Oil.
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        NL, UK.
        antwerpz 6y ago
        NL has a far, far smaller share of North Sea Oil than Norway (and 3 times the population) The UK has a similar share (actually slightly smaller) with over 10 times the population.
        jacquesm 6y ago
        All the more reason to use that windfall responsibly and to preserve the proceeds. NL in particular was extremely wasteful, especially with their natural gas resources which were sold for a ridiculously low amount to foreign customers, and which they now re-import at much inflated prices.
        antwerpz 6y ago
        You seem to be making a political point about the Netherlands which is completely separate from the fact which I presented, and which you incorrectly contradicted.
        jacquesm 6y ago
        Haha. Good luck with that attitude here.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

atoav 6y ago

Like selling your house, living on the street and bragging how rich you now are, a high GDP with crumbling infrastructure really begs the question: Was it really that smart of a decision in the long run?

mrweasel 6y ago

It's also an average, someone like Bezos technically raises the average by a lot. It just doesn't make the people working in a warehouse any richer. For the vast majority of people, living in a wealthy country, where that wealth is more equally distributed, will be much more attractive than living in country with just a high GDP.

jaspax 6y ago
I don't think that Bezos, as an individual, has any measurable impact on the US's GDP. The headline number for Bezos is his fortune of $190B, but that's the total value of his assets, not his yearly income. Furthermore, GDP primarily measures spending, not wealth, and I would be surprised if Bezos actually spent even $1B per annum (though this might be different depending on what exactly we count as "spending", as he might make stock trades in that range). In either case, he's having a very small impact on the measured GDP of $21T, something in the range of 0.01%. Meanwhile, the difference between the US and Europe in the article is around $10K per person--hundreds of times larger than the distortion created by the billionaires.
- antwerpz 6y ago
  GDP measures income, not spending. If someone outside the US spends money on Amazon, and a portion of that money becomes part of Bezos' income, that portion is counted in the US GDP, not the foreign country's GDP. His income last year was around $60 billion, or $200 per person (of any age) in the United States. While last year was exceptional, all of his wealth ($600 per capita) was income in the last 20 or so years, most of it in the last 10. And his ex-wife Mackenzie Scott kept 25% of their combined wealth when they separated. So it's simply not true that his contribution to GDP looks completely trivial even when compared to total US GDP.
  - jaspax 6y ago
    Every source that I can find says that US calculates its GDP based on the "expenditure" approach, meaning that it measures spending, not income. Eg: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp Secondarily, capital gains is not really the same thing as income (at least, not in the tax code, and also not in GDP calculations), and most of his $60B "income" is increases in Amazon stock price. And even if it were actual cash income, the GDP difference between the US and Europe is still fifty times larger than that. Look: I was an American by birth, but I moved to Europe as an adult. I get the attraction, and I'm not trying to bag on Europe. But it's simply false to suggest that America is not overall richer than Europe, or to say that America's extra riches are all concentrated at the top.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

Well, GDP is at least a good metric to estimate the capacity of a country to finance good public healthcare, transport, education, etc. If GDP does not grow, with time it will be more and more difficult to finance all of these services because of inflation, etc. GDP is a measure of production and thus an indication of spending power (you need to earn before you can spend). Whether a country chooses to use its economic output to finance these services is another question.

galfarragem 6y ago

> GDP as a main metric is terribly flawed On the short term it may be true. On the long term you need a strong GDP to sustain quality of life. COVID showed Europeans how dependent they are from China industry and US tech. Quality of life is still an order of magnitude better than in most countries in the world but I don't believe it will remain like this ad infinitum. Most Europeans know that Europe is declining and sinking slowly.

colinb 6y ago
Oh for goodness sakes. I don't know where you're writing this from, but Europe a is a big place. And lots of it is doing reasonably well - modulo lock-downs. I'm not convinced at all that Europe is declining, though I am convinced that China and India are rising (as they bloody well should after the horrible history Europe has given them in recent centuries) though I'm worried that this isn't accompanied by a freer, fairer society in those places, just a richer one. Being richer is a good thing of course; freedom being of limited value to a starving child. Which leads me to ask what your basis for comparison is? Because I've lived in wealthy parts of the US - much wealthier than anywhere I've lived in Europe - and seen streets paved with metaphorical gold, but I've visited plenty of places in the US that seemed pretty backward, poor, soaked in ignorance and hopelessly broken. When 2 million people in the richest country in the world don't have indoor plumbing then something is wrong with that country's measure of wealth.
- galfarragem 6y ago
  > I don't know where you're writing this from, but Europe a is a big place. I know that Eastern Europe is "killing it" regionally by a mix of good policies, EU funding and geoarbitrage - I've lived there - but European Union as whole is slowly declining. Yes, we are still the world leader on lifestyle and culture - I don't want to create roots anywhere else - but I don't believe this will be enough to guarantee a bright future for my children.
  - mantas 6y ago
    So far it feels like Western europe is becoming a fashion house / museum / resort / rich oligarchs clubhouse for the rest of the world. Which, while may sustain high enough living standards for them for some time, looks tragic to say the least. 10 years ago I'd have said Eastern European spirit may turn the ship around. But today I'm not so sure. It feels like too many people got comfy enough and sign off on Western's idea. The sad part is that we're still pretty poor and that comfiness will be gone even faster. Both in terms of wealth and geopolitics.