3 ms·

This is not true, the sale of used goods / intermediate goods / transfer payments is not counted in GDP [1]. As an aside, be careful with tone that sounds too

by jsdaa 4y ago

This is not true, the sale of used goods / intermediate goods / transfer payments is not counted in GDP [1]. As an aside, be careful with tone that sounds too sure. If I hadn't know, I would have guessed you knew a lot of this topic based on the tone you're using here. I personally try to sound more doubtful on topics I don't know enough about. [1]: https://opentextbc.ca/principlesofeconomics/chapter/19-1-measuring-the-size-of-the-economy-gross-domestic-product/#:~:text=The%20sales%20of%20used%20goods,part%20of%20that%20year's%20GDP https://opentextbc.ca/principlesofeconomics/chapter/19-1-mea....

s1artibartfast 4y ago
You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct, but I think it misses the mark when it comes to reality. In reality, I think a vast amount of double counting occurs. That said, the point that I was trying to get across was the decoupling of GDP from what most people would consider material well being. This mostly revolves around the growing proportion of GDPs being made up by finance and services. [think widget backed financial instruments, widget insurance, widget services, ect]
- throwaway14356 4y ago
  what has GDP done for me??
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Show me where the GDP touched you
    - throwaway14356 4y ago
      If you can have durable quality of life in exchange for GDP there is nothing to discuss. If people are less productive things get more expensive which is good for GDP. GDP hates all of us.
- anm89 4y ago
  GDP is a technical concept. There's no other meaningful way to be correct about it besides technically. It's like saying, yeah, you might be technically correct about the mass of an electron but i was just saying anecdotally. There is no reason to ever talk about that that isn't technical. >I could make a $1 widget, then the two of us could exchange it back and forth to produce an arbitrarily High Gdp. This isn't kind of sort of correct if you look from a different angle or something. It's wrong. Its always wrong. It's wrong in every context. It's 1+1 = 17 wrong. It's okay to admit when you are wrong.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Do you have anything to say about my greater point, which I think is still meaningful? >That said, the point that I was trying to get across was the decoupling of GDP from what most people would consider material well being. I readily admit that I used a bad example in my response post, and even added an edit admitting so much in the original. >GDP is a technical concept. There's no other meaningful way to be correct about it besides technically. There is a concept and then there is practice, and they do not always align.

by jsdaa 4y ago

s1artibartfast 4y ago

You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct, but I think it misses the mark when it comes to reality. In reality, I think a vast amount of double counting occurs. That said, the point that I was trying to get across was the decoupling of GDP from what most people would consider material well being. This mostly revolves around the growing proportion of GDPs being made up by finance and services. [think widget backed financial instruments, widget insurance, widget services, ect]

throwaway14356 4y ago
what has GDP done for me??
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Show me where the GDP touched you
  - throwaway14356 4y ago
    If you can have durable quality of life in exchange for GDP there is nothing to discuss. If people are less productive things get more expensive which is good for GDP. GDP hates all of us.
anm89 4y ago
GDP is a technical concept. There's no other meaningful way to be correct about it besides technically. It's like saying, yeah, you might be technically correct about the mass of an electron but i was just saying anecdotally. There is no reason to ever talk about that that isn't technical. >I could make a $1 widget, then the two of us could exchange it back and forth to produce an arbitrarily High Gdp. This isn't kind of sort of correct if you look from a different angle or something. It's wrong. Its always wrong. It's wrong in every context. It's 1+1 = 17 wrong. It's okay to admit when you are wrong.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Do you have anything to say about my greater point, which I think is still meaningful? >That said, the point that I was trying to get across was the decoupling of GDP from what most people would consider material well being. I readily admit that I used a bad example in my response post, and even added an edit admitting so much in the original. >GDP is a technical concept. There's no other meaningful way to be correct about it besides technically. There is a concept and then there is practice, and they do not always align.