I'm not sure the title captures the actual thinking. Consider: > For example, much of what looks like GDP growth since the Fifties was simply a matter of chang

I'm not sure the title captures the actual thinking. Consider: > For example, much of what looks like GDP growth since the Fifties was simply a matter of changing how we measured the value bundled up in family life. If, he points out, “you shift an economy from a single-income household with a homemaker to one with two breadwinners and a third person who’s a child-carer, statistically you have three jobs instead of one and therefore you have more GDP, and you will exaggerate the amount of progress that’s happened. To the degree that this is a true statement about employment and GDP measurement, I'd agree. It's a reflection of using money exchanged as the definition of economy. If money isn't exchanged, it isn't counted as part of the economy. Yet it is. Why wouldn't this be then a suggestion to find a non-financial (ie "squishy esg") method of accounting for things like quality of life? What else is the economy for?