3 ms·

I don't have USA examples but as a French citizen, I know that we can have an increase in GDP thanks to an increase in state (+SS) spending which is itself enab

I don't have USA examples but as a French citizen, I know that we can have an increase in GDP thanks to an increase in state (+SS) spending which is itself enabled by a higher debt each year. We've been doing this in France for decades, but in recent years it was done by French politicians on an extraordinary scale while they claimed to an international audience that they bring more rigor in spending. I think you did the same on a bigger scale.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> we can have an increase in GDP thanks to an increase in state (+SS) spending This is juicing the metrics. Not changing the metrics. Juicing is real. Changing is mostly a conspiracy among the uneducated, at least in America.
- surge 3y ago
  Juicing vs changing is just spin. Edit: Since I can't reply, if your measure doesn't account for unsustainable practices, then its not really a measure, or you're intentionally "changing" the measure to leave out accounting for unsustainable practices. Measuring growth in a fund when its all just a ponzi scheme isn't how we measure fund performance on a report. If this is done, its either intentional or incompetent. Either, is very bad when dictating policy.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Juicing vs changing is just spin This is obviously untrue. An owner of a timber forest may measure how many trees they cut down each year. If they double the rate at which they cut down trees, that doesn't mean the way trees are counted has changed. It means they're harvesting unsustainably. > then its not really a measure, or you're intentionally "changing" the measure to leave out accounting for unsustainable practices. No, it's the nature of measures. What gets measured gets managed. The measure is still useful, it's just being read without context. The degree of unsustainability is widely discussed because there are other measures, also collected and disseminated and picked apart, that characterise it. If you're making personal, commercial or policy decisions based on the headline metric, you should learn more about how to read the metrics as a whole. That isn't a problem with the measures, it's one of education.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> we can have an increase in GDP thanks to an increase in state (+SS) spending This is juicing the metrics. Not changing the metrics. Juicing is real. Changing is mostly a conspiracy among the uneducated, at least in America.

surge 3y ago
Juicing vs changing is just spin. Edit: Since I can't reply, if your measure doesn't account for unsustainable practices, then its not really a measure, or you're intentionally "changing" the measure to leave out accounting for unsustainable practices. Measuring growth in a fund when its all just a ponzi scheme isn't how we measure fund performance on a report. If this is done, its either intentional or incompetent. Either, is very bad when dictating policy.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Juicing vs changing is just spin This is obviously untrue. An owner of a timber forest may measure how many trees they cut down each year. If they double the rate at which they cut down trees, that doesn't mean the way trees are counted has changed. It means they're harvesting unsustainably. > then its not really a measure, or you're intentionally "changing" the measure to leave out accounting for unsustainable practices. No, it's the nature of measures. What gets measured gets managed. The measure is still useful, it's just being read without context. The degree of unsustainability is widely discussed because there are other measures, also collected and disseminated and picked apart, that characterise it. If you're making personal, commercial or policy decisions based on the headline metric, you should learn more about how to read the metrics as a whole. That isn't a problem with the measures, it's one of education.