2 ms·

If "finance, insurance ... " and "Government" are actually the drivers to GDP growth then one has quite a bit more to worry about than the fact that this number

If "finance, insurance ... " and "Government" are actually the drivers to GDP growth then one has quite a bit more to worry about than the fact that this number is a mere 2.4% I was more referring to growth in the value of the companies in the snp 500. https://insight.factset.com/are-the-magnificent-7-the-top-contributors-to-earnings-growth-for-the-sp-500-for-q1 https://insight.factset.com/are-the-magnificent-7-the-top-co... Why I responded initially was because the focus on GDP per capita. This isnt a great way to compare living standards and it isnt a great way to compare economic prowess.

refurb 2y ago
Are you suggesting financial services aren’t “real GDP”? Why? And instead of GDP you think S&P is a better metric? It’s even less relevant than GDP to QOL.
- petermcneeley 2y ago
  No sure if you will see this so I will simply summarize 1. I dont think it makes much sense to compare GDP per capita of china and the USA when trying to understand the power of their economies. It is the excessively demos thinking that causes one to focus on GDP per capita. 2. I dont think the prices of things are the same in China vs USA. I dont mean simply rice or rent but say building a road or a bridge. 3. Following from this I dont think one can compare QoL based on GPD per capita. It is also very hard to compare QoL which is a human lived experience thing between different societies. Whereas one can more easily compare the USA to Canada. 3. Economic financialization is generally seen as a bad thing. And government services tend to be inefficient. So GDP growth in these areas is either a bad sign or just a sign of faulty data. 4. The digital tech sector is growing. Other sectors have slow growth. This is reflected in the SNP500. 5. America has started protecting its tech sector. EV cars. Phones. Chips. One could go on but overall I think (as a materialist) these trends point to a precarious position for the USA economy.

refurb 2y ago

Are you suggesting financial services aren’t “real GDP”? Why? And instead of GDP you think S&P is a better metric? It’s even less relevant than GDP to QOL.

petermcneeley 2y ago
No sure if you will see this so I will simply summarize 1. I dont think it makes much sense to compare GDP per capita of china and the USA when trying to understand the power of their economies. It is the excessively demos thinking that causes one to focus on GDP per capita. 2. I dont think the prices of things are the same in China vs USA. I dont mean simply rice or rent but say building a road or a bridge. 3. Following from this I dont think one can compare QoL based on GPD per capita. It is also very hard to compare QoL which is a human lived experience thing between different societies. Whereas one can more easily compare the USA to Canada. 3. Economic financialization is generally seen as a bad thing. And government services tend to be inefficient. So GDP growth in these areas is either a bad sign or just a sign of faulty data. 4. The digital tech sector is growing. Other sectors have slow growth. This is reflected in the SNP500. 5. America has started protecting its tech sector. EV cars. Phones. Chips. One could go on but overall I think (as a materialist) these trends point to a precarious position for the USA economy.