> In the US the amount of energy used to create an inflation adjusted dollar of GDP has been declining since 1949. That does more to cast doubt on the GDP than

> In the US the amount of energy used to create an inflation adjusted dollar of GDP has been declining since 1949. That does more to cast doubt on the GDP than anything else; a lot of the commonly used metrics are flawed. One of the interesting things about the Trump campaign(s) is his message is typically that the economy is bad and it seems a lot of people have on-the-ground experiences that match that. Since GDP dissociated from energy use in the 70s, I tend to side with the people who think the metrics are flawed. If GDP isn't a proxy for energy it isn't obvious what it is measuring or why anyone should care about that - for all that people do for reasons that are hard to unravel. There is a such a thing as intangible wealth but on aggregate it still pales compared to the tangible sort that requires energy. > Just moving from coal and gas plants ... One of the reasons I link the OurWorldInData series is they include fudge factors to try and account for that. If you look at the graph you can see it uses something they call the substitution method. I get the vague feeling this has been pointed out to you before but maybe not.