On 5/8/05, tom walker wrote:
... What would productivity change
look like if we used a Genuine Progress Indicator
rather than the GDP as the surrogate?
I'm a fan of the GPI, but I don't see it as a substitute for the GDP.
Whereas the GDP is a measure of exchange-value, the GPI is an effort
to
Jim,
I'm afraid you're tying yourself up in knots
countering an argument nobody made: substituting the
GPI for the GDP. All that I'm talking about is an
exercise that highlights the abstract nature of a
productivity that is unconcerned with the questions of
what use? and for whom?
The exercise
tom walker wrote:
I'm afraid you're tying yourself up in knots
countering an argument nobody made: substituting the
GPI for the GDP. All that I'm talking about is an
exercise that highlights the abstract nature of a
productivity that is unconcerned with the questions of
what use? and for whom?
You
Tom W writes: It is also good for correcting a misconception that GDP
measures something it doesn't: social wellbeing.
who on pen-l suffers from this misconception?
Are you suggesting that capital will go on strike if people so much
as think critically in terms other than exchange values?
no.
Jim Devine wrote:
But if the government started using the GPI (or similar) to measure
the economy's success, it wouldn't last -- unless there were a mass
movement to back it up.
It would also be really really hard to calculate. There are enough
imputations already in the NIPAs (take a look at
[too bad the questions were weak.]
Bush Gets Tough Queries From Youths in Holland
Amid war ceremonies, president holds a round- table where he is asked
about anti-terrorism measures and impact of combat on U.S. public.
By Peter Wallsten
May 9, 2005/L.A. TIMES
MAASTRICHT, Netherlands -- At
One of the problems with a GPI-type measure is that it assumes that
there's a social welfare function, something that economists have
shown cannot exist (though they then go on to use it or similar,
implicitly or explicitly). The only way I know to aggregate
preferences is through democracy, not
Are you referring to the Arrow impossibility theorem? Samuelson says that
the theorem does not refer to a social-welfare function but to a voting
rule. If you go back to the original Bergson article (written under the
pseudonym Burke), you find the social welfare function formulated in a way
that
The revolutionary heritage of the '60s turmoil
The Party: The Socialist Workers Party, 1960-1988, a Political Memoir.
Volume 1: The Sixties
By Barry Sheppard
Resistance Books
354 pages, $29.95
Visit http://www.resistancebooks.com
REVIEW BY FRED FELDMAN
How has the Cuban Revolution helped those
On 5/9/05, Robert Scott Gassler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you referring to the Arrow impossibility theorem?
there are all sorts of arguments against social welfare functions.
The main point about GNP or GDP is that it is supposed to be a measure of
how much junk is produced. Like the
The revolutionary heritage of the '60s turmoil
The Party: The Socialist Workers Party, 1960-1988, a Political Memoir.
Volume 1: The Sixties
By Barry Sheppard
Resistance Books
354 pages, $29.95
Visit http://www.resistancebooks.com
REVIEW BY FRED FELDMAN
Here's my take on Sheppard's book:
Doesn't economics necessarily suffer from misplaced concreteness. If a
slave driver gets better whips, does that improve efficiency. Are the
whips a technological improvement?
As mentioned in earlier posts, speedups show up in the data for
industrial accidents -- although speedups also occur in
I don't think he talks about the "production" of happiness, but in his
new book, Happiness, Richard Layard asserts that happiness is a
scalar and can be measured. Or something like measured. Quite an
interesting book.
Gene Coyle
Jim Devine wrote:
On 5/9/05, Robert Scott Gassler [EMAIL
Eugene Coyle wrote:
I don't think he talks about the production of happiness, but in his new
book, Happiness, Richard Layard asserts that happiness is a scalar and can be
measured. Or something like measured. Quite an interesting
It does seem unlikely that happiness can be measured -- or
Layard doesn't do anything like this, but he does assert findings that,
across countries, with a certain minimum level of income per capita,
happiness is independent of income per capita.
Gene.
Carrol Cox wrote:
Eugene Coyle wrote:
I don't think he talks about the "production" of
There's a whole literature on measuring happiness using polling data
(indicating that up to a point, increases in GDP-defined income raises
happiness, but then it levels off, among other things). But people are
too complicated for such exercises. The only system that reduces
everything to a single
The Intensifying Global Struggle for Energy
By Michael T. Klare
From Washington to New Delhi, Caracas to Moscow and Beijing, national
leaders and corporate executives are stepping up their efforts to gain
control over major sources of oil and natural gas as the global struggle
for energy
Chronicle of Higher Education, May 13, 2005
When Students Complain About Professors, Who Gets to Define the Controversy?
By JON WIENER
The media storm around Columbia's Middle Eastern-studies department
provides one of the few cases in which students' complaints about
professors' classroom conduct
I think it is already difficult enough to measure some kind of
satisfaction.
To think to be able to measure happiness appears to me to be a good
measure of madness!
Massimo Portolani
Eugene Coyle wrote:
I don't think he talks about the production of happiness, but in
his new book, Happiness,
This is a reminder that the first Malthus Lecture will take place in
the Weston Auditorium, De Havilland Campus, University of
Hertfordshire, Hatfield UK, on 6.00pm on Thursday 12 May. The location
is about one mile by taxi from Hatfield railway station, with fast
trains from King's Cross in
The bond market is still anticipating an economic downturn, reports today's
Wall Street Journal. Although the Fed has hiked short term interest rates
eight times in the past year, long term yields have continued to fall.
The spread between the two year Treasury note at 3.7% and the ten year
Robert Scott Gassler wrote:
The main point about GNP or GDP is that it is
supposed to be a measure of
how much junk is produced.
And my point would be that the GDP doesn't even
measure that. You could produce less junk and still
have the GDP go up with medical costs, police and
incarceration
As a matter of fact, I think malaise would be a good
name for the moral hazard that the GDP engenders.
not nausea?
--
Jim Devine
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
An Appeal to the U.S. Antiwar Movement for United Demonstrations in
the Fall: http://uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=8021.
Please sign a petition (initiated by US Labor Against the War) to
appeal to U.S. antiwar leadership bodies to initiate a call for
united national demonstrations in the
Robert Scott Gassler wrote:
If you go back to the original Bergson
article (written under the
pseudonym Burke), you find the social welfare
function formulated in a way
that makes it virtually impossible to refute.
It has been my contention that a key assumption
Bergson adopted from Barone
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1480182,00.html
In China's richest village, peasants are all shareholders now - by
order of the party
Model community with spectacular industrial growth owes as much to
feudalism as to communism
Jonathan Watts in Huaxi village
Tuesday May 10, 2005
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Party: The Socialist Workers Party, 1960-1988, a Political Memoir. Volume 1: The Sixties By Barry Sheppard Resistance Books 354 pages, $29.95 Visit http://www.resistancebooks.com
REVIEW BY FRED FELDMAN
Comment
I actually ordered the above book from:
michael perelman writes:Our data is also very much a reflection of
our capitalist system. I do not believe that a socialist economy
would have invented the same method for calculating a GDP.
That's interesting, because Marx developed a lot of the concepts used
in capitalist national income
V + S = value added? what about depreciation in value added?
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 08:45:26PM -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
michael perelman writes:Our data is also very much a reflection of
our capitalist system. I do not believe that a socialist economy
would have invented the same method
gross value-added includes depreciation, while net value-added
doesn't. Marx was dealing with net, no?
On 5/9/05, Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
V + S = value added? what about depreciation in value added?
--
Jim Devine
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
30 matches
Mail list logo
