>Brad McCormick wrote:
>
>So when the country's Gross/Grotesque National Product is
>"rising", it's not clear whether more is being accomplished for
>persons. Economists out there: I'm sure this would be both
>technically difficult and also ideologically contentious
>(since what I consider overhead, e.g., people needing automobiles
>to drive to work because they cannot conveniently walk there,
>some others might consider "productive" and satisfying
>genuine human needs...), but are there any figures as to
>what one might call a "Net National Product"?
There is a whole discussion about this under the heading "Genuine Progress Indicators."
See for example
http://www.rprogress.org/pubs/gpi1999/gpi1999.html#top
Zeno
