me: >> I'm sure that the folks at "Redefining Progress" (who calculate the >> GPI) would be a tad miffed by Tom's attribution of religious feelings >> to them. By the way, they see themselves as _critics_ of "economic >> growth" as normally defined (i.e., by real GDP).
raghu: > No doubt. They may be well-intentioned, but they are trying to build a > perpetual motion machine. you think so? is there evidence for this assertion? >> (1) Using real GDP to measure "economic growth" is really just >> measuring the growth of market activity (exchange value), even when >> corrected for inflation. It's not a measure of human welfare (assuming >> that such a thing can be measured). raghu: > That's just the point: it can't be measured. To measure "welfare", > we'd first have to define it. It is like that judge said about > defining pornography: we can't precisely define what "welfare" is but > we'd know it when we see it. alas, economists "see it" (improved human welfare) all the time (as rising real GDP). >> (4) The seeming fact that measure such as the Genuine Progress >> Indicator stopped growing in the 1970s and after in the U.S. also >> suggests the validity of point (1). > That's because the GPI is obscure and no one cares about it much. The > moment economists and politicians start paying attention to it, it > will stop measuring anything meaningful. The very fact that a lot of > people care so much about it will make it completely useless. huh? If the calculation follows the same rules, e.g., counting the impact of pollution as a cost to be subtracted from GDP, then the number would have the same meaning, wouldn't it? -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
