On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
The burden of evidence is on the other side. To show that come consistent and reasonable index of welfare can be constructed. I think it is impossible. Furthermore I think it is impossible in the same sense as a PMM. See below. >> 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? Not quite. As soon as some index like GPI becomes popular enough that there are incentives for capitalists to increase this measure, they will find a way to game it by trial and error. If you try accounting for pollution costs, they'll find a way to pollute that minimizes this accounting cost. The point is that if the GPI becomes popular enough, there will always be an incentive to game it. And it is *impossible* to construct an index that cannot be gamed. In the same way that rich guys can find loopholes in *any* tax code no matter how well-designed. It is certainly true that some indexes are better than others. But in the end they are all fundamentally flawed. -raghu. -- A dyslexic man walks into a bra.. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
