Except, according to Simon Kuznets (1947), not all the double counting has been removed. So does Skousen want even more double counting?
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Lakshmi Rhone <[email protected]>wrote: > The Hayekian argument against GDP calculations is not for double counting > but against the misuse of GDP calculations from which double-counting has > been removed. > > "It is actually a net measure and purposely excludes 'intermediate goods' > that are purchased to be used as inputs in producing other goods and > services. It is a strictly value added figure... "In short, the GNP data > exclude the critical intermediate stages of production. Advocates of this > traditional approach do so because, they say, they wish to studiously avoid > double counting... "Further, the net method (GNP) greatly exaggerates the > role of consumption in the economy, giving the deceptive impression that > most of the natinal output is in consumption goods rather than investment. > Such thinking encourages economists and govt officials to for the misleading > idea that consumer spending, being the largest section of the economy, must > be stimulated in order to get the economy out a slump." Mark Skousen, The > Structure of Production, p. 190 > > So on this basis Hayek argued against "spending economics", i.e. > "anti-savings" policy (progressive taxation for unemployment insurance and > public sector job creation, collective bargaining rights, higher minimum > wages) that would presumably raise the consumption component of aggregate > demand and therewith national income. The debate here is between Skousen and > Robert Reich. > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
