Like I said, I'm not sure how that works out in practice. I take the Fisherian concept to refer to Fisher's definition of income, pp. 103-109 of his The Nature of Capital and Income. But if one was to take that literally it seems to me that it would require a massive undertaking of data mining and estimation to come anywhere close to that. So maybe what Lawn means is that "in principle" the GPI and ISEW conform to a Fisherian concept even though in practice they are assembled by adding and subtracting to GDP?
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Tom Walker wrote: > > Philip Lawn argues that GPI and the ISEW (index of sustainable economic > > welfare) don't merely add and subtract components to GDP but are based > on a > > "Fisherian" concept of income. I'm not sure how that works out in > practice > > but that's what he says. > > I don't know the "Fisherian" concept, but if you look at the appendix > of the last GPI pamphlet, it's mostly based on adding up benefits and > subtracting costs using shadow prices (i.e., using the wage to measure > the value of leisure time). The exception to this rule is the > adjustment for the unequal distribution of income. > > -- > 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 > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
