nathan tankus wrote: > ... From Marx's perspective, it would > seem to me obvious that the growth that matters is growth in the net > product per year IE gross output- depreciation costs. from this > perspective our economy has been shrinking because we are keeping > gross output growing by reducing stocks of wealth (ie natural > resources) and thus reducing our ability to produce output in the > future. in other words our planet is being liquidated. I don't think > anyone would call a liquidation of stocks of assets income. From this > point of view, the goal is to stop our economy from shrinking further > and perhaps actually start growing.
that's one of the points of calcuating the GPI. > by the way: GDP was not invented to be a measure of human welfare. it > was invented to measure financial flows and understand the > interrelated balance sheets of economic sectors. it's quite good at > that. It's inventors in fact warned against using it as such. It's slightly more accurate, I think, to say that GDP was invented to measure the circular flow of money from spending to business income to national income, as in a Keynesian model. -- 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
