yes, as I've said before, there's a difference between real GDP (an effort to measure exchange-value) and the GPI (an effort to measure use-value).
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > for instance... > > From: Robert Costanza <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 8:58 AM > Subject: new paper calculating Global GPI > To: Solutions List <[email protected]> > > > Hi All. > > I just wanted to draw your attention to a recent paper (attached) I > co-authored that calculates a global GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator). GPI > takes income distribution into account, along with household and volunteer > work and the costs of natural, social, and human capital depletion. This is > the first synthesis of national GPI studies to get a global estimate. > > We got some pretty interesting results showing that global GPI/capita peaked > in 1978. This means that globally the external costs of economic growth have > outweighed the benefits since 1978. We also found that globally,GPI/capita > does not increase beyond a GDP/capita of around $6,500/capita. > > Take a look and forward to others who may be interested. > > All the best > Bob > > Prof. Robert Costanza | Chair in Public Policy | Crawford Building (132) | > The Australian National University | Canberra ACT 0200 | > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Heresy... but I argue that shorter hours could increase real GDP growth. >> My calculation is based on historical annual hours and labor productivity >> trends. The key variable here is the ratio between final consumption goods >> and intermediate goods. Beyond a certain point GDP "growth" has simply >> reflected an extended chain of intermediate goods that are improperly >> counted as final consumption goods (Kuznets's critique). >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Yes. That final "etc." includes the institutional arrangements about >>> working hours. Sharply shorter hours -- four days, say -- will lower the >>> unemployment rate. And the effect on GDP growth would also be welcomed by >>> some. >>> >>> >>> On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Doug Henwood wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > On Jul 31, 2013, at 12:53 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> >> I wasn't disagreeing with raghu on this. Besides, the last issue of >>> >> LBO used a version of Okun's "Law" (which is admittedly noisy and >>> >> changes over time). >>> > >>> > Well, to be pedantic, I was tying employment growth to GDP growth. The >>> > unemployment rate is also sensitive to participation rates, demographics, >>> > etc. >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > pen-l mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> pen-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> Tom Walker (Sandwichman) > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > Tom Walker (Sandwichman) > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Jim Devine / "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
