U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-31-2017, 10:42 AM
509 509 started this thread
 
2,547 posts, read 3,751,796 times
Reputation: 2936

Advertisements

About half the growth in GDP is due to population growth. Since the role of economic statistics is to help policy makers make informed decisions is including population growth in the GDP calculation is misleading.

For the average American, on a per capita basis increases in GDP due to population growth is ZERO. In fact, one can argue that it is really a negative.

For years, growth in GDP was better distributed throughout society. Today, we have few big winners and lots of losers. Most economic statistics do not show this distribution. One reason it took so many years for the inequality issue to come to the fore.

Thoughts...how do we make economic statistics a better measure of how we are doing as a society?? And is the place to start with removing growth due to population from our GDP calculations??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:55 AM
 
8,298 posts, read 3,461,858 times
Reputation: 1588
There is GDP and there is per capita GDP.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 10:21 AM
 
Location: NJ
22,713 posts, read 28,597,649 times
Reputation: 14640
i think GDP due to government spending should be removed from the equation.

not that i am an expert but it seems like if the government is spending tons of money and racking up debt it shouldnt be appearing as improvement in economic activity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 11:22 AM
 
8,298 posts, read 3,461,858 times
Reputation: 1588
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
i think GDP due to government spending should be removed from the equation.

not that i am an expert but it seems like if the government is spending tons of money and racking up debt it shouldnt be appearing as improvement in economic activity.
Let's say the US Gov't hadn't spent a dime since 1776...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 11:53 AM
 
5,061 posts, read 3,337,145 times
Reputation: 4879
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509 View Post
About half the growth in GDP is due to population growth. Since the role of economic statistics is to help policy makers make informed decisions is including population growth in the GDP calculation is misleading.

For the average American, on a per capita basis increases in GDP due to population growth is ZERO. In fact, one can argue that it is really a negative.

For years, growth in GDP was better distributed throughout society. Today, we have few big winners and lots of losers. Most economic statistics do not show this distribution. One reason it took so many years for the inequality issue to come to the fore.

Thoughts...how do we make economic statistics a better measure of how we are doing as a society?? And is the place to start with removing growth due to population from our GDP calculations??
It already exists.

GDP per capita.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 01:22 PM
 
Location: NJ
22,713 posts, read 28,597,649 times
Reputation: 14640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
Let's say the US Gov't hadn't spent a dime since 1776...
you can say whatever you want but i am not going to say that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 01:28 PM
 
8,298 posts, read 3,461,858 times
Reputation: 1588
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
you can say whatever you want but i am not going to say that.
We have and need many more USD's today then in George Washington's time. So our federal gov't will have to do some money creation and spending along the way. Same as any modern and successful nation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 02:02 PM
 
4,757 posts, read 2,268,925 times
Reputation: 8833
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509 View Post
About half the growth in GDP is due to population growth. Since the role of economic statistics is to help policy makers make informed decisions is including population growth in the GDP calculation is misleading.
Real GDP per capita

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2018, 12:41 PM
 
Location: NJ
22,713 posts, read 28,597,649 times
Reputation: 14640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
We have and need many more USD's today then in George Washington's time.
why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2018, 05:48 PM
 
8,298 posts, read 3,461,858 times
Reputation: 1588
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
why?
More transactions, from more people, more businesses, more global trade and world use of the USD, more savings, more investments and inflation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top