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.
Gross Domestic Product: the total amount of goods and services PRODUCED by our nation in a year. This figure is used to measure the size and strength of the economy within a certain time period
Has anyone ever considered things destroyed in a year? Let's put this on a micro scale. That 1940s house built in a bustling Detroit counted toward GDP of that year. That house was just foreclosed and bulldozed over by the bank in 2010. This surely isn't an economically meaningless activity is it? If we can't count the house toward GDP, doesn't its destruction count away toward it? At the very least, shouldn't lost wealth and destruction have SOME part in our methods of measuring our economy on a macro scale?
C. Consumer spending. If people spend $100 on 20 items 5 years ago and then spend $140 for those same 10 items does that really mean things have improved?
I = Investment made by industry. Now this would be a good one and correct me if I'm wrong, industry is not investing in itself right now.
E = Excess of Exports over Imports. No, I don't think so here either.
G = Government Spending. Yes that is up but is this really a sign of a stronger economy?
C. Consumer spending. If people spend $100 on 20 items 5 years ago and then spend $140 for those same 10 items does that really mean things have improved?
I = Investment made by industry. Now this would be a good one and correct me if I'm wrong, industry is not investing in itself right now.
E = Excess of Exports over Imports. No, I don't think so here either.
G = Government Spending. Yes that is up but is this really a sign of a stronger economy?
I took econ in high school I'm well aware of what GDP comprises. What I want to discuss is if spending is a sufficient measure of economic health.
Gross Domestic Product: the total amount of goods and services PRODUCED by our nation in a year. This figure is used to measure the size and strength of the economy within a certain time period
Has anyone ever considered things destroyed in a year? Let's put this on a micro scale. That 1940s house built in a bustling Detroit counted toward GDP of that year. That house was just foreclosed and bulldozed over by the bank in 2010. This surely isn't an economically meaningless activity is it? If we can't count the house toward GDP, doesn't its destruction count away toward it? At the very least, shouldn't lost wealth and destruction have SOME part in our methods of measuring our economy on a macro scale?
First of all, you must consider the fact that politicians will "SMOKESCREEN" the real issues, and emphasize the numbers that make them look good. Another example is, if you have an ugly mole next to your ear, you're going to make sure your hair looks good and covers the mole so that people will look at your hair rather than the mole.
During the campaigns, you hear talk about "housing bubble", and "JOBS", but have you heard just one talking about "INCOME"? The dollar value of the production in one year is only a small part of the equation. But, as long as they keep your mind on that figure, you do not see other figures that don't make them look very good at all. They are directing your attention away from things that are detrimental. You don't get to see the whole picture because they're keeping your mind on what they want you to see.
Actually, it's a form of "mass hypnosis", and it seems to be quite effective.
C. Consumer spending. If people spend $100 on 20 items 5 years ago and then spend $140 for those same 10 items does that really mean things have improved?
I = Investment made by industry. Now this would be a good one and correct me if I'm wrong, industry is not investing in itself right now.
E = Excess of Exports over Imports. No, I don't think so here either.
G = Government Spending. Yes that is up but is this really a sign of a stronger economy?
They claim GDP is "up" but when you look at government "borrowed" spending at roughly 10% of GDP can you really say that GDP is growing? If you BORROW the money is it fair to count it in GDP? If that is the case I would be able to "borrow" my way into the upper class....
People tend to be too absent from the political process in this country.
They read poop somewhere or hear a stand up comic tell them crap and they take it as Gospel. In that regard we have some pathetic people among the good ones.
Gross Domestic Product: the total amount of goods and services PRODUCED by our nation in a year. This figure is used to measure the size and strength of the economy within a certain time period
Has anyone ever considered things destroyed in a year? Let's put this on a micro scale. That 1940s house built in a bustling Detroit counted toward GDP of that year. That house was just foreclosed and bulldozed over by the bank in 2010. This surely isn't an economically meaningless activity is it? If we can't count the house toward GDP, doesn't its destruction count away toward it? At the very least, shouldn't lost wealth and destruction have SOME part in our methods of measuring our economy on a macro scale?
I don't know, did you read any of the tens of thousands of books on economics? Did you bother to google "why is gpd important"?
This isn't a new, random, unknown topic. Stop being so lazy and do your own research. This forum doesn't exist to do that for you.
YOU seem to know more than some of the smartest economists in the world, hence your reason for posting on this forum instead of publishing your findings or teaching at the London School Of Economics or Wharton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan
Gross Domestic Product: the total amount of goods and services PRODUCED by our nation in a year. This figure is used to measure the size and strength of the economy within a certain time period
Has anyone ever considered things destroyed in a year? Let's put this on a micro scale. That 1940s house built in a bustling Detroit counted toward GDP of that year. That house was just foreclosed and bulldozed over by the bank in 2010. This surely isn't an economically meaningless activity is it? If we can't count the house toward GDP, doesn't its destruction count away toward it? At the very least, shouldn't lost wealth and destruction have SOME part in our methods of measuring our economy on a macro scale?
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.
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.
Let's put this on a micro scale. That 1940s house built in a bustling Detroit counted toward GDP of that year. That house was just foreclosed and bulldozed over by the bank in 2010. This surely isn't an economically meaningless activity is it? If we can't count the house toward GDP, doesn't its destruction count away toward it? At the very least, shouldn't lost wealth and destruction have SOME part in our methods of measuring our economy on a macro scale?
