bgr, gdp growth is no longer an economic measure. it is a mix of economic and technical measures - apples and oranges blended together, if you will.
economic / technical gdp growth of 4-6% is equal to about 2-3% of straight economic gdp growth.
decisions used to be made on the economic measure. now they are made on the economic / technical measure - with no distinction in the not MAJOR difference in calculation. it is important to know the difference.
if you sell 100 pii 300s one year for $100k and sell 100 pii 750s the next for $100k AND the marginal economic gdp growth was 0% from pii 300 to piii 750s THEN the economic productivity measure says you didn't grow gdp at all. The technical productivity measure may be up 100%. the economic measure says, so what, you didn't improve the economy one iota.
the irony is that any marginal gdp growth is captured in increased revenues in companies that purchase computers. if it doesn't then the economic benefits of computers don't exist on a macro level.
the answer? measure technical growth, mix it in with economic growth to boost the number by 100% or so and sell it as economic growth.
computers do, undoubtedly, make certain jobs more efficient. however, reducing cost ISN'T macro economic growth. it is taking money from the worker pool and adding it to the owner pool. net, net, NO macro economic effect has occurred, all else being equal.
conclusion:
1. the economic impact of computers can be measured very easily by monitoring traditional ECONOMIC growth.
2. the marginal economic impact of faster computers is already taken into 100% account using the economic measures. companies that buy computers either generate more revenue or they don't have a positive macro economic impact.
3. the powers that be didn't like the results, postulated the results MUST be wrong based upon their anecdotal experience and vested self interest (not necessarily in that order!) and changed the measure to represent growth in technology in addition to economic growth. the growth in technology portion has exactly 0 economic impact b/c that has already been properly measured in the economic measure.
mike and i agree the best way to measure gdp growth is to use economic measures to gauge a metric that is advertised as an economic number.
if not, why not add a multiplier for the number tissue rectangles in roll of toilet paper? increasing that number has EXACTLY the same macro economic impact as the technology measurement of - NONE. |
