Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (88431)	4/1/2001 5:11:01 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

the point you missed was that we were talking about 2 different shirts at the same point in time - both valued differently in the market. you have melded them together and changed time frames to make a point. not fair! but, ok, let's go with it. the presupposition you make is that gdp should measure standard of living. that faulty leg causes the table to fall to the ground. gdp was never design to be the de facto standard of living gauge. it was design to measure the economic output of the nation. it no longer does so and i haven't heard a cogent reason why the old way didn't work other than "the numbers didn't look right given the info tech boom, so they must be wrong and we'll inflate them to whatever level we think is correct." this is called paradigm paralysis. rather than let the data direct you, you reach a conclusion and then go make the data fit your conclusion. i'd call that bad science, but it isn't even science. btw, do those shirts make for more economically productive people? should gdp care whether i have 5 shirts or 10 if it doesn't impact economic output? should gdp care if i "value" sunshine more on one day than another? perhaps, as you say, it should. would you support the govt randomly searching closets on an annual basis to see whether our closets are getting larger or smaller? ;-) standard of living ought to be measured. the question is whether it should be in gdp. >>Come on, you're a bright guy. It's because clothes are getting cheaper<< assuming this is true, the clothes apparently have not increased economic output so greenspan had to finagle the numbers. as for being a bright guy... i noticed you didn't answer the question ;-) btw, gdp should shed some light on quality of life, but it isn't quality of life gauge. i see our definitions are different so we'll never reach consensus. you think gdp should be everything to everybody. a unit productivity gauge, an economic productivity gauge and a quality of life gauge all wrapped into a single number that imparts truth. the real world dictates to me that your desire is an impossibility. rather, one ought to define what something is and measure. if measurement isn't possible, go back and measure what is measurable. the be all, end all is that alan.com didn't like the economic numbers so he bastardized gdp and turned it into an economic + chained dollars number... then has the gall to go out and compare economic + chain weighted to plain old vanilla economic numbers and mouths off about the new economy and how it is impossible to know a bubble while it is occurring. this is my issue. houses built on sand do not withstand the forces of reality.