enlighten me, please. Granted that the technical definition of a recession is two quarters of negative economic growth, but when talks about a multiyear period such at the 1990s, isn't per capita GDP the more appropriate indicator? (because over this period the population has changed significantly, and "GDP growth" is nothing to cheer about if it's slower than population growth?) -b At 06:46 PM 9/22/99 +0200, Patrick Bond wrote: >On 21 Sep 99, at 12:35, Doug Henwood wrote: >Doug: >> There have been horrible social disasters in these parts of the >> world, but they're not accurately described as recessions or >> depressions in the economic sense except for the former USSR. Africa >> shows positive GDP growth in the 1990s > >After someone has suffered a knockout punch, a wee flicker of the >eyelid may indeed seem like positive GDP growth. But last time I >looked around the continent, I mainly saw 1950s per capita GDP >land. > > >Patrick Bond >(Wits University Graduate School of Public and Development Management) >home: 51 Somerset Road, Kensington 2094, Johannesburg >office: 22 Gordon Building, Wits University Parktown Campus >mailing address: PO Box 601 WITS 2050 >phones: (h) (2711) 614-8088; (o) 488-5917; fax 484-2729 >emails: (h) [EMAIL PROTECTED]; (o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------------------------------- Robert Naiman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Preamble Center 1737 21st NW Washington, DC 20009 phone: 202-265-3263 x277 fax: 202-265-3647 http://www.preamble.org/ -------------------------------
