for instance... From: Robert Costanza <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 8:58 AM Subject: new paper calculating Global GPI To: Solutions List <[email protected]>
Hi All. I just wanted to draw your attention to a recent paper (attached) I co-authored that calculates a global GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator). GPI takes income distribution into account, along with household and volunteer work and the costs of natural, social, and human capital depletion. This is the first synthesis of national GPI studies to get a global estimate. We got some pretty interesting results showing that global GPI/capita peaked in 1978. This means that globally the external costs of economic growth have outweighed the benefits since 1978. We also found that globally,GPI/capita does not increase beyond a GDP/capita of around $6,500/capita. Take a look and forward to others who may be interested. All the best Bob *Prof. Robert Costanza** | *Chair in Public Policy | Crawford Building (132) | The Australian National University | Canberra ACT 0200 | On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > Heresy... but I argue that shorter hours could increase real GDP growth. > My calculation is based on historical annual hours and labor productivity > trends. The key variable here is the ratio between final consumption goods > and intermediate goods. Beyond a certain point GDP "growth" has simply > reflected an extended chain of intermediate goods that are improperly > counted as final consumption goods (Kuznets's critique). > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Yes. That final "etc." includes the institutional arrangements about >> working hours. Sharply shorter hours -- four days, say -- will lower the >> unemployment rate. And the effect on GDP growth would also be welcomed by >> some. >> >> >> On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Doug Henwood wrote: >> >> > >> > On Jul 31, 2013, at 12:53 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> I wasn't disagreeing with raghu on this. Besides, the last issue of >> >> LBO used a version of Okun's "Law" (which is admittedly noisy and >> >> changes over time). >> > >> > Well, to be pedantic, I was tying employment growth to GDP growth. The >> unemployment rate is also sensitive to participation rates, demographics, >> etc. >> > _______________________________________________ >> > pen-l mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > > Tom Walker (Sandwichman) -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
