Sorry guys, gotta disagree. While there is no possible way to arrive at a definition of median GDP statically, this is only because the static concept of GDP isn't realistic in an economy that functions dynamically. In the real world, perceived intuitively if not in theory, as apparently Gene does, (I), as well as (G) and (X-M), are all being determined (realized) over time by (C). So for as long as the values of plant and equipment, parks and roads, exports and imports, and every other capital value one can think of, on penalty of default are in need of being realized over time through the direct spending of gross personal income, (unless I'm missing something here) an intuitively arrived at definition of GDP fits the dynamic depiction of real-world events far better than the deficient current theoretical one, showing unrealized values as being determinate. Btw., Marx too was hopelessly confused about the formation and realization of capital values in terms of its unit of account. To my mind, chapter 17 of Cap. II and chapter III sect. 10 of the ToSV provide ample proof of that.
John V On 2016-03-20 10:16 AM, raghu wrote: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:08 AM, nathan tankus wrote: > > "I am afraid I am still confused. My question is a purely technical one: how do you define median GDP?" > > > > the point I think Raghu is making is you can assign personal income and benefits to individuals but you can't assign plant and equipment, parks and roads, exports and imports to individuals for the purposes of a median measure. median personal income and median personal disposable income are workable concepts. > > > > Precisely! > -raghu. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
