RE: GDP Byte by Dean Baker, 1/31/01
Good points, Charles. What also needs to be recognized is that the Clinton-era expansion was fueled by unprecedented private sector borrowing, which is spending in excess of its income by an amount equal to about 6.5% of GDP. All the recent economic data, however, indicate that borrowing by households and firms is declining, as they try to bring spending more into line with incomes. Why can't we simply rely on the Fed to lower interest rates and thus boost borrowing and spending? Because the private sector is already burdened with debt accumulated as a result of unprecedented (private sector) deficit spending. Monetary easing could work only if households would actually increase their borrowing and cause the nation's saving rate (already negative) to continue to decline. -Original Message- From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 11:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:7655] GDP Byte by Dean Baker, 1/31/01 On one level, isn't the creditor class's ( and its executive committee , the Fed) constant concern about inflation , and method of fighting it by raising interest rates as simple as: 1) When interest rates go up, creditors get more profits just straight up ( so the claim that the interest rates are raised to fight inflation is a fig leaf for just directly increasing their profits), and 2) Inflation helps debtors and hurts creditors. CB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/01/01 11:22AM As Vickrey pointed out, it is unexpected changes in the rate of inflation and not inflation in and of itself that is of potential concern (in general, not under current conditions in our economy). As the Nobel-winner also emphasized, unemployment has greater cost social and economic costs than even unexpected changes in the rate of inflation, and the 'cure' for inflation hurts more than inflation itself. -Original Message- From: Jim Devine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 4:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:7613] Re: Re:GDP Byte by Dean Baker, 1/31/01 At 02:03 PM 1/31/01 -0800, you wrote: What are asset price bubbles if not inflation? "inflation," when unqualified, almost always refers to consumer price inflation. It's okay to add qualifications and thus to talk about asset inflation, inflation of rhetoric, grade inflation, cost-of-living inflation, etc., though. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: GDP
At 03:07 PM 5/17/00 -0400, you wrote: CB: Wasn't GDP socio-politically constructed in order to hoodwink the people ? no, it's a pretty good measure of the extent of market activity (or exchange-value). However, the "hoodwinking" comes in when economists treat (real) GDP as a measure of what's good for society (as a measure of use-value) and nature. And the idea that GDP was "socio-politically constructed" sounds like a conspiracy theory. People like Simon Kuznets developed the national income and product accounts in order to get some idea of what was happening to the economy as a whole. Compared to the microeconomic perspective, it was a step forward. In fact, the NIPAs reflect Keynesian ideas, just as the old Soviet system of Material Product Accounts reflect (a misinterpretation of) Marx's ideas. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: GDP
Jim Devine wrote: And the idea that GDP was "socio-politically constructed" sounds like a conspiracy theory. People like Simon Kuznets developed the national income and product accounts in order to get some idea of what was happening to the economy as a whole. No it doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory. The idea of "the economy as a whole" is a relatively recent historical innovation; people didn't think of an abstraction known as the economy until about 150 years ago. Why do we keep our accounts in national form? Why do we think of The Economy as nationally bounded? Why is it that only final sales are counted? (I think about half of all transactions are intermediate, and don't appear in the NIPAs.) Why is it that most nonmonetary transactions are excluded? Why is it that homeowner's rent is imputed? (Ever look at the imputations table in the annual NIPAs? Lots of stuff is imputed.) Why was software once counted as an expense, and now appears as an investment? Why do the flow of funds accountants treat consumer durables as an investment, and the NIPA folks treat them as consumption? Why do we separate the flow of funds and the NIPAs, though the SNA model unifies them? There are a whole lot of assumptions embedded in the NIPAs that we think of as perfectly "natural," but aren't natural at all. Doug
Re: Re: Re: GDP
At 03:50 PM 5/17/00 -0400, you wrote: Jim Devine wrote: And the idea that GDP was "socio-politically constructed" sounds like a conspiracy theory. People like Simon Kuznets developed the national income and product accounts in order to get some idea of what was happening to the economy as a whole. No it doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory. The idea of "the economy as a whole" is a relatively recent historical innovation; people didn't think of an abstraction known as the economy until about 150 years ago. Why do we keep our accounts in national form? Why do we think of The Economy as nationally bounded? Why is it that only final sales are counted? (I think about half of all transactions are intermediate, and don't appear in the NIPAs.) Why is it that most nonmonetary transactions are excluded? Why is it that homeowner's rent is imputed? (Ever look at the imputations table in the annual NIPAs? Lots of stuff is imputed.) Why was software once counted as an expense, and now appears as an investment? Why do the flow of funds accountants treat consumer durables as an investment, and the NIPA folks treat them as consumption? Why do we separate the flow of funds and the NIPAs, though the SNA model unifies them? There are a whole lot of assumptions embedded in the NIPAs that we think of as perfectly "natural," but aren't natural at all. it sounds conspiratorial the way Charles said it. But you're right that the NIPAs reflect the process of political conflict. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: GDP
Wasn't there a rush to improve data as in important element of WW I by the people associated with what became the NBER? I assume that Kuznets was connected to that effort, or at least some residue of it. Jim Devine wrote: At 03:50 PM 5/17/00 -0400, you wrote: Jim Devine wrote: And the idea that GDP was "socio-politically constructed" sounds like a conspiracy theory. People like Simon Kuznets developed the national income and product accounts in order to get some idea of what was happening to the economy as a whole. No it doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory. The idea of "the economy as a whole" is a relatively recent historical innovation; people didn't think of an abstraction known as the economy until about 150 years ago. Why do we keep our accounts in national form? Why do we think of The Economy as nationally bounded? Why is it that only final sales are counted? (I think about half of all transactions are intermediate, and don't appear in the NIPAs.) Why is it that most nonmonetary transactions are excluded? Why is it that homeowner's rent is imputed? (Ever look at the imputations table in the annual NIPAs? Lots of stuff is imputed.) Why was software once counted as an expense, and now appears as an investment? Why do the flow of funds accountants treat consumer durables as an investment, and the NIPA folks treat them as consumption? Why do we separate the flow of funds and the NIPAs, though the SNA model unifies them? There are a whole lot of assumptions embedded in the NIPAs that we think of as perfectly "natural," but aren't natural at all. it sounds conspiratorial the way Charles said it. But you're right that the NIPAs reflect the process of political conflict. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:11914] Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people.
Barkley Rosser, You know that in China the living standards of the poor haven't been raised. There are still a lot of people suffering from cold and hunger. They can't afford to send their children to school, and, as a result, too many children are deprived of education. I really sympathize with poor people in their sufferings. I hate bitterly bourgeois economists who use GDP to hoodwink poor people. Sincerely, Ju-chang He E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SHENZHEN, P.R. CHINA Welcome to My Homepage http://sites.netscape.net/juchang/homepage.html -Original Message- From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 3:25 AM Subject: [PEN-L:11766] Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people. J.-C., You live in what is by far the highest income part of the PRC, except for recently acquired Hong Kong to which Shenzhen is adjacent. How do I know that? Because it has a much higher per capita income than in the rest of the PRC, which is equal to per capita GDP (or gross regional product). I know that Shenzhen has a lot of inequality, and thus probably a lot of poverty. But does it have more than the rest of the PRC? Are living standards higher or lower in Shenzhen than in the rest of the PRC for the average citizen? If they are higher, then that is evidence that it is perfectly reasonable for, not just most countries, but all countries to keep track of GDP. Of course I fully agree that all countries should keep track of such things as poverty rates, Gini coefficients and physical measures of the standard of living as well. You continue to be simply off base with your claim that "GDP is unscientific because it does not help poor people." Barkley Rosser
[PEN-L:11934] Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people.
Although they don't hoodwink the rich they hoodwink the poor. So they are cheaters. I don't think that they are "cheaters" from a capitalist perspective, only from a socialist perspective. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine Sincerely, Ju-chang He E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SHENZHEN, P.R. CHINA Welcome to My Homepage http://sites.netscape.net/juchang/homepage.html
[PEN-L:11962] Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people.
I have asked Chang not to send this stuff to the list. I have unsubbed him and he resubbed. I will try rectify this as soon as I can. We have better things to do. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:11913] Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people.
-Original Message- From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 12:08 AM Subject: [PEN-L:11736] Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people. There's a large and growing literature on alternatives to GDP as a measure of "economic progress." For example, a San Francisco-based think-tank called REDEFINING PROGRESS measured a "Genuine Progress Indicator" which takes into account increasing inequality, increasing pollution, etc. (as negative factors) for the US, from the 1950s to the 1990s. Not surprisingly, the US growth process doesn't look very good when measured in this way. Not surprisingly, the orthodox economists dismissed the research. (BTW, it's possible to dismiss part of their research and accept the rest, creating a modified Genuine Progress Indicator. As far as I know, I'm the only one who has pursued this lead. If not, I'd like to know.) The GPI of course assumes that there is such a thing as "progress." Crucial to their efforts was the idea that you can attach dollar values to pollution damage, the effects of crime, traffic congestion, etc., etc., so that they can be added up to produce a single number. To me, this is like adding apples and oranges; use-values can't be added.However, it does provide a useful antidote to the adulation of real GDP in the press and by unthinking orthodox economists. (Most serious economists know that "real GDP" is at best a guestimate of "real progress," since the nature of the goods produced changes, the quality can fall and rise, etc., etc.) The (nominal) GDP, on the other hand, is based on the reasonable assumption that one can add up market revenues. But it's a measure of the size of the market, not of "progress." A country that is in the process of marketization -- like China -- can have a rising GDP simply because nonmarket production becomes marketized. Of course, the resulting rising GDP is then trumpeted as a "success," as "progress," etc. In the US, if the public libraries are shut down so that people have to buy books, that would likely promote GDP. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html Therefore all bourgeois economists are cheaters. It is because they disguise economic reality and appear to do so deliberately. They use the GDP, (Gross Domestic Product), to measure the whole economic status of a country and this results in the government paying no attention to the living standards of poor people. So poverty is perpetuated. Sincerely, Ju-chang He E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SHENZHEN, P.R. CHINA Welcome to My Homepage http://sites.netscape.net/juchang/homepage.html
[PEN-L:11917] Re: Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poorpeople.
I don't think that they are "cheaters" from a capitalist perspective, only from a socialist perspective. Therefore all bourgeois economists are cheaters. It is because they disguise economic reality and appear to do so deliberately. They use the GDP, (Gross Domestic Product), to measure the whole economic status of a country and this results in the government paying no attention to the living standards of poor people. So poverty is perpetuated. Sincerely, Ju-chang He E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SHENZHEN, P.R. CHINA Welcome to My Homepage http://sites.netscape.net/juchang/homepage.html Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:11920] Re: Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people.
J.-C., Do you "hate bitterly" the economists in Castro's government in Cuba who use the concept of GDP? Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 5:38 PM Subject: [PEN-L:11914] Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people. Barkley Rosser, You know that in China the living standards of the poor haven't been raised. There are still a lot of people suffering from cold and hunger. They can't afford to send their children to school, and, as a result, too many children are deprived of education. I really sympathize with poor people in their sufferings. I hate bitterly bourgeois economists who use GDP to hoodwink poor people. Sincerely, Ju-chang He E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SHENZHEN, P.R. CHINA Welcome to My Homepage http://sites.netscape.net/juchang/homepage.html -Original Message- From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 3:25 AM Subject: [PEN-L:11766] Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people. J.-C., You live in what is by far the highest income part of the PRC, except for recently acquired Hong Kong to which Shenzhen is adjacent. How do I know that? Because it has a much higher per capita income than in the rest of the PRC, which is equal to per capita GDP (or gross regional product). I know that Shenzhen has a lot of inequality, and thus probably a lot of poverty. But does it have more than the rest of the PRC? Are living standards higher or lower in Shenzhen than in the rest of the PRC for the average citizen? If they are higher, then that is evidence that it is perfectly reasonable for, not just most countries, but all countries to keep track of GDP. Of course I fully agree that all countries should keep track of such things as poverty rates, Gini coefficients and physical measures of the standard of living as well. You continue to be simply off base with your claim that "GDP is unscientific because it does not help poor people." Barkley Rosser
[PEN-L:11766] Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people.
J.-C., You live in what is by far the highest income part of the PRC, except for recently acquired Hong Kong to which Shenzhen is adjacent. How do I know that? Because it has a much higher per capita income than in the rest of the PRC, which is equal to per capita GDP (or gross regional product). I know that Shenzhen has a lot of inequality, and thus probably a lot of poverty. But does it have more than the rest of the PRC? Are living standards higher or lower in Shenzhen than in the rest of the PRC for the average citizen? If they are higher, then that is evidence that it is perfectly reasonable for, not just most countries, but all countries to keep track of GDP. Of course I fully agree that all countries should keep track of such things as poverty rates, Gini coefficients and physical measures of the standard of living as well. You continue to be simply off base with your claim that "GDP is unscientific because it does not help poor people." Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sunday, September 26, 1999 7:35 AM Subject: [PEN-L:11707] GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people. Nowadays, most countries all over the world use Gross Domestic Product to judge the economic growth of a certain country and, according to this GDP, calculate this country's economic growth rate. When there appears a large GDP and a high economic growth rate of 9% a year in a country, economists will say that the economy is great and the financial officers will be proud of it. But I will still say that the economy is bad. It is because poor people's living standards haven't been raised. There are still a lot of people suffering from cold and hunger. They can't afford to send their children to school, and, as a result, too many children are deprived of education. If I say that the economy is bad, the government has got to make every effort to raise the living standards of poor people. If economists say that the economy is great, there seems no need for the government to raise the living standards of poor people. When there is a small GDP and a negative economic growth rate of -2% a year, economists will say that the economy is bad and the financial officers will be ashamed of it. And then the government has got to make every effort to raise GDP, but not the living standards of poor people. Therefore, it appears that GDP is for the rich to hoodwink poor people to keep them poor. GDP as a measure of the whole economic situation for a country is unscientific, because it does not tell the whole story; and unfair for poor people, because it leaves them out of prosperity. The kernel of this issue is what economists use GDP to measure: the whole economic situation, or just the volume and production of goods sold? It is very clear that economists use GDP to measure the whole economic situation, not just the volume and production of goods sold. When there is a large GDP and a high economic growth rate, they will say that the economy is great and the financial officers will be proud of it although the living conditions of poor people is very bad and needs improving. They don't pay any attention to the living conditions of poor people. So there is no need for the government to raise the living standards of poor people. Therefore we say that GDP, as a measure of the whole economic situation, is unscientific and unfair for poor people, and GDP is merely a means used for the rich to hoodwink poor people to keep them poor. What Should We Do to Raise the Living Standards of Poor People? First, I'd like to prove that GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people. GDP is for the rich to hoodwink poor people. Then, instead of GDP, we use the living standards of the people to measure the whole economic situation of a country http://sites.netscape.net/juchang/fourthaa.html#find. Next, we can carry on state regulations and give guidance of market http://sites.netscape.net/juchang/marketaa.html#chart. In this way, the market will produce enough consumer goods of the first and second grade. According to today's productivity, it is not difficult to produce enough consumer goods of the first and second grade. The government should make laws to fix a minimum wage level in accordance with the economic situation of the country and make it clear that the wages of all the workers oughtn't to be lower than this level. The government should distribute relief fund among the unemployed and cripple. Therefore the living standards of poor people will undoubtedly be raised. If the government refuses to raise the living standards of poor people, we can call it a cheater-government. Then the government has every reason to regard a rise of the living standards of poor people as a matter of first importance. In order to use the living standards of the people instead of GDP to measure the whole economic situation of a country, I'd like to offer a
[PEN-L:11736] Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poorpeople.
There's a large and growing literature on alternatives to GDP as a measure of "economic progress." For example, a San Francisco-based think-tank called REDEFINING PROGRESS measured a "Genuine Progress Indicator" which takes into account increasing inequality, increasing pollution, etc. (as negative factors) for the US, from the 1950s to the 1990s. Not surprisingly, the US growth process doesn't look very good when measured in this way. Not surprisingly, the orthodox economists dismissed the research. (BTW, it's possible to dismiss part of their research and accept the rest, creating a modified Genuine Progress Indicator. As far as I know, I'm the only one who has pursued this lead. If not, I'd like to know.) The GPI of course assumes that there is such a thing as "progress." Crucial to their efforts was the idea that you can attach dollar values to pollution damage, the effects of crime, traffic congestion, etc., etc., so that they can be added up to produce a single number. To me, this is like adding apples and oranges; use-values can't be added.However, it does provide a useful antidote to the adulation of real GDP in the press and by unthinking orthodox economists. (Most serious economists know that "real GDP" is at best a guestimate of "real progress," since the nature of the goods produced changes, the quality can fall and rise, etc., etc.) The (nominal) GDP, on the other hand, is based on the reasonable assumption that one can add up market revenues. But it's a measure of the size of the market, not of "progress." A country that is in the process of marketization -- like China -- can have a rising GDP simply because nonmarket production becomes marketized. Of course, the resulting rising GDP is then trumpeted as a "success," as "progress," etc. In the US, if the public libraries are shut down so that people have to buy books, that would likely promote GDP. At 07:30 PM 09/26/1999 +0800, you wrote: Nowadays, most countries all over the world use Gross Domestic Product to judge the economic growth of a certain country and, according to this GDP, calculate this country's economic growth rate. When there appears a large GDP and a high economic growth rate of 9% a year in a country, economists will say that the economy is great and the financial officers will be proud of it. But I will still say that the economy is bad. It is because poor people's living standards haven't been raised. There are still a lot of people suffering from cold and hunger. They can't afford to send their children to school, and, as a result, too many children are deprived of education. If I say that the economy is bad, the government has got to make every effort to raise the living standards of poor people. If economists say that the economy is great, there seems no need for the government to raise the living standards of poor people. When there is a small GDP and a negative economic growth rate of -2% a year, economists will say that the economy is bad and the financial officers will be ashamed of it. And then the government has got to make every effort to raise GDP, but not the living standards of poor people. Therefore, it appears that GDP is for the rich to hoodwink poor people to keep them poor. GDP as a measure of the whole economic situation for a country is unscientific, because it does not tell the whole story; and unfair for poor people, because it leaves them out of prosperity. The kernel of this issue is what economists use GDP to measure: the whole economic situation, or just the volume and production of goods sold? It is very clear that economists use GDP to measure the whole economic situation, not just the volume and production of goods sold. When there is a large GDP and a high economic growth rate, they will say that the economy is great and the financial officers will be proud of it although the living conditions of poor people is very bad and needs improving. They don't pay any attention to the living conditions of poor people. So there is no need for the government to raise the living standards of poor people. Therefore we say that GDP, as a measure of the whole economic situation, is unscientific and unfair for poor people, and GDP is merely a means used for the rich to hoodwink poor people to keep them poor. What Should We Do to Raise the Living Standards of Poor People? First, I'd like to prove that GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people. GDP is for the rich to hoodwink poor people. Then, instead of GDP, we use the living standards of the people to measure the whole economic situation of a country http://sites.netscape.net/juchang/fourthaa.html#find. Next, we can carry on state regulations and give guidance of market http://sites.netscape.net/juchang/marketaa.html#chart. In this way, the market will produce enough consumer goods of the first and second grade. According to today's productivity, it is not difficult to produce enough consumer goods of the first and second grade. The
[PEN-L:6419] Re: GDP before and after communism in selected Balkan countries
Sorry about the columns. The system reacted strangely to the data. I wrote it out in three neat columns from 97 to 99 using the tab key. The data is still under the correct columns. Cheers K. Hanly Ken Hanly wrote: The source for this material is the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development--via a BBC news analysis. GDP in 3 selected years as percentage of GDP at the fall of communism (1989=100) Country1997 19981999 (est.) ALBANIA80 8690 BULGARIA 63 6566 CROATIA76 7879 MACEDONIA 56 5860 ROMANIA82 7674 BOSNIA30 3436 YUGOSLAVIA54 5048 I don't know if the estimates for 99 were made before or after the bombing. Now we know why the Rambouillet peace agreement has the bit about the free market economy. With these figures the population might not want one, and they don't even tell about level of social services or the distribution of income and wealth. Cheers, Ken Hanly
[PEN-L:607] Re: GDP - GPI
I wrote: Anyway, I don't think GDP should be replaced with the GPI. The former is an okay indicator of exchange-value while the latter is an effort to measure use-value. The fact that they go in opposite directions some times is a sign that Marx's contradiction between exchange-value and use-value is working. bill answeredI have to disagree with the "okay indicator of exchange value" = GDP claim jim. the exchange values only have private costs embedded in them (unless governments can impose some "environmental" levies or somesuch. so gdp would be much lower if it reflected what i would claim to be the true exchange value of capitalist production and exchange. I think this is a quibble about definitions. I don't think the "exchange value" of a commodity that Marx talked about included external costs (except when the commodity itself involves paying someone to clean up the environmental mess or provide hats to deal with UV rays from the ozone hole or the like). Somewhere Marx talks about the capitalist lust for exchange value (and surplus-value). I don't think they would lust for exchange value if it reflected the "true cost" or "true exchange value." (I've never seen the latter term before: to me it seems similar to notions of use-value.) in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:573] Re: GDP - GPI
About this conversion. I would be interested in making such transformation for Mexico. Where could we find the methodological notes? Mac
[PEN-L:583] Re: GDP - GPI
Jim said: Anyway, I don't think GDP should be replaced with the GPI. The former is an okay indicator of exchange-value while the latter is an effort to measure use-value. The fact that they go in opposite directions some times is a sign that Marx's contradiction between exchange-value and use-value is working. I have to disagree with the "okay indicator of exchange value" = GDP claim jim. the exchange values only have private costs embedded in them (unless governments can impose some "environmental" levies or somesuch. so gdp would be much lower if it reflected what i would claim to be the true exchange value of capitalist production and exchange. kind regards bill ##William F. Mitchell ### Head of Economics Department # University of Newcastle New South Wales, Australia ###*E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ### Phone: +61 49 215065 # ## ### +61 49 215065 Fax: +61 49 215065 ## WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html
RE: GDP vs ?
John Miller had a good little article on this subject in the Nov. 1990 issue of DOLLARS SENSE, TI titled "A Green GNP." in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
