That seems like a deflection to me. It's the standard measure every country uses and it's the metric we have used for decades so it's useful nevertheless.

If you want to argue that it doesn't measure the right things post the metric you are using and let's compare it to other countries and past governments.

[–] pluckytree 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Deflection is needed in this case. Nothing good comes from focusing on goods created while ignoring all the societal costs.

Cut down the remaining bush in NZ and selling it off would juice up the GDP, for example.

[–] BalpeenHammer 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Deflection is needed in this case. Nothing good comes from focusing on goods created while ignoring all the societal costs.

Something comes out of it which is comparison with other countries and the past.

Again. If you have an alternative metric that is being used elsewhere and has been used in the past you should state it and we can use it to compare.

Cut down the remaining bush in NZ and selling it off would juice up the GDP, for example.

That's what we do in this country. We cut down trees and sell them, we plow wild lands and turn them into paddocks, we sell milk and fruit. Most of our economy is based on extractive industries.

[–] pluckytree 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

From Simon Kuznets, who invented GDP as a concept:

Economic welfare cannot be adequately measured unless the personal distribution of income is known. And no income measurement undertakes to estimate the reverse side of income, that is, the intensity and unpleasantness of effort going into the earning of income. The welfare of a nation can, therefore, scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined above.

If he can question it, then we certainly should instead of just accepting it because “we’ve always done it this way”.

[–] BalpeenHammer 0 points 8 months ago

If he can question it, then we certainly should instead of just accepting it because “we’ve always done it this way”.

It's like you didn't read anything I wrote at all.

load more comments (2 replies)