I think you are still missing the point, Ludwig. I shall try to explain myself better.

>>But you’ve got to admit that if illnesses increase, there would be more economic activity resulting from more doctors and nurses<<

Absolutely not.

If you follow your idea to its logical conclusion, if the economy consisted of only patients and their doctors and nurses, where would the money come from to pay the wages? The government and the insurance companies would soon have emptied their coffers, simply to care for the sick. As a result, there would be no GDP to measure, since GDP is measured in dollars. If you disagree with this, try to describe for me where exactly the GDP in such a scenario may be found.

>>I really think you will find that there is no fallacy here. But please keep trying to convince me.<<

Frankly, if you cannot see the light, having been offered the simplest possible example, there is no point in my wasting any further energy on the task.

>>Much more significantly, I would love to know what you think about the enormous economic growth generated by rapid population growth and how this is reflected in GDP…<<

If you are unable to comprehend the previous, blindingly simple example, then tackling anything more complex is an even greater waste of time.

Have a great day.

Walking the talk it is.
With more illness, doctors and nurses prescribe and apply more medicine.
Production of medicine creates mega millions in GDP.
Income of more doctors and nursers can buy more locally made cars etc etc.
Medicine is an almost forgotten industry.
Some politicians reduce spending on science and medicine instead of encouraging further development of that (and other) industry.
Sensible new science and innovation should be encouraged to increase GDP

BTW Pericles, what is it about Canute that you identify with?

All too true JF Aus.

It is surely patently obvious that increased illness increases economic activity in various ways, all of which appear as positive additions to our GDP calculations, but which absolutely shouldn’t if we are to use GDP as a primary indicator of economic prosperity.

Pericles, your post has done nothing to further our debate.

As JF Aus points out, increasing illness increases economic activity, which is reflected in GDP. Same for disasters, car accidents, and all sorts of thing related to population growth, such as environmental repair, infrastructure upgrades, duplication of services, etc.

I wrote:

>> Much more significantly, I would love to know what you think about the enormous economic growth generated by rapid population growth and how this is reflected in GDP… <<

You replied:

<< If you are unable to comprehend the previous, blindingly simple example, then tackling anything more complex is an even greater waste of time. >>

That tells me nothing. But it does suggest that you can’t address my query.

You took me up on this debate. Now it seems that you are trying to worm out of it.
.

Lets go back to the basics:

We want economic growth in order to improve the quality of life for the people of this country, yes?

That is the primary motive, is it not?

So, any economic activity that doesn’t do that really should not be a part of the primary indicator of economic health. Fair enough?

It is really very, very simple, Ludwig.

>>As JF Aus points out, increasing illness increases economic activity, which is reflected in GDP. Same for disasters, car accidents, and all sorts of thing related to population growth, such as environmental repair, infrastructure upgrades, duplication of services, etc. <<

That is a complete and utter fallacy, as I have tried very hard to point out to you.

These events are simply redistributory. Money that otherwise would have been spent on cars, plasma panels and holidays is instead spent on hospital care, firefighting etc.

If you choose to spend money on health insurance, you cannot use it to repair your car. If a country spends money rebuilding devastated cities, it cannot buy rice to feed its people, others have to tip money into the till. If your theory is correct, they would welcome the earthquake, as it would boost their GDP.

Can't you see how simply ridiculous that is?