O ‘ullo Pericles. Trust you ‘ad a great weekend.

<< Yes, it does. >>

Well thankyou for agreeing with me!

<< Not necessarily. >>

No. Absolutely necessarily! ALL economic activity that is generated by disasters, accidents and illnesses gets added to (included in) GDP. Check the definition of GDP again. It doesn’t exclude this sort of economic activity.

So I take it that in saying; ‘not necessarily’, you can indeed see my point that economic activity that results directly from disasters, accidents and illness does indeed sometimes at least contribute to GDP and make GDP bigger than it would otherwise be.

<< It isn't added. It is included. >>

Added… included… it is absolutely the same thing! If it is added to the GDP total, that total would be bigger than if it was not added. It if is included in the GDP total, that total would be bigger than the total would otherwise be, by exactly the same amount as if it was added to it!!

<< If John walks in to join the people in the room, he is added to the total, making eleven in all. If John is included in the people in the room, there are still only ten. >>

If John walks into a room with nine people, there are then ten.

If John is included in the people that are then in the room, there are then ten.

Added to…. Included in… Same difference!!

Most people learn this simple concept when they are in their first year at school. But perhaps that was too long ago for Pericles!! ( :>/

Not at all, Ludwig.

>>Added to…. Included in… Same difference!!<<

Here are the dictionary definitions.

add (verb)
1. join (something) to something else so as to increase the size, number, or amount. e.g. "a new wing was added to the building"
2. put together (two or more numbers or amounts) to calculate their total value. e.g. "they added all the figures up"

include (verb)
1. comprise or contain as part of a whole. e.g. "the price includes dinner, bed, and breakfast"
2. make part of a whole or set. e.g. "we have included some hints for beginners in this section"

>>If it is added to the GDP total, that total would be bigger than if it was not added.<<

True, but that way of describing it is still confusing you. The total is only bigger after it is added. That is, if 1 is added to 99, the total is 100, which is bigger than 99.

This is where you go trip yourself up:

>>It if is included in the GDP total, that total would be bigger than the total would otherwise be, by exactly the same amount as if it was added to it!!<<

Of course it would. But that is not what we are talking about, is it, because you have had to subtract it, before adding it back in.

If 1 is included in 100, then the total stays the same.

Sometimes my patience amazes me.

It is a bit sad that we have to spend so much time on elementary arithmetic. But it is the only way you will ever understand why "increased economic turnover as a result of fires, floods, cyclones, illnesses due to smoking or alcohol" can only be the result of external stimulus - e.g. increased government funding, or increased efficiency elsewhere in the economy - and does not happen of its own accord.

No-one goes "whoopee, there's a bush fire, our GDP will increase", which is what you were proposing when we started this discussion on "add" vs. "include".

<< You do understand the difference don't you, and that economic productivity is not economic product? >>

Yes WM Trevor. Although it depends on just what you call ‘productivity’ and ‘product’.

Of course all economic activity does not product a tangible material product. But a lot of it does produce good outcomes in the form of services of all sorts.

And we’ve got to consider the demand for productivity, product, goods and services. So if we are producing lots of product and non-product productivity (goods and services respectively), but the demand is constantly increasing and this production is just going along with the demand, then we aren’t really achieving anything…. Which is exactly what is happening with respect to our super high immigration / population growth rate.

So using a Net Domestic Product indicator instead of GDP would still have the fundamental problem of showing high product, without it being compared to the rate of demand or the per-capita product or the real improvements (or lack thereof) for our economy, quality of life and future prosperity (sustainability).

An NDP indicator would suggest that the achievement of high economic product output would be very good for our economy, end of story... which would be just as misleading and outrightly false as the GDP indicator currently is.

The trick is to work out how exclude (treat as neutral) all the product and productivity that is simply catering for the ever-increasing demand (and which happens in response to disasters, accidents and illness), which is simply providing the same level of services and infrastructure for ever-more people without producing anything truly positive for our society.

<< On which side of the accounts would the time and costs of posting comments online appear, for example? >>

This would be outside of any economic / GDP / NDP calculations, wouldn’t it? I can’t see how it would contribute to or detract from these.

I wrote:

>> If it is added to the GDP total, that total would be bigger than if it was not added. <<

Pericles, you replied:

<< True… >>

Thankyou for agreeing with me.

This is all that really matters here.

<< If 1 is included in 100, then the total stays the same. >>

And if 1 is included in the total that was 100 before it was included, the total would be 101.

Hey, you can look at ‘included’ as either not adding to a total as you do, or adding to a total as I do. Both are legitimate interpretations. My interpretation is just the same as adding something to the total. Including in… Adding… Same thing.

The important point is that you know what I mean: that economic activity included in a total makes that total bigger by the amount of that inclusion than it would otherwise be without that inclusion. Obvious and simple. And undeniable as it concerns contributions to GDP.

<< No-one goes "whoopee, there's a bush fire, our GDP will increase" >>

Of course they don’t.

So then, why does the economic activity that results from it get directly added to the GDP total? Or included in that total, which would be smaller if it was not included?

Quite apart from any diversion of material goods or labour from other jobs, quite apart from the fact that disasters surely do have an overall negative impact on our economy and quite apart from the obvious fact that economic activity spurred by a disastrous fire event is simply taking us from a bad situation back to a neutral situation, it all contributes to GDP!! !! !!

This is simply insane! Anyone who has the slightest clue about economics… or about logical thought processes… can surely see that we shouldn’t be adding stuff which is obviously not positive to a total that totally indicates that it is entirely positive!! ( :>|

Ah, but I am just repeating myself.

ludwig/quote..<<..This is all..that really matters..here.>>
i agree/this has been..entertaining]so-far.

<< If 1..is included..in 100,
then the total..stays the same...>>

yes..1..is included..to make 100...in singular unit progression to the total/..whole..of 100]..but in doing so..has lost its singular/entity

<<And if..1..is included in the total
that was 100..before it was included,..the total would be 101.>>

inclusion..of one/\excludes all else..[including 101][when..100=inclusion..of all]

you can look at..‘included’>>
as being the past/done..concluded..as it 'was'..included

<<..as either..not adding to a total..as you do,>>

me either..was means is must be..100
as 100 is all it was past included]..

<<..or adding..to..a [new?]..total as I do...Both are legitimate interpretations.../My interpretation is just the same..as adding something..to the total.>>

and thus modifying what 'was'
into the more usefukll of what now is

<<..Including in… Adding… Same thing.>>
i hope i have added my support/not that that changes anything?

<<The important point..is that you know what I mean>>

mean=means=average..:..that economic activity..*includ*ed*>>
past tense,,}..<<..in a total>>..sum certain]..<<..makes that total bigger*..by the amount of that inclusion..>>

absolutly/irrefutably/this moment modiefies what was previously concluded\to be included..conclusivly..consecutivly un addintionalised..<<>.than it would otherwise be..without that inclusion...>>

yes/thats clear/before i added mu 'inclusion/conclusion..collusion..<<..Obvious and simple...>>

And undeniable..in/as far\it concerns..contributions to GDP...so far as productive blogging is concerned..

<< No-one goes "whoopee,..there's a bush..
lockem-up/citizen arrest\em..

sorry/busche..<<..fire,..our GDP will increase" >>
but if it was set..into a hypothetical 'target'..of 100
the accident has drawn that predictive 100/back to 99..but thats lost forever

any input..is extra gdp..extra cost over return
i need plant again..[that reminds me we bailout plantations revaged by cyclone/but in the old days we chopped off most of the leaf/we bailout fools/their a dead loss..gdp=98?..plus one=what we got..clever accounting

money gets created..lol..you will love this
simply by us saying we allready recieved 'it'..its tthen put on the books as a debt/yet nothing was lent pre signing reciept..you allready 'got'..it...include includes a definitive condition/any change to that condition/alters the end fruits.

So as far as you are concerned Ludwig, words mean anything you choose them to mean.

>>My interpretation is just the same as adding something to the total.<<

Despite my providing you with two, clear and separate definitions of "add" and "include", you still maintain that they mean the same thing.

There seems little point in continuing this conversation in English.

Can you speak German?

But perhaps this will help.

>>Anyone who has the slightest clue about economics… or about logical thought processes… can surely see that we shouldn’t be adding stuff which is obviously not positive to a total that totally indicates that it is entirely positive!!<<

So where do you count expenditure on hospitals? There is a vast army of people out there tending the sick, which is clearly one of your "not positive" activities, given that the patients are non-productive for the duration of their illness.

Because, you know, they are certainly included in the calculation of GDP.

It is only a short logical step from there to show that bushfires, cyclones, earthquakes etc. have precisely the same impact. They do not add anything to our GDP. And the most likely outcome is that they reduce it.

Your problem, as has been pointed out before, is that you are unhappy that GDP counts everything. You want it to count only "good stuff", without being at all certain where the line may be drawn.

>>...all the economic activity generated by these bad things... gets ADDED to GDP... It absolutely SHOULDN’T be! It should be left out of the GDP calculation, or perhaps be subtracted from the total.<<

Well tough. That's not going to happen. At the risk of repeating myself, this is deeply "flawed" economic thinking:

>>[GDP] is a most terribly flawed economic indicator, which adds all sorts of negative factors to the positive side of the ledger, such as increased economic turnover as a result of fires, floods, cyclones, illnesses due to smoking or alcohol, etc, etc.<<

Perhaps the best thing for you to do Ludwig is to learn a little about economics.