i was thinking..wondering if these 'bailouts'..affect gdp
the falling gdp will be fun..the death rattle grows louder
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-26/retail-death-rattle-grows-louder

The pundits, politicians and delusional retail CEOs continue to await the revival of retail sales as if reality doesn’t exist. The 1 million retail stores, 109,000 shopping centers, and nearly 15 billion square feet of retail space for an aging, increasingly impoverished, and savings poor populace might be a tad too much and will require a slight downsizing – say 3 or 4 billion square feet. Considering the debt fueled frenzy from 2000 through 2008 added 2.7 billion square feet to our suburban sprawl concrete landscape, a divestiture of that foolish investment will be the floor.

If you think there are a lot of SPACE AVAILABLE signs dotting the countryside, you ain’t seen nothing yet. The mega-chains have already halted all expansion. That was the first step. The weaker players like Radio Shack, Sears, Family Dollar, Coldwater Creek, Staples, Barnes & Noble, Blockbuster and dozens of others are already closing stores by the hundreds. Thousands more will follow

Who is keeping the criminals on Wall Street criminals
out of jail? Eric Holder?
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/dave-kranzler-on-gold-housing-and-silver_052014

Is Covington/Burling, Eric Holders law firm, the most powerful law firm in the country? Remember, Holder was the Chief legal counsel for JPMorgan prior to becoming the Attorney General of the United States.

When was the last major gold deposit discovered, 10 million ounces or more, 10 years ago, 12 years ago? Barrick, GoldCorp, Newmont have all high-graded their existing mines to appear to be making money. What this means is they are processing the highest grade ore, the ore with the most gold per ton, to maximize their profits. This will not last long and these giant holes, with little gold left to process, is all that will remain. With the price of gold so low they are working over-time to produce as much gold as possible and get it to market. All of this just to try to stay profitable. How long will they be able to keep up this charade? (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmvuYTH5nU0

<< It appears that you are laughing at the idea that an increased GDP is good, while a decrease is bad. So please, do explain to us all how a reduction in GDP will benefit the Australian people? >>

Congrats Pericles on asking the most blatant straw-man question of all time. You know perfectly well what I found so humorous!

Moving right along…

Isn’t this an interesting aspect of GDP:

GDP = C + G + I + NX

C is all private consumption, or consumer spending, in a nation's economy
G is the sum of government spending
I is the sum of all the country's businesses spending on capital
NX = Exports – Imports.

So the esteemed economic minds that devised GDP could see the merit in subtracting imports, despite the fact they generate economic activity of all sorts. And yet they can’t see the merit in subtracting immigration!

Think about that. There is the most enormous inconsistency there.

Immigration generates a great deal economic activity as do imports… and yet one is subtracted from GDP while the other is added!!

Even back then in the primordial days of GDP, those primitive economists could see that there was merit in not including everything on the positive side of the ledger. It is just a crying shame that subsequent economists, with presumably a progressively better understanding of real economics, couldn’t have seen fit to refine that notion, and subtract or at least leave out a few other things that clearly should not contribute to GDP.

Following this sort of thinking, it is simply amazing Pericles that you; someone who purports to have a pretty good understanding of economics, has no problem with all the economic activity generated by onshore asylum seeking being included in our GDP total.

Crikey, if there is anything that should just totally be left out of the GDP calculation, it is this!

continued

<< An increase in GDP is good, a decrease in GDP is not good. >>

Now hold on. I think you might find that this aint necessarily so.

I can think of several scenarios:

1. If some common sense were to suddenly be injected into the definition of GDP and it did not include some of the stupid stuff that it now does, then we would have a considerably lower GDP in the first year with the new formula, which would not indicate a proportionally worse-off economy.

2. If we were to have a population that was decreasing, we could possibly have a GDP that was decreasing while the economy was improving… and while per-capita GDP was increasing.

3. There are others, but I think you get the message.

Interesting that you chose not to answer the question, Ludwig. Most illuminating, in fact.

I asked "So please, do explain to us all how a reduction in GDP will benefit the Australian people?"

And your response?

>>Moving right along…<<

It is not a good look, you know. Then, possibly realizing that this leaves your logic horrendously exposed, you offer:

>>If we were to have a population that was decreasing, we could possibly have a GDP that was decreasing while the economy was improving… and while per-capita GDP was increasing.<<

I've ignored the redefinition suggestion. That's just pure evasion.

So your suggestion is that we somehow engineer a decreasing population. I thought that would be your offering, as you keep banging on about immigration being an economic evil, but I'm a little surprised that you actually say it out loud.

Back to Ludwig-utopia then.

How will you bring this about? Who will do all the work ? How will you organize it that the remaining population suddenly becomes more productive (i.e. raising per capita GDP at the same time that GDP is falling)? What will be the age demographics of your reduced population - how will you retain the workforce that is needed to keep the oldies alive - or does that not worry you? How will you retain the brightest brains, in a dying economy - you certainly won't be able to afford to pay them internationally competitive salaries? Who will be left to teach in universities - this is after all a service, and according to you, does not contribute to our economy.

And why do I expect your response to this to be...

>>Moving right along…<<

All very good questions, Saltpetre.

>>So, I am assuming that overall GDP is compiled from business reporting - tax returns, reports to shareholders and the ASX - plus government(s) own records of government expenditures.<<

Amongst many other sources. Our ABS is at the heart of the statistics-gathering part of the exercise. You are clearly doing your research in the right place, but here is the relevant page that you may have missed:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~Defining%20and%20measuring%20GDP~221

>>Perhaps then, the business component of GDP is revenue less costs, but before tax - or is it the total expenditure of the business?<<

As you can see from the ABS explanation, this particular area is counted as "value-add", not total expenditure. But you can also see that there are three independent calculations that come to the same conclusion - Income, Expenditure and Production.

Taxation is entirely separate from these calculations, although the government will no doubt base their decisions on which part of the economy to tax, from the baseline calculation themselves.

Here's another guide, with less jargon

http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-GDP

Might be a little simplistic in places, but useful as a cross-reference with the dry ABS stuff.

Hope this helps

OL'PERRIWRINKLES/[rip-wrinkles]QUOTE..<<..'m a little surprised that you actually say it out loud.>>

IM GLAD ITS..
PUT SIMPLY..IN WRITING
[you talk too fast..per*ridicules]..your like a great masters QUISLING..encoding/rather\than decoding*,with wisdom/but\wisdom/learned/of\ROTE..MEMORIZATION/Rather than origonal thinking..p[let-alone..any/applied patience\..for any essor/being's\seeing.

<<..Back to Ludwig-utopia then.

How will you bring this about?>>

THATS TROLLING[avoidance?]..IS LUDWIGS LUDETOPIA..indeed in the offing?

<<..Who will do all the work..?..>>

ITS STILL FEELS/LIKE AVOIDANCE/
but at least..framing..a new question..is an origonal thought[it might contain hidden gems/or just germs

<<..How will you organize it...that the remaining population suddenly becomes more productive..(i.e.raising per capita GDP}>>

OK MY WAY..IS GOVT..ORDER PEOPLE TO OVER INSURE/ON THEIR HOME.S
AND THEN OVERNIGHT burNOUT APPLIENCES SO HOT THEY START FIRES[everyone gets a bailout for twice the real values of their goods/ANd the gdp went through the roof[thus govt spending[as an expected claw-back percentage..of spending..spends its revenue share.percentages

regardless..of what..gdp was doing
pre the 'natural dissaster/payoff..<<..GDP is falling)?

now we get into the 'adsurdium...<<<..What will be the age demographics of your reduced population..>>

not age specific
job specifiuc [all 3 rd year apprenbtices]
<<..how will you retain the workforc>>

they can only spend their wage in the company store
and their wage will allways be one dollart less than they need
too easy

<>that is needed to keep the oldies alive>>

boost crime numbers/jail every petty crime
run the old peoples homes with prison labour[its a proven buisness model[but dont low wages = less gdp?

so let double wages..=\double gop