Not sure about that, Ludwig.

>>Pericles, there is an amazing contrast between your excellent command of the Queen’s English and your off-the-rails views on all things economics and population-related.<<

I'd say that I am equally picky - pedantic, if you will - on both counts.

>>Many posters have picked you up on this over the years. I am certainly not alone in headbanging with you on this stuff on OLO.<<

You are the most persistent, though. Most of the others back off when they realize that they haven't quite thought it all through in a logical fashion, or hadn't done their homework very well.

Like here, for instance...

>>If GDP is bigger while being based on a whole lot of stuff that does not indicate that our economy is improving, then bigger is certainly not better…. and smaller would be even worse!!<<

Coles supermarkets turn over fifty billion dollars a year, employ fiftyfive thousand people, at a net margin of less than four percent.

My local mini-mart turns over a few hundred thousand, employs one guy (who is there from 7 in the morning to 10 at night), and has net margins closer to 15%.

Thinking in GDP terms, which of these do you think would have a) power to make things happen, e.g build new stores, upgrade roads, revitalize a shopping mall etc., and b) be more able to withstand economic shocks, downturns, interest rate changes etc.etc.?

It is the same with economies. The larger the economy (you only have to think of the US to understand this) the greater their power to make things happen, and to withstand external economic pressures. They do of course achieve this latter through their mega borrowing power, but seem to rub along somehow. This resilience is not always available to other, smaller economies, which is why it is generally accepted that having a growing GDP is actually better for that country's people than a shrinking one.

If you still disagree, can you perhaps offer an example of where a country's shrinking economy has benefitted its citizenry??

<< I'd say that I am equally picky - pedantic, if you will - on both counts. >>

Really. Oh, well I’ll take that asa compliment, seeinas you ave extreemely rarely picked me up on me yuse ov the old country’s langwidge!

<< Most of the others back off when they realize that they haven't quite thought it all through in a logical fashion, or hadn't done their homework very well. >>

Haaa hahaahaaa haaahaaaaaa ha …… ha ….haaha……….AAAAAAAAAH HAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

What a fascinating perception!! My perception is that you have time and time again lowered one’s head, tucked one’s ears back and slinked off with tail between legs, after others have pointed out the absolute folly of your arguments!

<< The larger the economy … the greater… [the] power to make things happen… >>

Whoa, hold on there. You’re off with the fairies!

Has our economy, which is apparently 250% larger than ten years ago, given us 250% more power to get infrastructure up to scratch, to make the quality of health and education considerably better, to raise our quality of life and environment, or bring us closer to a sustainable society?

Has it given us one iota more power?

Pericles, a larger economy does NOT give us more power to do the essential things, for as long as the number of people and the number of issues and the magnitude of those issues continues to increase!!

This is the great furphy of our time: that economic growth is the answer to all our ills, end of story.

This is what GDP tries to tell us. And isn’t it just so TOTALLY and UTTERLY WRONG!

If we were to increase economic turnover and profits while NOT increasing the number of pie slices that it all has to be divided up amongst, then we might be at the start of the right track towards a healthy future.

But an ever-bigger economy, which has an ever-bigger demand for everything built into it as a fundamental element, is just going to get us NOWHERE!

Ludwig, you're not alone in making the occasional 'typo'.
Get this one:

1. >The new sware shop [sic] offer values ALZ at $4.35< (share swop?[sic]= swap)
[extract from an equities 'report'.]

And, this one (copied directly, using Ctrl-C) from 'wikiHow' re calculating Real GDP from Nominal GDP (i.e. to take account of inflation - in this case of 25% - which 'wiki' explains gives a 'deflator' of 125 [1 + 0.25, all x 100 = 125{%}) [Note, 'wiki' did not include the %]

(My Note 1. 'wiki' would have been better to have left this 'deflator' as 1.25,; but below you will see why, and will see a second, and actual 'mistake' in their calculation):

2. >>"Divide the nominal GDP by the deflator. Real GDP is equal to the ratio of your nominal GDP divided by 100. As an equation, it starts off like this: Nominal GDP ÷ Real GDP = Deflator ÷ 100.

So, if your current nominal GDP is $10 million, and your deflator is 125 (inflation was 25% from the base period to the current period), this is how you'd set up your equation:
$10,000,000 ÷ Real GDP = 125 ÷ 100
$10,000,000 ÷ Real GDP = 1.25
$10,000,000 = 1.25 ÷ Real GDP
$10,000,000 ÷ 1.25 = Real GDP
$8,000,000 = Real GDP"<< [my parentheses, at both ends of quote.]

My Note 2. Just taking the first sentence of the above instruction:
>Divide the nominal GDP by the deflator.<
And, using 1.25 as the 'deflator' gives $10 million divided by 1.25 = $8 million. (Hence, no need for the rest of the babble.)

Note 3. The second sentence >Real GDP is ... 100< is gobbledegook!

Note 4. Regarding the above 'calculation':
Second line finally 'reveals' the 1.25,
Third line is 'wrong', and should read $10m = 1.25 X "Real GDP" [and not, divided by.]

Which then finally leads in fourth line to $10m/1.25 = $8m [in fifth line.]
Phew, what a torment! (Talk about 'life wasn't meant to be easy'?)

Anyhow, Ludwig, Exports minus Imports = 'Balance of Trade'.
(Or, Income from overseas interests, less payments to overseas interests = 'Balance'.) (A Logical 'adjustment' to locally 'produced' income/'product'.)

And, me ol' mate, I think a part of the explanation of why we do not seem to have seen much of that '250%' you mention, is perhaps that we (Oz) were a bit behind the proverbial '8' ball beforehand - as far as public infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc - possibly due to 'State Governments' lack of fiscal prowess [or incompetence?], or, in NSW, the likes of .., .. and .., and Water .., Wine, Mining ..?

(The Recession we 'had to have'; the 'Banana Republic'; the 'level playing field'; "Free" Trade; BLF; Water-side Workers; Three Tiers of 'Government'; "Batts"; "Halls"; Consultancies, Commissions, and more Consultancies, Studies, Committees, Inquiries ...)

Additionally, we must have had quite an increase in population during that 250% period you mentioned (though I haven't looked up the actual figures), so the GDP 'growth' has been spread more widely.
Public expenditure in 'accommodating' a portion of that population increase would also have diluted the pool available for 'the rest'.
(Guess you know what 'portion' that might have been; plus perhaps a few little-one 'bonuses'?)

And, I wonder if that 250% was 'REAL' or 'Nominal'?
(If overall inflation in the period was 250%, then 'Real' = 1.0 X Starting Point.)

Pericles,

As, Exports - Imports; = 'Balance';
Then, why not 'Loans' to overseas interests 'Minus' 'Borrowings' from overseas interests? (As a logical 'adjustment' to GDP? - when measured by the Income method, or, in 'effect' when measuring by the Expenditure method.)

Sorry, I haven't yet had a chance to absorb the ABS info in the link you most kindly provided; but I will get to it.

But surely, if one borrows in order to 'grow' GDP, and there is interest to pay on such borrowings, then any resultant 'growth' would have to be 'adjusted' to take account of loan-repayment responsibilities - principal plus interest?
(I guess the 'PIGS' {who, in the end result, couldn't 'fly'} could answer that one for us.)

I can't convince myself that 'growth' and population-increase are co-dependent.
(In truth, I'm not even convinced that growth is even essential - unless one is preparing for war, or seeking utopian affluence. In peace, many alternatives are available for 'production', and productivity.)
Firstly there are finite limits to population growth - unless one totally throws caution to the wind, and lets the chips fall where they may. A fool's outlook, ultimately.
Secondly, growth for its own sake is geared to make some inordinately wealthy, and masses wanting desperately to catch up; whereas a more effective distribution of existing 'product' could provide reasonably for all, without forever chasing after the treadmill to the stars, to eventual total un-sustainability.

If a virus doesn't get us first, 'growth' may ultimately desolate this incredible planet. And, for what?

Hang in there, Saltpetre... economic statistics has always been an arcane science.

Often the concepts behind the calculations are more easily grasped. Like this from the Reserve Bank,

"GDP - Gross Domestic Product. A key measure of the value of economic production in the economy. GDP is determined in one of three ways: the value of goods and services produced less the cost of production; the sum of incomes generated by production; the sum of final expenditure on goods and services produced plus exports minus imports. An average of the three approaches may be calculated and is also referred to as GDP."

This might be a useful link:

http://www.econlib.org/library/CEECategory.html

If you need to lighten the mood... Spurious Correlations is a fun couple of minutes:

http://www.tylervigen.com/

All economics, to my mind, extend from a couple of basic concepts. Like the expression: 'every problem is either; you want something you can't have or you have something you can't get rid of', economics seems to be reducible to: 'someone has a surplus of something and someone else wants more of it'.

The complexity arises from the myriad ways individuals, groups, organizations and states deal with this.