Congratulations Pericles on writing a whole post (of exactly 350 words) without furthering the discussion one iota!

<< If you want to learn about something, you move from generalizations to specifics, do you not? >>

No. Not necessarily. If there are things related to the subject which haven’t been discussed or even introduced into the discussion, then it is pertinent to do so, starting off in a broad (generalised) manner.

Hey, stop trying to invent rules and impose them on me.

I am trying to keep focussed on the subject at hand, and discuss all that is relevant to it. You are quite wrong to suggest that I’m not doing it properly. I was actually under the impression that the quality of this debate had picked up in recent posts.

<< And for the record, of course productivity is "relevant" to a discussion on GDP >>

Yes of course it is. So then, what is the first half of your post all about??

<< But you were using it as a diversionary tactic, as you were running out of defences for your stance on GDP as a predictive tool. >>

Hey, what were you doing while you were writing this post? You seem to be quite off with the fairies.

1. It is directly relevant, but I was using it as a diversionary tactic, eh? Bizarre!

2. I was running out of defences for GDP as a predictive tool. Oh really? So that is why I gave you a full explanation of the extent to which GDP could be seen as a predictive tool, and to which it certainly can’t be. How odd!

continued

<< Stick to the knitting, Ludwig. >>

Pericles, this is a shocker of a suggestion. You keep saying things to the effect that if I am not an expert in the subject, then I should butt out, and stick to beach-bumming or botany or whatever. Well….

1. How about you sticking to your own principles, because you are certainly no expert or otherwise highly knowledgeable person in this field.

2. You are so wrong to tell people that they shouldn’t be discussing things unless they are experts. You should be doing exactly the opposite – encouraging people with little knowledge to take an interest and be involved in discussions like this one. Apathy is our biggest problem. We certainly don’t need those few people who are not apathetic to butt out of subjects like this.

3. You are going against the very nature of OLO in making this sort of suggestion.

So, in the interests of getting back on track and actually discussing something relevant to the topic here, can you address this please:

>> Yes, all manner of indicators do indeed have some predictive element to them. I’m pleased that you can see this. So then, how can you single out GDP as being the only one that doesn’t? That doesn’t compute. <<

and…

>> So it is only useful as a crude indicator of what we can expect in the very short term… <<

I consider this predictive aspect of GDP to be of very little significance. I am only entertaining debate on it because I found myself in disagreement with your comments in this regard. But really, it is very much off to the side of our discussion.

[this is my 100th post on this thread!!]

100 TH WELL DONE
ANYHOW..PROOF ITS ALL MADE UP
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/enron-2-0-wall-street-wants-manipulate-state-energy-markets-just-like-manipulates-every-market.html

NUMBERS ARE SO EASY TO TRICK UP...EH
DOUBLE BOOKS...accountaNTS in confidence
no end to it really
http://patriotrising.com/2014/06/18/amount-fraud-across-board-epic-weve-never-seen-anything-like/

http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
http://www.redressonline.com/2014/06/materialism-and-misery-and-the-need-for-change/

http://www.spiritwritings.com/GatewayOfUnderstanding.pdf

Lecturing me on consistency is a tad cheeky, Ludwig.

>>I consider this predictive aspect of GDP to be of very little significance.<<

Only two days before, you were of this opinion:

>>However, there are MANY insane people using GDP to predict the future. They look at how much economic growth we now have and at all the components of it and plan to uphold or increase it, for ever and a day. etc etc.<<

Which is why I proceeded to point out that productivity is a measurement different to, and separate from, that of GDP.

For a topic with "very little significance", you certainly make a great deal of fuss over it.

Now you ask:

>>So, in the interests of getting back on track and actually discussing something relevant to the topic here, can you address this please: "Yes, all manner of indicators do indeed have some predictive element to them. I’m pleased that you can see this. So then, how can you single out GDP as being the only one that doesn’t? That doesn’t compute." and "So it is only useful as a crude indicator of what we can expect in the very short term"<<

Once again: GDP is a measurement of past activity. If you use it as a predictive tool, you are using it improperly.

But you do actually understand this, perhaps without realizing:

>>They look at how much economic growth we now have and at all the components of it and plan to...<<

What they look at is not the GDP number itself, but the inputs. If we dig up more coal and sell it overseas, that activity will be reflected in GDP. If we see the onset of El Niño as a drought threat, we can expect it to do some damage to our farming GDP sometime later.

GDP is an inanimate number, because it can only tell you what happened yesterday. If you want to know what happens tomorrow, the size of your GDP - much like yesterday's weather - is not going to help you.

Can we put that to rest now?

<< 100 TH WELL DONE >>

Thanks OUG. I don’t know if there is anything well done about it, it’s just an interesting statistic… and it’s the second time I’ve ‘achieved’ it.

Yes the numbers can be manipulated.

And that is a very valid way of looking at GDP. One could argue that it is highly manipulated, by politicians who want it all to look as good as possible. It is very hard to believe that pollies and their economic advisers don’t know full well that what they are espousing as a good thing in the annual GDP figures isn’t very considerably manipulated.

Afterall, all that economic turnover that results from droughts, floods, smoking, obesity, car accidents, etc, that gets added to GDP (included within the total), just so obviously shouldn’t be, and is thus very dodgy indeed. It is absolutely amazing that the general public is so gullible that politicians and economists can get away with something so enornously bodgy.

Pericles, what is contradictory about these two statements of mine? …

>> I consider this predictive aspect of GDP to be of very little significance. <<

>> …there are MANY insane people using GDP to predict the future. They look at how much economic growth we now have and at all the components of it and plan to uphold or increase it, for ever and a day… <<

Nothing is contradictory.

As I explained three posts back:

<< …it is only useful as a crude indicator of what we can expect in the very short term, and as I have emphasised repeatedly: is a terribly MISLEADING indicator of what our real economic position is and what it is likely to be a few years down the track. >>

Anyone who uses it to predict anything beyond the very short term is indeed insane!

<< For a topic with "very little significance", you certainly make a great deal of fuss over it. >>

No. It is simply a matter of you saying things that I disagree with and me picking you up on your errant logic! Crikey, if I don’t do that, you might start thinking that I actually agree with you, or can’t address your comments… or something totally bizarre like that!! ( :>/

continued