That’s interesting. Pericles I didn’t see your post of 8 July 2014 9:16:25 AM wasn’t to be seen when I posted this morning, even though I religiously refresh the page every time just before posting!

Thankyou for reconsidering your dismissiveness.

I'll reply in detail later.

I am going to write that again......

That’s interesting.

Pericles I didn’t see your post of 8 July 2014 9:16:25 AM before I posted this morning, even though I religiously refresh the page every time just before posting!

Thankyou for reconsidering your dismissiveness.

I will reply in full later.

[aaaaarrrgh!]

At worse, simplified, aggregated indicators can be dangerously misleading, by ignoring
interconnectedness of natural systems and the possibility of tipping points and abrupt changes. Not everything can or should be
monetised and valuing must not be equal to trading. Also, valuing natural capital must not be equal to privatising the
commons...a bail out may be too late,/and no money in
the world will be able to help us.

So one needs to be very careful about what we are measuring and for which purpose; what\we can control and what not; that assumptions made are fully transparent, and that when we’re leaving out invaluables from\calculations, it doesn’t mean that they are ignored, it means that they are paid special attention.

We tend to prepare for\what we can comprehend, so we undermine (or undervalue) uncertain things and the uncontrollables until they start unfolding,/and it may be too late to act.

i noted this
The True Costs of Coal
Traditionally considered the cheapest fuel around,
the market price for coal ignores its most significant costs. These
so-called “external costs” manifest themselves as respiratory diseases, mining accidents, acid rain, smog pollution, reduced
agricultural yields, water use impact and climate change that society is paying for in hospital bills, prices of water and food,
climate impacts, and so forth.

If governments required polluters to pay for the negative impacts their profit making is causing,the kWh prices of coal electricity would be much higher,/revealing the true cheapness of renewable energy and energy-efficiency.[THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE SUED]

sure they got green credit/daytimes
but not times they are slurping off the grid for free
things is day power/is the lie/they feel GOOD NOT BECAuse/their doing the right thing/but that their getting that free ride/we pay them 55 cents/for their day power[so we slow down the coal during the day[ie more p[oluting[BECAUSE AT NIGHT IT HAS TO FIRE UP FOR THOSE WITH FEE SOLAR CREDITS/TO their discredit

the free lunch must end
but then/the;private/scam only coverS THE high treason of those wiTH ACRES/or govt gifted greeN CREDIT/BY BLACKHEARTS

GREENIES/WENT..BUST/iTS NOW run\by account*ants
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/RioPlus20/Beyond-GDP.pdf

Yep, saw that, Ludwig.

>>Pericles, you might want to look at the article by Allison Orr, published on OLO today:<<

Allison Orr uses Joseph Stiglitz to help push her own agenda of half-baked wishy-washy "progressive" socialism. Fair enough. Some of Stiglitz' work has been illuminating, particularly the work on Information Economics, for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2001/stiglitz-lecture.pdf

And if you're looking for soundbites to throw at me, there's a doozy for you in his Nobel lecture...

"The set of ideas that I will present here undermined [Adam] Smith’s theory and the view of government that rested on it"

Unfortunately, you won't be able to use it as evidence of anything, simply because you do not understand the rationale behind that statement. Nor will you find any evidence in the rest of the lecture, since you won't know what to look for. If only you had made the effort to learn just a little bit...

Ah well.

You might also be interested to know that one of Stiglitz' more famous traits is his propensity to contradict himself.

"Stiglitz regularly seeks to elevate regulation as the path to financial health, but then contradicts himself in decrying a 2004 SEC decision in which investment banks were allowed to increase their debt-to-capital ratios “from 12:1 to 30:1, or higher”. The question Stiglitz fails to ask is whether regulation was in fact the problem. Indeed, the ’04 SEC decree essentially allowed risk-oriented banks to hide behind the very regulations that Stiglitz would like more of."

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/12/joseph_stiglitz_and_the_foolis.html

Stiglitz is just another voice amongst the cacophony, each convinced they have the recipe for saving the world from itself

So, before you pat yourself on the back over your perspicacity, take some time to work out what is actually being talked about. Just picking up a word or two here and a phrase or two there, won't cut it for credibility.

Unfortunately, this has never been clearer that in the comment you posted on the Allison Orr article. Which demonstrates, more than I possibly could, that you don't actually know what you are talking about.

I asked:

>> Can you just tell me exactly, succinctly, what you think I don’t understand about GDP <<

Thankyou Pericles for a full response.

Ok, so firstly, regarding “good" and "bad" components to GDP:

You have surely got to admit that not all economic growth is equal in terms of contributing to prosperity. And yet it is all treated as equal within GDP.

You can surely see that economic growth that occurs as a direct result of a flood is simply attempting to get us back on track to the same level that we were at before the flood, and should therefore not be counted as contributing to prosperity.

Disasters shouldn’t increase economic growth. All economic activity that results from them should not be added to GDP. If you are entrenched in your disagreement with this well so be it. But you won’t be changing my mind on this one.

Likewise with illness and accidents….. and the duplication of everything to meet the demands of population growth.

Ok, so we differ profoundly on what GDP should and should not include. But I know that GDP DOES include it all. I DO understand GDP. You know I do, at this advanced point in this discussion. So your continued assertion that I don’t understand it is wrong and always has been.

<< …you still haven't withdrawn your original assertion, that "GDP. It 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" >>

More to the point is that you still haven’t conceded that this is true!

continued

Why can’t you simply agree that not all economic activity is equal in terms of prosperity, or legitimacy to be included in GDP at the same value as the best types of economic growth?

There is a great deal of economic activity which is simply serving the community in a neutral manner, not in a manner that is advancing our quality of life, not improving prosperity and not taking us towards a sustainable society.

Surely you agree with this.

<< The second major roadblock you have is this concept that GDP is somehow used as a forecasting tool. >>

Hey come on, we’ve reached agreement on this! Why are you hell-bent on upholding disagreement here?

GDP is only useful as a predictor of the following year or so’s GDP by way of it presenting a number which should be the same in the following year if all the contributing factors are the same, and different depending on how the contributing factors might vary. That’s it. It isn’t useful as a predictor of anything beyond that.

So your “second major roadblock” is non-existent.

<< Put together, these demonstrate clearly that you are unable to grasp the simple fact that GDP is a measurement tool of the general prosperity of our nation. >>

You are just so wrong. I understand GDP. And it is NOT a good measurement tool of prosperity. Not by a very long way. It is a VERY HIGHLY FLAWED AND MISLEADING tool.

You and just about all other people with any interest in GDP do indeed use it as an indicator of prosperity. And therein lies the great problem with it.

Your explanation of what you think is wrong with the way I think about this whole issue has galvanised in my mind just how off-track you really are about it all.

I understand GDP perfectly well. So do you.

I understand its great folly. You do not. And therein lies your great fault.