PDA

View Full Version : The Problems of GPD as an measurement tool.


Pandemonium
04-13-2009, 08:28 PM
I am sure we all know what GDP stands for and if you don't know or do know, I am going to tell you anyway to propel the discussion. Hence! We all know that GDP stands for Gross Domestic Product. Sometimes I like to call it 'Global Domination Percentages'. The term Global Domination Percentages you may intuitively pick up as an indicator of how much the wealth of the top 1% of the population is increasing. I emphasise one percent of the population because GPD figures hardly ever relate to the growth of wealth of the other 99% of the population. In all reality the increase of GDP figures correlate to a decrease of income or wealth of the other 99% of the population.

GDP is the measure of the total economic output of an geopolitical area.

We are all taught at a very early age. In my case a very early age because I was more interested in documentaries, news and the internet at six years old than that street with the hideous puppets. I was also disinterested in the hideous puppets we often see on the tube spouting about the deregulation of industry (which only ever promotes oligopolies/monopolies) of course there may be more companies out there in the endless sea of faces but essentially they are all owned by the same people, paying their workers a pittance for wasting away their lives by enacting the same boring repetitive tasks. If you argue to me that the boring repetitive give people a sense of identity, I will start yelling at you like a retard (seeing/hearing retard makes others become retards) and start throwing pyramid structures at you with Mazlow's name written all over it. So we are taught at a very early age that continual growth of the economy/consumption/population growth is a very good indicator of how well we are doing. However, any one that has completed a few semesters of high school mathematics would tell you "Blimey that shazzwazzas is an exponential growth curve, which doubles the magnitude every fifteen years."

Now the shazzwazzas is an exponential function/curve which seemingly doubles every fifteen to twenty years. On the news every night we get the latest of listing of exponential increases and it is applauded for the triumphs of the free market system. Little does the well educated population know that A) There is no free market and B) The error of believing exponential growth is good. The error of exponential growth is that there is an a direct link to exponential consumption. Some are aware of this and some people are not and some people believe that exponential consumption is a great thing because it creates of growth of GDP (a.k.a. global domination percentages.) Exponential consumption would be no issue what so ever if we had an exponentially expanding supply of resources such as food and water. In all reality we have an exponential decreasing supply of resources with an slight linear addition on the side to make the world believe we are producing more. We are producing more but it is dwarfed by the shear magnitude of the exponential curve. A failure of neo-classical economics is that it advocates that there is an unlimited supply of resources. This exponential increase causes the doubling of an capital base (apart from land/natural capital) every period allocation. Hence, an increase of 3% a year of energy consumption extrapolates to an doubling of total energy consumption of fifteen years. Many estimates of the amount of time our finite resources will last has a nice little comment at the end of it "A current rates of consumption." This indicates that we have a trues lack of information about how long our finite resources will last. If you do some basic grade eight maths (using logs) you can deduce that our finite resources (such as coal) won't last 400 years (in the case of Australia) but only 60 years.

As food and water supplies become more scarce because of say an exponential increase of population, you will start to notice the privitisation of your nation's water infrastructure and you will pay more than the weight of gold per liter to sustain your existents. This exponential growth of population will not only put strain on water supplies but also food supplies. Competition for the basic necessities starts wars and riots. Not to mention a little organisation called the W.T.O. through the utilization of the 'Codex Alimentarius' will control your food past the date of December 31st 2009. An estimated 3 billion people will starve to death or will be killed due to competition. One solution to stop exponential growth I presume. Stock up on your nutrient pills that you need to prevent what illness you have from being a problem. In the Codex nutrients are toxins and toxins must be regulated. A) There is no free market.

One thing I have left out is that we need exponential growth of consumption to keep the economy afloat. New debt is need to pay off old debt + interest or the system fails (which it has done due to the flood of new debt in the market). The downfall of the Fractional Reserve system. An interest free money supply was a great idea. Too bad the guy who implemented it was shot in the back of the head. Everyone has long forgot the motives of the great people of the past. Remember Israel Bissel! If you research this guy (Americans Only) you will scratch your head and say "Huh? But I thought that guy done that." When legend becomes truth, print the legend.

Now the following is not my wittings, I am just using it because I am lazy.


The most widely used measure of the health of the economy is gross domestic product, or
GDP. GDP is the government's measure of the final value of all goods and services produced
and consumed in the market each year; it also equals the income earned and spent by
consumers.

But GDP is a bad measure of sustainability: whether or not the typical person is better off in
the long run. In short, GDP has at least four well-known problems.

1. GDP fails to include the value of nonmarket production. Housework, child care, and
volunteer work are the three biggies.

2. GDP fails to subtract the costs of growth. A true measure of welfare needs to
account for the fact that raising GDP imposes costs on society. These include
externalities: the direct health and productivity costs of pollution and congestion, borne by
third parties. Sometimes these externality costs show up as what are called defensive
expenditures — money spent to protect oneself from a deteriorating environment.
Examples include increased doctor visit water purifiers, and cell phones (to make traffic
jams tolerable). Some analysts include as defensive expenditures measures to address
crime and family breakdown, which they view as costs of economic growth.4 When
defensive expenditures boost final consumer demand, the GDP measure perverse
counts them as increasing well-being!

The costs of growth also include increased spending on internalize externalities.
These include the direct costs to industry and government ( pollution control and
cleanup (more than $225 billion per year in the Unite States). Here again, GDP counts
on the positive side of the ledger sort expenditures on pollution abatement and
cleanup. Thus, after the giant c spill in Alaska by the Exxon Valdez, the cleanup money
1 For a broader and accessible critique of GDP, see Cobb, Halstead, and Rowe (1995). Clifford Cobb compiled the ISEW,
discussed in Section 6.6, for the book by his father, John Cobb, and Herman Daly (1989). Clifford Cobb and his colleagues
have updated this measure, now calling it the Genuine Progress Indicator. The GPI is updated on the Web at Redefining
Progress, To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Goodstein, E. (2008) Economics and the Environment.
John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ.
Extract from Chapter 6. Sustainability: A
Neoclassical View
2
NNW = Total Output — Costs of Growth — Depreciation
GDP + nonmarket output
— externality costs
— pollution abatement and cleanup costs
— depreciation of created capital
— depreciation of natural capital
Note: This countrywide measure of NNW must be adjusted to reflect
changes in income distribution, since sustainability requires that the
typical person be no worse off.
FIGURE 6.1 Calculating Net National Welfare
spent by the company translated into a big boost to Alaskan consumer spending, and thus GDP.

3. GDP fails to account for the depreciation of the capital used up in production The U.S.
government actually publishes an adjusted GDP measure, calk net national product
(NNP), which does take into account the depreciation of physical, human-made
capital. However, our main concern here is the lack of accounting for the depreciation of
natural capital – both sources and sinks – used up in the production of GDP.

4. GDP reflects the experience of the "average" rather than the "typical" person, GDP is
reported on a per capita basis, showing the mean (average) value for society. But for a
measure of sustainability, we are interested in the welfare of the median (typical) person.
If the income distribution in a country is getting more equal, median welfare will rise
faster than if the typical worker finds his or herself being "outsourced."



Any old bastard with a brain would realise that the wealth of the 'middle class' or median has decreased over the last twenty years proportionally to the increase of GDP. The removal of trade barriers and tariffs have decreased the wealth of the median citizen while increasing the wealth of the top 1%. Such organisation as the I.M.F., World Bank, W.T.O. and the United Nations have actively advocation such policies to their member nations. I call these organisations the Quadrilateral of Evil. Through all their policies and so-called well intentions they have done nothing than plunge the world's poorest in greater debt and poverty. The World Trade Organisation is the worst offender. This body prevents member nations (mainly third world nations) of introducing industrial relations laws (minimum wage and working conditions), environmental protection laws and tariffs due to the illegalities of violating the free trade agreements which were forced onto them.

Such free trade agreements improve a nation's GPD but do not improve the lively hood of the citizens of that nation. The lack of trade barriers and tariffs cause developed nations into trade with nations which have sub-standard industrialisation laws (due to it being illegal to introduce them). A flood of cheaply manufactured goods and produce (not complying with health and safety standards as that would be a trade barrier and trade barriers are illegal for member nations of the WTO) hit the market causing local competition unable to compete. Jobs are outsourced and the lively hood of citizens in developed nations decrease, while GDP increases.

We are living in an illusion that the increase of GDP increases our lively hood. Turning to alternative measure of lively hood such as the Gross National Product you will notice that it has been decreasing all those years with the increase of GDP. The Gross National Product is a measure of the economic output of the median citizen. Now that GDP is fast decreasing and the world is plunging into chaos the GNP is also decreasing. It is not an inverse relationship.

Well I hope you have had fun reading this. I hope you all discuss, talk, argue and state you already knew all this because you are a clever little INTJ or old and wise or, once again, were told by someone old and wise.

aku chi
04-13-2009, 10:38 PM
Your post is full of hyperbole and is largely unsubstantiated, but you do have one or two decent points. Let me try to find them.

I was also disinterested in the hideous puppets we often see on the tube spouting about the deregulation of industry (which only ever promotes oligopolies/monopolies)
This doesn't have anything to do with your topic but it does nicely highlight your hatred of capitalism and its proponents. You seem to be of the opinion that oligopolies and monopolies are self-evidently bad. Although monopolies are comparatively worse for consumers (especially if monopolists can price discriminate), they are often the most efficient producers (in industries with economies of scale). This is an interesting topic, so much so that it deserves its own forum topic. I will say no more here.

Another 'however' is that an American high school student would not know what an exponential curve is because it is demon science. If you like to rebuttal on this subject don't talk to me about it.
That isn't very mature. You threw out an outrageous, unsubstantiated claim and refuse to be rebutted?

Little does the well educated population know that A) There is no free market and B) The error of believing exponential growth is good.
A) If there exists voluntary exchange (free from coercion and third parties), there is freedom in the market. There exists voluntary exchange. Therefore, there is freedom in the market.
B) If one is measuring something that is desirable, exponential growth is good.
Again, neither of these is related to your main point.

This exponential increase causes the doubling of an capital base (apart from land/natural capital) every period allocation. Hence, an increase of 3% a year of energy consumption extrapolates to an doubling of total energy consumption of fifteen years.
Aha, I found a decent point! But it isn't particularly profound. The GDP measures both outputs and consumption. Obviously an increase in GDP would reflect an increase in consumption. However, it might not be accurate to conclude that we consume twice as many natural resources when GDP doubles. After all, we could have consumed energy that was gathered via a renewable resource like sunlight.

As food and water supplies become more scarce because of say an exponential increase of population, you will start to notice the privitisation of your nation's water infrastructure and you will pay more than the weight of gold per liter to sustain your existents. This exponential growth of population will not only put strain on water supplies but also food supplies. Competition for the basic necessities starts wars and riots.
Water is a renewable resource; the planet never loses a significant amount of water. It may become more costly to desalinate or purify water, but it will never be lost to over-consumption. A similar, but more tenuous argument could be made for foodstuffs. People (like Thomas Malthus (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)) have been predicting the doom of mankind due to overpopulation for centuries. However, we are having an easier time meeting our consumption demands now than any time in the past. How are you so confident that we will fail in the near future?

Not to mention a little organisation called the W.T.O. through the utilization of the 'Codex Alimentarius' will control your food past the date of December 31st 2009. An estimated 3 billion people will starve to death or will be killed due to competition. One solution to stop exponential growth I presume. Stock up on your nutrient pills that you need to prevent what illness you have from being a problem. In the Codex nutrients are toxins and toxins must be regulated.
Please expand / explain this further or provide a link; I don't follow.

One thing I have left out is that we need exponential growth of consumption to keep the economy afloat. New debt is need to pay off old debt + interest or the system fails (which it has done due to the flood of new debt in the market). The downfall of the Fractional Reserve system. An interest free money supply was a great idea. Too bad the guy who implemented it was shot in the back of the head.
This is potentially a good point but I am no expert on monetary matters. I leave this point for others to discuss.

Any old bastard with a brain would realise that the wealth of the 'middle class' or median has decreased over the last twenty years proportionally to the increase of GDP.
Are you aware of the difference between wealth and income? Wealth hasn't been considered a relevant metric of well-being since the mercantilist 17th century. I will assume you made a mistake and meant to consider median income. Any healthy, educated individual could search the internet and observe that you are wrong (see a conflicting account (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)). At worst, median income has stagnated in the US. At best, it is increasing at a rate inferior to GDP and average income. If you reform your claim to avoid the hyperbole, you do have a decent point. GDP growth is not a good metric for determining the growth of the median citizen's income.

The World Trade Organisation is the worst offender. This body prevents member nations (mainly third world nations) of introducing industrial relations laws (minimum wage and working conditions), environmental protection laws and tariffs due to the illegalities of violating the free trade agreements which were forced onto them.
Membership in the WTO is voluntary.

Such free trade agreements improve a nation's GPD but do not improve the lively hood of the citizens of that nation. The lack of trade barriers and tariffs cause developed nations into trade with nations which have sub-standard industrialisation laws (due to it being illegal to introduce them). A flood of cheaply manufactured goods and produce (not complying with health and safety standards as that would be a trade barrier and trade barriers are illegal for member nations of the WTO) hit the market causing local competition unable to compete. Jobs are outsourced and the lively hood of citizens in developed nations decrease, while GDP increases.
I'm a little confused, what is your claim? How would trade barriers help developing nations aside from maintaining essential industries in the event of a trade embargo? You seem to be attacking the concepts of specialization and globalization in general here. Perhaps you should create another topic; this is only tangentially related to GDP.

We are living in an illusion that the increase of GDP increases our lively hood. Turning to alternative measure of lively hood such as the Gross National Product you will notice that it has been decreasing all those years with the increase of GDP. The Gross National Product is a measure of the economic output of the median citizen. Now that GDP is fast decreasing and the world is plunging into chaos the GNP is also decreasing. It is not an inverse relationship.
You are mistaken, GNP is not a measure of the economic output of the median citizen nor has GNP been decreasing. I refer you to wikipedia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._income_and_welfare).

GDP is not a perfect metric for measuring the well-being of a nation or its citizens. Treating it as such is a dangerous practice. In this, I think, we agree.

Pandemonium
04-13-2009, 11:00 PM
Most of the points you brought are very valid. Before I was about to post the monstrosity that I wrote in twelve minutes, I was wonder what title I should give it.......Knowing full well most of the topics I covered were slightly inconsequential to each other. Finding sources for all the crap I pulled out of my memory would literally take forever. Due to the false statements in regards to the decrease of GNP. I wonder what gave me the impression it was decreasing. Too many scattered thoughts, I suppose.

Edit: Now I remember GNP should have been NNP.

Even though being a member of the WTO is voluntary many nations that do not wish to be a part of it are forced to either by corruption or by fear of trade sanctions.

I can assure you what ever is written in my large quote box is factually correct.

Maybe next time I will put more effort into sourcing and inserting more factually correct information.

deinotes
04-14-2009, 04:16 AM
I am sure we all know what GDP stands for and if you don't know or do know, I am going to tell you anyway to propel the discussion. Hence! We all know that GDP stands for Gross Domestic Product. Sometimes I like to call it 'Global Domination Percentages'. The term Global Domination Percentages you may intuitively pick up as an indicator of how much the wealth of the top 1% of the population is increasing. I emphasise one percent of the population because GPD figures hardly ever relate to the growth of wealth of the other 99% of the population. In all reality the increase of GDP figures correlate to a decrease of income or wealth of the other 99% of the population.

GDP is the measure of the total economic output of an geopolitical area.

We are all taught at a very early age. In my case a very early age because I was more interested in documentaries, news and the internet at six years old than that street with the hideous puppets. I was also disinterested in the hideous puppets we often see on the tube spouting about the deregulation of industry (which only ever promotes oligopolies/monopolies) of course there may be more companies out there in the endless sea of faces but essentially they are all owned by the same people, paying their workers a pittance for wasting away their lives by enacting the same boring repetitive tasks. If you argue to me that the boring repetitive give people a sense of identity, I will start yelling at you like a retard (seeing/hearing retard makes others become retards) and start throwing pyramid structures at you with Mazlow's name written all over it. So we are taught at a very early age that continual growth of the economy/consumption/population growth is a very good indicator of how well we are doing. However, any one that has completed a few semesters of high school mathematics would tell you "Blimey that shazzwazzas is an exponential growth curve, which doubles the magnitude every fifteen years." Another 'however' is that an American high school student would not know what an exponential curve is because it is demon science. If you like to rebuttal on this subject don't talk to me about it. Read the book "The Republican War on Science."

Now the shazzwazzas is an exponential function/curve which seemingly doubles every fifteen to twenty years. On the news every night we get the latest of listing of exponential increases and it is applauded for the triumphs of the free market system. Little does the well educated population know that A) There is no free market and B) The error of believing exponential growth is good. The error of exponential growth is that there is an a direct link to exponential consumption. Some are aware of this and some people are not and some people believe that exponential consumption is a great thing because it creates of growth of GDP (a.k.a. global domination percentages.) Exponential consumption would be no issue what so ever if we had an exponentially expanding supply of resources such as food and water. In all reality we have an exponential decreasing supply of resources with an slight linear addition on the side to make the world believe we are producing more. We are producing more but it is dwarfed by the shear magnitude of the exponential curve. A failure of neo-classical economics is that it advocates that there is an unlimited supply of resources. This exponential increase causes the doubling of an capital base (apart from land/natural capital) every period allocation. Hence, an increase of 3% a year of energy consumption extrapolates to an doubling of total energy consumption of fifteen years. Many estimates of the amount of time our finite resources will last has a nice little comment at the end of it "A current rates of consumption." This indicates that we have a trues lack of information about how long our finite resources will last. If you do some basic grade eight maths (using logs) you can deduce that our finite resources (such as coal) won't last 400 years (in the case of Australia) but only 60 years.

As food and water supplies become more scarce because of say an exponential increase of population, you will start to notice the privitisation of your nation's water infrastructure and you will pay more than the weight of gold per liter to sustain your existents. This exponential growth of population will not only put strain on water supplies but also food supplies. Competition for the basic necessities starts wars and riots. Not to mention a little organisation called the W.T.O. through the utilization of the 'Codex Alimentarius' will control your food past the date of December 31st 2009. An estimated 3 billion people will starve to death or will be killed due to competition. One solution to stop exponential growth I presume. Stock up on your nutrient pills that you need to prevent what illness you have from being a problem. In the Codex nutrients are toxins and toxins must be regulated. A) There is no free market.

One thing I have left out is that we need exponential growth of consumption to keep the economy afloat. New debt is need to pay off old debt + interest or the system fails (which it has done due to the flood of new debt in the market). The downfall of the Fractional Reserve system. An interest free money supply was a great idea. Too bad the guy who implemented it was shot in the back of the head. Everyone has long forgot the motives of the great people of the past. Remember Israel Bissel! If you research this guy (Americans Only) you will scratch your head and say "Huh? But I thought that guy done that." When legend becomes truth, print the legend.

Now the following is not my wittings, I am just using it because I am lazy.




Any old bastard with a brain would realise that the wealth of the 'middle class' or median has decreased over the last twenty years proportionally to the increase of GDP. The removal of trade barriers and tariffs have decreased the wealth of the median citizen while increasing the wealth of the top 1%. Such organisation as the I.M.F., World Bank, W.T.O. and the United Nations have actively advocation such policies to their member nations. I call these organisations the Quadrilateral of Evil. Through all their policies and so-called well intentions they have done nothing than plunge the world's poorest in greater debt and poverty. The World Trade Organisation is the worst offender. This body prevents member nations (mainly third world nations) of introducing industrial relations laws (minimum wage and working conditions), environmental protection laws and tariffs due to the illegalities of violating the free trade agreements which were forced onto them.

Such free trade agreements improve a nation's GPD but do not improve the lively hood of the citizens of that nation. The lack of trade barriers and tariffs cause developed nations into trade with nations which have sub-standard industrialisation laws (due to it being illegal to introduce them). A flood of cheaply manufactured goods and produce (not complying with health and safety standards as that would be a trade barrier and trade barriers are illegal for member nations of the WTO) hit the market causing local competition unable to compete. Jobs are outsourced and the lively hood of citizens in developed nations decrease, while GDP increases.

We are living in an illusion that the increase of GDP increases our lively hood. Turning to alternative measure of lively hood such as the Gross National Product you will notice that it has been decreasing all those years with the increase of GDP. The Gross National Product is a measure of the economic output of the median citizen. Now that GDP is fast decreasing and the world is plunging into chaos the GNP is also decreasing. It is not an inverse relationship.

Well I hope you have had fun reading this. I hope you all discuss, talk, argue and state you already knew all this because you are a clever little INTJ or old and wise or, once again, were told by someone old and wise.
Bhutan already use a other measurement tool :
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

eternaltriangle
04-14-2009, 07:23 AM
Even though being a member of the WTO is voluntary many nations that do not wish to be a part of it are forced to either by corruption or trade sanctions.


Trade sanctions? Can you name a single case of a country that faced sanctions for not joining the WTO? More to the point, if countries are being forced into free trade against their will HOW THE HELL ARE TRADE SANCTIONS, WHICH IMPLY RESTRICTED TRADE, AN EFFECTIVE THREAT FOR COUNTRIES THAT DON'T WANT TO TRADE?

I agree that GDP is an imperfect measure of societal well-being. No perfect measure exists. For that reason we should look at a range of measures in figuring out if a society is "doing well". Policymakers already do this, as do voters.

Productivity is the closest thing to a "perfect" measure of potential social well-being. A society with workers that can produce more per hour, ceteris paribus, can have more leisure, more money for social programs, less use of resources (including labour) per unit of output and more material wealth than one with less. Thus, as a measure, it does not penalize those societies that simply make different allocation decisions with the rewards of advanced technology and superior production techniques.

As well, GDP is the best measure for a lot of things. If you want to get a sense of potential military strength, for instance, GDP is a pretty relevant measure.

reb
04-14-2009, 08:38 AM
As well, GDP is the best measure for a lot of things. If you want to get a sense of potential military strength, for instance, GDP is a pretty relevant measure.

i find i have to disagree with this portion:

1. GDP is manipulated by 'the fox that runs the henhouse'; as such, the number is always suspect. it is not easily validated by the normal citizen, either. the figures which make up GDP are also tabulated by 'the fox'.

2. the measure of military strength is a combination of ready armament systems (functioning, reliable ones, not 'chauchaut':

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

or DIVAADS; troops with low morale (why would any troops have low morale? low leaders?); 'ready' troops, logistics, 90 day war supply of ammunition and fuel, etc., ability to transport said items and troops, and willingness of leaders to go to war.

GDP simply is so unreliable as to not functionally impact 'war readiness' (or, 'the ability to fight a war'). in a gross sense, one might think that a nation's productive capacity might relate to 'something'...but in fact, the manipulation removes any practical application and enters into the realm of fantasy. the 'apparent productive capacity' of a nation is much like marketing 'to the world'. which may be how the u.s.s. of a. has convinced china to buy so much debt. lies, damn lies and....GDP.

MikeC
04-15-2009, 01:49 AM
GDP (or GNP for you americans) is an adequate measure of income. caveat: having a high income (i.e rich) does not necessarily equate to being wealthy.

eternaltriangle
04-15-2009, 04:53 PM
i find i have to disagree with this portion:

1. GDP is manipulated by 'the fox that runs the henhouse'; as such, the number is always suspect. it is not easily validated by the normal citizen, either. the figures which make up GDP are also tabulated by 'the fox'.

2. the measure of military strength is a combination of ready armament systems (functioning, reliable ones, not 'chauchaut':

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

or DIVAADS; troops with low morale (why would any troops have low morale? low leaders?); 'ready' troops, logistics, 90 day war supply of ammunition and fuel, etc., ability to transport said items and troops, and willingness of leaders to go to war.

GDP simply is so unreliable as to not functionally impact 'war readiness' (or, 'the ability to fight a war'). in a gross sense, one might think that a nation's productive capacity might relate to 'something'...but in fact, the manipulation removes any practical application and enters into the realm of fantasy. the 'apparent productive capacity' of a nation is much like marketing 'to the world'. which may be how the u.s.s. of a. has convinced china to buy so much debt. lies, damn lies and....GDP.

There are multiple GDP calculations out there - it isn't all tabulated by the government. Moreover, I fail to see why bureaucrats in the US would have an incentive to rig economic growth one way or the other. Sure, we would need to take GDP figures from the USSR with a grain of salt, but I am willing to say that publicly available US numbers are not that far off from reality. No measure is going to be perfectly accurate.

As to the specific reference to war fighting capacity, your points are well-taken, but how do you get higher morale, better supplies, etc? Productive power/Money certainly helps. Incidentally that is why I said it is a useful measure of potential power, rather than actual military power (which is hard to estimate). War today is so capital-intensive that productive power is indeed a good measure of how a state would fare in a protracted war of full mobilization against some other state.

Probably the best example of this in action is the US in WWII. Prior to WWII, the US had an army that would have had trouble invading Canada, in disrepair, with obsolete equipment (they did have a fairly strong navy). Certainly when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour they were making a judgment similar to Reb's, that the then-present state of the US military was weak. If they had cared more about GDP, they would not have made that mistake.

What produces toys or textiles one day can be retooled to build tanks and planes the next. That is why the rise of China's GDP poses a threat to regional security. Of course, for China to be a serious threat to US security, technological advances would be necessary. If China could field a competitive navy or air-force, they would be a threat to global security. Size isn't everything, but it is a lot of everything.

reb
04-15-2009, 06:16 PM
eternaltriangle,

the incentive they have to rig economic growth is manipulation of public opinion or the economy. a large portion of 'national finance' and wall street is 'emotion' or perception, if you prefer. just as the future deficits are manipulated by the Congressional Budget Office, social security 'bankruptcy' is manipulated as to 'when' and/or the 'subprime loan' values are manipulated by banks. having seen some of the budgetary process, it is extremely complex...amounts which are 'line item' for certain expenditures are not accurate, depending on type of contract or on who wrote the line item. we had a fund-called the Conventional Ammunition Working Capital Fund-cawcf for short-that was funded on a three year basis by 'incoming line items'. the funds were therefore 'mixed' together, and lost their 'identity'. the fund was used to buy ammo; yet, what went in dint always come out. the budget at our command was on the order of 1 billion. that's just a tiny slice of the GDP or any other major 'picture'...and the fund was at the edge of unmanageable/unattributable/unaccountable. based on this experience, i don't see how GDP or M1 or any of the other 'money yardsticks' can be very accurate. at some point, some accountant 'guesses' or theorizes 'this is the number for my portion; his/her manager spins that number based on their opinion, and so on down/up the line. accounting is not an exact science; mix in politics and press releases, and it may be all smoke.

'war today' is a good phrase. the recent discussion of 'low tech' items left in, vs. high tech/high cost items taken out is a reasonable debate for the military to have. do they need F-16s or B-1s? how many? but they do sure as heck need Lake City and its productive capacity...and yet, i have no idea what they are doing to modernize, and ammunition for the private sector is under siege (believe me-look at ammo prices, lead bans, availability of primers, brass prices, and public sentiment, to say nothing of 'places to shoot'-even the military has trouble with public relations near ranges). between wars, as in WWI and WWII, capacity was allowed to wither; no civilian, except the rich, had much money for ammo during many of those years. we appear to be on the same kind of course...and are adding to it with the crackdown on civilian sector ammo. i have no idea what the % of investment in 1938 was vs. the % of investment in 2009 vis a vis 'national defense'. the sentiment in those days was 'isolationism'; Roosevelt practically drug us into the wars, kicking and screaming (lend lease program, 'Wild Bill' Donovan, other terms will get you some info-Roosevelt was giving destroyers to the british to combat german sub attacks; we sent i don't know how many private arms to britain for 'home defense'). a comparison of defense spending(again, this would have to be based on some 'soft' number, like GDP, so, another grain of salt), of re-tooling the plants, threat analysis (the military nor certainly the politicians are not so good at this-look at all the muslim terr attacks they have just not seen coming)...i was in the middle of a lay off of about 700 people during the clinton years. the plants we shut down are d-e-a-d dead. stone dead. the land and buildings were to be sold off to various corporate interests...no budget to support 'layaway'. the equipment was old...even though protected with grease and plastic in many cases. some of it was 'environmentally unfriendly' and could not even be sold for scrap without significant expenditure. ack...words fail me as to what 'defense readiness' could actually be, if viewed conservatively.

the unfriendly demeanor that the politicians have always had towards soldiers in this country is another factor, but i'm going on too long already...

i agree that upon the onset of WWII, the u.s. did some magnificent things. i do not, however, feel confident that we can do those things again, to say nothing of 'do we have the will to protect our country?'. that's another factor that is a complex debate.

i find myself in line with Marine thinking (which does not distress me a bit)...'every Marine a rifleman'. if we have the will and the ability to field marksmen and women, then we have reason to feel secure. if we do not, then we should not have false ideas about our ability and will to defend ourselves. playing video games DOES give people a leg up on running predator drones, but it doesn't do squat for wind doping a 180 grain projectile at 500 yards. the holes in GDP are a multi faceted subject, wound up in accounting, politics, greed and rational thinking...i just gotta quit here.