GDP as a false measure of a country economic output
GDP is a questionable measure of economic growth
||I take note that the 'indicators' are usually based in numbers which, upon further
inspection, are rosy at the very least. Indicators for main street activity is particularly
bad and skewed. Greenspan was the genius behind this going back sometime ago, with beautiful
headline numbers but when one took a look (if one could) you would find that much was left out.
So we are left, as the government is basically lying or misleading us, to try and figure it
out. We speculate, we find others who have analytical skills to do what others of us cannot.
We listen to the 'on the street views' of others. The faith in the methods behind decades of
increasingly distorted headline numbers, particularly in the '90s, was like watching Jim Jones
give a speech to his faithful, fully accepting for support of their own selfish motivations
and endorphin-laden highs.
Feldstein- House Prices to Fall Further
Correct calculation of nominal GDP depends on correct calculation of inflation, which is the most
politicized of economic metrics and as such subject to tremendous level of manipulation. If a country
becomes increasingly in debt, and spends large amounts of income servicing this debt this is not reflected
in a decreased GDP. GDP does not take into account change in country population iether, but per-capita
GDP account for population growth. Citing Wikipedia
Simon Kuznets, the economist
who developed the first comprehensive set of measures of national income, stated in his first report
to the US Congress in 1934, in a section titled "Uses and Abuses of National Income Measurements":
economics, gross domestic product (GDP) is a measure of the value of economic
production of a particular territory in
terms during a specified period. It is one of the
measures of national income and output. It is often seen as an indicator of the
living in a country, but there may be
problems with this view. GDP is often abbreviated as
GDP is defined as the total value of final goods and services produced within a territory during
a specified period (or, if not specified, annually, so that "the UK GDP" is the UK's annual
product). GDP differs from
national product (GNP) in excluding inter-country income transfers, in effect attributing to
a territory the product generated within it rather than the incomes received in it.
Whereas nominal GDP refers to the total amount of money spent on GDP, real GDP
adjusts this value for the effects of
inflation in order to estimate the actual quantity of goods and services making up GDP. The
former is sometimes called "money GDP," while the latter is termed "constant-price" or "inflation-corrected"
GDP -- or "GDP in base-year prices" (where the base year is the reference year of the
real vs. nominal in economics.
GDP measures only final goods and services, that is those goods and services that are
consumed by their final user, and not used as an input into other goods. Measuring intermediate
goods and services would lead to
of economic activity within a country. This distinction also removes transfers between individuals
and companies from GDP. For instance, buying a
Renoir doesn't boost GDP by $20m.
(If it did, buying and selling the same painting repeatedly to a gallery would imply great wealth
rather than penury.) Note that the
Renoir purchase would affect the GDP figure, but not as a $20m receipt, the
auctioneer's fees would
appear in GDP as consumption expenditure, because this is a final service.
The most common approach to measuring and understanding GDP is the expenditure method:
- GDP = consumption
+ investment +
exports − imports
Consumption and investment in this equation are the expenditure on final goods and services.
The exports minus imports part of the equation (often called net exports) then adjusts this
by subtracting the part of this expenditure not produced domestically (the imports), and adding
back in domestic production not consumed at home (the exports).
Consumption and investment in this equation are the expenditure on final goods and services.
The exports minus imports part of the equation (often called net exports) then adjusts this
by subtracting the part of this expenditure not produced domestically (the imports), and adding
back in domestic production not consumed at home (the exports).
Economists (since Keynes) have
preferred to split the general consumption term into two parts; private consumption, and
public sector spending.
Two advantages of dividing total consumption this way in theoretical macroeconomics are:
- Private consumption is a central concern of
The private investment and trade portions of the economy are ultimately directed (in mainstream
economic models) to increases in long-term private consumption.
- If separated from endogenous
private consumption, Government consumption can be treated as
exogenous, so that different
government spending levels can be considered within a meaningful macroeconomic framework.
Therefore GDP can be expressed as:
- GDP =
private consumption +
government + investment
- (or simply GDP = C + G + I + NX)
The components of GDP
Each of the variables C, I, G, and NX :
- C is private consumption (or Consumer expenditures) in the economy.
This includes most expenditures of
households such as food,
rent, medical expenses and so on.
- I is defined as
business investments in
capital. Examples of investment by a business include construction of a new
mine, purchase of software,
or purchase of machinery and equipment for a factory. 'Investment' in GDP is meant very specifically
product purchases. Buying financial products is classed as
as opposed to investment (which, in the GDP formula is a form of spending). The distinction
is (in theory) clear: if money is converted into goods or services, without a repayment
liability it is
investment. For example, if you buy a
share the ownership of the money
has only nominally changed hands, and this
is excluded from the GDP sum. Although such purchases would be called investments in
normal speech, from the total-economy point of view, this is simply swapping of
deeds, and not part of the
real economy or the GDP formula.
- G is the sum of government expenditures on final goods and services. It includes
salaries of public
servants, purchase of weapons for the millitary, and any investment expenditure by a government.
It does not include any transfer payments, such as
benefits. The relative size of government expenditure compared to GDP as a whole is critical
in the theory of
crowding out, and the
- NX are "net exports" in the economy (gross
exports - gross imports). GDP captures the amount a country produces, including goods and services
produced for overseas consumption, therefore exports are added. Imports are subtracted since
imported goods will be included in the terms G, I, or C, and must be deducted
to avoid counting foreign supply
It is important to understand the meaning of each variable precisely in order to:
... ... ...
The GDP Income account
Another way of measuring GDP is to measure the total income payable in the GDP income accounts.
This should provide the same figure as the expenditure method described above.
The formula for GDP measured using the income approach, called GDP(I), is:
- GDP =
Compensation of employees +
Gross operating surplus +
Gross mixed income + Taxes less subsidies on production and imports
- Compensation of employees (COE) measures the total remuneration to employees for
work done. It includes wages and salaries, as well as employer contributions to
and other such programs.
- Gross operating surplus (GOS) is the surplus due to owners of incorporated businesses.
Often called profits, although
only a subset of total costs are subtracted from gross output to calculate GOS.
- Gross mixed income (GMI) is the same measure as GOS, but for unincorporated businesses.
This often includes most small businesses.
The sum of COE, GOS and GMI is called total factor income, and measures
the value of GDP at factor (basic) prices.The difference between basic prices and final prices (those
used in the expenditure calculation) is the total taxes and subsidies that the Government has levied
or paid on that production. So adding taxes less subsidies on production and imports converts GDP
at factor cost to GDP(I).
The valuable capacity of the human mind to simplify a complex situation in a compact characterization
becomes dangerous when not controlled in terms of definitely stated criteria. With quantitative
measurements especially, the definiteness of the result suggests, often misleadingly, a precision
and simplicity in the outlines of the object measured. Measurements of national income are subject
to this type of illusion and resulting abuse, especially since they deal with matters that are the
center of conflict of opposing social groups where the effectiveness of an argument is often contingent
upon oversimplification. [...]
All these qualifications upon estimates of national income as an index of productivity are just
as important when income measurements are interpreted from the point of view of economic welfare.
But in the latter case additional difficulties will be suggested to anyone who wants to penetrate
below the surface of total figures and market values. Economic welfare cannot be adequately measured
unless the personal distribution of income is known. And no income measurement undertakes to estimate
the reverse side of income, that is, the intensity and unpleasantness of effort going into the earning
of income. The welfare of a nation can, therefore, scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national
income as defined above.
In 1962, Kuznets stated:
Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between costs and returns,
and between the short and long run. Goals for more growth should specify more growth of what and
Continuing progress should not lead not to ever-escalating levels of consumption, but to a society
where improving productivity and technology would provide higher quality goods, better health and more
leisure. GDP never measured economic efficiency of the country; it measures
the level of economic activity. Healthcare is a classic example. The USA spends 20% to
subsidize maladaptive behavior between producers and consumers in the medical food chain.
The other problem with GDP, which the USA actually shares with the USSR is the quantity is substituted
for quality. As Paul Krugman
has pointed out, generally Europeans has better understanding of this problem with GDP then Americans
and thus less susceptible to the "cult of GDP" which dominated the USA economic discourse. There
are also other areas where Americans place too high priority on quantity sometimes in detriment to quality
For example, "House slaves" is another example of overconsumption in this case overconsumption of housing
as measured by size.
Consumption as a status symbol is another similar phenomenon. The term
Conspicuous consumption was coined
by the US economist for a reason. This idea was further investigated by
Galbraith in his famous book
The Affluent Society
It looks like "cult of GDP" which definitely represent dominant economic religion in the USA is very
similar to the cult of GDP which existed in the USSR. And like in the USSR GDP is
very misleading, politically distorted metric of economic well-being of the country. As Yves Smith observed
in comments to
on the Need for Jobs Policies
American GDP figures are wildly distorted, this has never gotten
the press it deserves. The US is the ONLY economy that uses hedonic adjustments to
GDP. That means it increases GDP to allow for the fact that computers have become more productive
over time (this is completely different than the hedonic adjustments for inflation, BTW).
A modern desktop computer is about as powerful as a mainframe as of late 1980s. So I kid you
not, these adjustments started in 1987, and they count you desktop in GDP as the same value what
the equivalent big iron computer would have cost in 1987. Mish managed
to get the BEA to send him a spreadsheet in 2005, and it showed the cumulative impact was 22% of
GDP. This is far and away the most dubious of the official statistical adjustments,
and gets far and away the least commentary.
The Bundesbank has also complained a few years ago that if German calculated GDP the way the
US did, it’s growth rate would be a half a percent higher. If you take the Bundesbank figure instead,
and calculate GDP growth over 22 years, using 2.5% versus 3.0% growth, you get an 11% cumulative
There is other, more dangerous aspect of GDP is that tail wags the dog --
it implicitly stimulated counter-productive behavior of government and its
major economic agents. In a recent article by Samuel Brittan (Financial
Times) put it very well:
A typical talk on BBC’s Radio Three might start by bemoaning the consumer society, with its passion
for shopping and the rush to make pointless purchases. It might then bemoan the nervous strain in
the quest for economic growth and the lack of time or energy for more worthwhile activities.
But then comes a more interesting twist. All this frenzy of pointless activity is required, it
is said, to keep the economy going. Without it, the implication is, production would dry up and
jobs disappear, and we would wallow in semi-permanent depression.
The contention is that the economy would collapse if we ceased to
demand more and more, a belief sometimes called the saturation bogey. Many practical
businessmen, who have no time or inclination for political economy, suppose that we must go on churning
out more and more to survive, whether or not we enjoy the process. The US president Calvin Coolidge
remarked in 1926: “The chief business of the American people is business.” UK politicians
used to ask what would happen when every family in the country had two cars.
The clue to the whole matter is provided, as so often, by a dictum from Adam Smith: “Consumption
is the sole end and purpose of production; and the interests of the producer ought to be attended
to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.” To demonstrate the falsity
of the belief that we must continue to feed the productive machine with ever more ridiculous demands,
let me indulge in a brief thought experiment.
Let us take a medium-sized, western economy with no major population change and negligible net
migration or other problems. What might then happen if a majority of people were to turn their backs
on further improvements in their real spending? The basic answer is that, in this no-growth new
world, people could enjoy the fruits of technological progress with a mixture of increased leisure
and a more congenial and relaxed working life. The reduction in labor
input would be voluntary and completely different from what happens in an economic slump.
Some political economists have looked forward to this state of affairs.
John Stuart Mill regarded what he called the “stationary state” as a delight rather than a
disaster. He could not believe that the perpetual struggle to get on and elbow other
people out of the way was other than a temporary phase in humanity’s progress. Keynes also looked
forward to such a world (in his essay “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren”) when “we shall
honor the delightful people who are capable of taking direct enjoyment in things: the lilies of
the field who toil not, neither do they spin.” He allowed for the persistence of a minority of people
who would feel satisfaction only if their behavior made them feel superior to their fellows, “but
the rest of us would no longer feel under any obligation to applaud”.
There is another view, stated most eloquently by Joseph Schumpeter. As he put it:
“Capitalism is by nature a form or method of economic change and not
only never is, but never can be, stationary.”
Let us concede at once that the resulting system would not look much like capitalism as we know
it. But even in such a society there would be great advantages in retaining competitive markets
based on private ownership. Those who have now, belatedly, discovered Schumpeter and quote him out
of context do not realise that, writing in the 1940s, he expected entrepreneurial capitalism to
have died out long ago and be replaced by some variant of state socialism. He failed to see how
unworkable the latter would be. Like many other seers he was an excellent analyst, but a poor prophet.
As soon as we add more realistic conditions, the saturation bogey
becomes more and more remote. Even if demand for conventional consumer goods were
to peak, there might still be demand for more public services and more expenditure to relieve poverty
at home and abroad. Most western countries are likely to see net immigration for the foreseeable
future, which would bring with it opportunities for new investment without any need for whipping
up artificial needs and anxieties. This is not to speak of devoting a margin of extra production
to dealing with environmental threats, whether or not of a global warming variety.
This preliminary observations suggest that GDP is a too broad and thus questionable measure of
economic growth. As such it should not be absolutized as the sole metric of the economy growth.
Such usage in many respects simply contradict common sense. In a way the calculation
of GDP became just a complex (and by-and-large counterproductive) ritual not unlike some religious
rituals like calculation of certain dates. That's why we can talk about "Cult of GDP" as a religious
It does not necessary correlates with well-being of the people as the term "jobless recovery" implies:
for most working people any period of slow growth is not that different from recession.
See Olivier Vaury, Is
GDP a good measure of economic progress, Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 20 . Recently
there was an interesting new evidence that suggests that shifting production overseas has inflicted
additional damage on the U.S. economy by creating "phantom GDP"
BusinessWeek's analysis of the import price data
reveals offshoring to low-cost countries is in fact creating "phantom
GDP" -- reported gains in GDP that don't correspond to any actual domestic production.
The only question is the magnitude of the disconnect. "There's something real here, but we don't
know how much," says J. Steven Landefeld, director of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), which
puts together the GDP figures. Adds Matthew J. Slaughter, an economist at the Amos Tuck School of
Business at Dartmouth College who until last February was on President George W. Bush's Council
of Economic Advisers: "There are potentially big implications. I worry about how pervasive this
By BusinessWeek's admittedly rough estimate, offshoring may have created about $66 billion
in phantom GDP gains since 2003 (page 31). That would lower real GDP
today by about half of 1%, which is substantial but not huge. But put another way, $66 billion would
wipe out as much as 40% of the gains in manufacturing output over the same period.
It's important to emphasize the tenuousness of this calculation. In particular, it required
BusinessWeek to make assumptions about the size of the cost savings from offshoring, information
the government doesn't even collect.
As a result, the actual size of phantom GDP could be a lot
larger, or perhaps smaller. This estimate mainly focuses on the shift of manufacturing overseas.
But phantom GDP can be created by the introduction of innovative new imported products or by the
offshoring of research and development, design, and services as well--and there aren't enough data
in those areas to take a stab at a calculation. "As these [low-cost] countries move up the value
chain, the problem becomes worse and worse," says Jerry A. Hausman, a top economist at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. "You've put your finger on a real problem."
Alternatively, as Landefeld notes, the size of the overstatement could be smaller. One possible
offset: Machinery and high-tech equipment shipped directly to businesses from foreign suppliers
may generate less phantom GDP, just because of the way the numbers are constructed.
... ... ...
Phantom GDP can also be created in import-dependent industries
with fast product cycles, because the import price statistics can't keep up with the rapid pace
of change. And it can happen when foreign suppliers take on tasks such as product design without
raising the price. That's an effective cost cut for the American purchaser, but the folks at the
BLS have no way of picking it up.
The effects of phantom GDP seem to be mostly concentrated in the
past three years, when offshoring has accelerated. Indeed, the first time the term appeared in
BusinessWeek was in 2003. Before then, China and India in particular were much smaller
exporters to the U.S.
The one area where phantom GDP may have made an earlier appearance is information technology.
Outsourcing of production to Asia really took hold in the late 1990s, after the Information Technology
Agreement of 1997 sharply cut the duties on IT equipment. "At least a portion of the productivity
improvement in the late 1990s ought to be attributed to falling import prices," says Feenstra of
UC Davis, who along with Slaughter and two other co-authors has been examining this question.
What does phantom GDP mean for policymakers? For one thing, it calls
into question the economic statistics that the Federal Reserve uses to guide monetary policy.
If domestic productivity growth has been overstated for the past few years, that suggests the nation's
long-term sustainable growth rate may be lower than thought, and the Fed may have less leeway to
In terms of trade policy, the new perspective suggests the U.S. may
have a worse competitiveness problem than most people realized. It was easy to downplay
the huge trade deficit as long as it seemed as though domestic growth was strong. But if the import
boom is actually creating only a facade of growth, that's a different story. This lends more credence
to corporate leaders such as CEO John Chambers of Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO
) who have publicly worried about U.S. competitiveness--and who perhaps coincidentally have been
the ones leading the charge offshore.
In a broader sense, though, the problem with the statistics reveals that the conventional nation-centric
view of the U.S. economy is completely obsolete. Nowadays we live in a world where tightly integrated
supply chains are a reality.
For that reason, Landefeld of the BEA suggests perhaps part of the cost cuts from offshoring
are being appropriately picked up in GDP. In some cases, intangible activities such as R&D and design
of a new product or service take place in the U.S. even though the production work is done overseas.
Then it may make sense for the gains in productivity in the supply chain to be booked to this country.
Says Landefeld: "The companies do own those profits." Still, counters Houseman, "it doesn't represent
a more efficient production of things made in this country."
What Landefeld and Houseman can agree on is that the rush of globalization has brought about
a fundamental change in the U.S. economy. This is why the methods for measuring the economy need
to change, too.
Also many components of GDP (especially FIRE -- finance, insurance and real estate) might be partially
anti-social and their fast growth might be detrimental for the health and prosperity of
society. Jesus attitude toward bankers is well known and probably was not without the reason ;-)
There are several well-known problem with GDP:
- Overstatement of GDP and other economic metrics due to effects of outsourcing. An article
in New York Times by Louis Uchitelle pointed out long known fact that foreign outsourcing
of component manufacturing distorts statistics and has led to consistent overstatement of U.S. GDP
and productivity. The connection goes a long way to explain why we keep losing jobs even as GDP
is apparently expanding.
- The strength of consumer spending which is the dominant part of GDP reflects mainly the demand
of the rich. Ajay Kapur of Citigroup has described America as a “plutonomy” where
the top 20% account for nearly 60% of all consumption while the bottom
fifth spend just 3%. There are more then 8 million millionaires in the USA. And the
rich are, as F. Scott Fitzgerald said, different from you and me.
According to Ajay Kapur "the rich matter far more than the 'average'
consumer; that may explain why American demand was so robust in the face of higher petrol prices."
Watching that their purchases increase may be entertaining but of little economic value. Instead
of the rich, we should be looking at the broader population. [Buttonwood
The rich are different Economist.com].
- GDP statistics is not corrected for 'conspicuous consumption": consumption that is not
directed in satisfaction of any real need and that often actually harms people. Abuse of painkillers
is an extreme example. If a harmful drug is taken off the shelves, GDP suffers. Similar problem
exists with is side-effects of fast food epidemics. Obese people spend around $30-50 billions a
year in weight-losing products. Those spending do not raise economic well-being, just the opposite
they compensate harm caused by fast food industry.
If pharmaceutical industry conducts an expensive marketing companion of questionable or even
harmful drags and reaps billions from it, GDP increases. And this practice was the major driver
of pharmaceutical industry for the last 20 or more years (with the emergence of "blockbuster" drag
concept, like all those cholesterol lowering drags, recreational drugs like Viagra, etc)
The same is also true for soft drinks industry: increases in selling of caffeinated high
sugar solutions like Coca-cola and Pepsi has nothing to do with the increased economic well-being
of the society, but increase the spread of diabetis. This is just conspicuous consumption,
but only designed for poor and lower middle classes. Along with the rate of diabetics it might
increase other serious diseases in the in the population too.
- Cooperative societies (societies that have high level of government services) have lower
GDP then societies were everything is privatized. Government-sponsored health-care and education
decreases GDP. That means that you simply cannot compare GDP of Canada and USA without serious additional
research, but this effect alone makes GDP questionable measure in comparing two different countries,
although it is does not prevent year-to-year comparisons in the same country.
- Peaceful societies, characterized by a lower level of crime (and consequently legal activities,
prisons, etc.) are penalized in terms of GDP! The same is true for countries with a healthy
way of life! BTW drugs to cure fast food effects on health and low mobility induced excessive weight
are multi-billion industry.
- GDP is positively affected by any large destruction, for example caused by Katrina.
The latter might actually saved the USA from economic slum in 2005: “Burn Paris and you will make
GDP grow!”. GDP only includes positive values: if something is destroyed, then rebuilt
by a private company, GDP goes up while economic well-being is unchanged or even became worse.
- War expenses increase GDP. As Major General Smedley Butler once noted
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable,
surely the most vicious."
As such wars positively affects GDP as profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
Destruction or wear of equipment, medical developments for better treatment/recovery of wounded
soldiers, spillovers into civil sector of intensified research and development for creation of new
types and modernizing existent types of weapons and defenses against new types of enemy attacks
all positively contribute to GDP. Recessions are almost impossible as long as a country is engaged
on protracted war.
The arguments presented above cast doubt on the usefulness of GDP as the main “pilot” of economic
policy. If the thermometer is wrong, then the policy based on it should be wrong too. Also people
are very adaptable and if some numeric scale became an official goal. people demonstrate tremendous
ability to abuse any numeric scales of measurement both by fraud and by corruption of the initial goals
and purpose of the measurement.
But even if we assume the GDP is a useful metric there are some concerns about the validity of the
official figures: Ronald R. Cooke in his editorial
American GDP published 01-17-2008
at Financial Sense noted:
In another life (circa 1962), I was an auditor for AT&T. Nothing spectacular. Mostly cash and
property reviews. Then some business process analysis. It was my good fortune to have two older
gentlemen as partners. They graciously decided to teach this green college kid how to be a good
auditor. It was a great learning experience. One of the tricks they taught me was called the “reasonable
test”. If the data under audit was within the parameters of like data from other audits, then it
was reasonable to assume there were no problems of procedure or management. If, on the other hand,
the data did not seem to make sense versus circumstantial criteria, then it would be reasonable
to assume further audit investigation was warranted. This technique of measuring the quality of
information has become a cornerstone of my work ever since.
In early November, 2007, the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) announced
the United States had achieved a third quarter Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 3.9 percent. That
number was later updated to 4.9 percent. Those numbers set off my “reasonable test” alarm. How,
I wondered, with an accelerating rate of inflation and declining economic activity, could the United
States turn in such a stellar performance?
The BEA’s report flunked the reasonable test.
The BEA reported American GDP in billions of Current
Dollars (the money we actually spent for goods and services) for Q3 2006 and Q3 2007. It also reported
this same data adjusted for inflation using “chained” 2000 dollars. As of December 20, 2007,
the quarterly data, using seasonally adjusted annual rates for
the National Domestic accounts, yields the Current-Dollar and “Real” Gross Domestic Product
data shown in the following Table. It shows that annual GDP growth in current dollars grew from
4.53% in Q1 2007 to 5.30% in Q3 2007. Using inflation adjusted chained 2000 dollars, economic growth
grew from 1.55% in Q1 2007 to 2.84% in Q3. Not bad.
But wait. Does this imply an inflation differential of only 2.46% for Q3? And do we really believe
the inflation differential actually declined from 2.98% in Q1 to 2.46% in Q3? Didn’t the value of
the dollar decline over these three quarters?
billions of current dollars
% Change from year ago quarter
billions of chained 2000 dollars
% Change from year ago quarter
The BEA’s Price Index for Gross Domestic Purchases (which measured prices paid by U S. residents)
increased by just 1.8% in Q3. By contrast, the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
CPI-U inflation index was 2.36% for this same period. Which number is
a better measure of inflation? Can we trust either number?
And to further compound the confusion, the BEA has reported a current dollar gain of 6.0% for
Q3. BUT this is against average GDP for all of 2006, rather than a comparison of Q3 2006 vs. Q3
Collecting the copious amounts of data used to compute GDP has to be a tedious and sometimes
frustrating job. Unfortunately, sophisticated analysis and hard work does not guarantee credible
results. The BEA’s conclusions appear to be a bit optimistic.
Simple Net GDP Calculation
Pundits frequently ignore current dollar GDP (the total production of goods and services priced
as though they were purchased with current dollars). Instead they use a number that has been adjusted
downward called “Real” GDP that deducts the rate of inflation and makes other adjustments to current
dollar GDP in an attempt to compare GDP from one period, with the GDP for a subsequent period, using
dollars of a constant value .
I dislike the term “Real” GDP. There is nothing sacred about using inflation adjusted dollars
as a measure of economic performance. Current dollar GDP is just as “real” as any other measure
of value and provides a useful way to compare multiple sets of data from period to period. We should
remember. Consumers can not spend inflation adjusted dollars to purchase goods and services. They
can only pay their bills with the money that is actually in their pocket – current dollars. So ..
if we want to adjust current dollar GDP for inflation, then let us do just that … and call it “Net”
GDP. In other words, Net GDP is the percentage increase (or decrease) in current dollar GDP for
a specified period vs. the current dollar GDP of a like prior period, less the rate of inflation
from the prior period to the specified period. In the following example, seasonally adjusted current
dollar GDP increased from $13,266.9 billion in Q3 2006, to 13,970.5 billion in Q3 2007 – an increase
of 5.30%. The BLS reported a seasonally adjusted price index increase of 2.36% for these same two
periods. If we subtract the BLS CPI from BEA current dollar GDP, that gives us a net increase
in GDP of 2.94% from Q3 2006 to Q3 2007, - far less than the GDP gain of 4.9% reported by
BEA Q3 2007
GDP Growth in Current Dollars from Q3 2006
Q3 2007 GDP vs. Q3 2006 GDP
BLS CPI-U Q3
2006 vs. Q3 2007
Deduct Q3 2007 Rate of Inflation
If we take the BEA seasonally adjusted quarterly current dollar Gross Domestic Product percent
change for Q3 2007, and compare it with this same data adjusted for chained 2000 dollars, the “inflation”
differential is only 1.1 % even though the BEA price index was 1.8. In addition, note that while
real world food and fuel prices have been going up, the inflation differential has been going down.
How is this possible?
BEA GDP Data
GDP percent change based on current dollars
GDP percent change based on chained 2000
If you go to www.tce.name and click on the Cultural Economics
tab, you will see my essay of the rate of inflation: “CPI: Sophisticated Economic Theory, Terrible
Ethics”. To quote from that essay: “If we use the weighting and data
points from the above factoids to calculate an alternative estimate of CPI (the Consumer Price Index),
we get a very different picture of American inflation from Q3 2006 to Q3 2007. There is a dramatic
increase in food and housing costs. …... Granted.
Accuracy would require the acquisition and analysis of a lot more data than assembled for this
effort. But the large discrepancy suggests something is wrong with either the survey methodology
or the process of analysis. Whereas the BLS reported a CPI increase of 2.36% for this period, the
actual rate of inflation was more like 4.02%.”
Ok. I like my economics simple, uncluttered, and straight. Assuming the credibility of the BEA
current dollar estimates, let’s deduct my alternative CPI from the BEA data to estimate economic
BEA Q3 2007 vs. Q3 2006 GDP in Current Dollars
TCE CPI-U Q3 2007 vs. Q3 2006 Dollar value inflation
“Net” increase in Q3 2007 GDP
Using this methodology, could one conclude America’s economy posted a modest performance in Q3
2007? And by the way:
which number reflects contemporaneous
comments on the economy:
the 4.9% gain in GDP reported by the BEA, or the above estimate of 1.26%?
... ... ...
GDP is one of the most closely watched economic statistics: It is
used by the White House and Congress to prepare the Federal budget, by the Federal Reserve to formulate
monetary policy, by Wall Street and the media as an indicator of economic activity, and by the business
community to prepare forecasts of production, investment, and employment. Because of its
extremely sensitive business and political ramifications, reported
GDP (current or chained) needs to be accurate, unambiguous, and trustworthy.
And this brings up an interesting point. One of the issues in this election cycle is trust. Can
we trust the information we receive from the Federal Government? Congress? The Administration? Federal
agencies? Aside from outright falsification, and intentional or intrinsic bias, data and information
can be rendered untrustworthy by establishing a misdirected premise for the methodology or by overly
Hopefully, we will elect a management team in November that has the ability to review our measurement
objectives and the analytical processes used to achieve them. In other words:
In God We Trust. All others need an occasional audit.
In GDP, the quantity is substituted for quality. As a result American GDP figures
are wildly distorted (hedonic adjustments, etc). In a way the calculation of GDP became just a
complex (and by-and-large counterproductive) ritual not unlike some religious rituals like calculation
of certain dates. That's why we can talk about "Cult of GDP" as a religious phenomena.
This cult has mirror image in large corporate behavior. Both on the level of society and the
level of large corporation if the metric is wrong, then the policy based on it is destructive.
The USSR example suggests that the most dangerous aspect of GDP is "tail wags the dog" effect
-- it implicitly stimulated maladaptive, counter-productive behavior of government and its major economic
agents. The term for the USSR was "phantom GDP" and now it applies to the USA to the full extent possible.
For example offshoring may have created about $66 billion in phantom GDP gains since 2003 . A
lot of phantom GDP was also created in import-dependent industries. Accounting at large multinationals
is as distorted as in the USSR to the extent that some parts of profits are completely fictional (writing
down as research many non-research activities is a one popular trick). The danger amplifies when
individual firms adopt questionable metrics like "maximizing shareholder value" as capitalism is by
nature a dynamic economic force what seeks change and became destructive if corporate goals for such
a change are misaligned with the larger society. In other words "maximizing shareholder value" implicitly
presuppose minimizing societal value and responsibility. One telling example is the emergence
of "blockbuster" drags, like all those cholesterol lowering drags, painkillers and recreational
drugs like Viagra in big pharma.
There is also a more generic problem with one dimensional metrics of economic performance that USSR
was first to demonstrate to the world. People are very adaptable and if some numeric scale became
an official goal they demonstrate tremendous ability to abuse this metric both by fraud and by corruption
of controlling organizations defeating the initial goals and purpose of the measurement. So "maximizing
shareholder value" paradoxically might be the best way to destroy any traces of honest accounting and
honest auditors :-). This phenomena was independently rediscovered in the USA by the name of
Microfoundations from Acemogl, Oxdaglar, and Tahbaz-salehi:
Microeconomic origins of macroeconomic tail risks, by Daron
Acemoglu, Asuman Ozdaglar, and Alireza Tahbaz-Salehi:
Understanding large economic downturns is one of macroeconomics'
central goals. This column argues that imbalances in input-output
linkages can interact with firm-level shocks to produce output
fluctuations that are much larger than the underlying shocks. The
result can be large cycles arising from small, firm-level shocks.
It is thus important to study the determinants of large economic
downturns separately. Macroeconomic tail risks may vary
significantly even across economies that exhibit otherwise
identical behavior for moderate deviations.
Most empirical studies in macroeconomics approximate the deviations
of aggregate economic variables (such as the GDP) from their trends
with a normal distribution. Besides analytical convenience, such an
approximation has been relatively successful in capturing some of
the more salient features of the behavior of aggregate variables in
the US and other OECD countries.
Macroeconomic tail risks
A number of recent studies (see Fagiolo et al. 2008), however, have
documented that the distributions of GDP growth rate in the US and
many OECD countries do not follow the normal, or bell-shaped
distribution. Large negative or positive growth rates are more
common than the normal distribution would suggest. That is to say,
the distributions exhibit significantly heavier 'tails' relative to
that of the normal distribution. Using the normal distribution thus
severely underpredicts the frequency of large economic downturns.
This divergence can be seen clearly in Figure 1. Panel (a) depicts
the quantile-quantile plot of post-war US GDP growth rate (1947:QI
to 2013:QIII) versus the normal distribution after removing the top
and bottom 5% of data points. The close correspondence between this
dataset and the normal distribution, shown as the dashed red line,
suggests that once large deviations are excluded, the normal
distribution is indeed a good candidate for approximating GDP
fluctuations. Panel (b) shows the same quantile-quantile plot for
the entire US post-war sample. It is easy to notice that this graph
exhibits sizeable and systematic deviations from the normal line at
both ends. Together, these plots suggest that even though the
normal distribution does a fairly good job in approximating the
nature of fluctuations during most of the sample, it severely
underestimates the most consequential fact about business cycle
fluctuations, namely, the frequency of large economic contractions.
Figure 1. The quantile-quantile plots of the post-war US GDP growth
rate (1947:QI to 2013:QIII) vs. the standard normal distribution
(dashed red line)
The horizontal axis shows quantiles of the standard normal
distribution; the vertical axis shows quantiles of the sample data.
Input-output linkages, micro shocks, and macro risks
In recent work (Acemoglu et al. 2014), we have argued that
input-output linkages between different firms and sectors within
the economy can play a first-order role in determining the depth
and frequency of large economic downturns. Building on an earlier
framework by Acemoglu et al. (2012), we show that if all firms take
roughly symmetric roles as input-suppliers to one another (in what
we call a 'balanced' economy), not only GDP fluctuations are
normally distributed, but also large economic downturns are
extremely unlikely. In other words, absent any amplification
mechanisms or aggregate shocks, microeconomic firm-level shocks
cannot result in macroeconomic tail risks. More interestingly, this
result holds regardless of how these firm-level microeconomic
shocks are distributed.
Our subsequent analyses, however, establish that the irrelevance of
microeconomic shocks for generating macroeconomic tail risks would
no longer hold if the economy is 'unbalanced', in the sense that
some firms play a much more important role as input-suppliers than
others. More specifically, we argue that:
The propagation of microeconomic shocks through input-output
linkages can significantly increase the likelihood of large
The implications of our theoretical results can be summarized as
First, the frequency of large GDP contractions is highly sensitive
to the nature of microeconomic shocks.
In particular, in an unbalanced economy, micro shocks with slightly
thicker tails can lead to a significant increase in the likelihood
of large economic downturns. This suggests that unbalanced
input-output linkages can lead to the build-up of tail risks in the
Second, depending on the distribution of microeconomic shocks, the
economy may exhibit significant macroeconomic tail risks even
though aggregate fluctuations away from the tails can be
well-approximated by a normal distribution.
This outcome is consistent with the pattern of US post-war GDP
fluctuations documented in Figure 1.
This observation underscores the importance of studying the
determinants of large recessions, as such macroeconomic tail risks
may vary significantly even across economies that exhibit otherwise
identical behaviour for moderate deviations.
Finally, there is a trade-off between the normality of micro-level
shocks and imbalances in the input-output linkages.
An economy with unbalanced input-output linkages subject to normal
microeconomic shocks exhibits deep recessions as frequently as a
balanced economy subject to heavy-tailed shocks.
Solving the 'small shocks, large cycles puzzle'
In this sense, our results provide a novel solution to what
Bernanke et al. (1996) refer to as the 'small shocks, large cycles
puzzle' by arguing that the interaction between the underlying
input-output structure of the economy and the shape of the
distribution of microeconomic shocks is of first-order importance
in determining the nature of aggregate fluctuations.
Understanding the underlying causes of large economic downturns
such as the Great Depression has been one of the central questions
in macroeconomics. Our results suggest that the frequency and depth
of such downturns may depend on the interaction between
microeconomic firm-level shocks and the nature of input-output
linkages across different firms. This is due to the fact that the
propagation of shocks over input-output linkages can lead to the
concentration of tail risks in the economy. This observation
highlights the importance of separately studying the determinants
of large economic downturns, as such macroeconomic tail risks may
vary significantly even across economies that exhibit otherwise
identical behaviour for moderate deviations.
Acemoglu, D, V M Carvalho, A Ozdaglar, and Al Tahbaz-Salehi (2012),
"The network origins of aggregate fluctuations", Econometrica, 80,
Acemoglu, D, A Ozdaglar, and A Tahbaz-Salehi (2014), "Microeconomic
origins of macroeconomic tail risks", NBER Working Paper No. 20865.
Bernanke, B, M Gertler, and S Gilchrist (1996), "The financial
accelerator and the flight to quality", The Review of Economics and
Statistics, 78, 1–15.
Fagiolo, G, M Napoletano, and A Roventini (2008), "Are output
growth-rate distributions fat-tailed? Some evidence from OECD
countries", Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23, 639–669.
Understanding large economic downturns is one of macroeconomics' central goals. This
column argues that imbalances in input-output linkages can interact with firm-level shocks
to produce output fluctuations that are much larger than the underlying shocks. The result
can be large cycles arising from small, firm-level shocks. It is thus important to study
the determinants of large economic downturns separately. Macroeconomic tail risks may vary
significantly even across economies that exhibit otherwise identical behavior for moderate
-- Acemogl, Oxdaglar, and Tahbaz-salehi
[ While I may well not understand this, from what I think I understand I have no idea how
this would account for the Depression or the past recession. Precisely how did small
firm-level shocks create the Depression or the past recession? What shocks to what firms, when
and where was there any regulatory response? ]
djb said in reply to anne...
At least when Keynes described a business cycle he aimed to intuitively understand what the
Here i cant find it
are they saying that societies controlled by monopolies are subject more frequent and
New Deal democrat said...
"are they saying that societies controlled by monopolies are subject more frequen and
Yes, basically that's it. Human decision-makers are fallible. In an oligopoly or monopoly, all
it takes is one bad decision by one CEO to send a shock wave through the entire sector.
Contrast with 100 CEO's of smaller companies in the same sector. Any one or several poor
decisions are unlikely to cause a big disruption.
Or, put another way, the study demonstrates that "the bigger they are, the harder they fall."
[Jun 24, 2013] Time to
ditch GDP By Martin Hutchinson
Much commentary this year has been devoted to the dramatically negative effect the "sequester"
spending cuts would have on US gross domestic product. In Japan, one leg of Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe's three-part plan to revive the economy is additional state spending, predicted to increase
gross domestic product (GDP) in spite of its damaging effects on Japan's huge debt and budget deficit.
Yet in both cases, the economic effects predicted are statistical artifacts, not real changes.
GDP, which includes government spending at cost, unlike its treatment of all other economic activity,
is a deeply flawed statistic, rigged up by Keynesians to make Big Government look better.
Several economic statistics have similar flaws. Consumer Price Indexes, for example, no longer
include house prices or any realistic proxy therefore, allowing inflation watchers to miss price
bubbles like that of 2002-06 in the US, which if statistics had been collected properly would have
led to far higher interest rates and a resultant deflation of the housing bubble. Similarly, the
1996 "hedonic pricing" adjustment, which over-compensates for quality improvements in the tech sector
by pretending that each Moore's Law doubling in chip capacity produces an actual doubling in value,
has suppressed reported CPI inflation since it was introduced.
While the elimination of asset prices from the CPI and the suppression of tech sector inflation
had substantial academic support when they were introduced - in economics, you can always find academics
to support anything - their true driver was political. Politicians like lower interest rates, which
asset-bubble-driven CPI increases would prevent, and want the appearance of good economic stewardship
produced by lower reported CPI figures.
It also doesn't hurt that lower reported CPI figures greatly reduce the actuarial future cost
of social security and other benefits politicians have promised the electorate. Voters will never
notice a little chiseling on the CPI figures by which their benefits are adjusted, whereas they
will certainly notice the tax increases that would be necessary to fund them properly.
The current proposal to adjust benefits by "chained CPI" figures, which reflect a re-balancing
of consumption on price movements that bears no relation to consumers' actual behavior, is another
step in this direction that will remove another tiny slice each year from social security recipients'
welfare. Truly, the proponents of these CPI changes should go into the salami business.
As with the CPI, the designers of the GDP statistic (and its Gross National Product brother,
which bases output on ownership, rather than physical location) had their own political agenda.
Simon Kuznets, who unveiled the GNP statistic to the US Senate in 1934 (and published it in the
National Bureau of Economic Research Bulletin of June 7, 1934) was a lifelong Keynesian who was
trying to put an economically sound foundation under the New Deal's intellectually incoherent policies.
Since he regarded government activity as a positive good that should be expanded in downturns, he
included the cost of government directly in GNP/GDP at full cost -- thus automatically producing
an increase in output when the size of government increases.
Kuznets should not be blamed inordinately. To get GDP, he went through "national income paid
out" and then adjusted for business profits. That's not the way we'd calculate the statistic today,
and it makes the inclusion of government at cost more understandable - he simply assumed government
made neither a profit nor a loss.
In reality, on his methodology, government makes a huge loss, because the market value of its
outputs is greatly exceeded by the cost of its inputs. You can see the effect of this in the US
Postal Service, which some want to privatize, as with a US$4 billion privatization of the Belgian
postal service, planned for this month.
However if you look at the Post Office's financials, privatization is obviously impossible, because
the entity has negative value, with a net worth of minus $35 billion and an operating loss of $16
billion in 2012. By GDP accounting, if the USPS is included in government its output is deemed to
be its $81 billion of expenses, while considered as a private sector entity its output is only $65
From a national accounting perspective, the US Postal Service is one of the easiest bits of government
to assess: its output is sold at market prices, just like a private corporation, albeit a horrendously
unprofitable one. Other parts of government are much more difficult. The State Department and Department
of Defense have no measurable outputs at all and, in the case of defense, vast inputs, yet few would
argue that the government could function without them, at least in some form.
Conversely, the Environmental Protection Agency, issuing regulations covering effectively the
whole of US economic activity, imposes a vast hidden cost through regulation that is nowhere accounted
for in GDP. That's the pernicious effect of regulation: if the US improved automobile fuel efficiency
through a higher gasoline tax, the costs would be out there for all to see, whereas by imposing
the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards the EPA is able to impose far higher costs on the economy
that are completely invisible directly.
Some of those costs are visible indirectly, in the higher costs and lower profits of US automobile
manufacturers; others, such as the additional lives lost of inadequately protected passengers in
high-gas-mileage cars involved in automobile accidents, are completely invisible. (Lives would also
be lost if a higher gas tax caused manufacturers to make the automobile fleet flimsier, but in that
case consumers would have the option of buying a steel-reinforced gas guzzler and paying the extra
fuel cost, whereas under CAFE regulation they don't.)
There are thus two approaches to reforming GDP. One would be to take each division of government
and attempt to assess the value of its output, which is negative in the case of the EPA, parts of
the Commerce and Agriculture Departments (protectionism) and possibly the Education Department (dumbing
That sounds like a fun intellectual exercise, but it would involve endless political judgments
about which the two sides could not possibly agree. In the extraordinary US political system, that
could perhaps be managed - you could have two different party groups in the Congressional Budget
Office, producing Republican and Democrat GDP estimates. The Republican estimate would take a free
market approach, assigning a negative value to large parts of government. Conversely the Democrat
estimate could go further than current GDP accounting, and include all kinds of hedonic adjustments,
as in Joseph Stiglitz's "well-being" proposal, supported by France's ex-president Nicolas Sarkozy
in 2009. However every time control of congress changed, the "official" estimates of GDP would be
revolutionized, altering the entire economic history of the preceding decade - and causing the utmost
confusion in the markets.
A better alternative therefore would be to ignore government altogether, and calculate a Gross
Private Product, the national output of the private sector, from which almost all government costs
must in any case be borne. To a first order of accuracy, this can be done already from the Bureau
of Economic Analysis' published data - you simply subtract line 21 (government consumption expenditures
and gross investment) from GDP (line 1) and the result is a decent ballpark estimate of GPP.
Using GPP, US economic history takes a different shape, most notably around World War II. Economic
growth becomes more sluggish in 1933-38 than the conventional record shows, (still with a downturn
in 1937-38) then in 1939-40 (after the November 1938 mid-term congressional elections had swung
heavily to a bipartisan conservative consensus and stopped the New Deal in its tracks) there was
a rapid recovery that brought back the output levels of 1929. Later, instead of soaring in World
War II as did GDP, GPP was squeezed during the war, before enjoying an astonishing recovery in 1946
that doubled real GPP and finally pushed prosperity beyond 1920s levels.
Paul Krugman proposed in 2011 that the US would benefit from an alien invasion, since the military
expenditure on death rays and so forth to fight the aliens would stimulate the economy. Indeed,
later he even proposed that the government stage a fake alien invasion to achieve the same effect.
His proposal demonstrates nicely the fallacy of GDP accounting.
Under GPP, the additional government waste on death rays would be ignored, while GPP would decline
as the private sector was squeezed to provide the resources for the extra military spending. Krugman's
proposal also illustrates nicely the intellectual (and incipient financial) bankruptcy of Keynesianism;
it's obvious nonsense if you do the accounting properly.
GPP accounting also illustrates the true effect of government cutbacks in the last six months.
First quarter GPP, boosted by the sequester and defense cuts, both of which allowed more room for
the private sector to thrive, grew at 4.1% compared with the anemic 2.4% growth in GDP. It's not
surprising the stock market has taken off.
When leftists whine that cutbacks will destroy growth or cheer that stimulus spending will increase
it, they can be confident of their forecast - because the GDP statistic is constructed to make it
true. The spending stimulus of 2009-10, which peaked in the fourth quarter of 2009, delayed the
recovery of GPP by six months, into 2010.
Moving from GDP to GPP would kill off many damaging economic policies, as well as giving us a
much better picture of where the economy is really going. It's a slam-dunk.
(Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a broad measure of the economy that measures the retail value
of goods and services produced in a country. Gross National Product (GNP) is a measure of a country's
economic performance, or what its citizens produced (ie, goods and services) and whether they produced
these items within its borders.)
Martin Hutchinson is the author of Great Conservatives (Academica Press, 2005) - details can
be found on the website www.greatconservatives.com - and co-author with Professor Kevin Dowd of
Alchemists of Loss (Wiley, 2010). Both are now available on Amazon.com, Great Conservatives only
in a Kindle edition, Alchemists of Loss in both Kindle and print editions.
(Republished with permission from PrudentBear.com. Copyright 2005-13 David W Tice & Associates.)
Nice article. I would repeat a point I made in a previous thread that the GDP of the USA is a
fiction. Using the methodology to define the CPI pre-1990, the current and for most of the last
20 years CPI in the US is understated by a factor of two. This is a big deal since it means that
the GDP growth in the range of 3% was more like zero and periods of no-growth were actual contractions.
The CPI is only one component of the GDP deflator but there is indication that producer price increases
have been quite high too.
The mass migration of US factory jobs to China and all the "right-sizing" and "down-sizing" was
not for free and it looks like the US GDP has been stagnating for the last 20 years. I originally
bought into the line that there were productivity gains, but there were also major wage reductions
(all those lost manufacturing jobs were replaced with low pay service sector jobs.) All the talk
about the new electronic economy was a crock too since those jobs went to China and India as well.
The only source of growth that I can see is population increase in the US which is significant at
So I would say the US GDP is closer to 10 trillion and not the 15 trillion that is being
trumpeted in the media. China is a bigger economy now than the USA, except in per capita terms.
The estimate of 2050 for the BRICS to overtake the west is based on overly rosy figures for the
western GDP. There are too many inflation measurement shenanigans to take these figures at face
value. So my thinking is that Uncle Sam and his minions will be able to do nothing to stop the US
dollar from losing its world reserve status. The BRICS are not Iraq or Iran. Even Iran is an impossible
nut for the west to crack since there is no way there is going to be an Iraq style invasion due
to the much larger size and military capability of Iran compared to Iraq. Bunker busters will not
do much either. Trying to bomb Iran back into the stone age will fail as well since Iran has surface
to air missile systems that will actually bring down US jets and not some junk from the sixties.
There is a longish article on the value (and misuse) of the GDP stats in the
Sunday NYT magazine.
The author lays out the case that the US will, over the next few years, supplement or perhaps even
replace GDP as the ultimate measure of economic growth.
In its place? Several 100 metrics that measure all manner of other factors, both quantitative
This is intriguing, for numerous reasons. First, of all the official economic data points the
government releases, GDP is the easiest to game — you simply under-report inflation, and GDP appears
to be better than it is. And ever since the Boskin Commission's misbehavior (I call it a cowardly
theft from the elderly), we have been dramatically under-reporting inflation data. Hence, we have
nearly two decades of bogus GDP data in the can.
Second, and perhaps more significantly, GDP simply measures how much stuff we produce, buy and
sell, and the folks we hire to make that stuff. It ignores all manner of other elements that go
into that process.
I am not suggesting that GDP is a valueless measure (at least, if it were somewhat more accurate).
But it is woefully incomplete. And the impact of making policy towards GDP has had very specific,
corporate benefits. If we were to incorporate other more human factors, the net result could be
I wonder if we might see some sort of a pushback on this, especially from the Randians and Chicago-ites.
Regardless, it is a worthwhile topic to think about, if you are at all interested in how the
government deploys its substantial resources into the economy.
Here is an excerpt:
"Whatever you may think progress looks like — a rebounding stock market, a new house, a good
raise — the governments of the world have long held the view that only one statistic, the measure
of gross domestic product, can really show whether things seem to be getting better or getting
worse. G.D.P. is an index of a country's entire economic output — a tally of, among many other
things, manufacturers' shipments, farmers' harvests, retail sales and construction spending.
It's a figure that compresses the immensity of a national economy into a single data point of
surpassing density. The conventional feeling about G.D.P. is that the more it grows, the better
a country and its citizens are doing. In the U.S., economic activity plummeted at the start
of 2009 and only started moving up during the second half of the year. Apparently things are
moving in that direction still. In the first quarter of this year, the economy again expanded,
this time by an annual rate of about 3.2 percent.
All the same, it has been a difficult few years for G.D.P. For decades, academics and gadflies
have been critical of the measure, suggesting that it is an inaccurate and misleading gauge
of prosperity . . . In the U.S., one challenge to the G.D.P. is coming not from a single new
index, or even a dozen new measures, but from several hundred new measures — accessible free
online for anyone to see, all updated regularly. Such a system of national measurements, known
as State of the USA, will go live online this summer. Its arrival comes at an opportune moment,
but it has been a long time in the works. In 2003, a government official named Chris Hoenig
was working at the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
and running a group that was researching ways to evaluate national progress. Since 2007, when
the project became independent and took the name State of the USA, Hoenig has been guided by
the advice of the National Academy of Sciences, an all-star board from the academic and business
worlds and a number of former leaders of federal statistical agencies. Some of the country's
elite philanthropies — including the Hewlett, MacArthur and Rockefeller foundations — have provided
grants to help get the project started. "
That's your weekend homework assignment . . .
The US moved from GNP to GDP when those pesky Exports-Import accounts started going negative
in the early Eighties. The US authorities then encouraged the IMF to rebase their Purchasing
Power Parity adjustments at the core of making real international economic comparisons when
the Nominal GDP numbers using regular Dollars started to make the Chinese economy look too large
for comfort two or three years ago.
Now they are focusing on what, Happy National Production as the measure for economic performance?
These adjustments are to clear thinking macroeconomics and policy making what Pro Forma earnings
are to Accurate Accounting and investing; they initially intentionally delude the public, and
end up softening the blow of relative economic decline
Progressive and environmental economists have long recognized that GDP is a grossly inaccurate
measure of how well we are doing economically. Principal reasons are that it counts a lot of
"bads" as well as "goods"- anything that generates cash flow (e.g. money spent on cigarettes)
and externalizes (does not count) a range of negative externalities that arise from economic
activity (e.g. pollution produced when we import goods on container ships).
One of the original alternative measures to gain traction was the Index of Sustainable Economic
Welfare (ISEW), which is similar to the later Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI).
Here is a link to info about the latter, including its theoretical foundation:
Let's get Michael Boskin on it. He did such a great job on CPI…
…and then blame Clinton for it…
The problem with measuring GDP cuts to the heart of what an economic system is for. Presumably,
economic systems exist to maximize the welfare of their participants in some way. Whenever GDP
is mentioned intelligent analysis should necessarily include what the GDP level means for per
capita income and then how that income is distributed. Otherwise, you just get an abstract,
When China takes the top GDP spot in the world in the next few years as it surely will, its
people will still, on average, be far less well-off than the US, Japan, and most every other
developed economy on the basis of both per capita income and the distribution of that income
among its people.
Ouch! I still sting from how Clinton and Boskin raped America for the federal government's
benefit. CPI my ass.
Once I have that recalled I am off-base and beyond logic.
It just all becomes more unbelievable every day. And we get to eat it.
It's even worse than merely comnig to grips with a realistic and honest GDP figure. Currently
GDP makes no effort to evaluate the sustainability of the growth. All the low interest rate
credit inducing growth earlier in the decade was worse than unsustainable, it was metastatically
toxic to everything else.
In addition, we don't distinguish between GDP contributors that
are functionally merely extractive based generators of GDP (like GS) versus the truly growth
promoting activities. If you pay to tear down an eyesore in a city, you contribute
to GDP. But there's a difference if you stop there versus doing something economically useful
with that location.
Health care is another component that can go either way. Spending 25% of our health care dollars
on the last 6 months of life is not going to produce returns down the road. This is why there
is usually a disconnect between main street and wall street.
GDP is a very crude measure, indeed. Yesterday's computer, slow and expensive, added more
to GDP than today's much faster and cheaper device. The NYTimes I read today online, updated
every few minutes, adds less to GDP than the paper that was printed, distributed and sold.
That unnecessary surgical procedure adds more to GDP than a wellness
program. That auto accident resulting in a totaled car adds more to GDP than
a safe trip.
Our pursuit of GDP has gotten us a lot of things we don't need, including plenty of financial
services, lots of expensive medical procedures, and some houses in AZ.
Well stated ezrasfund.
The existing GDP measure always puts emphasis on more quantity with no real measure of feedback
loops either positive or negative. Energy efficiency, clean air or water, safety, health…. Eating
less will reduce GDP but probably go along way to having a healthy population and a much less
expensive health care system.
Since the hegemony forces are behind the 'State of the USA' that is the overpaid all-star
board from the academic and business world and some of the country's elite philanthropies just
how accurate can it be?
As part of the middle class I have seen the middle class real income increase 0% in the past
ten year and have watched that the income of the people that are behind the 'State of the USA'
increase 100% to 1000%.
I can't take any prudence in the report. I know that the USA status in the world is in question
but to have another report out moving numbers around again is not what we need.
Best argument against GDP per capita as a measure of comparative
well-being is the position of Ireland in OECD or World Bank tables.
One only has to spend a few days traveling around there to realize that its "wealth" is illusory
(as we are now discovering).
Even back in 2007 when it was flying, it was a "poor" country: crappy
houses; crummy public infrastructure; and–not that it counts in these figures– a provincial
and derivative culture.
The fact that it scores higher than Canada, Denmark, or Germany says it all.
1 Luxembourg 78,559
— Macau 59,451
2 Norway 58,141
3 Singapore 49,288
4 United States 46,716
5 Ireland 44,195
— Hong Kong 43,922
6 Switzerland 42,534
7 Netherlands 40,850
8 Austria 38,153
9 Sweden 37,383
10 Iceland 36,770
11 Denmark 36,604
12 Canada 36,444
13 Australia 35,677
14 Germany 35,613
15 United Kingdom 35,445
16 Finland 35,426
17 Belgium 34,493
18 Japan 34,099
19 France 34,045
World Bank GDP p.c. (PPP) 2008
Actually, GDP overstates national well-being. From the point of view of anyone who works
for a living, the GDP is nearly irrelevant. Since the start of the 80s, an hour of work has
meant less and less in terms of per-capita share of the GDP. That is, the GDP has grown, and
it has grown faster than the population, but working an hour gets you less and less of it. If
you look at the current recession, which has supposedly ended because the GDP is rising again,
then you can see the disconnect is complete. GDP can rise all it wants, but your hour of work
will get you no more, and that's assuming you can get an hour of paid work.
"Ezrafund has it right…moreover, the existence of a GDP stat gives positive feedback to the
Keynsian babboons who think that juicing the number with QE or stimulus number is the equivalent
of a recovery….They don't seem to get the difference between cause and effect: a good economy
will produce a good GDP, but having a good GDP doesn't mean you have a good economy."
Ezrafund does indeed have it right. Same point I was trying to make, but in a less verbose
and more direct fashion.
I think MikeinNOLA misinterprets the potential of Keynesian stimulus though.
To be sure, shoveling borrowed money into the economy without proper analysis of true costs
and benefits can easily exacerbate problems with mindless GDP growth that alternative measures
of economic well-being are designed to account for. But if stimulus money is spent on sustainability-oriented
infrastructure such as mass transit, greater energy efficiency, etc. per capita economic well-being
may very well increase over the longer term.
In other words, whether or not Keynesian stimulus spending makes sense depends to a great
degree on what the money is being spent on or invested in. Analytical tools such as ISEW and
GPI are intended to facilitate better decision making about precisely these kinds of issues.
"Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to
clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people
who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder
in chaotic sprawl. . . .
Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality
of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or
the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our
public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning,
neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures
everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.
And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."
Robert F. Kennedy, 1968.
Mike in Nola:
riverrat: You from NOLA, too?
Although, I can't claim an extensive knowledge of Keynes theory, it seems mostly to prescribe
deficit spending during recessions. I don't count what you describe as really Keynsian; it's
just common sense spending that might do some good along the way and probably should have been
started even when we didn't have huge deficits. As long as we are having to pay extended unemployment,
we should have a new WPA, not just thowing money at states to support the same old bureaucracies
that employ many administrators who don't really produce anything.
Mises Daily: Monday, March 01, 2010 by
Robert P. Murphy
The most destructive ideas in academia are those that are technically defensible but nonetheless
encourage erroneous intuitions. In economic science, a prime example of such a destructive idea
is GDP accounting. As the recent punditry on the "inventory blip" of the fourth-quarter growth figures
perfectly illustrates, the mainstream macro framework leads us into absolute absurdity.
The GDP Hall of Shame
In previous articles, I have pointed out that the familiar GDP accounting tautology, Y = C +
I + G + X, is technically correct, but leads many economists to abuse the equation and in the process
make horrible policy recommendations.
For example, it is this typical macro framework that leads our financial press to assume that
saving is bad because consumer spending "is responsible
for" so much of the economy. The national-income tautology also recently led Paul Krugman — who
won the Nobel for his work on international trade theory — to (apparently) commit a
basic mercantilist fallacy in a quick blog post.
GDP and Inventory Adjustments
Before we dive into the latest confusion, let's review the theoretical relevance of changes in
inventories when it comes to calculating GDP. First of all, remember that Gross Domestic Product
tries to measure the total amount of finished goods and services produced during a particular
period (typically three months or a year).
In practice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimates how much consumers, businesses,
government, and foreigners spent on finished goods and services (made in the country) during the
period in question. Let's say it was $10 trillion. Then, the BEA looks at the change in the value
of inventories during the period. So if inventories started out at $500 billion and ended up at
$400 billion, then inventories fell $100 billion.
Now the last step is to adjust the "final demand" figure by the change in inventories. In our
case, the $10 trillion in total purchases must be adjusted to only $9.9 trillion in new production
during the period, because $100 billion of those purchases were fulfilled by drawing down inventories.
So yes, those goods were produced within the country and contributed to GDP, but they did so
in a previous period and were already counted in an earlier GDP figure. It would be double
counting the same production if we included $100 billion of output
- when a business "invested" by buying the newly produced output and throwing it in the warehouse
and then again
- when the retailers moved the goods from the warehouse and into consumers' houses.
So far, so good. Setting aside the severe conceptual and data problems for GDP estimation, it
is an obvious refinement to look at changes in inventories to better isolate how much "stuff" was
actually produced in a certain period, as opposed to how much stuff was purchased.
The Economists Make a Mess of Things
Even though technically the inventory adjustment makes sense, in practice economists botch things
horribly. (We do this a lot.) Recently, when the GDP estimates for the fourth quarter of 2009 came
out, many cynics dismissed the 5.7 percent "headline figure" as being mostly an "inventory blip"
or an "inventory bounce." Although he was not alone, AEI economist Kevin Hassett was the most forceful
I saw on the topic, so it's worth quoting from his
When is quarterly gross domestic product growth of almost 6 percent bad news? When it looks
like what was reported last week.
US GDP increased 5.7 percent at the end of last year, with more than half of that growth
— 3.4 percent — attributable to changes in inventories. This astonishing impact of inventory
has ample historical precedent, and the bottom line has terrible implications for 2010.
Inventories are a remarkable corner of the economy. They are the goods and materials that
companies keep on hand to make sure that their operations run smoothly. They are the boxes of
food on shelves at the grocery store and the bins of metal parts sitting next to the assembly
line in a manufacturing plant.…
Inventories are even more important during recessions. In [a] paper, co-authored with Louis
Maccini in 1991, [Alan] Blinder found that 87 percent of the decline in GDP from the peak to
the trough of the recession was attributable to inventories.…
Since 1970, there have been nine quarters, like the last one, when GDP grew by at least
3 percent and inventories accounted for at least half of that growth. The history of those
quarters is hardly a favorable sign of what is in store. (emphasis added)
First, let us note the familiar problem with relying on conventional GDP calculations. Hassett
talks as if inventories themselves have some power to steer the economy, as opposed to the human
choices underlying changes in inventories. It's a bit like saying 87 percent of fevers can
be attributed to thermometers.
But when it comes to the discussion of last quarter's GDP figures, the focus on inventory changes
is particularly perverse. I bet those readers who don't already know the answer would have been
quite confident after reading Hassett's article that inventories rose in the fourth quarter.
After all, it would make sense for someone to say, "Sure, production was up 5.7 percent in the
4th quarter of 2009 compared to its level in the 3rd quarter. But that spike in output is unsustainable,
because 3.4 percentage points of the growth went right into warehouses. It's not as if the final
consumers picked up their spending by the full 5.7 percent."
As I say, the above reasoning would be problematic because it presumes that spending green pieces
of paper is the ultimate source of prosperity, but besides that, it would make a certain sort of
Yet that's not what happened in the fourth quarter of 2009. No, inventories fell, as the
BEA's press release makes
Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States — increased at an annual rate of 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter
The increase in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected positive contributions
from private inventory investment, exports, and personal consumption expenditures (PCE). Imports,
which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.
The acceleration in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected an acceleration in
private inventory investment, a deceleration in imports, and an upturn in nonresidential fixed
investment that were partly offset by decelerations in federal government spending and in PCE.…
The change in real private inventories added 3.39 percentage points to the fourth-quarter
change in real GDP after adding 0.69 percentage point to the third-quarter change. Private
businesses decreased inventories $33.5 billion in the fourth quarter, following decreases of
$139.2 billion in the third quarter and $160.2 billion in the second. (emphasis added)
The BEA's press release is a testament to the Orwellian nature of GDP accounting. An innocent
person would have every reason to assume that phrases such as "positive contributions from private
inventory investment" and "an acceleration in private inventory investment" meant that inventories
rose in the fourth quarter. But, as the press release says, inventories actually fell
by $33.5 billion.
What's really strange is that the change in inventories was fairly small. So the real "contribution"
was not even the change in inventories, but the change in the change. In other words, we have moved
the analysis one more step into absurdity by explaining the creation of real goods and services
by referring to the second derivative of something (inventories) that does not have the power
to create goods and services.
A Numerical Illustration of the Absurdity
I have tried to spell out my frustration with the typical handling of GDP inventory accounting
to my colleagues, and yet
the sharpest of them were nonplussed to say the least. But I hope that the following numerical
example will show quite convincingly just how crazy the techniques that I've described above are.
Suppose we have an economy with the following characteristics:
Of course, the numbers above are completely unrealistic, but they can illustrate the knots we
tie ourselves in when worrying about inventories.
First, let's make sure we understand the cells in the table. In 2010, inventories didn't change,
and so the only way people could consume $2 trillion in purchases of finished goods and services
is if that output were actually produced during 2010. Hence GDP is also $2 trillion.
Things are different in 2011. People still bought $2 trillion worth of total stuff. However,
only half of that was newly produced in 2011, because the other $1 trillion was taken from
the inventory stockpile. That's why GDP fell in half, down to $1 trillion.
In 2012, people once again spent a total of $2 trillion on finished goods and services. Since
inventories didn't change during the year, obviously these purchases were consummated through entirely
new production during the period. Hence, GDP rose back up to $2 trillion for the year, a 100-percent
increase over the previous year's level of output.
Now in this context, look at what someone like Hassett would be forced to say after the 2012
number came out: "Sure, the BEA and the press are running around celebrating the ostensible doubling
of real output in 2012. But if you dig into the numbers, you see that fully 100 percent of
the growth is attributed to the $1 trillion acceleration in private inventory investment. If we
net out the contribution of inventories to GDP growth in 2012, we see that growth was zero.
We should be prepared for a double dip in 2013, after this one-time blip of statistical GDP growth."
I hope the reader sees just how nonsensical this type of analysis would be for the table above.
In what possible sense did inventories "contribute" to GDP in the year 2012? Inventories didn't
even exist at any point in 2012. They were $0 at the beginning of the year, and $0 at the end
of the year.
What happened is that people spent $2 trillion buying stuff, and workers took raw materials and
other inputs and transformed them into $2 trillion of real output. This was twice as much as the
same workers physically produced in 2011. So how in the world does an "inventory adjustment" — from
$0 to $0 — cancel out that doubling of physical production?
Furthermore, is it really true that we need to worry about real GDP falling off a cliff after
such a huge "inventory bounce"? After all, final demand has been steady at $2 trillion for three
years straight. And even if entrepreneurs got spooked again and wanted to draw down inventories
to satisfy their demand in 2013, they can't — there are no inventories to draw down.
It's true that someone like Hassett could point out that the growth of GDP was bound to
collapse, but so what? There would have presumably been huge unemployment in the year 2011, as half
of the economy's productive resources sat idle. Yet in 2012, all those resources would be back in
normal operations. Those workers, tractors, drill presses, etc., wouldn't have any reason to see
their usage dwindle in 2013, despite the massive "inventory contribution" to GDP growth in 2012.
In fact, to the extent that businesses want to rebuild their inventories in 2013 to give themselves
a buffer greater than $0, workers will need to put in extra shifts. Under any reasonable standard,
the situation of inventories in 2012 would lead us to expect GDP and employment growth in
2013. It's true, there would be a drop in the growth rate of GDP, but workers care more about
their hours than they do about second derivatives of arbitrary magnitudes.
The textbook GDP equation is not false; it is a tautology and so of course it is true. Nonetheless,
it is a destructive framework for thinking about macroeconomic events. Abuse of the equation leads
economists and pundits to blame savings and praise reckless consumption, to hate imports and love
exports, and (in principle) to attribute a doubling in the flow of goods coming out of factories
to a nonchange in the level of a nonexistent stock of inventory.
Hassett and others are right to doubt the strength of our alleged "recovery." I think that the
economy is currently held together by bubble gum and Ben Bernanke's charm. But to explain our economy's
fragility, I would analyze the government and the Fed's policies.
A slowdown in the fall of inventories per se is not a warning sign at all. If anything, it
is a signal that businesses are becoming more optimistic.
Robert Murphy, an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute and a faculty member of the Mises University,
runs the blog Free Advice and is the author of
Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, the
Study Guide to Man,
Economy, and State with Power and Market, the
Human Action Study Guide,
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal. Send him
mail. See Robert P. Murphy's
Comment on the blog.
December 28, 2009 | nakedcapitalism.com
This caused a bit of an uproar over at the NYT:
GDP, Deficits, Law, & Outcomes
Deficits measure maladaptive behavior, the failure to effectively save, and invest in future
viability, to maximize NPV and induce growth. Capital is in trouble because it failed to invest
in the future, and the current policy of infinite monetary policy (see Freddie and Fannie) is
to accelerate the short, now that the future, demographic deceleration, is here.
There is no way to measure I because capital borrowed from the future to create "earnings"
as the basis for borrowing again, compounding the error, to magnify C, supplying artificial
demand abroad to create global dependency, increasing self-interested G to process the transactions.
I, C, & G are all artificial, because GDP never measured economic
profit; it measures economic activity, maximizing borrowing from the future to
pay increasingly irrational, maladaptive costs, to bail out capital – eliminating the path to
Healthcare is classic, 20% of the economy to subsidize maladaptive
behavior, created by the ponzi capital pyramid between producers and consumers in the food chain,
a problem that would quickly solve itself if the structural subsidy to capital were removed.
Monetary policy is being employed to create artificial scarcity, social demand, to re-enforce
non-performing capital and the government serving it.
The constitution was designed to protect the majority from these self-liquidating circumstances.
Shorting the constitution with family law terminated savings and investment, doubling down on
debt and consumption, in a too-big-to-fail strategy, that always fails. Capital had a going-away
The US Supreme court, on the vote of a handful, removed the evolutionary lead of natural
new family formation, discharging the middle class battery to ground, capital.
Capital breeds on the laws of property. Labor breeds on the laws of physics. They had an
agreement to grow a semi-neutral middle class. Capital broke that agreement under the false
assumption that its global economy was the only "game" in town. Labor is protected by its relationship
with evolution, and always has access to ground, alternative capital.
The point in developing the Internet was to make the process transparent. The dismantling
of the USSR was just a beta test.
The dinosaurs were a sunk cost. Everyone clutching non-performing assets may want to make
a new years resolution, or continue partying. Titration is nearly complete, non-performing capital
is turning to salt, and social evolution is about to accelerate again.
Now, we watch as the municipalities are pushed over the cliff, as the momentum of global
implosion hits American shores, but at least the feds got a big pay raise for putting the states
and municipalities at the edge of the cliff first, to buttress themselves.
"Thrift in the long run is a very good thing, but increasing thrift as you come out of a
recession is going to be a drag." "
Most economists focus on increasing our GDP. They understand its limitations, but after 20
or 30 years of measuring how good an economic policy is by how much it increases GDP, they tend
to forget the limitations in their daily work. So when a recession comes along, the reaction
is reflexive - the recession decreases measured GDP, and that is bad, so do whatever is necessary
to reverse that, setting aside longer-term considerations.
Martin Feldstein is very smart, but he has been completely captured by the always-increase-GDP-at-all-costs
faith common amongst professional economists. This is not healthy. It's like identifying hunger
as a problem that must be eliminated at all costs. For truly starving people, the resulting
actions are great and good. For middle class Americans going from lunch to dinner, it's unhealthy
to keep feeding them snacks so that they feel no pangs of hunger.
The recent financial scare and economic recession was a signal that we were doing some things
wrong. What we need now is a recognition of what we were doing wrong, and public decisions on
the changes. That might result in a decrease in measured GDP, but it would lay a solid foundation
for a more productive economy for us all going forward. Instead we have people like Martin Feldstein
calling for actions that return us to the old ways, because measured GDP was higher then. Nuts!
"GDP and inflation are as baked as Ken Lay's books."
Who should be how.
Also you might want to watch Chris's videos on GDP. You own a
home and they say, well you'd pay 5k a month in rent. Even though you don't pay rent they DO
add it to GDP.
GDP and inflation are as baked as Ken Lay's books.
You can fly your plane or drive your car and believe that you have a full tank, when your
car runs out of gas and the realization that the gauge was busted sinks in it might not be a
pretty sight if it is raining and night and cold and you have a little one in the car.
Best of luck folks, this site has been removed from my RSS reader. Deleted like CNBC's. Gosh,
I can still hear Maria's voice. Ughh,.
American GDP figures are wildly distorted, this has never gotten
the press it deserves. The US is the ONLY economy that uses hedonic adjustments
to GDP. That means it increases GDP to allow for the fact that computers have become more productive
over time (this is completely different than the hedonic adjustments for inflation, BTW).
A modern desktop computer is about as powerful as a mainframe as of late 1980s. So I kid
you not, these adjustments started in 1987, and they count you desktop in GDP as the same value
what the equivalent big iron computer would have cost in 1987. Mish
managed to get the BEA to send him a spreadsheet in 2005, and it showed the cumulative impact
was 22% of GDP. This is far and away the most dubious of the official statistical
adjustments, and gets far and away the least commentary.
The Bundesbank has also complained a few years ago that if German calculated GDP the way
the US did, it's growth rate would be a half a percent higher. If you take the Bundesbank figure
instead, and calculate GDP growth over 22 years, using 2.5% versus 3.0% growth, you get an 11%
Submitted by Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns.
Let's say I run a company. For the
sake of argument, we'll call it a shoe store in New York City. I am making $100,000 net per year
now. But, I look around me and see huge opportunity for growth. So I go to my bank and ask for a
loan to expand my business. I invest the money in expanding the store, and over the next five
years I increase my earnings to $140,000. Not bad!
Is this a well-run business?
GDP is not enough
Well, if your first instinct is to say, "you didn't give me enough information," I would have
to agree. But, this is the way GDP statistics are used to measure the success of an economy.
Clearly then, GDP is an inadequate measure for understanding how healthy an economy is.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz brought this issue into the public domain last week
when he spoke in Paris, calling the focus on GDP a 'fetish' and favoring a broader measure of economic
Stiglitz was responding to reporters after a study on alternative measures of economic growth
commissioned by French president Nicholas Sarkozy was released. At the time,
Bloomberg reported Stiglitz
GDP has increasingly become used as a measure of societal well-being and changes in the structure
of the economy and our society have made it increasingly poor one…
So many things that are important to individuals are not included in GDP. There needs to
be an array of numbers but we need to understand the role of each number. We may not be able
to aggregate everything together.
Stiglitz is talking about the social costs of growth here. Think about pollution, infant
mortality rate, healthcare, life expectancy, or rates of obesity to name a few. And his views
are echoed in an article which prompted this tirade from me called "Emphasis
on Growth Is Called Misguided" by Peter Goodman in today's New York Times. Read it.
However, in this post, I want to focus on one narrow issue: debt.
The income statement vs. the balance sheet
In the shoe store example I gave, I borrowed money to fund growth. In assessing how successful
my growth strategy is, the obvious question is: how much did I borrow?
It's the debt, stupid.
What if I borrowed $1,000,000 at 7% interest? $40,000 is a return of 4% on that money, less than
the cost of debt. In that case, the growth strategy is a loser.
We need to see the balance sheet as well as the income statement to know what is happening. GDP
gives us no insight into the balance sheet of an economy, and is therefore incomplete as a measure
of economic health. (I'll leave the cash flow statement for another day!)
There is 4% growth sustained only through a rise in debt, growth that would have been 2% without
an increase in relative indebtedness. And there is 4% growth fuelled by a positive return on that
I am sure you have seen the graphs I published last October at the height of the panic in my
of the day: US macro disequilibria." What should be clear from those charts is that the U.S.
has been living in a period fuelled more by increases in debt and a concomitant increase in asset
prices than in a world of sustainable growth.
The economics profession focus on the income sheet only
I suspect the GDP fetishism owes a lot to the models currently in use in the economics field,
which focus exclusively on an economy's income statement.
When I studied economics, in our introductory course, we used a book called "Economics – Principles
and Policy" by two Princeton-affiliated professors
William Baumol and
Alan Blinder, a former vice chairman of
the Federal Reserve (Yes, I still have the book from over twenty years ago). The only mention
of debt comes in Chapter 15 on "Budget Deficits and the National Debt" and it is basically a discussion
of trade-offs between budget deficits and inflation.
Nowhere are aggregate debt levels in the private sector mentioned. Now, I could be wrong
because it is not in the index and I couldn't find it in the book. I see this is reflective of the
absence of debt as a topic in economic theory taught in universities.
In fact, the Chapter just before is called "Money and the National Economy: The Keynesian-Monetarist
Debate." I think the title says it all. Baumol and Blinder are Keynesians and they released a book
to teach Economics in the Keynesian tradition. To the degree they discuss any other economic
models, it is only to weave the monetarist view into their own framework. In the introduction
of Chapter 14, the book states:
Then we turn to a very old and very simple macroeconomic model –
the quantity theory of money, and its modern
reincarnation, monetarism – for an alternative view of the effects of money on the economy.
Although the monetarist and Keynesian theories seem to be two contradictory views of how monetary
and fiscal policy work, we will see that the conflict is more apparent than real.
Now that crisis has hit, there is no inter-weaving of theories. Those two worlds, the monetarists
(freshwater economists as Krugman calls them) and the Keynesians (saltwater economists in Krugman's
parlance), are at war over economic theory's contribution to the global economic meltdown.
The Economist laments:
Economic writers will continue to try and describe the arguments wracking the field for an
audience which wants to know about them, but economists need to figure out how to resolve some
of these questions on their terms. If the best the dismal science can do in establishing the
merit of one position versus another is make a play for the hearts and minds of lay-people,
then economics is in more trouble than we all thought.
More noteworthy for me is how the salt- and freshwater types completely disregard debt, an issue
central to the Austrian and Minskyian schools of thought. Paul Krugman wrote 6,000 words focused
only on the income statement. There was no mention of the huge rise in debt in the U.S. and other
economies like the U.K., Spain, Ireland, Iceland or Latvia (I take up the
issue of Latvia, Iceland and Hungary in the post that followed this at Credit Writedowns).
All of these countries have one common feature:
asset price booms underpinned by rising debt levels. Let's hope we start seeing more discussion
about the balance sheet in future.
Very, very good point. But what is more interesting is that it is such an obvious point, yet
economists give little attention to financing and debt. Money just appears and debts just get retired.
One hears talk nowadays as if the only trade off is between unemployment (under use of all resources)
and inflation. Gee, am I the only dinosaur here? We had this thingy called stagflation in the 70's.
Theoretically impossible. I imagine in a year or two the misery index will reappear.
Following this argument to its conclusion, the US government should be borrowing where the ROI
of the investment is likely to be significantly higher than the cost of the debt.
To take one particularly compelling example, spending on education has an estimated ROI of 10%
The US government can borrow money at 4%.
Ummm… Let me know if I am misreading this or am thinking about this wrong, but I think you are
mistaken. This growth strategy is a winner.
Do you mean "net income" or EBITDA, here?
If it is net income, then, then interest is deducted.
That means that the return on the $1 million is 11% =
($70k interest + $40k net income)/$1 million.
The return is greater than the cost of capital. This investment has a positive NPV and a good
ROI. It is a very good growth strategy.
This can also be looked at as a annual increase in expenses of $70k produced an additional annual
revenue of $110k. That is a 57% return.
This isn't an exercise in measuring return on capital of a fictitious shoe store WH. That is
irrelevant and is merely for illustrative purposes.
But, if you must go there, you will notice I said "$100,000 net per year now." That's net, not
gross. Assume that is EBITDA.
Dude, do you even have an advanced economics degree? Saltwater/freshwater isn't about monetarist/keynesian
(even in Krugman's parlance). Please stop posting about topics you haven't researched thoroughly–especially
academic macroeconomic theory. For your kind information, Minsky is a neo-Marxist (qua Marx as critique
of Capitalism; shorter version, "Capital tends to Crisis"). And Austrian is just both dead wrong
(with respect to what actions should be taken in this environment) and a political non-starter for
a number of reasons. Honestly, Keynesian is about counter-cyclical fiscal policy and maintaining
stability in long-run aggregate supply. Please, please get a clue outside of some Economics 101
Jeff, you are the one who needs to get your facts straight:
I would also suggest you read a 1988 NY Times article by Peter Kilborn:
The difference between the schools is as you indicate, Keynesians see counter-cyclical fiscal
stimulus as key to fighting recessions, while the freshwater types are more libertarian. Friedman
believed money supply was the key to control over the economy and best represents the freshwater
types along with Lucas.
Your label of Minsky as a neo-Marxist is just that, a label. The key difference between the neoclassicals
and the Keynesians on one side and the Austrians and Minskyians on the other is the focus on debt.
steve from virginia:
When I studied economics, in our introductory course, we used a book called "Economics –
Principles and Policy" by two Princeton-affiliated professors William Baumol and Alan Blinder,
a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve (Yes, I still have the book from over twenty years
ago). The only mention of debt comes in Chapter 15 on "Budget Deficits and the National Debt"
and it is basically a discussion of trade-offs between budget deficits and inflation.
Don't got no debt … don't got no energy, either!
Dozens if not hundreds of pieces of economic analysis are presented every day in academia, in
the media and over the Internet. Energy is either not mentioned at all as an input factor … or is
given backhand mention, only.
Consider two economies … separate but equal. The sexy, attractive finance economy gets all the
attention. The productive economy upon which the sexpot entirely depends is falling apart due to
mis- investment. Mainly, it is currently constrained by oil depletion against a backdrop of expanding
– finance driven – demand.
When a big highway bridge falls, due notice is taken. Consider Cantarell oil field in Mexico:
2 million barrels per day at the peak of production with 1m bbls. exported to the US in 2003. Net
exports will reach zero in two years, cutting revenue to the Mexican government and oil availability
The 500% increase in oil price since 1998 has had a destructive effect on the productive economy,
masked/hedged against by the finance bubbles. Theoretically, the Fed can monetize all the US public
and private debt. It cannot control or monetize oil prices. $70 oil is an economy destroyer which
is working its evil right this minute.
Not just debt. Oil.
As I mentioned in another thread, Stiglitz is the only major economist I know of that has talked
about resource utilization and how easy it is to spike the GDP in the short term by destroying the
environment with over consumption, but leads to lower growth rates over the long term.
There's a reason he's marginalized.
Mr. Harrison – I believe your point about debt and GDP is an extremely important one but the
story is even worse than you portray. I have not worked through the computations but it appears
to me that GDP is basically handled on a cash basis of accounting versus the accrual method and
when money is borrowed it is added to the GDP and when it is paid back is a subtraction from GDP.
Go out borrow money and the money is spent then GDP increases. Save money (or more accurately negatively
borrow) and the money is removed from the system so we have a decrease in GDP.
For instance in your shoe store example, the individual borrows money to expand his store and
spends it. This does not generate any additional income to the store right then but the general
economy will get a lift from his additional spending. The next year, since there is no borrowing
by the shoe store there will be a decrease in the economy.
The extra $40,000 of earnings impact is questionable for the store since we do not know as you
pointed out what the debt service is for the expanded store. However, for the complete economy is
it not really a zero impact because the positive for store was a negative elsewhere in the economy.
It seems to me that GDP should be shown net of the change of borrowing. Then the naturally sustainable
level of GDP would be shown.
In truth, for each country sustainable GDP would only be driven by exporting (assuming currency
stays constant ie gold standard) or technology changes which would include the use of resources
that would incorporate the oil reference above. Overall improvement of GDP for the complete world
on a per capita basis would only be driven by technology changes.
In the US if we subracted incremental increases in debt each year from GDP we would have had
a declining GDP.
The funds flow statement bridges the balance sheet and the income statement. The current GDP
number seems to be fixing funds from operation with funds from financing. This would be very misleading
statement for a company and seems to also be true for a country.
September 14 2009 |
Nicolas Sarkozy, president of France, is concerned that gross domestic product,
the most popular yardstick of economic performance, does not capture how well societies (in
particular, no doubt, France) are doing. Suspicious observers may think he set up his commission
"social progress" mainly to kick Anglo-Saxon capitalism while it was down. In fact, its
report is full of sensible, if old, insights.
GDP is riddled with imperfections. It only covers production exchanged in the private market
or the public sector and misses the vast amount of productive activity inside the household,
such as family care for children and the elderly. Ignoring sustainability, GDP is boosted by
resource depletion that may increase income today but lower it in the future: a form of destruction
more than production.
Joseph Stiglitz says we need better measures of economic performance:
Rethink GDP fetish, by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Commentary, Project Syndicate: ...Eighteen
months ago, French President Nicolas Sarkozy established an international Commission on
the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, owing to his dissatisfaction
- and that of many others - with the current state of statistical information about the
economy... On Sept. 14, the commission will issue its long-awaited report.
The big question concerns whether GDP provides a good measure of living standards. In
many cases, GDP statistics seem to suggest that the economy is doing far better than most
citizens' own perceptions. Moreover, the focus on GDP creates conflicts: political leaders
are told to maximize it, but citizens also demand that attention be paid to enhancing security,
reducing pollution, and so forth - all of which might lower GDP growth.
The fact that GDP may be a poor measure of well-being, or even of market activity, has,
of course, long been recognized. But changes in society and the economy may have heightened
For example,... in one key sector - government - we ... often measure the output simply
by the inputs. If government spends more - even if inefficiently - output goes up. In the
last 60 years, the share of government output in GDP has increased [substantially]... So
what was a relatively minor problem has now become a major one.
Likewise, quality improvements ... account for much of the increase in GDP nowadays.
But assessing quality improvements is difficult. ...
Another marked change in most societies is an increase in inequality. ... If a few bankers
get much richer, average income can go up, even as most individuals' incomes are declining.
So GDP per person statistics may not reflect what is happening to most citizens.
We use market prices to value goods and services. But ... the ... pre-crisis profits
of banks - one-third of all corporate profits - appear to have been a mirage.
This realization casts a new light not only on our measures of performance, but also
on the inferences we make. Before the crisis, when U.S. growth ... seemed so much stronger
than that of Europe, many Europeans argued that Europe should adopt U.S.-style capitalism.
Of course, anyone who wanted to could have seen American households' growing indebtedness,
which would have gone a long way toward correcting the false impression of success given
by the GDP statistic.
Recent methodological advances have enabled us to assess better what contributes to citizens'
sense of well-being... These studies, for instance, verify and quantify what should be obvious:
the loss of a job has a greater impact than can be accounted for just by the loss of income.
They also demonstrate the importance of social connectedness.
Any good measure of how well we are doing must also take account of sustainability...,
our national accounts need to reflect the depletion of natural resources and the degradation
of our environment.
Statistical frameworks are intended to summarize what is going on in our complex society
in a few easily interpretable numbers. It should have been obvious that one couldn't reduce
everything to a single number, GDP. The report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic
Performance and Social Progress ... should ... provide guidance for creating a broader set
of indicators that more accurately capture both well-being and sustainability...
When Keynes wrote "The General Theory" he focused on the economy reaching and maintaining full
employment. Friedman led a shift away from that and pushed for a focus on the price level and growth.
We need to return to a focus on full employment.The statistics we use are often misleading (inflation
has been a particularly misleading stat during the housing bubble), yet are used to justify and
rationalize mere assumptions. Policies that promote job growth ultimately generate GDP growth; however,
policies that promote GDP growth do not generate job growth. Government policies should focus on
employing the maximum number of people possible. Job growth will ultimately yield way to a growing
economy, in which the largest number of people partake in the prosperity and growth.
Link to comment | Sep 09, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Redefining progress has the GPI, genuine progress report.
"The GPI starts with the same personal consumption data that the GDP is based on, but then makes
some crucial distinctions. It adjusts for factors such as income distribution, adds factors such
as the value of household and volunteer work, and subtracts factors such as the costs of crime and
Because the GDP and the GPI are both measured in monetary terms, they can be compared on the
same scale. Measurements that make up the GPI include:
Both economic theory and common sense tell us that the poor benefit more from a given increase in
their income than do the rich. Accordingly, the GPI rises when the poor receive a larger percentage
of national income, and falls when their share decreases.
Housework, Volunteering, and Higher Education
Much of the most important work in society is done in household and community settings: childcare,
home repairs, volunteer work, and so on. The GDP ignores these contributions because no money changes
hands. The GPI includes the value of this work figured at the approximate cost of hiring someone
to do it. The GPI also takes into account the non-market benefits associated with a more educated
Crime imposes large economic costs on individuals and society in the form of legal fees, medical
expenses, damage to property, and the like. The GDP treats such expenses as additions to well-being.
By contrast, the GPI subtracts the costs arising from crime.
If today's economic activity depletes the physical resource base available for tomorrow, then it
is not creating well-being; rather, it is borrowing it from future generations. The GDP counts such
borrowing as current income. The GPI, by contrast, counts the depletion or degradation of wetlands,
forests, farmland, and nonrenewable minerals (including oil) as a current cost.
The GDP often counts pollution as a double gain: Once when it is created, and then again when it
is cleaned up. By contrast, the GPI subtracts the costs of air and water pollution as measured by
actual damage to human health and the environment.
Long-Term Environmental Damage
Climate change, ozone depletion, and nuclear waste management are long-term costs arising from the
use of fossil fuels, chlorofluorocarbons, and atomic energy, respectively. These costs are unaccounted
for in ordinary economic indicators. The GPI treats as costs the consumption of certain forms of
energy and of ozone-depleting chemicals. It also assigns a cost to carbon emissions to account for
the catastrophic economic, environmental, and social effects of global warming.
Changes in Leisure Time
As a nation becomes wealthier, people should have more latitude to choose between work and free
time for family or other activities. In recent years, however, the opposite has occurred. The GDP
ignores this loss of free time, but the GPI treats leisure as most Americans do—as something of
value. When leisure time increases, the GPI goes up; when Americans have less of it, the GPI goes
The GDP counts as additions to well-being the money people spend to prevent erosion in their quality
of life or to compensate for misfortunes of various kinds. Examples are the medical and repair bills
from automobile accidents, commuting costs, and household expenditures on pollution control devices
such as water filters. The GPI counts such "defensive" expenditures as most Americans do: as costs
rather than as benefits.
Lifespan of Consumer Durables & Public Infrastructure
The GDP confuses the value provided by major consumer purchases (e.g., home appliances) with the
amount Americans spend to buy them. This hides the loss in well-being that results when products
wear out quickly. The GPI treats the money spent on capital items as a cost, and the value of the
service they provide year after year as a benefit. This applies both to private capital items and
to public infrastructure, such as highways.
Dependence on Foreign Assets
If a nation allows its capital stock to decline, or if it finances consumption out of borrowed capital,
it is living beyond its means. The GPI counts net additions to the capital stock as contributions
to well-being, and treats money borrowed from abroad as reductions. If the borrowed money is used
for investment, the negative effects are canceled out. But if the borrowed money is used to finance
consumption, the GPI declines."
Link to comment | Sep 09, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Arthur Fullerton says...
GDP measures activity, not benefit -- as such the problem is not so much the measurement of GDP
as it is the meaning invested in the statistic. If we equate GDP growth with benefit and GDP decline
with detriment, then we fall into the old trap of confusing means with ends.
Think of the GDP of an economy as being analogous to an engine's RPM. We do not confuse a car's
RPM with its gas mileage or its creature comforts. Similarly GDP is not a measure of an economy's
efficiency or efficacy.
Developing alternative measures and managing to maximize other outcomes is perfectly appropriate,
but the shortcoming is not in the GDP statistic, rather it lies in how people misuse the statistic
as a proxy for benefit.
Posted by: Arthur Fullerton |
Link to comment | Sep 09, 2009 at 12:26 PM
The United Nations Human Development Report:
and Human Development Indicator (therein) do an excellent job capturing health, access to potable
water, air quality and other indexes of a countries well being.
Posted by: SS |
Link to comment | Sep 09, 2009 at 12:50 PM
like ferdinand the bull..chasing butterflies
when he could toss giants on his horns
Posted by: paine |
Link to comment | Sep 09, 2009 at 01:00 PM
Stiglitz made a big huff about "Green net national product (Green NNP)" in his book Making Globalization
Work. Surprised he didn't mention it.
Posted by: William |
Link to comment | Sep 09, 2009 at 01:59 PM
It's pretty funny the cult of GDP was one of the most distinctive features of the USSR economic
For the US also serves as an economic fetish (especially for Fed and related agencies).
I would suggest term "Junk GDP" which like the term "junk food" reflects dubious or explicitly
harmful for the society activities included in GDP.
For example excessive monetization of services harms the society (as health insurance costs can
I would suggest that the USA has the highest percentage of junk GDP among developed nations.
May be higher then 30%.
Among most obvious candidates are FIRE, military-industrial complex, junk food industries, junk
medicine, junk drags (aka big pharma).
Posted by: kievite |
Sep 09, 2009 at 05:27 PM
Yesterday, the market moved on what was the double whammy of the government's own rather fluid
favorable interpretation of what was essentially the government's very own stimulus. Yet others
can play, and unwind, the number fudging game too. According to David Rosenberg, absent the now
declining impact of the massive governmental stimulus,
GDP would have been flat if not negative. So much for bickering over whether GDP was 2.7%
or 3.5%: at the end of the day, on a normalized, non-stimulus inflated basis, GDP was flat, and
if the equity market cared about isolating non-recurring items such as excess government spending
driving a collapsing economy, the stock market reaction would have been quite the opposite.
Never before did a gap between a 3.2% consensus GDP forecast and an actual print of 3.5%
manage to elicit so much excitement in the equity market. It just goes to show how speculative
the stock market has become. The question is why it is that the economy couldn't do even better?
Historically, the auto sector adds 0.1 percentage point or 0.2 percentage point to any given
GDP report. In the third quarter, courtesy of cash-for-clunkers, the sector added 1.7 percentage
points to the headline figure, which is less a than 1-in-10 event in terms of probabilities.
Tack on the rebound in housing and government spending and the areas of GDP that received the
most medication from public sector stimulus contributed almost all of the growth in the economy.
You read this right. If not for all the government incursion into the economy in Q3, real GDP
basically would have stagnated.
Because of the housing and auto subsidies, the personal savings rate plunged to 3.3% in Q3
from 4.9% in Q2 — in the past quarter-century, there have been only four other times that the
savings rate went down so much in one quarter. If not for that plunge in savings, real GDP actually
would have contracted fractionally last quarter. The entire GDP growth was funded by a rundown
in the savings rate that occurs less than 5% of the time.
Moreover, what is normal in that first positive post-recession GDP release is a 5% annual
rate of growth. That puts 3.5% in Q3 into a certain perspective, especially when you consider
the massive amount of stimulus that underpinned the latest batch of data.
What is normal in this first positive post-recession GDP release is a 5% annual rate of growth,
The parts of the economy that did not receive government support didn't fare too well in
the third quarter. For example, total business spending (on structures, equipment and machinery)
actually contracted at a 2.1% annual rate — the fifth decline in a row. State and local government
spending also fell at a 1.1% annual rate. Since there was no cash-for-clothing program, spending
on apparel slipped at a 1.5% annual rate. The economists had all been talking about an inventory
cycle taking hold and yet there was an additional $130 billion of de-stocking in the third quarter.
a critical question that nobody seems to be asking: how are companies reacting to this presumed
economic rebound? If CapEx, inventories and lending, corporations are the only ones who seem to
be willing to think about the facts behind the hype:
The question has to be asked, if companies, both non-financial and financial, are big believers
in this new post-recession V-shaped recovery that seems to have the hedge funds and most strategists
excited, why are companies still cutting back in capital expenditures and inventories and why
are banks still cutting back on lending at an unprecedented 15% annual rate.
David concludes with a point that he tried to highlight on Fast Money yesterday, if only he wasn't
caught up in futile debates over trivial data points:
While it seems very flashy, 3.5% growth is far from a trend-setter. Let's go back to Japan.
Since 1990, it has enjoyed no fewer than 19 of these 3.5%-or-better GDP growth quarters. That
is almost 25% of the time, by the way. And we know with hindsight that this was noise around
the fundamental downtrend because the Japanese economy has experienced four recessions and the
equity market is down more than 70% from the peak. What is important for the future is whether
the U.S. economy can manage to sustain that 3.5% growth performance in the absence of ongoing
massive government stimulus. In other words, it may be a little early to uncork the champagne.
From our lens, the big risk going into Q4 is a renewed contraction in real final sales. That
is not priced into the various asset classes right now.
For more relevant economic observations, Rosie's
is a captivating read.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice
issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on
this site is distributed without profit exclusivly for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
ABUSE: IPs or network segments from which we detect a stream of probes might be blocked for no
less then 90 days. Multiple types of probes increase this period.
Two Party System
as Polyarchy :
Corruption of Regulators :
and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :
Harvard Mafia :
: Surviving a Bad Performance
Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as
Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience :
Who Rules America :
: The Iron
Law of Oligarchy :
War and Peace
Finance : John
Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand :
Oscar Wilde :
Otto Von Bismarck :
George Carlin :
Propaganda : SE
quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes :
Random IT-related quotes :
Somerset Maugham :
Marcus Aurelius :
Kurt Vonnegut :
Eric Hoffer :
Winston Churchill :
Napoleon Bonaparte :
Ambrose Bierce :
Bernard Shaw :
Mark Twain Quotes
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient
markets hypothesis :
Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 :
Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :
Vol 23, No.10
(October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments :
Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 :
Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 :
Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan
Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers
as intelligence collection hubs :
Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 :
Inequality Bulletin, 2009 :
Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 :
Bulletin, 2004 :
Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 :
Energy Bulletin, 2010 :
Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26,
No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult :
Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 :
Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification
of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05
(May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method :
Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000):
the triumph of the US computer engineering :
Donald Knuth : TAoCP
and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman
: Linus Torvalds :
Larry Wall :
John K. Ousterhout :
CTSS : Multix OS Unix
History : Unix shell history :
VI editor :
History of pipes concept :
Solaris : MS DOS
: Programming Languages History :
PL/1 : Simula 67 :
History of GCC development :
Scripting Languages :
Perl history :
OS History : Mail :
DNS : SSH
: CPU Instruction Sets :
SPARC systems 1987-2006 :
Norton Commander :
Norton Utilities :
Norton Ghost :
Frontpage history :
Malware Defense History :
GNU Screen :
OSS early history
Principle : Parkinson
Law : 1984 :
The Mythical Man-Month :
How to Solve It by George Polya :
The Art of Computer Programming :
The Elements of Programming Style :
The Unix Hater’s Handbook :
The Jargon file :
The True Believer :
Programming Pearls :
The Good Soldier Svejk :
The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society :
of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection
: BSD Logo Story :
The Cuckoo's Egg :
IT Slang : C++ Humor
: ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? :
The Perl Purity Test :
Object oriented programmers of all nations
: Financial Humor :
Financial Humor Bulletin,
2008 : Financial
Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related
Humor : Programming Language Humor :
Goldman Sachs related humor :
Greenspan humor : C Humor :
Scripting Humor :
Real Programmers Humor :
Web Humor : GPL-related Humor
: OFM Humor :
Politically Incorrect Humor :
IDS Humor :
"Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian
Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer
Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church
: Richard Stallman Related Humor :
Admin Humor : Perl-related
Humor : Linus Torvalds Related
humor : PseudoScience Related Humor :
Networking Humor :
Shell Humor :
Financial Humor Bulletin,
2011 : Financial
Humor Bulletin, 2012 :
Financial Humor Bulletin,
2013 : Java Humor : Software
Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor :
Education Humor : IBM
Humor : Assembler-related Humor :
VIM Humor : Computer
Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled
to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer
The Last but not Least
Copyright © 1996-2015 by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov. www.softpanorama.org
was created as a service to the UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP)
in the author free time. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively
for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License.
Original materials copyright belong
to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only
in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the author present and former employers, SDNP or any other organization the author may be associated with. We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose.
Last modified: March 29, 2015