[Pre-emptive muck mark crowing]: U.S. Government Invents New Way Of Calculating GDP

chicanery is when GBW decided not to count the cost of the iraq war against the budget deficit

 

what the **** does that have to do with this?

 

Because both side manipulate the unemployment % and apparently the GDP to reflect what they want.

Pretty obvious.

 

Because if one side did something then everyone on the other can point fingers and say 'well you did it first!' instead of working towards a better solution.

 

What is there to debate?

 

We can debate whether Obama and his clan will spin it like there is some great turn around or if it will be spun to the media realistically. We can do that right now.

or we can take this as a pre-emptive thread which will be used in a relevant debate discussion in a month or two and let it fall and be archived to be revived when relevant.

We can also debate whether this thread is worthy, whether there is anything to debate at all and so on and so forth and ect..ect..ect.. ect..

and if we can't debate anything, then fine we don't need too. We can just have a discussion about it and offer hypothesis regarding the upcoming governmental change in how they calculate GDP

 

Well said. Rep.

 

You don't think books add real value? By putting ink to paper in an arrangement that allows it to store and transmit information, you create an object that is much more valuable to consumers that the cost of the raw materials alone. If anything, books are almost a perfect example of the kind of value-added activity economic statistics should try to capture.

 

Is there a reason you believe research and development is not an investment, and not a part of GDP?

 

Fortune 500 used to not include retail companies; then once they were recognized as drivers of production and credit, and accurate gauges of consumer demand, they were included. Not sure how this is any different, or at least not to the point of calling the black President a Nazi.

 

Democrats are going to sprain their arms patting themselves on the back for a change in accounting to the extent they can get away with it. This is just what a Republican would do.

 

From the FT:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/52d23fa6-aa98-11e2-bc0d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2UCTWn2gz

This is basically an accounting measure, and given how things like computer software wasn't included in GDP until 1999, I'd say updating the GDP to adjust to the current use of assets (intangible and tangible) is a good thing...until a politician messes up and mistakes a 3% increase as a 'growth', when in reality nothing has changed.

 

It's a good change. Plus they are going to go back and revise all previous numbers to reflect this new formula. No one except idiots would think the government will spin this as some major economic jump. Now I'm sure some individuals and politician will abuse it maybe even unknowingly

 

I don't know if a politician will mistake it for that, but they will definitely spin it as that.

 

Debating the finer points of GDP is like watching people fight over how ruffled the ears of a rotting, and decaying (say pigeon) carcass are.

in any case, this is keeping up to line with the changes in our society. To keep investment merely fixated on fixed capital assets is ludicrous when pharma and software can achieve sky-high returns on R&D that very much involves more than the physical capital of ages past.

in fact, this is a great change. R&D should be encouraged in any way possible, and if it's included in a measure of that dinosaur of a metric, maybe it will be.

WAY too many problems with GDP. and if you want to debate a political whitewashing through GDP metrics, you'll question why America in the "Washington Consensus" age wanted to switch from GNP to GDP in the first place---Stiglitz brought up the insightful point that GNP tells the truth, which is that developing countries are basically, like the mercantilism of old, pouring their goods and resources to foreign owners.

 

Haha.

Seekingalpha is the hoopsworld of economic analysis.

No. This answer would give you an F on most university level economics exams.

 

basso,

Inscrutable references to Nazis and the French monarchy aside, what mechanism exactly do you believe Obama can have used to exert political pressure on the Bureau of Economic Analysis? It's a pretty serious allegation that you're making.

 

He's an idiot copypasta-ing exceedingly dumb seeking alpha articles in order to infer a vasts conspiracy for a lazy friday trolling session...do you think he's at all fazed by your calling attention to the gravity of his statements?