Hacker News Reader

Comment by EdwardDiego | Hacker News Reader

> GDP isn't income at all, they're completely different metrics.

Not exactly, according to the OECD.

https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=1163

> Gross domestic product is an aggregate measure of production equal to the sum of the gross values ... or the sum of primary incomes distributed by resident producer units.

I guess it's more nuanced, but I don't have a PhD in economics like the author.

View on HN

> I guess it's more nuanced, but I don't have a PhD in economics like the author.

English is funny. I knew exactly what you meant and I'm not saying it's wrong, but it would be read completely the opposite if you had said:

I guess it's more nuanced but, like the author, I don't have an PhD in economics.

Per the 'about' page, the author of the blog post does in fact have a PhD in economics.

I think shric was just remarking that English is funny because you can take the exact same words of a sentence and rearrange them a bit so it means the opposite.

Most sentences can be rearranged to mean the converse. This is cross-linguistically pretty common, depending on which atoms you choose to rearrange. Most sentences can be negated with at most a couple of word changes. This is cross-linguistically about as universal and anything in linguistics is, again depending on which atoms you choose as "words".

English isn't funny, humans are funny, building all sorts of redundancy into their languages, but then reversing polarity on a dime.

Not sure how you'd rearrange the same sentence in German to reach the negation without having to change cases and grammatical roles.

Komm, wir essen, Opa.

Komm, wir essen Opa.

Yes, that's why I said "I knew exactly what you meant and I'm not saying it's wrong"

> like the author, I don't have an PhD in economics.

Then you would say “unlike the author” - that’s what is confusing people.

Yes, that was my entire point.

Sounds like a characteristic of nearly any language with positional negation.

P => !Q

Can be rearranged to mean so many weird things.

GDP is a measure of all exchanged values.

Income is a measure of retained value after all exchanges have had place.

If I buy a truckload of ice cream for $1000, sell it for $2000, and pay the trucker $200, the GDP is increased by $1000 + $2000 + $200 = $3200, while my income is merely $1000, and the trucker's, $200. Our profits are even lower; mine is $800, and the trucker's is $200 minus fuel costs and road tolls.

Gdp in your case is $2000, and so is aggregate net income if you account for the person who put the ice-cream in the truck.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com