Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw0101d | Hacker News Reader

> That may or not match the measures that economists and rich people care about, like GDP or stock market gains.

If you don't think that positive GDP growth is good, wait until you experience negative GDP growth. :)

As someone who has a few more decades until retirement, I could personally go with cheaper stocks so I could buy more know for future use, but I'm sure my older (some-retired) relatives feel differently about market downturns.

> Down on main street, people are cutting back because they can no longer afford the lifestyle they used to afford.

Depending on the lifestyle (or parts thereof) in question, this may not be a bad thing. Certain lifestyle (aspects) may be imprudent, e.g., "How Much is That $70,000 Truck Costing You?":

* https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2024/02/how-much-is-that-70...

View on HN

GDP is a monetary measure, it measures market value. So most of regular infrastructure does not add anything to GDP, public schools for example. Positive GDP is an important measure on Capitalist system but it does not reflect fully in the life of most poor people.

> Depending on the lifestyle (or parts thereof) in question, this may not be a bad thing. Certain lifestyle (aspects) may be imprudent,

I guess he was talking about people that cant afford a 70000 truck at first place. Some people on rich countries like Brasil, 11th GDP in 2022, were just not able to afford food.

> So most of regular infrastructure does not add anything to GDP, public schools for example.

But building a new school, or bridge, or factory, or repaving a road to fix potholes, does add to GDP.

GDP is a measure of economic activity, and having positive activity is generally a good thing. (Though some is not: if there's an oil spill, that will increase economic activity due to having to spend money on the clean-up measures.)

> Positive GDP is an important measure on Capitalist system but it does not reflect fully in the life of most poor people.

If you think poor people have a hard time with positive GDP, do you think they'll have a better time when it's negative?

The problem is that GDP doesn't measure the distribution of economic activity.

And reducing economic inequality might reduce GDP even as it improves the lives of poor people. Forcing people to work harder is good for GDP even if it isn't the best thing for the workers.

Can GDP be gamed and overemphasized? Yes.

Is America gaming and overemphasizing GDP? I don't think so. We have all kinds of economic measurements, and the one most people seem to be discussing today is inflation.

As long as we don't go stupid and braindead, and consider the overall economic picture, we'll do fine. We also can't ignore the best data that's collected or consider it conspiracy-laden fakes. But we also need to have enough skepticism to make sure our numbers are legitimate.

There's certainly people who fail on both sides. Overly trusting one number (ignoring all others) for the sake of their arguments. Or alternatively, ignoring inconvenient numbers (well, inconvenient for their side of the argument).

> Positive GDP is an important measure on Capitalist system but it does not reflect fully in the life of most poor people.

You can also measure GDP in less-than-capitalist systems.

You are right that GDP is a proxy for stuff we actually care about. But it tends to correlate really well with all the things we do care about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com