GDP is a very bad way to assess economic growth
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the total of all the goods and services that a country produces, but GDP is a very bad way to assess the growth and prosperity of a country.
If you just simply consider the total GDP, then China is the second richest country in the world.
But if you consider GDP per person then China is one of the poorest countries in the world.
From this example it is clear that simply looking at the total GDP of a country means absolutely nothing.
The only figure that really has any meaning at all is GDP per person.
SDP: Gross National Product (GNP) could be an even better one.
Not according to the BBC.Originally Posted by SDP
GDP, or Gross Domestic Product, is arguably the most important of all economic statistics as it attempts to capture the state of the economy in one number.
BBC News - Q&A: What is GDP?
This is England and .....
"according to the BBC"
Well that bunch of illiterate tossers couln't decide what a trillion was this morning....
I can't claim to be an expert but I think their economic correspondents know what they are talking about.
18 months ago Osborne promised his policies would bring slow growth and decreasing unemployment. We have no growth and longer dole queues. First he blamed Labour,then he blamed benefits scroungers,now he's blaming Europe.
It's his job to deal with the problems,not make excuses about why his "cures" aren't working.
This is England and .....
And if it grows at the present rate China's GDP per capita by 2040 will be 25 per cent of the US, about the same as Greece. And a long way from Qatar or Luxemburg.
Immigration increases GDP.
But immigration reduces GDP per person.
If the government took on a million additional traffic wardens, this would increase GDP by 5% over night.
OK GDP is 5% higher but would the country actually be a richer country if we had an additional million traffic warden.
Clearly an extra million traffic wardens does not make the country richer.
GDP is a very poor method of calculating growth and prosperity.
Additional civil servants should not increase GDP, because they are not wealth producers.
Civil servants are an overhead expense. It does not make sense to say that increasing our overhead expenses makes the country richer.
A business always tries to keep their overhead expenses to a minimum, but the Labour Party believes that increasing our overheads makes Britain a richer country.
When the Labour party say that they want polices that create growth, what they are asking for is a policy that increases the number of civil servants working for the government.
Civil servants should not be included in GDP, because they do not produce wealth.
Last edited by SDP; 27-01-2012 at 11:16 AM.
Properly employed and trained civil servants produce wealth. HMRC and the DWP used to have efficient trained full time staff who knew their jobs and 99% did them well and efficiently.
Now they have zero hours contracted untrained staff who cannot read or understand what they are doing,or why they are doing it. They do not understand their own systems and are paying millions to people who shouldn't be getting it and not paying millions to people who should.
This is England and .....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks