Goldenboy219

I never said they were used to compute, only that salaries were a makeup, a portion of GDP. Dont try to turn this discussion into one of terminology, as i was clear in stating that income was a factor in the overall equation.



Services are a form of income. Income is part of GDP makeup.

A very large portion of GDP is subject to income being reported. Yet we will never really know how much income goes unreported every year.

Come on, nobody just looks at GDP one day and says, "by gosh, the economy is down." Reason be, GDP is in hindsight, where computation is a lengthy process. Market performance for a week, month, or even quarter can give you a more accurate look into the economy. Another straw man though, as i never said one trading day can be a tell all forecast.

A yearly breakdown of the Dow is a better measuring stick IMHO, than GDP.

Hahaha. Only in your mind Irie

__________________
Firing your head coach: -15 wins
Trading Ben Wallace: +5 wins
Youngest team in NBA: -6 wins
Drafting Derrick Rose no.1 overall: Priceless

Iriemon

"GDP is based on an independent variable, such as reported income. "

"Only labor inputs that are taxed count in total GDP."

"Oh, i see I guess these things are provided without labor inputs/outputs?"


Services are a type of production. They are not equivalent to income. Services generate income. Income is part of the GDI part of GDP.

Not on the production side of GDP.

Yes they do.

So now you are conceding that the stock markets daily trading is not relevant, but weekly is monthly or quarterly "can be" an accurate look at the economy? "Can be" depending upon what?

And your contention now is that economic activity is 20% less than it was a year ago because the Dow is down 20%?

Hahahaha. Bunk.

Others can decide for themselves.

__________________
Matthew 5:9

Goldenboy219

Still you refuse to accept that income is part of GDP? The price of an individual good is partly due to its labor input costs to the producer.

GDI is part of GDP?

You still refuse to grasp. To make a bicycle, you need resources, labor, and capital investment. The resources are in the form of steel, and rubber plastic etc.... Labor is in the form of the people who put the bikes together, order supplies, test them, ship them etc... Capital investment represents the factory, tools etc...

When they go to sell the bikes, input costs will be divided by the number produced, plus a total profit desired divided by total number of bikes. The cost of labor is included in the production of bicycles.

Tell me Irie, how do things get produced? Do people just work for free, or is slavery still in effect?



Ok, tell me the GDP for 2008. You cannot because the figures will not be final until... 2008 passes.



I never stated the daily trading is a forcast, which is a straw man. I did state however that a view of market activity over a specific period of time is a better indicator of the economy during that time frame.

No. My contention is that the economy is ****ed up. Yet GDP would indicate otherwise, and i wonder why.

Only when you put words in my mouth. I never stated half the things you accuse me of saying. You have backed yourself into a corner, and resort to logical fallacy instead of admitting that GDP is subjective.



Sure.

MrVicchio

I believe this gem explains it all very well.

__________________
Us Navy Veteran. AerographersMate 2nd Class (AW) Mr.Vicchio, At your service!

"What's so great about the Constitution anyway?"-1069

dirtpoorchris

I believe F.A. Hayek explains it well.
F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?

__________________

Leave it to US. To make the sun rise in the West. And fall on the East.

Iriemon

Repetive

One way to measure of GDP. The other is production. Did you read the BEA article?

So tell me the exact formula for calculating GDP.


So what. The date the figure comes out everyone talks about how the economy was doing.

Why did you not answer my question?

We'll have to see when the figures come out. But I'd certainly disagree with your contention that economic activity is 20% down.


You keep changing your story.

Iriemon

What percentage of bad loans are CRA loans?

How did CRA loans require banks to invest in subprime debt?

Goldenboy219

You know what compulsory school suggest, if someone fails to get the concept, repetitive task is needed.

I am not talking bout measurement, i am not talking about ways, my point is not about generic aggregates. It is the simple correlation that income (reported) is factored into overall GDP.

You mean the aggregates? Why sure GDP= C+I+G+X. Where as consumption makes up 70%, investment makes up 19%, government makes up 17%, and net exports make up -6%.

Certainly there are other factors that make up the aggregates. Cost of goods, interest earned etc... Are peoples earned incomes a part, factor, or makeup of C, I, or G? I shall await your answer. I am willing to bet people earn income on the net exports segment.

We can go back and look from January until now, and get great insight on the economy from market analysis. I would like to clarify, the S&P 500 would be a better indicator due to its broad take.

It was an open ended question, of which you already know the answer. But just in case; the time frame of which you decide to analyze. Meaning that one day forecasts are about as relevant as a single day GDP figure.

When did i suggest this? Yet another straw man

You assumed my story was single day market indication > one year GDP figures. That is your fault, not mine as i have clearly explained my point of which you refuse to accept.

Can you answer as to how the total cost of one bike or all bikes can be calculated without input labor costs: you know, the income earned by factory workers to produce the said good? Do not attempt to dodge.

Iriemon

Some of us have moved past compulsory school where repeating the same thing is somehow deemed to be an effective debating technique.


Measure is exactly what we are talking about. Income is not factored into the GDP calculation the govt puts out. Read the BEA primer.

Sure, but it is not what is measured. What point are you trying to get at here by repeating the argument?

Any other refinements you want to add to your theory?

What one day GDP figure?

That's the stock market over the past year, and therefore under you theory how the economy has done.

Or are you changing your story again.


Wrong

Can you answer as to why I am completely wasting my time arguing with someone about whether the stock markets are the best measure of economic activity? That's the real question to be asked.

Goldenboy219

Lol, if i were debating what exactly were the aggregates were when calculating GDP, you would have a point. Instead, we were debating whether or not GDP is a subjective measurement. Going back to a previous example, not hiring a service company and "doing it yourself" adds less GDP than hiring. If you do hire, and it is "cash", it will be accounted into GDP as if you were "doing it yourself". Due to the fact that occurrences of similar situations happen thousands of times a day, i consider that significant. You cannot refute this because you did in fact say yourself, that services generate income by performing a service (they have to pay their workers to work which is a part of the total income generated) that generates income.



No, that is where you have been trying to steer the debate because your initial responses were from an angle of weakness. Your original claim:

Where i argued it was subjective, and went on to support it citing examples. You went on to state:

Your only support (attacking mine does not count) that GDP was not subjective pertained to why markets are a not good indicator (markets are/were down 20%), and this had nothing to do with explaining/ proving why GDP was not subjective. Which is why you have lost. You failed to address your claim.

And i have argued to affect that not including "some" activity or the very way that it is based on (hiring out adds a higher product total than doing it yourself) taxed income (be it the sale of a good, or service) therefore leaving out segments of the entire economy.

The markets on the other hand are not discriminatory, or subjective in the manner of "measurement". Markets effect the psychology of the consumer as well as the producer via two examples: if people are short on money, they will most likely not be investing in markets; if businesses are to be believed to not be making a true profit, they are not likely to be invested in by those with excess capital.

Your arguing with a straw man by citing measurment, as i never used aggregates as a premise of my initial argument:

The examples above are my premise. You have failed to prove through any stretch of the imagination that GDP was not subjective. Instead you have twisted my argument to state that the total salary our workforce earns is not factored into GDP. When i say factored, not the aggregates Ire, but the aggregates of the aggregates, or the composition of the goods/services produced/consumed.

Have i ever claimed a theory? I just presented an opinion backed by premise, and you have countered my claim, not siting and "proof" of your own, but only by manipulating certain aspects of my premises.

Are there any? I can instead look at the markets the past 12 months to gain perspective on the economy.

That might be so, but i never one time assigned a number to be associated with the economy has done. Reason be, i view total output measurement via GDP to be incomplete, therefore a finite take on the economy is as Mises said, silly.

My story is, that's my story and i'm sticking to it.

How do you refute that you are misrepresenting my premise with a single word? How about you provide some examples. I will say that i do not expect you too, as you have not done so the entire debate. You only attack my premise, leaving your opinion that "GDP is better" to stand next to a straw man by siting single day trading. Your gonna have to do much better than that.

That sounds like a personal question if you ask me, because you obviously feel the need to defend GDP. Could it be that i proved GDP to be subjective and you refuse to live it down, so you reply to my every reply attempting to steer the debate into more easily defensible direction to save some face? Only you can answer that, have a nice day