Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) consists of ___ ?

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) consists of ___ ?

Unread postby nocar » Wed 06 Apr 2005, 06:42:01

As an environmentalist, I have read many critical views on the meaning of GDP (gross domestic product), and how it measures economic activity rather than human well-being.

Still, I have a specific question to the economically knowledgeable people on this forum. I sort of know that all buying and selling is counted. Does that go for houses too? Anytime a house is sold (not a new-built one), this adds to the GDP? So if people move a lot, GDP goes up?
If house prices go up, GDP goes up? And then the people in charge of a nation's economy can be proud?

Americans tend to move a lot more than the Swedes, for example. Can part of the difference in GDP per capita be explained by Swedes buying fewer houses due to less moving (allowing for more stable communities)?

I am rather intrigued by the world view of economists, and I really want to know the details of their measurements.

How do economists collect the data for GDP anyway?

Nocar
nocar
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri 05 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Unread postby Licho » Wed 06 Apr 2005, 10:05:58

User avatar
Licho
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon 31 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Brno, Czech rep., EU

Two ways to look at GDP

Unread postby JoeW » Wed 06 Apr 2005, 10:25:45

There are really two ways to calculate GDP:
1) Sum of all incomes
2) Sum of all products

In the case of the buying and selling of existing homes, I would think that this should not be counted in GDP. No product has been created.
New homes, however, are an additional product that has been created, and therefore should be counted. But what should be counted? The building materials are already counted when they're sold to the builder because they are finished products, aren't they? So perhaps just the cost of labor to build the home should be added to GDP.

In the end, I think that using method #1 to calculate GDP involves a lot less thinking about semantics.
User avatar
JoeW
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: The Pit of Despair

Unread postby JoeW » Wed 06 Apr 2005, 10:27:46

Looking at it from an income standpoint, the capital gain on a home is income, so the realization of profits from rapidly increasing home prices (even for existing homes) must add to GDP, because the profit is really income.
User avatar
JoeW
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: The Pit of Despair

Unread postby Mercani » Wed 06 Apr 2005, 11:22:41

GDP definitely doesn't measure human well-being correctly.

If your house gains value, GDP rises. But you're still living in the same house !

If your house burns during a great fire, does the GDP go down? How is this taken into account?
User avatar
Mercani
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri 18 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby jaakkeli » Wed 06 Apr 2005, 14:34:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Mercani', 'I')f your house burns during a great fire, does the GDP go down?


No.

Actually, most likely the GDP goes <i>up</i>, since you'll probably want to rebuild the house. The new house will be included in the GDP and you'll probably use some money in it that you would've otherwise saved, so the GDP will probably even end up bigger in the end of the year than it would've had your house not burned down.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow is this taken into account?


It is not taken into account at all. GDP measures <i>production</i>. Remember, a lot of the GDP is made up of non-durable things - stuff is produced all the time for people to destroy (ie. producing a fruit worth $1 increases the GDP by $1, but eating it does not reduce the GDP, and that actually does capture a bit of "well-being" in it - if you counted the destruction of the fruit as -$1, there would be no difference between having an abundance of food and complete starvation).

The GDP is really not supposed to measure well-being or environmental harmony or whatever, so it's silly and stupid to "criticize the meaning of GDP"; instead, you should criticize the people who think GDP measures those things. It's like "criticizing the meaning of weight" because "weight isn't the only important thing about a person" - well, maybe it isn't, but some people are still fat.
User avatar
jaakkeli
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu 10 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Finland

Unread postby nocar » Thu 07 Apr 2005, 04:19:45

Hey, it is really wonderful to get answers this way, thank you!

But I am still struggling to understand what goes into GDP, and how the specific instance of different rates of moving house will affect (or will not affect) a difference in GDP.

As a non-economist, I am not even sure what "capital gain" is.

Let's take a house-owner who has lived for 10 yrs in the same house. Bought it for 200.000 Usdollars, now sells it for 600.000 because she and her family has decided to move to another city, and because housing prices has taken off upwards. Is her capital gain 400.000? Shouldn't inflation subtracted ? And in reality, she has paid more than 200.000 for her house, because of interest? So what is her capital gain, which is income, which is entered into GDP?

Next step is buying a new house. She finds an equivalent house and pays 600.000 dollar for it. She has not increased her wealth at all, still live in the same sort of house (but of course she has really spent lots of many on moving vans and such, which I suppose is income for someone else thus enters GDP - let's disregard that). Is she still considered as having made a capital gain, as if she did not have to invest her money right away?

nocar
nocar
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri 05 Nov 2004, 04:00:00


Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron