On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>
> Ju-chang He, I fully agree with your statement - high GDP growth does NOT
> mean high human development growth. But you did not ask me if i think that
> GDP is 'humane' (to which my answer would have been no for the reasons you
> list in your missive) - you asked me if GDP is 'scientific' - to which most
> rational people would answer 'yes.'
((((((((((((
Charles: This is patently false. GDP is a scientific and ideological concept. Of course it reflects something factual, but it ignores capitalism's FACTUAL AND ACTUAL weaknesses. Economists may know it has a narrow purpose, but that technicality gets lost by the time most people hear om the news that just "the economy is doing great", based on the background that they don't pay attention to that GDP is growing.
GDP is not a purely scientific or analytical concept. It is used to back up a propaganda.
This is as simple as a, b, c.
>
>
> As I argued in other postings to this thread, science has to be analytical
> rather than politically correct. I argued thatusing diffrent indicators of
> economic growth and human development is mor analytica than using a single
> conflated measure. I have also shown that gdp can be used in a very
> critical way,
((((((((((((((
Charles: But in the main messages to the masses of people it is just used to say "the economy is great", not all the details that make it more complete and more fully scienific. It is use to hoodwink, as Chang puts it.
((((((((((((
for example by serving as the base for comparing social
> welfare spending among different countries (i.e. what share of national
> wealth is being spent on human development).
>
> so it is not the indicator itself, but how it used that is fair or unfair
> to poor people.
>
(((((((((((((((
Charles: Right. It is used to hoodwink.
CB