>Ju-Chang,
> Wojtek is completely right. There are many
>problems with GDP as a measure of the material
>standard of living, with the non-counting of non-
>marketed activities being one of the most important
>ones. GDP does not measure income distribution
>and this is widely known.
> There are measures of income distribution that
>can be looked at, such as the Gini coefficient or
>the decile ratio (the latter is the ratio of what the
>richest 10% earn compared to what the poorest
>10% earn). Certainly anybody who wants to know
>what is happening in a society should look at both
>changes in GDP (overall output) and changes in
>income distribution.
Why do economists have no other standard of measure indicating the living standards of poor people?
The heart of the issue is what economists use GDP to measure, the whole economy condition? or just the volume and the production of goods for market and their sale?
It is very clear that economists use GDP to measure the whole economy condition, not just the volume and the production of goods for market and their sale.
When there is a large GDP and a high growth rate, they will say that the economy is great and the financial officer will be proud of it although the living standards of poor people is very bad and needs increasing. They don't pay any attention to the living condition of poor people. So there is no need for the government to raise the living standards of poor people. Therefore GDP as a measurement of the whole economy condition is unscientific and unfair for poor people. GDP is for the rich to hoodwink poor people's eyes.
Sincerely, Ju-chang He
SHENZHEN, P.R. CHINA Welcome to My Homepage <http://sites.netscape.net/juchang/>