Charles, It appears that you have ignored Wojtek's point? GDP is a concept that can be deployed...the question is who is deploying it? What is all this fair and unfair discourse about if people don't have down pat who it is that is in control of the game anyway (i.e. how capitalism works, even in nominally socialist countries). In China, eg., it is not at all uncommon to hear economists or other scholars rightly complain about unfair WTO entry conditions and then in the next breath tell you that more privatization is the only way to go to improve the economic situation for 'everyone'...
On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Charles Brown wrote:
Wojtek wrote:
> >
> > 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,
>
> ((((((((((((((
> 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
>
>
>