>This reminds me of a question that I've been meaning to ask.
>How much does price deflation of computers and other electronic
>equipment affect the US "real" GDP?
Dunno about broad electronic equipment, but the BEA does publish tables on computer and peripheral purchases in GDP <http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/comp-gdp.XLS>. From those we learn (and computers includes peripherals):
average annual growth rates, 1990-2000
GDP 3.2% GDP less computers 2.9 computers alone 34.1 computer prices -17.9
percent of total GDP growth, 1990-2000
real 13.0% nominal 0.6
So, excluding computers would lower growth rates by about 10% for the 1990s. SIgnificant, but not decisive. It is amazing, however, that they accounted for less than 1% of nominal growth, but 13% of real growth. The reason, of course, was that prices were falling an amazing 34% a year.
Most other countries don't use U.S.-style techniques for adjusting computer prices, which attempt to capture performance improvements (increased processor speed, larger disk drives, etc.). Conceptually, the practice is defensible, but the BEA may be way too aggressive.
Using a different set of stats, from the World Bank, shows U.S. GDP per capita growing an average of 1.8% a year from 1990-2000, and the euro area 1.6%. (Pop growth in the euro area is virtually 0%, while in the U.S. it's about 1%, which accounts for much of the difference in aggregate growth rates.) If you marked down the U.S. figure, or marked up the euro figure, by 0.2 points, the growth rates would nearly converge.
Doug