>
> How much of that output represents real production as distint from
> monopoly rents from intellectual property; e.g. medical devices? Maybe
> someone with better command of the data can help me out with this
> question
I think intellectual property would have the effect of causing output growth to be understated, not overstated. We're talking about trend, not level. So if intellectual property has an effect on measured output growth it would be through its effect on price changes over time. Normally when a new type of product is first introduced, its price starts out very high, then rapidly falls, depressing the rate of growth in the measured price level. But if it has a patent on it, the fall in price doesn't take place. So assuming the share of mfg output covered by patents has been rising, it has been biasing the price indices *upward*, not downward, and therefore biasing measured real output downward, not upward.
Real per capita mfg output in the US has doubled since 1980.
SA