RE: [A-List] New Economy Bull, an expose

["Craven, Jim" <jcraven@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mark,

No except in real versus nominal terms or when comparing GDP and GNP but
even then the differences should not be that great. Generally "gross output"
means GDP or GNP. Now there are some who do a "corrected" NEW (Net Economic
Welfare) to correct for the positives that are excluded in GNP/GDP
(Household services, informal economies, underground economy, supposed
positive externalities unaccounted for) and deducting for the negatives not
included in GDP/GNP (using up non-renewable resources, pollution, negative
externalities associated with industrialization etc) but usually the figure
for NEW is much less than for GDP/GNP (many more negatives than positives
associated with capitalism). Perhaps he is double counting intermediate
goods. But I am at a loss to figure this one out; seems like total bullshit
to me.

Jim


AI love this stuff, but want to understand the following, and don't:

>The fact is, GDP can give us only a very partial insight
>into the mechanisms at work. Consider the BEA's Input-
>Output data. For 1998, when these were last compiled,
>GDP stood at $8.8 trillion, and personal consumption was
>$5.9 trillion.
>
>Manufacturing seemed to be fairly inconsequential at
>$1.5 trillion in the GDP numbers and made a smaller
>contribution than either finance ($1.7 trillion) or
>services ($2.1 trillion).
>
>If you look at what was actually being made and sweated
>over within the economy...what provided the jobs, on the
>one hand, and the opportunity of profits, on the
>other...then the picture is quite different from the
>less than perfect one you hear blathered by "experts" on
>CNBC.
>
>In fact, the total gross output of the economy now comes
>to $15.4 trillion in turnover. And manufacturing - at
>$3.9 trillion - suddenly swells to being the largest
>constituent of them all. 55% greater than finance, and
>10% larger even than the much-vaunted service sector.

Is there some distinction  between 'GDP' and 'total gross output' which
allows the latter to be almost double the former, in the same US economy?
What don't I get here?

Mark