Re: RE: Re: Re: Those questionable productivity numbers

[Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>]

Eric Nilsson wrote:

> I looked at this spreadsheet. It is very hard to
> follow as BEA did not clearly explain what the
> numbers were but I have some vague ideas having
> done something generally similar for different
> types of data in the past.
>
> Be that as it may, I see where you got your $24
> nominal number and your $131 billion real number.
>
> I think, however, that the author of the
> spreadsheet does _not_ intend for you to compare
> the 24 with the 131. Unlike some NIPA tables, the
> real numbers for a given year in this spreadsheet
> are _not_ intended to be generated from the
> nominal data in any straightforward fashion.

The chained numbers aren't additive; you can't add the components to
get the real total. (Notice the gigando residual, which is the
difference between the added components and the actual bottom line.)
But why can't I compare the 24 with the 131? They're both aggregates,
and the comparison shows that some massive inflation of nominal
values is going on to produce the real values.

These things get truly preposterous over the long term - nominal
spending on computers grew 143% from 1987 to 2000, which translates
into 3457% in real terms. This strikes me as meaninglessly silly.

Doug