The most commonly used measure of an economy of progress by government agencies is the GDP, or gross domestic product. It is a dollar value measure of all the goods and services that are in an economy during a time period, generally quarters or a year. It's simple formula is GDP = C + I + G + NX, or GDP equals the sum of consumption, investment, government expenditures and the net of exports. In concept it is simple, but its usage as a tool to measure an economy and provide objective conclusions turns it into nothing more than an unreliable tool that is strictly flawed and in any practical terms, it should simply be disregarded every time it is reported.
What is Economic Growth
For simplicity reasons in this demonstration, say that in one one, all of the variables had $ 100. GDP is therefore $ 400. That means the value of all the goods and services in the economy that year was $ 400. Now in the second year consumption increases by $ 1, while everything else remained the same. Now GDP is $ 401. It is growing! This is basically what we hear on the news and from government agencies 4 times a year. They attempt to brag to the public about their amazing progress in growing the economy. Despite this, and against all the facts, and the numbers used in the example, around two thirds of the GDP is consumption (private activity) and the second largest portion is investment (private activity). Nearly 80% of the GDP is private activity and is unrelated to the government in the first two variable alone, including the actual limits placed upon it by the government in the forms of taxes, regulations and other restrictions. Take those away and consumption and investment would actually be much higher, but that is not the overall topic for here. So please the fact that most of the activity is not by the government, the officials then get out their press secretaries and brag to the public about the amazing job they have done for creating growth … which is indeed intentionally dishonest. Creating growth through giving back some of the money already stolen away to increase consumption is like a bank robber taking $ 50 from everyone's bank account, putting then mailing all the account holders $ 10 and saying, "I increased the size of your bank account by $ 10. " That just does not make sense, but the government, news, and public allows this to become an accepted idea.
In addition to this, let's just forget about the information stated above and assume that growth was indeed obtained, however that is no in actuality a necessity good thing. Like in the example above, in the second year, the economy grew by $ 1, so one could try to argue that now society is 1 better off. In actuality, they are particularly wrong. Egypt starters, GDP is not a measure of well-being. It is a literal measure of value. What did it take to earn that $ 1 of consumption? Did a worker have to work an extra 100 hours in the year in a salaried position to expand upon an advertising campaign to market a new product? Increased work weeks and longer hours for a minute growth level severely seems justifiable and hardly seems like progress. Did the government raise taxes on the population further stealing their wealth and chose to spend $ 1 extra on funding some sort of inefficient program as they do every year? That severely seems like progress too. So what does the growth mean? It means just as what it is literally supposedly to mean, and not what people try to spin it as in the media and government agencies. It means consumption, investments, government expenditures or net exports increased by $ 1.
Another way to look at this fact is simply by looking at the GDP number per person. The GDP per capita is a measure of wealth per person in the measured area. So in year one there was $ 400 of value in the region, and let's say there was also 400 people. The GDP per capita would be 400 divided by 400, so $ 1 per person. In year 2, assuming the population remained constant, it would be 401 divided by 400, so $ 1.0025 per person. PROGRESS! You can now argue that people are better off as their marginal wealth increased. The problem here is, the population in America and on a global scale is not constant, it is growing. So in reality in year 2, the GDP is $ 401 and the population is now 410 people. So the GDP per capita would be: $ 0.98. So we had economic growth, but on a purely per capita scale, people are worse off. That severely seems like progress at all. It would seem as if growth is not a good thing in that situation.
For counter example's sake, let's say that growth in year 3 was by $ 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 and the population only increased by 3. That would sound phenomenal, and in most circumstances one would be justified in making such a statement, but sadly even GDP per capita, which Is a far more accurate measure measure than GDP alone, is not really a measure of anything significant in an economy. It is an average, and as basic stats and math teachers you, that can include extremes on both ends to lead to a number in the middle. Let's say that the entire growth in year 3 was caused by the discovery of oil by one land owner and due to his new wealth he goes and buys himself everything he could ever dream of. So now the economy grows by $ 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, but it all came from one person. Are people directly better off as a result of only one person or one small group of people holding all the wealth themselves. In reality and in extreme circumstances, you could have a warlord come in and steal everyone's assets and then spend that on top of the money of his own and the economy could increase, and the GDP per capita could increase, but still the underlying fact is , Every single person in the country but one is now poor and broke.
Some of the examples are extreme, some of them are not, but the point stands that GDP and GDP are not reliable measures of how people are doing and growth is not a measure of how people are doing. People could be worse off, but we see growth. Their overall happiness could have decreased, the number of hours they worked could have increased, immune systems could have weakened, the air could have gotten harder to breathe, more regulations could have been implemented on their lives … and regardless of any growth, Their overall utility is now lower. In sort, growth and GDP should never be used to measure a nation's or society's well-being.
What is a Recession
For another point to this matter, consider a recession. By definition, a recession is 2 periods in a row of negative growth. So let's thank the media and the Democratic Party for increasing the panic in the market and leading to people changing their behaviors through fear tactics in 2007 and 2008 when they were saying the country was in a recession, even during periods of growth. Definitions only apply to those that are honest. Anyways, that is just a digression, the point to be made here is that amazingly enough, a recession is also not a measure of society. In technicality, a recession could actually mean people are better off. Taking similar examples as above, let's say that in a country similar to Japan (nation with a decreasing population), the GDP in year was $ 1,000 and the population was 1,000 people. Now in year 2 the GDP declined every quarter (more than 2 in a row) and pushed the country into a recession, so now the GDP is $ 990. But with their decreasing population, the population is now 900 people. 990 divided by 900 is $ 1.1 per person, versus the $ 1 per person previously. It would seem that during a recession people are better off. Again, even the GDP per capita is a flawed stat and is overall not quite relevant in regards to overall utility, but the point stands that regardless of all the misconceptions about a recession, recession does not mean a situation where people are worse off. It means 2 quarters of negative growth, regardless of the ramifications of that action.
GDP and growth are nearly irrelevant as a whole when measuring the success of a nation and the population's utility. Despite this, it is the most commonly used measure by reporting agencies and the government to tout progress. While it can be used as a literal dollar value representation of what is in an economy, it bears absolutely 0 weight in how well being, the happiness of the population, the progress or (con) gress of society, and is not an accurate Measure of the wealth the population's individuals currently have. When measuring the value of all consumption, investment, government expenditures and net exports, sure the GDP can be used accurately, when applying any other connotation to the results, it is purely deceptive and most likely incorrect.