tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post2359500615780759066..comments2024-03-25T07:51:47.758-04:00Comments on Thoughts On Economics: Mainstream MultipliersRobert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-14885776079901721002012-04-25T06:59:21.588-04:002012-04-25T06:59:21.588-04:00I see the point. Certainty what GDP is spent on ma...I see the point. Certainty what GDP is spent on matters, as Joan Robinson notes when commenting on the "second crisis" in economics.<br /><br />But couldn't I quote Keynes as a justifying authority, as well. Was Elizabeth a happier woman but not a better queen than Victoria? It's a rough and ready comparison.Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00872510108133281526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-51213454545134858052012-04-20T16:32:37.880-04:002012-04-20T16:32:37.880-04:00Hello,
I don't understand how you may base an...Hello,<br /><br />I don't understand how you may base any "empirical study" on the "GDP" concept.<br /><br />Indeed, as Keynes put it in the General Theory, <i><br /><br />"[...] the community’s output of goods and services is a non-homogeneous complex which cannot be measured, strictly speaking, except in certain special cases, as for example when all the items of one output are included in the same proportions in another output."</i><br /><br />The "GDP" doesn't deal at all with the "amount" of the production. It only measures the amount of money spent on consumers goods.<br /><br />Moreover, because the "GDP" measures the amount of money spent on final goods, it is indeed quite easy for a governement to increase it: it is just needed, either to print new money, or to shift the current money from investment to consumption. But this increase "GDP" is obvioulsy not laudable.Raoulhttp://laissezlesfaits.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com