I think the underlying claim that the numbers for GDP measures are generally pretty problematic in general and particularly when attempting to make comparisons between distant points in time. Part of that is just the mechanics of designing an index. That problem is very much complicated by technology and quality improvements, both resulting in a very real apples-oranges comparison problem between the goods put in the bundle of goods.
I would expect that the errors even in the short term on that comparison aspect to compound over time.
However, I also think there is very much a problem akin to the interpersonal utility comparison problems that exist. In some ways we can look at the examples you’ve mentioned and the basic consumption item is something that has been produced and consumed probable at least as long as human have lived in some form of formal civil structure. Much of your tech example is communication related. Just looking at that aspect of the GDP growth, can we really say we think we’re now enjoying 100 times more value in our communications?
I think that’s a bit of a hard question but just from my own perspective I might say 6 times is perhaps closer than 100 times.
But again, I do agree that what one infers from looking at GDP time series data should come with a lot of footnotes about many different caveats.
I think the underlying claim that the numbers for GDP measures are generally pretty problematic in general and particularly when attempting to make comparisons between distant points in time. Part of that is just the mechanics of designing an index. That problem is very much complicated by technology and quality improvements, both resulting in a very real apples-oranges comparison problem between the goods put in the bundle of goods.
I would expect that the errors even in the short term on that comparison aspect to compound over time.
However, I also think there is very much a problem akin to the interpersonal utility comparison problems that exist. In some ways we can look at the examples you’ve mentioned and the basic consumption item is something that has been produced and consumed probable at least as long as human have lived in some form of formal civil structure. Much of your tech example is communication related. Just looking at that aspect of the GDP growth, can we really say we think we’re now enjoying 100 times more value in our communications?
I think that’s a bit of a hard question but just from my own perspective I might say 6 times is perhaps closer than 100 times.
But again, I do agree that what one infers from looking at GDP time series data should come with a lot of footnotes about many different caveats.