I do agree that the distinction should be made and should be known, and that the confusion around the interpretation be reduced. At the same time calling it an “insight” appears to be due to either that very confusion or ignorance of the actual subject matter.
Since its creation, economists who are familiar with GDP have emphasized that GDP is a measure of economic activity, not economic or social well-being. In 1934, Simon Kuznets, the chief architect of the United States national accounting system and GDP, cautioned against equating GDP growth with economic or social well-being.
(Note—I take the meaning of “value” above to refer to the more subjective utility-type meaning and not simply the price value for accounting at some aggregate level.)
Perhaps a more interesting question here might be why so many people, and specifically non-lay people who really should know better (professional economists, professional financial journalist, governmental staff and representatives), keep slipping into the error in framing/rhetoric if not flat out error in thought.
Upvoting for this insight.
I do agree that the distinction should be made and should be known, and that the confusion around the interpretation be reduced. At the same time calling it an “insight” appears to be due to either that very confusion or ignorance of the actual subject matter.
https://thesolutionsjournal.com/2016/02/22/a-short-history-of-gdp-moving-towards-better-measures-of-human-well-being/
(Note—I take the meaning of “value” above to refer to the more subjective utility-type meaning and not simply the price value for accounting at some aggregate level.)
Perhaps a more interesting question here might be why so many people, and specifically non-lay people who really should know better (professional economists, professional financial journalist, governmental staff and representatives), keep slipping into the error in framing/rhetoric if not flat out error in thought.