tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3471471289744825428.post5102680923483291051..comments2024-03-11T00:31:41.186-07:00Comments on The Oregon Economics Blog: Economist's Notebook: GDPPatrick Emersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17242234148546323374noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3471471289744825428.post-91493079372276631662009-08-11T12:57:14.022-07:002009-08-11T12:57:14.022-07:00No, I am not suggesting it should include external...No, I am not suggesting it should include externalities (or at least I was not intending to). I was pointing out that this is a limitation of GDP as a measure of economic activity, but does not, in itself, mean that GDP is useless or bad.<br /><br />GDP is supposed to be all final goods and services produced in a year but it is generally measured by consumption. So a car made in 2008 is supposed to count towards 2008 GDP, but if it is not bought until 2009, in reality it is generally counted in 2009 GDP. But this type of measurement error is generally not terribly significant. In today's economy, however, unsold cars may not be insignificant...Patrick Emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17242234148546323374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3471471289744825428.post-29255726093898979562009-08-11T12:48:07.314-07:002009-08-11T12:48:07.314-07:00Hi Patrick,
Just a quick question: Are you sugges...Hi Patrick,<br /><br />Just a quick question: Are you suggesting GDP should include externalities?<br /><br />Also, I was under the impression GDP is a products and services sold/consumed, not simply produced. I was a car manufacturer, producing a car that sits on a lot (doesn't sell) doesn't count towards GDP. Is that right?<br /><br />Thanks.Ralphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935553689879498648noreply@blogger.com