So when obtaining new equipment, a principle concern will be the productivity of the variable inputs ... electricity, people, fabric, etc. ... when using the equipment. The higher the productivity the lower the cost per unit for given variable factor costs. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
But that version of productivity takes into account only the items that have a direct impact on the bottom line.
But measuring what you have to measure to track the tug of war in the division of national income between labor and non-labor claimants on income is not responsible for that confusion.
Being externalities, the externalities do not play the same role in that tug of war over the money flows.
The responsibility for the abuse of the measure lies with those who abuse the measure. Some of the blame must go to traditional marginalist economists who persist in treating "real" GDP as if it was some underlying quantity rather than an artifact ... but even if the profession has clean hands, there would still be voices in the public discourse who would persist in misusing measures in pursuit of their own interests. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
... but if the measures are not produced, then people will just make shit up. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
