Post #1842978 · Elektrine

2026-04-28 10:59 UTC

Apart from the fact that, as the article acknowledges, the government is already measuring all these things (and has done for as long as I, at least, can remember), GDP didn't become a key economic measure by accident; it was chosen precisely because it's a good reflection of general wellbeing. Of course, we also can, should *and do* measure lots of other things, including other economic metrics (like inflation) alongside numerous more general outcomes like education levels, life expectancy etc. Generally, with that latter group, higher GDP leads to better outcomes in those areas, which is why it's a good shorthand. If you want further evidence of how trite this all is, [David Cameron said the same thing in 2010](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11833241).

Replies (3)

@JustEnoughDucks@slrpnk.net 2026-04-28 11:06

Isn't GDP the thing the scam that American companies are doing where they all pass around the same 100 billion to eachother so it artificially inflates GDP even though 0 value, monetary or wellbeing-wise is being created.

Open ##1842997
@wewbull@feddit.uk 2026-04-28 14:00

When you measure something and set it as the goal, what was a good indicator becomes divorced from what you care about. Measuring GDP makes GDP the goal, not general wellbeing. So if you care about wellbeing, measure it and use that as your driving metric.

Open ##1842998
@BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 2026-04-28 11:39

Gdp was great indicator BEFORE the globalization. Right now it loses its value due to supply chains baing stretched far out of the country you're measuring. I generally agree that quality of life indicators are better. Especially since they're separate from income inequality matter

Open ##1842999