Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Work has advanced on some of these elements. The UN Environment Programme-led Inclusive Wealth Index shows the aggregation through accounting and shadow pricing of produced capital, natural capital and human capital for 140 countries. The global growth rate of wealth tracked by this index is much lower than growth in GDP. In fact, the 2018 data suggests natural capital declined for 140 countries for the period of 1992 to 2014.

Interestingly, many countries record GDP growth while they lose natural capital. One can see the trade-off among various types of capital, but the report clearly conveys that mixing income with wealth is bad economics and dangerous for sustainability measurement.

The Index’s findings include strong recommendations to help reach global sustainability targets, including the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Closely tracking countries’ productive bases is key, as a declining asset base implies a non-sustainable trajectory. Many of the assets critical for maintaining productive bases are either not priced or are priced at much lower levels than they should be. This is especially true for natural capital and human capital assets. Natural capital assets such as forests and water bodies have only been valued for the products they provide for the market, such as timber and fish. However, these ecosystems offer a much larger suite of services, such as water purification, water regulation and habitat provisioning for species, among many others. These are clearly valuable services.

AZGrizFan wrote:Whatever you whiny loser, just get over it.

89Hen wrote:First paragraph started to lose me. Sounded like a feel good index or the idea that Justin Bateman pitched in the movie Hancock.

CAA Flagship wrote:Is this a solution without a problem?
What actions do people/countries take based on GDP numbers? What's the real impact?

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:Is this a solution without a problem?
What actions do people/countries take based on GDP numbers? What's the real impact?

Economic policy isn’t based on GDP?

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:Is this a solution without a problem?
What actions do people/countries take based on GDP numbers? What's the real impact?

Economic policy isn’t based on GDP?

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Economic policy isn’t based on GDP?

So combining your two posts are you saying that countries are purposely delaying or inhibiting affordable cancer drugs that are successful as part of their economic policy to inflate GDP? Which countries are doing that? Are we doing that here?

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:
Economic policy isn’t based on GDP?

What specifically about "Economic policy"?
Do you mean Federal Reserve's monetary decisions or do you mean political decisions such as tax reform, or both?

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
So combining your two posts are you saying that countries are purposely delaying or inhibiting affordable cancer drugs that are successful as part of their economic policy to inflate GDP? Which countries are doing that? Are we doing that here?

No. They weren’t meant to be combined.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
No. They weren’t meant to be combined.

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: What specifically about "Economic policy"?
Do you mean Federal Reserve's monetary decisions or do you mean political decisions such as tax reform, or both?

Leaning way more to the political decisions side. GDP is often held up as a measuring stick, but it leaves out some crucial elements.

Another is environmental quality. In the short term, regulation can hurt GDP and slow growth but in the long term can increase standard of living including health.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
No. They weren’t meant to be combined.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:

One example of how GDP can be skewed vs. how GDP is used to influence political outcomes and hence economic policy.


But thanks for the thoughtful response.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Whatever you whiny loser, just get over it.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:


One example of how GDP can be skewed vs. how GDP is used to influence political outcomes and hence economic policy.


But thanks for the thoughtful response.

The thought in my response equaled the thought that was put into starting this thread.

CID1990 wrote:Ahh yes

Klam with another hammer... looking for a nail


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Ahh yes

Klam with another hammer... looking for a nail


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well I figured you’d reply like this being there’s a mention of the UN in the article.

Simple question...should natural capital and human capital be a part of the valuation?

If not, let’s plow under Yellowstone and increase the birthdate.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Well I figured you’d reply like this being there’s a mention of the UN in the article.

Simple question...should natural capital and human capital be a part of the valuation?

If not, let’s plow under Yellowstone and increase the birthdate.

Let’s play “guess the fallacy”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kalm wrote:
An affordable cancer drug that is successful reduces GDP.

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:
An affordable cancer drug that is successful reduces GDP.

Not necessarily because it increases life expectancy. People that otherwise would've died from cancer at a given points will instead persist and have to be cared for for a longer period. It'd be likely, for instance, to increase the number of people requiring long term care in nursing homes.