
It's time to retire metrics like GDP. They don't measure everything that matters - ingve
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/24/metrics-gdp-economic-performance-social-progress
======
csours
My comment from this [0] discussion two days ago:

Keep your eye on the prize, and the prize isn't measured by metrics. Any prize
in the real world is something complex and complicated, hard to describe and
prone to squishiness. Metrics are things that are "easy" to measure and
compare across systems. Setting goals in terms of metrics is appealing and
even necessary because it makes things measurable and comparable in the real
world, but you need to have some cross-check where you can come back and
verify that you are moving closer to your real world goal.

\---

A real world example: Consumer products are often distinguished by appearance,
and surface quality is an important facet of appearance. You purchase a
surface quality tester and improve the measurements produced by the surface
tester to the point where you beat a competitor's surface measurements. Then
you have a customer clinic and have real potential customers evaluate the two
products again. Customers prefer the competitor product because you were not
actually measuring attractiveness or appearance of quality, you were measuring
something that the surface tester measures.

0:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21601996](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21601996)

~~~
davidivadavid
Right, that's why you usually want to target a basket of metrics instead of
"one metric to rule them all."

It's odd that Stiglitz doesn't speak of word of the capability approach, which
seems to be a step in that direction.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach)

------
cperciva
GDP doesn't measure _everything_ that matters, but it doesn't matter _nothing_
that matters, either. We don't need to _retire_ GDP; rather, we need to be
more aware of its limitations.

My favourite example of this is childcare programs. Parents raising their
children isn't counted in GDP; but parents who raise someone else's children
is counted in GDP. Governments can artificially inflate GDP by enacting
policies which expand the outside-of-home childcare industry; you may end up
with the same number of adults providing the same quality of care to the same
number of children, but GDP is magically higher.

~~~
paggle
Not to mention that society is probably better off when parents are raising
their own children.

------
civilized
Indeed, let's retire all metrics! Not one of them measures everything that
matters!

~~~
tempguy9999
Have an ironic upvote.

------
crazygringo
I'd be happy to retire GDP when someone proposes something better.

Measuring societal progress is an important goal, which GDP measures _part_
of. So great -- how do we measure economic growth but also take into account,
as Stiglitz says, externalities like resource depletion?

It feels disingenuous to bash GDP but not even try to suggest something to
replace it. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

~~~
rubyn00bie
Uhhh... There are tons of different measurements. Here even Stiglitz says so
and then talks about others: [https://www.project-
syndicate.org/commentary/new-metrics-of-...](https://www.project-
syndicate.org/commentary/new-metrics-of-wellbeing-not-just-gdp-by-joseph-e-
stiglitz-2018-12?barrier=accesspaylog)

Throwing the baby out with the bath water? I think it's more like throwing the
bath water out to save the baby from drowning.

------
shawnb576
This is not a very good article.

I fully agree with the authors point that GDP at the top line metric is a
disaster.

But there are several other proposed models out there. Why doesn’t he mention
them?

Organizations optimize around metrics so IMHO getting metrics aligned with
“good” would be a huge lever against the problems the author enumerates.

But then the article just ends, doesn’t mention GDI, GDSP, etc. It’s weird, I
wonder why.

~~~
beatgammit
To me, it read like a money grab and a jab at the current US administration,
so it's more a political piece (it is election time) that is preaching to the
choir to get donations/subscriptions. I usually like the Guardian, but this
turns me off.

As you said, if it was really a genuine article trying to improve on metrics
being used, it would compare similar metrics and show their limitations. GDP
is a useful metric, but only when used with other metrics that show the
benefits of additional production. Making more money doesn't matter if your
costs rise and you end up with the same quality of life. It's kind of like
comparing salaries between SF and Iowa without taking into account local costs
of living.

So yes, this article is weak and feels like a political piece disguised as a
legitimate criticism.

------
growlist
Let me guess: the alternative is something to do with high taxes, mass
immigration, and diversity, and ignoring that troublesome thing called
democracy when the proles dare vote against the unquestionably superior and
enlightened perspective of the elites (ahem Brexit). How dare the great
unwashed vote in their own interests!

~~~
marcusverus
The de-emphasis of GDP is a boon to anyone who expects their policies to be a
drag on the economy. If you re-define economic success so that the mere
existence of your preferred policies constitutes success, you can't lose.

