From yesterday, from Winterspeak:
An inflation adjusted nominal term is not "real", because it is still a number in a spreadsheet...
For today, from Maynard, from Chapter 4:
The National Dividend, as defined by Marshall and Professor Pigou, measures the volume of current output or real income and not the value of output or money-income...
But it is a grave objection to this definition for such a purpose that the community’s output of goods and services is a non-homogeneous complex which cannot be measured...
...incommensurable collections of miscellaneous objects cannot in themselves provide the material for a quantitative analysis...
To say that net output to-day is greater, but the price-level lower, than ten years ago or one year ago, is a proposition of a similar character to the statement that Queen Victoria was a better queen but not a happier woman than Queen Elizabeth — a proposition not without meaning and not without interest, but unsuitable as material for the differential calculus.
But it is a grave objection to this definition for such a purpose that the community’s output of goods and services is a non-homogeneous complex which cannot be measured...
...incommensurable collections of miscellaneous objects cannot in themselves provide the material for a quantitative analysis...
To say that net output to-day is greater, but the price-level lower, than ten years ago or one year ago, is a proposition of a similar character to the statement that Queen Victoria was a better queen but not a happier woman than Queen Elizabeth — a proposition not without meaning and not without interest, but unsuitable as material for the differential calculus.
And again from yesterday's post:
I am pointing out that, as Winterspeak says, "real" output cannot be converted into numbers. So it cannot be used in a calculation to determine whether nominal income is increasing faster than real output.
No comments:
Post a Comment