Talk:Gross domestic product

RWifying this article
I know next to nothing about economics, but it strikes me that GDP plays into political gamesmanship all the time. That it might be a "stats game" stat, depending on what's counted, not counted, etc. If that's true, it would be a good addition "how is GDP used in politics" to sell you on a politician, or on a political position? or is it a pretty straight forward number?--Godot   oi, putain, genial, merci 01:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was not done with this when I submitted it. I stopped literally mid-sentence in this. I didn't realize that "Save" did not mean "save draft". But, I'm back from class, ate dinner, so now I'm going to finish this up, and will probably include that.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, i wasn't complaining. I just like to read things I don't know much about, and with any article, things I know and don't know, I always ask myself "are there aspects that could be even more RW". --[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    oi, putain, genial, merci 03:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, someone changed some stuff for reasons I don't understand, but I've revised it and added stuff. I need to add some citations, but I'll do that tomorrow after I've had some sleep. For now, the article is written and down, I just need to add some citations in the Criticism section.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "someone changed some stuff for reasons I don't understand." That's how wikis work. I don't like the way you write, so I changed it. P-Foster Talk " "Santorum is the cream rising to the top." " 13:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Pedantry follows

 * Well, your edits are wrong. Gross Domestic Product (when spelled out) is almost always capitalized, and is always capitalized in economic textbooks. You also removed the definitions of Growth/Stagnation/Recession/Depression, which I included for a reason. And that is (ironically) because the definition you included is wrong. The way you defined them is essentially the same as saying that Christians worship Jesus. Sure, that's technically true, but is so overly simplistic that it's realistically wrong. --Logic and Empricism (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You might or might mot be right about the capitalizing of GDP, but all the rest of your uses of upper-case were wrong. And this is a goofy wiki about pseudoscience and goats, not a serious econ textbook. I personally think the whole article should be replaced with a redirect to the wikipedia article, 'cuz I see precious little snark or mission-worthy content outside of the last little bit. P-Foster Talk " "Santorum is the cream rising to the top." " 15:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The rest of my capitalization's were just as right, for the same reasons. The article was listed on the 'to-do' list, so I did it. And this article should be here because the Wikipedia article on GDP largely assumes you already have a solid understanding of Macroeconomics (which isn't true for most users), has little information on the use of GDP, no information on the limits of GDP as an economic measure, and barely anything on the criticism of GDP. And most of the other articles circulating the internet which explain GDP are either just the definition, or are meant for people who already understand what GDP is all about. --Logic and Empricism (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think "feminist economists" is a proper noun and should be "Feminist Economists," I don't know what to tell you except "you're wrong." P-Foster Talk " "Santorum is the cream rising to the top." " 15:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is General Relativity a proper noun? Because I always see it capitalized. I ask because Feminist Economics is a specific school of economic thought, just like Supply Side Economics, New Classical Economics, and the Monetary School, all of them are always capitalized. These schools of thought are roughly similar to theories in hard sciences. So, if General Relativity should be capitalized (as I've always seen it), then Feminist Economics should also be capitalized (as I've always seen it). Now, I'll admit that I'm no expert on economics or the English language, but you've already essentially admitted to not understand the field at all. And at the very least, I can just follow the language rules of pretty much everyone else who has talked about this.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The NYT, as good a source as any for common use, does not capitalize "Supply Side Economics," or " New Classical Economics," and "Monetary School" only gets 11 000 Google hits, so I really don't give a shit because nobody seems to be talking about it. Tell me again about how those terms are ALWAYS capitalized. P-Foster Talk " "Santorum is the cream rising to the top." " 18:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pick up any text book that talks about different economic theories, the names of theories are always capitalized. The reason the NYT doesn't capitalize "Supply Side Economics" is probably because they are not referring to the school of thought (per se). --Logic and Empricism (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't either, and I think our style should draw more from popular use than from specialist use. You want to write econ texts? Great, go ahead. This isn't an econ text. It's a wiki about goats. Lighten up. P-Foster Talk " "Santorum is the cream rising to the top." " 19:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For a non-serious wiki about goats, the articles on physics and biology seem pretty serious.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Copy editing
Sod it, I'll tidy it up when Foster's finished arsing around. 19:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead. please. P-Foster Talk " "Santorum is the cream rising to the top." " 19:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

GPI
I believe a small discussion on the advantages of Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) should take place in this page. It will greatly improve the criticism of the GDP as a weak economic indicator. Take this image: http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/data_bytes/GDP_v_GPI.png It shows that the US GDP has improved linearly but GPI has leveled off. So that's actually terrible: no improvement has taken place in the US since 1967. Dandtiks69 (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC) If not could it be its own separate page instead? Dandtiks69 (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

GDP per capita/head of population
It should probably mention GDP per capita as an indicator (purchasing power parity and nominal), and why it's a poor measure of the prosperity/standard of living of a population, despite often being used as such. --Annanoon (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)