[vivekd]

Not on the short term no, but when you scale it on the long term it evens out and artificial increases like Keynesian style economics are temporary and GDP is in fact a good indicator of productivity.

The original argument was that GDP would decrease if we had less people producing, the counter argument seems "we could make GDP artificially increase" presumably as a way to suggest that GDP isn't meaningful. That's not a very good argument because artificial GDP inflation is a temporary solution that has devastating results down the line

[twblalock]

Nobody said that pursuing GDP inflation was actually a good idea. It's just an example of how GDP and income are not the same.

[vivekd]

I don't know what you are reading but that post had nothing about income or the relationship between individual income and GDP:

>Increasing the GDP is easy. First, pay me 50$ to dig a hole. Then I pay you 50$ to fill the very same hole. We created nothing but the GDP increased by 100$ (well, tax aside).

there's nothing about individual income there.

[twblalock]

Yeah there is. People are getting paid to dig holes.