[aylmao]

It goes on to explain it in the following paragraphs:

> Don't get me wrong — this is far from the full picture. There are a ton of second-order corrections we need to make. We'd want to inquire how the money was earned, for example. If it's earned in free, honest, competitive transactions, it's going to be a better measure of value-added than if it's earned coercively, dishonestly, or in stifled markets. If it's earned in positive-sum games (like farming), it's going to be a better measure of value than if it's earned in zero- or negative-sum games (like spamming).

> On the spending side, we need to account for whether the goods we're consuming are rivalrous or non-rivalrous, as well as all the externalities from consumption, both positive and negative. If no one consumed anything above basic subsistence, we'd have a lot less economic growth, fewer innovations, and inferior technology (including medical technology).

[airstrike]

> Don't get me wrong — this is far from the full picture. There are a ton of second-order corrections we need to make.

I'm sorry, but the author makes a terribly weak argument and than hand-waves any criticism away preemptively. That's not how this should work. That "ton of second-order corrections" would immediately destroy his argument.