[clairity]

> "You are correct that GDP is being misused if people suggest it is a measure of success or quality of life. GDP is what it is, a measure of economic activity (any economic activity, more than just conversion of natural resources into monetary capital)."

gdp (and gnp before that) has been trumped up and misused by the mediopolitical machine for decades, so this has (unfortunately) become a distinction without a real difference.

rather than a resource-oriented view (stuff getting turned into money) as the gp posited, i'd suggest that economic activity should be viewed as the total (levered) labor production of the population instead. this makes it more about the flows rather than the stocks, a dynamic measure rather than a static one. it also centers the discussion around the attribute we centrally value and should be focused on, productive activity, not merely any economic activity, which can be entirely unproductive, as we see with more and more capital concentrating without productive purpose.

no matter what, you'd still need to discriminate and discount activity caused by negative externalities, as the gp astutely pointed out. but that could be a simple as adding a minus sign in front of that activity, as the term itself suggests.