[long_time_gone]

I don't follow, can you please clarify?

Edit: Reread and understand now...

The point is that GDP is a measure of how much the economy in the US grows or contracts, just as CPI is a measure of how much prices in the US grow or contract. You shouldn't view GDP as a personal indicator of economic growth, just like CPI isn't an analysis of costs on your personal spending. Treating it as such feels like distorting the purpose of the measure to suit a narrative.

[vmception]

It has limitations in its ability to measure that, it can simultaneously be the best measure that we have, in the absence of a better one, doesn't mean its good or a helpful indication, and as we both agree it’s not a good indication of any individual persons experience

[long_time_gone]

> It has limitations in its ability to measure that

Nobody has denies this, so why is it a talking point?

> as we both agree it’s not a good indication of any individual persons experience

Which is why I use it for what it is instead of complaining about it not being something else. Any one individual is influenced by their own bias and experience, which creates an entirely different problem.

[vmception]

> If GDP goes up 5%, but you only get a 3% raise does that make GDP a bad measure of the economy?

let's stick with the basics. this was the whole conversation, a leading question that pretends to be a thought exercise that suggests in some other scenario that GDP is a good measure. no more, no less. I think we've gone over everything now.

[long_time_gone]

I didn't see where you developed the bulletproof case that GDP was a bad measure. If you've proven that at some point, I'm happy to adjust my understanding. In lieu of that, I'll go with the economic experts who regularly study, use, and rely on GDP for real world analysis.

> you're the only one that had to read it twice, we talked about it now, good talk.

The lack of punctuation and choice of verb tense made it difficult to understand, no need for the condescending tone.