printThere is a reason Keynesians, to whom consumption is everything, never speak of the “flip side of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)”: Gross Domestic Income. The wellsprings of wealth are savings, investment and production. Why would proponents of a political theory that champions a credit-fueled, consumption-based bondage to government wish to encourage the power shift—intellectual and political—that comes with that understanding?
“What Does Gross Domestic Income – GDI Mean?
The sum of all income earned while producing goods and services within a nation’s borders. Gross domestic income (GDI) is a lesser-known calculation stat used by the Federal Reserve to gauge economic activity based on income. It differs from gross domestic product (GDP), which gauges economic activity on expenditure.”
If you can get past the grating tones, the following clip is also instructive:
Here is the BEA explanation of the difference LOLLLL !!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.bea.gov/papers/pdf/fixler_nalewaikrev2.pdf
Cute video – but we ARE borrowing from China. Actually, how about if the American Enterprise Institute would realize that money being wasted on turning Iraq into Norway and Afghanistan into Switzerland is even WORSE than subsidizing a new car for some schoolteacher??
When something gets “simulated” like cars or houses, it just adds to the price of the subsidized item and causes waste since people will now buy a larger house or bigger car than they would if they had to pay the unsubsized price. Ironically, Ebeneezer Scrooge economics makes a better environmentalist than all the regulatory blather out of the mouth of (Nobel Peace Prize Winner) Al Gore.
“Ebeneezer Scrooge economics makes a better environmentalist than all the regulatory blather out of the mouth of (Nobel Peace Prize Winner) Al Gore”
Quite true. The “environmentalists” are (unwittingly, or more likely furtively) proponents of environmentally disastrous technology: ROHS solder for instance eliminates lead, but reliability plummets…so you wont have as much lead in the landfills, but you will have 5 times as much e-waste there instead (beryllium, arsenic, etc.). Solar panels are another example…granted they provide “free” energy, but the energy required to make the panels dwarfs the energy that they will ever produce over their useful lifetime. Compact fluorescent bulbs too…they may be more energy efficient, but they are disposable e-waste, whereas incandescent bulbs are nothing more than glass and tungsten…easily recyclable and non-toxic.
CO2 is another “green” hoax, not only is water vapor a much more potent greenhouse gas, but plants use CO2 as their only source of carbon. Hence, the atmospheric CO2 level will always be ~300 PPM – the more CO2 you put into the atmosphere, the more plant growth you will have, simple as that…it’s a beautiful example of stable equilibrium.
The fact that atmospheric CO2 levels are stable is well accepted: CO2 meters for uncritical applications are usually calibrated using the outside air as a 300 PPM reference gas.