The real measure of a real economy ...

How should we measure the economy then?

The title you gave this thread promised a way to measure the "real economy".

So what is it?

Looks like a social issue to me.

Why is the man sleeping on a bench? Is he homeless? Drunk? Waiting for the bus to take him to work and decided to take a nap? Is he mentally ill? We don’t know.

It’s easy to blame the rich for all of our problems, right? This Kind of anti- capitalist rant Is not productive, rather it’s misplaced anger.

Poverty and the economy are social issues.

But thanks for the tip: all homeless are drunks.

What is it? An editorial cartoon commenting on social conditions.

What is the comment it is making? It doesn't seem to be saying anything about the economy.

Jeepers. I gave you more credit than that.

Let this be a lesson to you...

You should never overestimate me.

I am saying the editorial comment does not match the picture.

Better to have shown a graphic of the Kardashians in their pool at their mansion to show the discrepancy between how people are coping with this Vs. the rich, whose version of economic “suffering” is quite different from most folks.

Soooo that's a no vote. Thank-you for your feedback. The committee will give your issues due consideration.

We seem to agree that this is a trivially silly cartoon. But you started a thread on it.... the way we measure the economy is an interesting question.

I believe that base measure such as the consumer price index, the gross domestic product and the unemployment rate affect almost all class levels... I care about these things.

I am pretty sure that the unemployment rate correlates with the rate of homelessness (although t haven't gathered data on this).

I would be surprised is a higher GDP didn't correspond with an increase in social services.

Does anyone want to discuss the data?

I see the picture depicting someone from below the "rich people" level, those who profit largely from the stock market, perhaps someone from the middle class who has become homeless because of economic hardship. The message is that the economy should be measured by how well those below the "rich people" level are doing.

There's no direct linkage to GDP and spending on social service. Unfortunately.

Back in the horrible 80's when the rubber companies deserted Akron, Ohio I was on unemployment - as unemployment climbed, the number of people working for the unemployment office fell. I was told that was two reasons:

1. It was a way of discouraging people from filing.
2. The funds for paying unemployment workers came from companies who paid into the fund according to number of people working for the company:
fewer workers, less fee. Less fee, less unemployment workers.

Where and how funds get to social services is in the hands of legislatures and Governors. We had a Republican Gov and legislature. If they wouldn't fund in a slump, they sure weren't going to give it away in good times.

Who's in power affects spending more directly that GDP. We have a high GPD even with Covid19 but we also have a tax cutting sob with a rubber stamp Senate holding the purse strings.

Did you look at the actual data before posting?

It seems to me that the general trend is that the spending as a portion of GDP has been rising since 1920.

It rose about 9 percentage points under the George bush administration. It stagnated under the Obama administration. That is a little surprising, but that is what the data seems to say.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun?time=1920..latest

We seem to agree that this is a trivially silly cartoon

No, we can agree that there are many desperately stupid people on this forsaken site.

The message for those whose IQ is around room temperature, such as you Max, is that homeless man on the bench is covered in newspapers celebrating wealth in the 1%.

Then we have some idiot saying "It seems to be a social problem..." ... In a Capitalist society, dummkopf, money is THE social problem. FFS.

The major tenets of 20th century political doctrines have now become almost homogenised, the lines are extremely blurred. China runs now on effectively Communist Capitalism. America for the vast majority is now a 3rd world country (look up what 3rd world actually means) and the world is becoming less about political doctrines and more about trading blocks ... making the UK about as dumb as it gets with Brexit and throwing itself into free fall.

Now I am not a fan of the obviously fictional Bible, nor a person with time for religions, or agnostics nor atheists .... But it seems pretty obvious if you treat a substantial majority of the human species as expendable dross, you're going to have an issue. If you have a species which has got to a point where it 'eats' itself ... You are heading for disaster.

America is a dangerous f'up of a country; too many weapons, too few brain cells, way too arrogant. It's economy is failing and it's world power rapidly diminishing, making it very likely WW3 is not far away.

Personally I say let us have full on anarchy ... Then I can clear my living space and be happy. Or let us have a decent view of society, where everyone gets a home, food, medical care and education.

As for you fools on here, do stop talking ****.

Thanks. I was afraid I was the only one.

I was surprised what a leap it was for some here to understand that the good stock-market is not a tide that lifts all boats in nation that has had increased homelessness in the last three years.

The question is how should we measure the economy?

My argument is that we already measure the economy as a whole. Our current economic metrics; GDP, unemployment rate, CPI... already measure how people below the "rich people" level are doing.

That is why the cartoon is silly. It is asking for something that already happens.

"Stagnated under Obama". Right. Because Obama inherited Bush's Wall Street and Banking disasters? Bush inherited VERY little of the Trillions deficit Clinton got from Bush/Reagan, and then he started the first war in US history with no plan to pay for it. He went from almost no debt to Trillions in deficit - which he passed on to Obama.

You're very selective in your reading, Max.

What are you talking about? All I noted was the proportion of GDP that was used for spending on social services.

I don't know how this has anything to do with your rant. I made a simple mathematical statement (not a political one).

You're the one who brought up Obama's poor economy. Which coincidentally was a time of at least modest increases of social spending - you do remember his second term Republican House refused to pass a budget, freezing it? It was not over under-spending for social programs.

If facts are interfering with you supposision, don't snip me.