189
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2026
189 points (99.5% liked)
UK Politics
5464 readers
80 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Apart from the fact that, as the article acknowledges, the government is already measuring all these things (and has done for as long as I, at least, can remember), GDP didn't become a key economic measure by accident; it was chosen precisely because it's a good reflection of general wellbeing.
Of course, we also can, should and do measure lots of other things, including other economic metrics (like inflation) alongside numerous more general outcomes like education levels, life expectancy etc. Generally, with that latter group, higher GDP leads to better outcomes in those areas, which is why it's a good shorthand.
If you want further evidence of how trite this all is, David Cameron said the same thing in 2010.
Isn't GDP the thing the scam that American companies are doing where they all pass around the same 100 billion to eachother so it artificially inflates GDP even though 0 value, monetary or wellbeing-wise is being created.
No.
When you measure something and set it as the goal, what was a good indicator becomes divorced from what you care about.
Measuring GDP makes GDP the goal, not general wellbeing. So if you care about wellbeing, measure it and use that as your driving metric.
The first sentence here is in opposition to the final sentence. If you want to measure 'general wellbeing', you will have to define some specific metrics. These will then - according to your own argument - become the goal and you will again be in the position of missing the thing you 'actually' care about.
Alternatively - you could pick a good general measure (like GDP) and also measure other things alongside that to get a good holistic picture. Which is what we already do.
Gdp was great indicator BEFORE the globalization. Right now it loses its value due to supply chains baing stretched far out of the country you're measuring.
I generally agree that quality of life indicators are better. Especially since they're separate from income inequality matter
I think they're different, rather than better, which is why it's important to measure both (as we do already). Like, I'd rather live here than in China for all sorts of reasons; equally, if I could have what we have here but also have China's GDP, I'd happily take that.
I don't think this is true at all. One of the main things GDP measures is trade, including foreign trade. It doesn't measure (or 'care') whether that trade came from the UK, France or China, as long as some part of it happened here. The length of the supply chain is irrelevant as long as someone here paid for and received some good or service; that economic fact is equal regardless of point of origin and that fact is what GDP measures.
I prefer living in Poland than US despite Poland having much lower GDP. (both in absolute terms and per capita) Quality of life isn't GDP.
Trade within itself doesn't improve anyone's life. What improves people's lives is availability of jobs and services (along with other factors)
If you're Apple, you sell bunch of phones in Mexico, produce them in China and reinvest earnings in EU, your sale counts to US GDP but doesn't meaningfully influence lives of US citizens. It was completely different 100 years ago when all of the supply chain was within US and resulted in creation of wealth, jobs and products all contained within US borders
It does; it improves the life of the two (at minimum) people trading.
... which depend upon trade...
... like GDP!
Yes, it does; it directly improves the lives of the people in the US who work for Apple and of their families, and also of Apple's shareholders in the US and elsewhere (perhaps, like me, you don't find yourself overly concerned with the quality of life of Apple's shareholders, but they are people and Apple's sales do improve their lives, and that is what is in question); indirectly, it improves the lives of the various other people that the employees and shareholders buy from and sell to.
This has never been the case for almost any country anywhere in the world, but especially not for the US, which has always had a complex economy relying on global trade. Indeed, the US wouldn't exist at all without international trade; it would have been impossible for colonialism to happen at all if foreign trade didn't profit individuals along the supply chain.
I suspect that what the person you replied to, meant with "meaningfully improve the lives of US citizens" was that the amount Apple contributes to the GDP of the USA (odd, since much of the goods aren't domestically produced) is disproportionately high compared to its impact on quality of life of people in the US as a whole.
While I'm sure most Apple employees are paid slightly above the median wage, I don't know the median salary for an Apply employee. I also, like you, am not utilitarian enough to think that a handful of people living large in opulence makes up for the way inequality is harming living standards and the economy as whole (not to mention the impact of it all on the planet). Additionally, Apple and large companies don't buy from, or in most cases sell to individuals. They buy and sell mostly to other companies and only at the end do smaller branches or franchises sell to actual people. Mostly you have numbers and goods moving between old fashioned AIs running on human-processing power, but not actual people.
That's imperialism.
It's possible to establish colonies without having a motherland controlling them. Consider the original settlement of Polynesia, or the establishment of new cities by the Sea Peoples. And even when there's a motherland, it's possible that colonies will still compete with each other: for example, the Moorish kingdoms in Spain, which had roots in different ethnicities and tribes in Morocco and fought with each other like crabs in a bucket, which was why the relatively backwards Catholic Monarchs were able to eventually drive them out.
It's also possible to have empires without colonization-- subverting local rulers, then pulling their strings. Much US imperialism has been like that: there's interference in Central and South America, but the US didn't replace the local elites with Yanks. They just bought them off and helped them send their kids to Harvard and Yale.
We always used colonisation for European imperialism in my history classes, but I can see how the word doesn't fully jive with expected meaning.
And we tend to use "neo-colonial" at least in my experience of British education for the US imperialism, too.
Crossed wires, eh?
They seemed a bit confused about the terms they were using, but your glosses don't help, I'm afraid. 'Meaningfully improve' isn't qualified but neither is your 'disproportionately high': 'disproportionate' according to whom and by what metric? A quick search suggests something like 150 million people in the US own an iPhone. It's only by engaging in complex foreign trade that Apple can make and sell their products at the price points they currently use; the foreign aspect of the trade direct impacts every one of those 150 million people by making their phones cheaper. They presumably feel their lives are improved by it. And that's just the iPhone, not counting Apple's various other products, nor the businesses that depend on those products (and the people that depend on the businesses).
So, big tech arguably has a disproportionately large economic impact due to those dependencies. To be clear, I'm not saying this is certainly the case; my point is that the trade companies like Apple engage in is important, it does benefits US citizens in all kinds of ways (direct and indirect) and it makes perfect sense to use GDP as a rough measure of those impacts alongside other metrics.
Yes, it did. It began with people trading across increasing distances, then trying to secure those trade routes (by conquering people along the way), then trying to secure the production itself at source (by conquering the regions where the products were found, grown or made). The Romans conquered the Mediterranean because it was their most important trade route; Columbus was trying to open up new trade routes.
Maybe I'm biased, but I find it hard to believe that those 150 million (nearly half the population of the US?) would see a notable drop in the quality of their lives if their iPhones were Samsung, or Huawai, or any other non-domestic company's.
You're right in that "meaningfully improve" and "disproportionate" aren't precise or scientific terms, either.
And re: colonialism, I think more people have managed international trade without going coloniser than did, so it can't be seen as the sole origin. Needs more to germinate.
On the main issue, I'd say while GDP is far from perfect, it's better to have the measure than not. Even if it works best as part of a range of measures and not over relied upon as it tends to be in popular understandings at the moment, in my view anyhow.
Temper it with more inequality stats, and also median wages vs. cost of living.
Yeah, it's a continuum. Consider the Vikings: they'd do raiding, they'd set up trading posts, they'd do elite replacement, and sometimes they'd move in with their families, do farming and set up businesses.
It's also the case that internal power dynamics within the elites would sometimes shift non-coercive trade to something more coercive, a small faction would benefit hugely, but on a wider scale, it'd be a net loss for the nation doing it. Maintaining a long-term military occupation with a lengthy logistic chain isn't cheap, and unanticipated changes in circumstances can drive the cost for higher. That's one of the causes of the collapse of empires.
Yup, competing factions in power on both sides of the relationship could knock things about.
Vikings were amazing, we (or at least I) still often underestimate or forget their reach. The idea of Vikings in the Middle East and North Africa trading and marrying, and generally being part of the flow of goods, people, and ideas always seems wild.
Anyhow, it's been lovely set of exchanges and I've learnt things and: thanks.