I was just thinking of this because of another post. Is our economy always going to produce more? Can we actually produce negative amounts? Why did the Renaissance occur right after the black death, and why are economies always strongest after war? A bomb itself is a force of destruction, and yet, we count it as positive GDP. Only when it goes off in a city is it counted as a negative, and that is only relative to that city itself. So, how do we really measure economic growth? Is positivism the answer here? Imagine if policy makers actually introduced a trangulation of social theory.

Have you ever noticed that the music that is the most sophisticated, brilliant, and creative is oftentimes the cheapest (i.e. classical, underground, etc.)? Is it really not as good as the other musical forms? Think about that next time you look at or any other statistical measure of economic growth; these are quantitative measures, they are not qualitative.

Tommy: "Let's think about this for a sec, Ted. Why would somebody put a guarantee on a box? Hmm. Very interesting."
Ted Nelson (Colin Fox): "Go on, I'm listening."
Tommy: "Here's the way I see it, Ted. Guy puts a fancy guarantee on a box 'cause he wants you to feel all warm and toasty inside."
Ted: "Yeah, it makes a man feel good."
Tommy: "Of course it does. Why shouldn't it? You figure you put that little box under your pillow at night, the guarantee fairy might come by and leave a quarter, am I right, Ted?"
Ted: "What's your point?"
Tommy: "The point is, how do you know the fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? 'Building model airplanes', says the little fairy. Well, we're not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that's all it takes. Next thing you know, there's money missing off the dresser and your daughter's knocked up. I've seen it a hundred times."
Ted: "But why do they put a guarantee on the box, then?"
Tommy: "'Cause they know all the sold you was a guaranteed piece of %^!%! That's all it is isn't it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customer's sake, for your daughter's sake, you might want to think about buying a quality product from me."

--Tommy Boy

Oh, and that was triangulation, not trangulation...typing error.

You're making an argument for qualitative measures being taken more seriously vs. quantitative measures?

Just an observation, but you realize qualitative measures are often based on nothing but subjective opinions.


The price of CD's or music is mostly determined by supply & demand (like most things in the market). Even when people try to rank qualitative measures, they end up converting them to some sort of quantitative form. I mean, how would you rank garage bands or classical music if you didn't use some sort of quantitative measure? I use a system called "force ranking". It really only makes sense because it's accepted - it really doesn't mean much (IMO). What pleases the customer most? How is it pleasing? Warm & fuzzy stuff changes depending on how the question is asked and under what conditions. Ask me about music one day and I'll talk endlessly about The Rolling Stones. Ask another day and I'll say something about David Byrne. On a quiet day, Wagner or Schubert. My feelings, choices and preferences might change depending on my mood.


And no, you can't produce a "negative amount". You can produce less (smaller quantity) from one period to another. The term "negative growth" is really sort of a bastardized description of what is actually happening in a recession.

Very interesting thread. I'm just a little confused on where you're coming from.

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."

Right, quality is subjective. However, there is a very thin line between quality and quantity, as you said. For a product to be considered quantitative, it must first have a perception of value in the first place! I mean, we simply don't put a monetary label on dirt, or anything we do, it has to be "worth" something. Some of the best things in life, i.e. love, can not be measured economically to begin with. I believe the only real economic measure is one of monitoring quality of life through psychological data, which would be very interesting.

I mean, would you count a My Little Pony video as something productive in your society? If you have kids and it shuts them up, I guess it has its own utility, but if you live in a vacuum of social reality and the thing simply makes you want to put a gun to your head, then it is detracting from your quality of life, which could theoretically act as a type of "anti"-matter in your subjective market, so to speak. All I am really saying is that, for me, statistics are simply that. If I am investing in the market, I would be going with the flow here, believe me, and My Little Pony would be worth a lot if there were a high demand for it; however, I am simply speaking of the market in the terms of utility of products on a collective individual basis, which is actually impossible to measure. We do the best we can on the market as a whole, as we simply agree on shared definitions that we would disagree on an individual basis, it's just funny when you think about the market in that way. And in reality, that is how we think of the world! If the market grew as a whole, but our house burned down that year, we would be in a depression.

You are right about negative productivity being a recession, but in a recession, you are not simply producing less. It is a period of losing economic energy. If you paid ten dollars for a slurpee and you dropped it on the sidewalk, that would be a recessive act. That is why I created the term, because many people still believe there is positive growth during a recession. The economy may be relativly greater then a period of time a few years before, but recessions measure losses in the immediate sense. I have borne witness to negative productivity at my work. We went in the red for a week thanks to this one girl we hired, who virtually destroyed everything we were working on. We lost productivity and economic "energy" that week. I mean, negative and positive are only relative to a period of time, but they do exist in relativity and duality. Not that I am trying to be philosophical here, lol. I mean, we still work and produce on an individual basis, but work itself is a sort of negative amount (for most of us), and paying money is a negative thing. If we do not get what we paid for, or what we worked for, it is something negative as a whole.

I see what you're saying now. An assumption is made that people make rational choices, whether buying decisions or life decisions. I think a BIG part of that rationality is the emotional (qualitative) side of the decision. I bought a car last year. The exact car I wanted was on the lot, except that it was blue - I wanted black. There is another branch of what I do that deals with Voice of the Customer. Certain things are seen as must haves (I really do need a car with brakes and a steering wheel). Other things are seen as delighters (power windows and a CD player are nice), but they're not must haves. The car I chose had all of the must haves and delighters that I wanted. That I had to have a black car really just came down to the fact that I could have one... and that's what I wanted. My emotional need added value only in my mind. It added no intrinsic value to the car (whereas the CD player would).

You never met my ex-fiance, did you? No, I understand what you mean. That would be an interesting study indeed. Establishing the baseline would probably be the hard part. I mean, put Donald Trump in my house and he would probably consider himself a failure. Put the kid serving burgers at McD's in here and he'd think he'd won the lottery. Invite the Pope in and he likely wouldn't care one way or the other.

Yes, except that many of us have a need to feel satisfaction in our work, whatever the money/wage. I always leave companies where I lose that sense of satisfaction. But many people do have jobs that are a grind and they (feel that) they cannot leave.

In sum, I believe you're talking about value. How is it quantified? How is it qualified? And even when it can be quantified, at what point do we say that's good (qualified)? Whether love or a stock portfolio... t'aint easy, is it?

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."

Yeah, I don't even need to argue with you, you have a really good grasp of what I'm trying to say.

I just didn't grasp your meaning at first. I'm fascinated by measurement systems. I wish I could think of a reliable (repeatable & reproducible) way to measure what you're describing.

A lot of people are content to be fat, dumb and happy. I sense that you're not that way, so I've enjoyed the discussion.

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."