GDP generally reflects neither the degree of wealth of the country, nor the strength of the economy, especially its readiness for war or other confrontation
In the 30-ies of the 20th century, when Simon Kuznetsov suggested as one of the tools of macroeconomic analysis use the concept of “Gross domestic product”, he never thought that someday, referring to the comparison of national GDP, certain dimensions will determine the economic, political or military power of States.
Moreover, to argue that States with a lower GDP should submit to the will of the States with the largest GDP.
The history of criticism of the imperfections of this concept more than a long. But it’s not that it’s wrong or flawed, and that it is limited and not harakterizuet even the economic power of the state as a whole, not to mention its political force. It even determines neither the level of welfare of the population nor the wealth of the state.
And one of the first talked about this the Creator: Simon Kuznetsov initially stressed that we are talking about the analytical tool of limited use, and in a year when that notion and suggested he stressed the futility of equating GDP growth with the increase in economic or social well-being.
When the representatives of certain political groups or biased experts are beginning to argue that Russia can not in their policy to confront the United States due to the fact that it has a GDP like they say, ten times less than GDP of the United States – according to their statement, 1.7% of world GDP, with 17% share of the United States – they are either just uneducated and at least I think that GDP is identical with the economic power of the country, or just deliberately work on the decomposition of the social consciousness of their country, driving into him, the idea of senselessness of resistance to the United States and in General, stronger and more rich, and therefore accustomed to thinking about the need for national surrender.
And there are two points. The first is whether the economic strength and wealth of the state of its political, military and geopolitical force, the second does the GDP in General economic strength and wealth of the country.
If we talk about the first. Economy, its development, of course, ultimately determines the entire organization of society, the basis of social being – of course, determines the social consciousness and all the superstructural phenomena, but in the end. And the nature of the definition at all can sometimes be just the opposite.
Theoretically, someone who has a bag of gold, can always buy and subdue someone with a steel sword. But in practice, other things being equal much more likely to last just take away the bag of gold at his arrogant owner. A close literary example – the experience of transition awarded the coveted million Ostap Bender Soviet-Romanian border.
American state the 15th and 16th centuries was much richer and sailed to them konkistodory, and sent them to Spain – and couldn’t resist the last one.
Robbed the America Spain became richer than Britain and France – and lost all the battles and then collapsed because of huge wealth, having lost the incentive to development.
Persia was richer than Athens, Athens – richer than Sparta, the Hellenistic kingdoms of the Eastern Mediterranean is richer than Rome, Rome – richer Attila, the Byzantine Empire richer Slavic tribes of Rus ‘ – richer than the Mongols, and so on.
It is possible to speak and write a lot separately, but it is not linked to GDP and has, in this case the value only in the plan that demonstrates: a confrontation of two political or national actors to win more than the rich does not predestinated. More – more wealth, on the contrary, leads to the defeat of its owner. Not least because that encourages the poor to struggle.
But it is not the one who has the more expensive and delicious food, and the one who is less afraid of death. Someone might argue saying that, for example, the current U.S. maximum value their lives and are afraid to die, but win all the time. However, those who says so, can’t cite a single example of a war in which the United States eventually came out winners over seventy years after the Second world war.
If we talk about the second – to-GDP just generally does not reflect either the degree of wealth of the country, nor the strength of the economy, especially its readiness for war or other confrontation.
Because GDP is meant not even the product itself, which calculate sometimes quite difficult, if not to talk about physical indicators, and the market value of all final goods and services (that is, intended for direct consumption) produced per year in all sectors of the economy, regardless of the ethnicity of used factors of production.
That is, firstx, we are talking about market value, otherwise – the “most probable price” for the market conditions. If we are talking about products and production, created and performed at the outside market conditions, say, by government order, and solid state prices, that is on defence and scientific and technological breakthrough, it in determining GDP accounted for more than indirectly.
Secondly although it is a “final product”, its value depends on the mass of the composite. If we simplify: if the product is created from a composite that passes the greater the number of intermediaries, the cost of it growing and technically GDP would increase. If middlemen less and they all represent elements of a single state complex, the cost and the price is falling and GDP is shrinking.
Otherwise, the more the country of speculative operations and the less efficient the economy, the more will be the GDP. What happens when similar products of the defense complex of the USA is often ten times higher than in Russia.
Third. Although it is a “finished product” and still trying to believe it was the final product, because everything is expressed in monetary indicators, GDP expresses only a set of monetary settlements in the country, not the level of development of its production. That is, GDP on the strength reflects the development of market relations in the country. For non-market economies, it does not mean anything at all.
Fourth. Even assuming that GDP represents the actual ultimate aggregate amount of goods and services, it does not reflect the country’s readiness for confrontation. If we have a country where every girl is attending a beauty salon and doing hair at the stylist, GDP, other things being equal she will be more than that of the country where girls do not go to the stylists and do the styling yourself.
But this does not mean either that this country is economically stronger, nor that it is better prepared for war. It is even conceivable that in a society where less beauty, girls are more likely to take up a sniper rifle and get up to the anti-aircraft installations. Of course, this is not a call to close the beauty – it’s just underlining the lack of direct dependence on the development of the service sector and the GDP with a willingness to defend their country.
In the fifth the size of the GDP in General often reflects a paradoxical situation and rises not from positive, but from the economically negative factors.
One of the almost classic examples. If in a car accident faced two cars, each of which carried four people, and two of them were killed and others were injured, economically it entails the following consequences:
1.Four people need to bury and pay for all treatments, coffins and burial;
2.Four people need to be transported to hospital, treated and pay for it.
3.Two cars you either pay for repairs or buy a new one – that is, to pay for any repairs or buying a new one.
4.Relatives, if any, must come, sometimes from another region, as to the funeral, and to visit hospitalized and pay for transport and perhaps accommodation in the hotel…
Well, and so on.
That is all of these costs will be counted in GDP.
Every death – increase in GDP. Every disaster – the increase in GDP. Every natural disaster is the increase in GDP. Every felled and sold as building materials natural reserve – increase in GDP.
This does not mean that the concept itself, the GDP is not necessary – it only means that in terms of power and geopolitical, and indeed political and military importance he almost says nothing, but only turns out to be a tool of demagogic deception of the political groups in advance who dreams of surrender and waiting for the arrival of new owners. And no more.
And one more thing. During the great Patriotic war, the gross domestic product of the USSR was about one and a half times less than Germany’s GDP. And two times less than GDP of United way and the occupied European countries. The result is known.
Not the rich win more – win more strong-willed. More strong-willed and, at times, be poorer.