A gem of an article.
There are measures out there, like the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, Genuine Progress Indicator, Gross National Happiness, as reported in the NYT 2008 article "Alternatives to the G.D.P." There is also rich history of ecological economists working to develop these indices to both better measure national wellbeing and to lead to the betterment of national wellbeing. See the work of Herman Daly, Richard Cobb, and Clifford Cobb in “For the Common Good”, and most anything by Robert Costanza for a great foundation in this thinking.
The State of Vermont is leading the way in actually implementing this type of holistic measurement of total public and individual wellbeing; so it is and can be done at a high government level if there is the public and political will.
The problem with moving to this type of measurement at the national scale is that it would officially dethrone pure economic growth as our national mantra and force us to start looking honestly at how our personal lifestyles, our material consumptive habitats, affect both the wellbeing of ourselves and society as a whole—we would need to think about teasing out our wants from our needs, and to realize they are not one and the same.
It would mean less focus on material consumption and materiality, and go directly against our current culture, which is defined by corporate marketing (and even perhaps go against our international trade agreements!).
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
There are measures out there, like the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, Genuine Progress Indicator, Gross National Happiness, as reported in the NYT 2008 article "Alternatives to the G.D.P." There is also rich history of ecological economists working to develop these indices to both better measure national wellbeing and to lead to the betterment of national wellbeing. See the work of Herman Daly, Richard Cobb, and Clifford Cobb in “For the Common Good”, and most anything by Robert Costanza for a great foundation in this thinking.
The State of Vermont is leading the way in actually implementing this type of holistic measurement of total public and individual wellbeing; so it is and can be done at a high government level if there is the public and political will.
The problem with moving to this type of measurement at the national scale is that it would officially dethrone pure economic growth as our national mantra and force us to start looking honestly at how our personal lifestyles, our material consumptive habitats, affect both the wellbeing of ourselves and society as a whole—we would need to think about teasing out our wants from our needs, and to realize they are not one and the same.
It would mean less focus on material consumption and materiality, and go directly against our current culture, which is defined by corporate marketing (and even perhaps go against our international trade agreements!).
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
6
Before concluding that a happiness index will give a clearer picture of well being, consider the fact that some cross country “happiness” surveys show that Mexico is as happy or happier than we are and cross temporal surveys consistently show that Americans are no happier today than they were 100 years ago. Yet in either case, per capita incomes are/were 80% lower than ours today. Transport today’s American, of ANY economic bracket, to Mexico today or America 100 years ago and I doubt they would be very happy; quite miserable more likely. Americans today have little perspective on how good they have it.
Furthermore, those who think “we” would be happier with zero GDP growth should consider what policies might be pursued to achieve zero population and/or zero growth of invention and innovation that would be required, while not making a whole lot of people very unhappy.
Furthermore, those who think “we” would be happier with zero GDP growth should consider what policies might be pursued to achieve zero population and/or zero growth of invention and innovation that would be required, while not making a whole lot of people very unhappy.
2
Thanks for the good article. I think it's important to remember that everything is potentially 'data.' Feelings, thoughts, impressions, Experiences, opportunities and momentum, or lack thereof. Numbers and statistics are important tools, but how those tools are used, or not, may even be more important than what is being measured. It is also important to remember that once you measure something, you change the nature of what it is you are measuring, not always for the best. I also really like the graphic illustration, which is imaginative and uplifting.
Nice try, but after all the outcry, I doubt the NSA will be sharing its data with anyone.
1
If a single mother inherits a little money and decides to quit her job at mcdonalds to spend quality time bringing up her children , employment will fall; something politicians will measure as a failure.
3
The U.S. government's primary concern should be running 'our' society ("We the People"), not just our economy. It's becoming readily apparent to all, except for the 1% and our most willfully ignorant citizens, that our economy should not be dictating how our society functions.
4
Politcians learned in the late 70's that it's easier to manipulate the statistics than actually fix problems. They've changed the way inflation, unemployment and GDP are all calculated to make things look better than they really are. Various sites calculate these stats the way they were in 1980 before the 'tweaking' began.
Inflation is clearly understated (coincidentally saving the government billions in cost of living increases in Social Security payments). Who cares what a toaster coasts when bread is up by 30%? Inflation is minimized by all kinds of gimmicks. A car today can 'do more' - it likely has power windows and all kinds of gimmicks but it still costs ten to twenty times more than what it cost when I got out of college 40 odd years ago. A high school educated receptionist is paid more today than what I earned as an engineer. The house my parents paid $29,000 for in 1969 sold for over $500,000 thirty five years later and cost 6 times annual earnings instead of 2 1.2 times when they bought. Inflation robs people blind.
Unemployment numbers are grossly understated - and everyone knows it. REAL unemployment today is as bad as it was in 1932 - well over 20%. But that's one truth neither party is willing to admit as BOTH are pushing 'free trade' and the outsourcing of MORE US jobs.
And with inflation underreported, GDP is OVERstated - making the politicians look better.
Inflation is clearly understated (coincidentally saving the government billions in cost of living increases in Social Security payments). Who cares what a toaster coasts when bread is up by 30%? Inflation is minimized by all kinds of gimmicks. A car today can 'do more' - it likely has power windows and all kinds of gimmicks but it still costs ten to twenty times more than what it cost when I got out of college 40 odd years ago. A high school educated receptionist is paid more today than what I earned as an engineer. The house my parents paid $29,000 for in 1969 sold for over $500,000 thirty five years later and cost 6 times annual earnings instead of 2 1.2 times when they bought. Inflation robs people blind.
Unemployment numbers are grossly understated - and everyone knows it. REAL unemployment today is as bad as it was in 1932 - well over 20%. But that's one truth neither party is willing to admit as BOTH are pushing 'free trade' and the outsourcing of MORE US jobs.
And with inflation underreported, GDP is OVERstated - making the politicians look better.
3
Murphy's First Law of Statistics: the hardest thing to count is what's not there. If you can't see it, if it's missing, or not in your sight line, it doesn't get counted. It is also hard to account for what people are not doing.
1
GDP is not supposed to be a measure of happiness. It counts positive and negative production the same way. Kuznets wanted to discount military armaments. For the same reason we should also discount Wall Street activity, which has become a much larger part of GDP.
But liberal and conservative economists still worship GDP. Most think the only way for an economy to be healthy is to grow - regardless of the wast and environmental destruction.
The sooner we define and track an accurate measure of progress, the better off we will be.
But liberal and conservative economists still worship GDP. Most think the only way for an economy to be healthy is to grow - regardless of the wast and environmental destruction.
The sooner we define and track an accurate measure of progress, the better off we will be.
5
If you can't measure it, then you can't manage it
Through regulatory capture, there is a great deal of "economic activity" that is far too expensive.
Might we get data separating regulatory-capture based economic activity vs. added-value, and growth economic activity? We could better compare the cost of regulatory-capture based activity internationally and relative to added-value and growth activity.
Therefore, we would have a better picture of why the economy is or is not growing?
Through regulatory capture, there is a great deal of "economic activity" that is far too expensive.
Might we get data separating regulatory-capture based economic activity vs. added-value, and growth economic activity? We could better compare the cost of regulatory-capture based activity internationally and relative to added-value and growth activity.
Therefore, we would have a better picture of why the economy is or is not growing?
1
Well Gee first you can manage things without measuring them. You can't accurately measure things that are very complex without spending a lot of money. Better no measurements that bad ones, and most government based ones have a lot of bias in them and poor data management.
2
Royal Flush Press, the publisher of Work’s New Age: The End of Full Employment and What It Means to You and Choosing a Lasting Career: The Job-by-Job Outlook for Work's New Age, has developed a key economic indicator. The American Job Shortage Number, or AJSN, shows latent demand for jobs in the United States. The number is taken by conservatively estimating the shares of people in 11 different categories who would work if jobs were readily available.
2
I thought the only statistic used to measure the 'general welfare' was the Dow? At least, that's the impression I get when I watch the news.
13
What gets measured gets managed. At the rate things in the nation change, along with people's viewpoints on such change, the measurements also need fluid adjustment.
1
Yes of course when you don't like the results just change the measurements. Simple!!!
1
Interesting article. It would have been nice if the author had mentioned the GPI alternative to GDP. Vermont and Maryland both are in the process of implementing General Progress Indicator metrics (GPIs). GPIs are an alternative to Gross Domestic Product that take into account positive values left out of GDP such as the contributions of volunteer activities and ecological services (e.g. water purification function of a forest or wetland) and negative impacts such as environmental degradation and the distribution of income (as a measure of how well the economy is serving all its people, not just some). Vermont's GPI-enabling legislation calls for using the metric in budget and policy decision making for the state. As yet, it really has no teeth, especially as evidenced by this year's legislative session which was dominated by the drum beat for ever more austerity measures in the face of a manufactured "spending crisis" that was really a revenue crisis in the context of a growing economy. Nevertheless, I hope the GPI will begin to gain more traction nationwide as a better way to assess how the economy is truly meeting the needs of the people.
7
Why GDP and not say gross national happiness? The flaw in the later is that happiness is not an economic quantity. Economics is concerned only with goods and services that are exchanged for money. Any good or service that's not sold or not intended to be sold is not in fact an economic quantity. For example, if someone cooks a meal and eats it or serves it to family that is not an economic activity as there was no exchange involved. Such a meal is not part of GDP for that very reason. But a restaurant cooking the same meal would be an economic actor as the food is cooked for the express purpose of being exchanged for money and that's why it's part of GDP.
Since most of the really hard problems in economics involve money it makes perfect sense to measure GDP in this way. There would also be no possibility of making any sense of economic history and economics itself would self destruct if it continually revised the definitions of its measurements,
But economists are also concerned with externalities such as the environment as well as with poverty, income inequality, the health and safety of workers, pensions, healthcare and a great many other things. But GDP is what it is for very goods reasons even if it was never intended to be a measure of societal or individual well being.
Since most of the really hard problems in economics involve money it makes perfect sense to measure GDP in this way. There would also be no possibility of making any sense of economic history and economics itself would self destruct if it continually revised the definitions of its measurements,
But economists are also concerned with externalities such as the environment as well as with poverty, income inequality, the health and safety of workers, pensions, healthcare and a great many other things. But GDP is what it is for very goods reasons even if it was never intended to be a measure of societal or individual well being.
2
The author seems to be proposing a happiness index - that is, to quantify, and thus commodify, the values of the intellectual elite of a given time concerning what citizens "should have."
I would argue that amplified economic/population statistics should stick to the cost of bread and butter.
I would argue that amplified economic/population statistics should stick to the cost of bread and butter.
yes - economy is a science of make-believe - you get what you measure - but what about happiness ?
I think I read something about the value of native rainforest - ignored until people started putting a value on - maybe the carbon capture - or the potential for new drug discovery
since Bhutan put Gross National Happiness onto world consciousness, people have started wondering how to measure happiness
but happiness as peak pleasure is an ephemeral state, quickly satiated and replaced by disgust, e.g. after eating too much
peace/contentment can be surveyed - I just did one - so that is useful
but Free Enterprise - in that store disguised as a country - the USA - tends to regard dollar$ as the highest good - and advertisers constantly reinforce - 'imagine' what your life would be like it you had this 'NEW !' shiny toy - probably poorer
I just read - planning your retirement - better to be frugal and surrounded by friends - than rich and alone in a hotel room - like Howard Hughes with the long hair and fingernails - money is like shite - piled up it stinks - spread around it stimulates growth for many
I think I read something about the value of native rainforest - ignored until people started putting a value on - maybe the carbon capture - or the potential for new drug discovery
since Bhutan put Gross National Happiness onto world consciousness, people have started wondering how to measure happiness
but happiness as peak pleasure is an ephemeral state, quickly satiated and replaced by disgust, e.g. after eating too much
peace/contentment can be surveyed - I just did one - so that is useful
but Free Enterprise - in that store disguised as a country - the USA - tends to regard dollar$ as the highest good - and advertisers constantly reinforce - 'imagine' what your life would be like it you had this 'NEW !' shiny toy - probably poorer
I just read - planning your retirement - better to be frugal and surrounded by friends - than rich and alone in a hotel room - like Howard Hughes with the long hair and fingernails - money is like shite - piled up it stinks - spread around it stimulates growth for many
4
You can say many things, but it resonates with me that Kuznets thought we should discount military spending. Logical.
In somewhat similar vein, we should try to more often measure outputs than inputs.
What I mean, for example, is we should measure for GDP purposes the healthcare outcomes (extended life, reduced morbidity, less suffering) instead of healthcare spending. Our healthcare spending has been atrociously inefficient (spend too much for end-of-life care for marginal benefits), so we should discount that. This will reveal that our GDP "growth" has been exaggerated over the last few decades.
Ditto for housing. The portion of owners' equivalent rent that goes to pay for land rather than building is nothing but a tax, an unproductive extraction of economic rent. We should subtract that out of GDP. Again, revise our GDP growth downwards.
Ditto for education. Spending has accelerated without marginal improvements in outcome. One might say, especially with respect to non-elite post-secondary education and public primary-secondary education - that we've been spending more to learn less. Negative GDP growth here.
There are probably other fun examples to consider. I hope those would counteract all the GDP detractors I discuss above.
In somewhat similar vein, we should try to more often measure outputs than inputs.
What I mean, for example, is we should measure for GDP purposes the healthcare outcomes (extended life, reduced morbidity, less suffering) instead of healthcare spending. Our healthcare spending has been atrociously inefficient (spend too much for end-of-life care for marginal benefits), so we should discount that. This will reveal that our GDP "growth" has been exaggerated over the last few decades.
Ditto for housing. The portion of owners' equivalent rent that goes to pay for land rather than building is nothing but a tax, an unproductive extraction of economic rent. We should subtract that out of GDP. Again, revise our GDP growth downwards.
Ditto for education. Spending has accelerated without marginal improvements in outcome. One might say, especially with respect to non-elite post-secondary education and public primary-secondary education - that we've been spending more to learn less. Negative GDP growth here.
There are probably other fun examples to consider. I hope those would counteract all the GDP detractors I discuss above.
2
First make good use of the numbers in hand. As the article mentions, there are six measures of unemployment issued by the BLS each month, all in the same table A-15.
But the administration and the media only focus on U3, which is by definition an undercount. The most meaningful of the measures is U6, which includes long-term unemployed and discouraged workers. All the NYTimes reporters avoid U6 when going through the monthly ritual of reporting the latest unemployment numbers. I've come to the conclusion that there is an editorial policy that disallows discussion of U6.
But the administration and the media only focus on U3, which is by definition an undercount. The most meaningful of the measures is U6, which includes long-term unemployed and discouraged workers. All the NYTimes reporters avoid U6 when going through the monthly ritual of reporting the latest unemployment numbers. I've come to the conclusion that there is an editorial policy that disallows discussion of U6.
8
Well Gee anything that makes the Obama administration bad generally does not get coverage in the general media. We have massive numbers of people who would work if jobs existed, and many under employed as well. Sure the economy is better, it would be difficult to be worse.
Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.... it very certainly a measurement problem...
1
Statistics just do not capture the ways in which the world really works. Everything has become so complex, that the truth becomes elusive. Each worker performs a wide variety of tasks at work, many of which don't fit into any category. Many companies have little Idea what their workers actually do, or what skills they really have.
4
Jobs are a high priority. Job growth and unemployment as measured today is misleading. Job measurement must include a factor for value—value to the worker. A measure for 'employment power' could be total jobs--in a given geographic area--each job weighted by annualized earnings. A related metric would be 'employment productivity' measured by relative level of under(over) employment by job held and those who are unemployed. The latter metric would require understanding of each person's employment capability (education, experience, profession...).
These two metrics are designed for making decisions, not making political hay. The same design objective should be applied to decisions around security, law enforcement, health care, the environment, and so on--what metric(s) will enable decision making?
These two metrics are designed for making decisions, not making political hay. The same design objective should be applied to decisions around security, law enforcement, health care, the environment, and so on--what metric(s) will enable decision making?
2
Economic statistics are completely useless because they don't measure the real world, but it doesn't matter because policymakers are driven by corruption, not facts.
3
Economic statistics are true (as best as flawed human beings can create). They just are not the WHOLE truth.
This is why I have said that any country that manages their society solely on the basis of economics will eventually wonder blindly into a bear cave (and in the past decade, we have).
This is why I have said that any country that manages their society solely on the basis of economics will eventually wonder blindly into a bear cave (and in the past decade, we have).
6
How about we start including in our normal discussion of economic trends the COST of all our increased growth etc... Measuring the GDP of the U.S. or the world without measuring the cost in terms of environmental degradation, species loss, loss of environmental services, depletion of natural resources and so forth, is insane. No business would measure its performance by looking at the value of the goods it produced without measuring the cost of producing those goods, yet that is exactly what a narrow focus on GDP and growth does. It's rather unfathomable that the economic profession tolerates this kind of mass omission of very important information from the political discussion of the economy.
17
This is a complex subject, but first and foremost you need to be sure you are measuring the right things. The accuracy of measuring whatever that is comes later. I do know that long term, measuring gross production, which encourages consumerism and 'digging holes and filling them back in' is not sustainable on a finite planet. I also know that a good measure has to be made on a per capita quality of life basis, not a gross basis. Encouraging population growth to increase GDP is not sustainable either.
That said, the main problem we have is that our economic system only works in one direction- toward growth. It encourages debt which can only be repaid by expanding the economy. It doesn't have a neutral, or steady state gear. There is a myth among economists that you can grow economically without using more energy and resources, or depleting our natural capital. This is patently false. Our clean environment in the US comes at the expense of record coal usage in Asia, where we have outsourced our consumer goods (and outsourced our pollution).
I am not sure what the answer is, but those economists entrusted to directing our politicians had better start thinking outside the 'growth' box.
That said, the main problem we have is that our economic system only works in one direction- toward growth. It encourages debt which can only be repaid by expanding the economy. It doesn't have a neutral, or steady state gear. There is a myth among economists that you can grow economically without using more energy and resources, or depleting our natural capital. This is patently false. Our clean environment in the US comes at the expense of record coal usage in Asia, where we have outsourced our consumer goods (and outsourced our pollution).
I am not sure what the answer is, but those economists entrusted to directing our politicians had better start thinking outside the 'growth' box.
20
Gee if it actually encourages growth it is doing a bad job of it.
The elephant in the room is that "small" matter of all that is not measured by economists. It's laughably sad, really, and shows economics is a "science" in the same way astrology is a "science". In fact, they're on a par with one another as so-called "sciences". And millions who would not give credence to an astrologer's analysis listen to economists as if they were high priests. I suppose they are, and guesswork and speculation and (sometimes) self-fulfilling prophecy is the sacred ritual.
5
Every so often we get an economist or two who trot out the idea that the economy's great, we're just measuring it wrong. This article seems to be part of that genre. It reminds me of an economist who some time back claimed that poor people aren't poor these days because the price of air conditioners and microwaves had fallen so much that you could find these appliances in many poor people's homes. And indeed technology, which has rescued so many things: the journalism biz, Sears Roebuck, City Opera most certainly has a solution for this. If we could just employ those geniuses at facebook to apply their thumbs up! brilliance to economic modeling, well, the poor would feel so good about themselves they wouldn't be poor anymore! Everything's great! Unfortunately for the techno rah rahs, those dusty ole metrics like the labor participation rate and median household income do not foster the same unequivocal enthusiasm.
3
What makes you poor, then? what is poverty? Because it used to be having not enough to eat, and wearing raggedy clothing. But today, that is unknown -- 15% of the poorest of our population get food stamps so generous, they can sell the extras to get spending cash! and clothing is so massively imported, that even at thrift stores you can buy quality clothing in like-new condition for a dollar or two.
If you have lots of food -- nice clothing -- 100% free health care via Medicaid -- your air conditioned apartment with wi fi and cable is subsidized by the taxpayers, so you pay maybe $50 a month rent -- and you have a huge flat screen HDTV which you bought with the extra food stamps you didn't need -- and of course, your free Obamaphone with Obama minutes -- please tell me how you are poor. What are your privations? what exactly is it you are not getting?
If you have lots of food -- nice clothing -- 100% free health care via Medicaid -- your air conditioned apartment with wi fi and cable is subsidized by the taxpayers, so you pay maybe $50 a month rent -- and you have a huge flat screen HDTV which you bought with the extra food stamps you didn't need -- and of course, your free Obamaphone with Obama minutes -- please tell me how you are poor. What are your privations? what exactly is it you are not getting?
6
"what exactly is it you are not getting?"
well, for one, treatment with dignity by complacent creeps like yourself, who fancy themselves superior, because - well, that's not really clear, other than your apparently boundless capacity to find references to Obamaphones somehow clever.
Now please get off of my planet.
well, for one, treatment with dignity by complacent creeps like yourself, who fancy themselves superior, because - well, that's not really clear, other than your apparently boundless capacity to find references to Obamaphones somehow clever.
Now please get off of my planet.
7
It's safe streets, a clean apartment, access to quality education. All those things that allow your children to get out of the raggedy state you live in.
it's not the being poor part that's so tough. It's knowing that your kids are condemned to live the same way.
it's not the being poor part that's so tough. It's knowing that your kids are condemned to live the same way.
7
There are many individual data to show particular topic in the global level, mostly by international organizations such as UN, World Bank or OECD. Also, there are many private organizations that publish on welfare, happiness, education, pollution, corruption, etc. Among them, I think 'The Social Progress Index' is most extensive as well as intensive to shed light on overall standing of each country in the vast area including economy. For example, if we look at the US, we will easily find where we stand, if we are ahead or behind from other countries, in the area of basic human need, foundation of wellbeing and opportunity. I think Michael Green and others have done a great job.
3
Well Gee if global is showing improvement and the US is showing a decline is that OK? I would be happy with the reverse. I am tired of our demand creating growth in other countries.
Great idea, but the author misses the point. The government publishes statistics not to inform the public, or to gather data on which to base informed decisions. It does so instead to aggrandize itself, confirm its policies and prejudices, and maintain the status quo.
6
The problem with economic statistics isn't that they don't include a happiness or personal fulfillment metric, it's that they haven't been updated to take account of changes in the data that can be measured objectively. This is evident in Piketty's book about inequality and the reaction to it. How so? What's "capital"? It's meaning has changed so radically that even economists don't know what it means. Piketty uses an inclusive definition: productive capital, but also everything from financial assets to houses. That's a departure from the historic definition of capital, which was limited to productive capital. Does this matter? Piketty's critics claim that his all inclusive definition overstates the degree of inequality. What the critics miss, what Piketty misses (in his book, anyway), is that the enormous shift in the way owners of capital use and invest it has altered the economy in fundamental ways, mostly not for the good. Today a large percentage of "capital" is devoted to speculation, mostly in financial assets but also in other assets (real estate, works of art, etc.). The problem is that such "investments" don't add to the productive capacity of the economy; indeed, they hamper economic growth and add to financial and economic instability. Davidson may be correct that BLS should change the metrics, but not by including the subjective measures he describes, rather by updating the objective measures.
13
I agree that the statistical data gathering needs to be updated, but there are four problems. First, what do we want to measure, can we measure it accurately and precisely, and how valid is the data? Without testing, we don't know these validity of these measures and the more amorphous, the harder to measure (e.g. well being). Second, will people be willing to be measured? Any amount of data gathered on individuals or corporations is dependent on the individual agreeing to be monitored and we know how suspicious the people are about government snooping (some more than others). Third, will the public believe it or understand it? One has only to look at the blogs to see every time the unemployment rate is published, the constant litany that all government data is fake, false or cooked. Fourth, how does one value items? A classic example is the environment (e.g. clean water). Just look at the comments on the EPA website for any proposed rule for clean water. It is obvious that corporations, business owners, developers, etc. value clean air much less than the public. Even within the public, the value one places on clean water varies from individual to individual. Sorry, Kuznets runs up against the same statistical problems that still have not been resolved.
7
Exactly correct. The mania for just collecting "big data" misses the point. Agreed that the official statistics are somewhat deceptive (GDP is not, despite the usual textbook description, merely the summary of all market transactions. Among other things, it includes estimates of the current amount of public education and police protection provided, as well as the value a homeowner receives from living in one's own home), but they do a reasonable job tracking what counts for changes in paid employment, tax revenue, and inflation in market items. "Happiness" for a nation at large is elusive. Note that even in Kuznets' era there were economists who tried to measure that, but Kuznets was shrewd enough not to jump into that. It's not really a matter of gleaning a bunch of numbers from clicks.
The second problem is when those "measurements" become the end in themselves rather than the means to understanding. GDP is perhaps the worst of the lot. GDP in principle tells us how much we can consume - we'd like our economy to provide more for us to consume. The problem is when increasing GDP becomes the objective in itself rather than understand how much we can consume. It's a problem when policies and agendas are set to increase GDP in ways that DON'T lead to more consumption that ought to be the goal.
Take exports for example. In a normal world, we do the work to produce gods for expert so that we can get other goods in _exchange_ for those exports. But when GDP is all important, then apparently it's even better if we can export and get nothing in exchange for our efforts - eg. the race to devalue currency. Sure, we "grow" GDP by growing exports, but without imports, what do we GET for our effort? Nothing. What's the point of that?