You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!

Does economic indicators shows the true story?

my question is Does economic indicators shows the true story?.
in my view they are not... sometimes they shows the rapid growth in your ecomic but the ground facts are totaly different,

they dont always shows the accurate sotires. like in Bangladesh, economic growth rate is realy good in whole asia .. but if we look at the ground facts hat shows the total different stories. likewise in pakitsan ,. the economic indicators shows the very colourful story but the comon people are not enjoying this growth,

can u lighten this topic.... and wht u think about it...
economic indicators show the economic picture
social indicators show the social picture

in a non-socialistic society the economy doesen't influence the social picture at a large scale (if bill gates moved microsoft to bangaldesh there would hardy be any change because the money is his, not the peoples)
what i was asking if economic indoicators showing the rapid growth there must be decrease in poverty rate.. uneamployment ratte.. and letteracy rate...

right? wht we have to do with that economic graowth where we cant decrease the above factors? social life is totaly just talking about the economics,
I think the thing to always remember about economics is that it's an imperfect science. If you drop an apple on earth (assuming the sun hasn't exploded), that apple will always hit the ground, due to the laws of gravity. If something is created biologically, that something will inevitably die because of the biological nature of cells.

But a change in supply doesn't necessarily guarantee one particular outcome in demand. A country's GDP, GNP, or CPI doesn't absolutely mean that inflation is going to grow or slow at a certain pace. Be it because there are too many factors to consider, or, the fact that economics by principle is based on social theories (such as the inherent nature of human greed), there's necessarily a lack of predictability involved.

So, to that effect, no--economic indicators never tell the whole story. In addition, though, most economic indicators by themselves never tell the whole story. Whether you look at a country's GDP, GNP, CPI, inflation rate, national interest rate, or the growth of certain industries...each one of those factors leaves something out of the equation.
No they don't.

That is why the economic community it taking such a hit from the left wing. They only indicate on the monetary side, and that ends at the end of a balance sheet. They do not consider environmental, community, or social costs.
Yes and no IMHO,

Economical indicators such as core inflation, unemployment and consumer spending are good warnings of things that may come.
But as in all, they are only models, and models often don't represent the true macro economy.

But in average, and if most of the indicators point the same direction, that means something. The US has a high inflation rate ATM, which can be curbed by elevating intrest rates. But raising rates has the tendancy of slowing down economy, as investing seems less opportunistic than rather keeping your money on the bank at higher intrest percentages. Predicting the exact cooldown effect of an interest rate hike is nearly impossible, as its effect lag over time, which makes it hard to let it be just an "inflation reducing" effect without further damaging economic growth

But before concluding that this economic indicator tells us we might be heading to recession, we have to take into account that housing levels have dropped historically, and that oil price has took a nosedown dive as well.
These two indicators, albeit housing indirectly, just have the opposite effect, and have a tendancy to support economic growth (low oil prices stimulate oil expenditures).

Its in overall not so hard to predict what one or a limited number of indicators tell us, but to be really sure, we have to take into account the whole of macro-economical drivers.
Do economic indicators tell the true story?
About as well as IQ scores.

Most folks know some really 'smart' people (high IQ), who nevertheless do stupid things, make dumb decisions.

Economies that show high growth numbers have ... high growth overall -- but this might well be the top rich getting much richer, only.

The health of an country's economy is mostly dependent on the health of its private businesses, not its state owned companies. A country is the right unit to measure, because a country determines the tax regime and the property rights of the property owner.

Poor people in most of the world are poor because of terrible gov't policies -- NOT protecting the property rights of the poor. This include over regulation, for instance building codes, so all poor houses might be illegal -- then, like in Zimbabwe, all the "illegal" houses were destroyed in the capital.

The Economist prints, every week, lots of indicators for top countries. If you think a country's indicators aren't telling the whole story, you should state which country, which indicators, what the wrong story is, and what you think the right story is.
I used to think that they were fictional views of the economy but actually they are really good indicators for several facts. One of them is that if you are a transnational company or something this big, this ondicators will give you an accurate reading about hte enviroment and possible revenue. Talking about smaller levels this menas nothing until a few years after.
The indicators show general trends. They do not include the distribution of income. In the US, the top 20% has been increasing its share of the income since about 1980, while each of the other quintiles has had a decrease. So even though the economy has grown overall, those at the top are the ones who are enjoying the growth.

(One commentator said that a recession is when your neighbor is unemployed, while a depression is when you are unemployed.)
Do you have a link for the growth quintiles?

And the PPP absolute levels?
ahsanrao wrote:
what i was asking if economic indoicators showing the rapid growth there must be decrease in poverty rate.. uneamployment ratte.. and letteracy rate...

right? wht we have to do with that economic graowth where we cant decrease the above factors? social life is totaly just talking about the economics,

Economics is largely statistically based. Indicators are just indicators. It mean, with the model the economist created, and the data he obtained. This is what the picture looks like, and there is this much chance he could be wrong.

Economists aren't fortune tellers either. They can trying a forecast trends, but every now and then a hurricane hit something and there goes the projections.
I think it depends on the numbers you look at. I mean do you take into account class differences in a country? Whether or not wealth is concentrated in the hands of a select few, or spread across many members of society? there's also things like the underground economy things like that.
ahsanrao wrote:
what i was asking if economic indoicators showing the rapid growth there must be decrease in poverty rate.. uneamployment ratte.. and letteracy rate...

right? wht we have to do with that economic graowth where we cant decrease the above factors? social life is totaly just talking about the economics

Your assumptions are wrong.

Economic growth doesn't guarantee an increase in stability (steady, guaranteed employment) or equity (decreasing poverty). In fact, RAPID economic expansion usually results in the exact opposite occuring.

The macroeconomic data usually used to evaluate economic "growth" (GDP, GNP, CPI) doesn't take things like equity or stability into consideration...a country could have a massive GDP one year but have terrible famines going on at the same time (Bengal famine, I want to say in the 1970's). Industries could grow while agrarian majorities starve (Great Leap Forward). New technology might result in increased output, but workers might lose jobs because the demand for labor decreases or their knowledge becomes obsolete.

Equitable and stable economies aren't guaranteed by economic growth, they're made possible by things like solid infrastructures, and steady and accurate flows of short, by the existence of reliable institutions run by the state or private sector.

What's dangerous is when policymakers take broad, generic information like the GDP, GNP, and CPI, and you try to form conclusions about the economy and public policy off of those alone. They're good indicators of certain types of growth...but that's it.
the economic indicators need not necessarily indicate the correct and exact picture of the countrymen. For the first time in the last 10 years, industrial growth in India has exceeded 10 per cent. Also, for the first time ever, the manufacturing rate of growth has exceeded 12 per cent in six months (April-September 2006). at the same time rich is becoming richer and richer, and poor is becoming more poorer. In contrast, the economic growth is widening gap between poor and the rich.

the only solution is to create opportunities and provide employment at local levels.
Poverty is one of the major concerns of the world’s population and nations worldwide. Surely, if unemployment is rising, it is a sign that the economy is in bad shape. Apparently, the Bizzaro World, also known as Htrae (Earth in reverse) is a square planet that is populated by twisted types of Superman and his other DC universe friends. Some signs of economic health sound like they would make a good deal more sense on Htrae.
Economic indicators could never tell the whole story. Accuracy and thoroughness would require massive amounts of data collection. Some of that would constitute invasion of privacy.

Edit: I majored in Sociology in college (I got a BA.) because I was inspired by Issac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy. In that series (4 books, one written afterward), the galaxy is entirely colonized, and only humans are mentioned, except possibly androids. Earth is so far in the past that it is not mentioned.

The series centers around psychohistory, a psuedoscience akin to economics (and including it) in which the history of the whole galaxy is predicted mathematically for about 1,000 years, with a fair degree of accuracy. I wanted to do that on Earth. But I realized that to that, the amount of sociometrics and data collection would be so invasive as to go beyond what my value system could tolerate. I saw no way to avoid doing more harm than good.
Related topics
Idiots on the computer
Paranormal phenomenon
islam is...
More front page news NOT on the front page..
Should Lord of the Flies be taught in schools?
Computer jokes (funny!)
Redemption - The movie
Love Story or Cheating Story?
Valley of the Wolves Iraq
Should marijuana be legal?
A question of faith - is faith immoral?
The garment factory collapse and responsibility
A universal language
Report From Iron Mountain not so scandalous
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Economics and Marketing

© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.