139
Zack Polanski wants to use wellbeing targets instead of GDP to measure growth. Is he right?
(www.bigissue.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2026
139 points (99.3% liked)
UK Politics
5455 readers
280 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.