143
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
143 points (99.3% liked)
UK Politics
5455 readers
287 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
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.