GDP真的不值得关注吗？

    菲力普森致力于戒掉世人的GDP“瘾”。他将其比作棒球数据统计的革命——“棒球记录统计分析”运动，其中最著名的记录出现在美国财经记者迈克尔•刘易斯的畅销商业图书《魔球》中。“棒球记录统计分析”运动的观点认为，击球率、打点这类传统的统计数据不能准确衡量击球员的价值，上垒率和长打率等数据是更好的衡量指标。不过，棒球和全球经济的差别是，棒球有清晰设定的目标：即跑垒得分超过其他队。一般来说，如果某位棒球球员的上垒率高，其帮助本队赢得的跑垒分数会超过击球率高的球员。

    与棒球比赛不同，全球经济并没有类似“比其他队跑垒得分高”的衡量标准。菲力普森写道：“本书的基本假设是，人类努力奋斗的唯一目标应该是维持并提升福祉，而不是推动收入或者经济增长。”

    那什么又是人类福祉？菲力普森很清楚自己理解的福祉。他重视公平分配资源、保护环境和直接民主等问题。然而，还有些问题理应得到重视，比如获得物质财富、通过努力工作实现自我价值，或者因为所有权而感到自豪。菲力普森显然不这么认为。他在书中一度暗示，后世子孙对土地所有权的看法会像今天我们看待奴隶制一样。

    大部分人都不同意菲力普森的观点，监测GDP数据的政府无法对此视而不见。无论左派还是右派，人人都喜欢变得更富有。更重要的是，他们希望，当经济增长收缩，就业岗位减少时，政府能做出响应。

    此外，菲力普森也承认，经济学领域不乏衡量人类进步的替代指标，比如实际进步指标可以追踪GDP统计中遗漏的领域，包括环境退化和经济不平等。而这些问题也不缺少公众关注。和菲力普森反对的做法截然不同，过去六届美国总统大选期间五次赢得多数票的民主党已将经济不平等、儿童早教等问题当成宣传平台的关注重点。

    资本主义和经济增长的概念比GDP早问世100多年。人类发明了GDP这种统计数据并且密切监测，是因为经济增长对大多数人都很重要。衡量方法只是手段，而不是我们的目的。（财富中文网）

    译者：Pessy

    审校: 夏林

    Philipsen compares his effort to wean us off GDP with the revolution in baseball statistics called the “sabermetrics” movement, most famously documented in Michael Lewis’Moneyball. The movement argued that traditional statistics like batting averages and runs batted in didn’t accurately measure the value of a hitter, and that other statistics like on-base percentage and slugging percentage were better gauges. The difference between baseball and the global economy is, however, that in baseball there is a clearly defined goal: score more runs than the other team. A player with a high on-base percentage will, on average, help your team score more runs than a player with a high batting average.

    But there is no equivalent to “score more runs than the other team” in the global economy. Philipsen writes that, “the basic assumption of this book [is that] the sole object of our efforts should be to sustain and expand human well-being, not simply to promote income or growth.”

    But what is well-being? Phillipsen knows what he thinks is well-being. He values things like the equitable distribution of resources, the environment, and direct democracy. But there are other reasonable things to value, like material wealth, self actualization through hard work, and the pride of ownership. Philipsen, who at one point in his book suggests that our descendents will view land ownership the same way we view chattel slavery today, obviously doesn’t think so.

    The governments that track GDP can’t afford to ignore the large portion of the human population who disagree with Philipsen. And people, left or right, like getting richer. More importantly, they want their government to respond when the economy contracts and jobs disappear.

    Furthermore, Philipsen himself admits that the economics profession has no lack of alternative indicators for human progress, like the Genuine Progress Indicator, which capture things that GDP misses, including environmental degradation and economic inequality. Nor is there a lack of public attention to these issues. Despite Philipsen’s protestations to the contrary, the Democratic Party here in the U.S.–which has won the majority of votes in five of the six past presidential elections–has made issues like economic inequality and early childhood education major planks in its platform.

    Capitalism and economic growth are more than a century older than GDP. We invented the statistic, and closely track it, because economic growth is important to most people on the planet. We are not what we measure, but measure what we are.