I would say that avoiding the use of GDP as a metric is a good thing. I don’t feel that it measures much that is worthwhile, especially year over year.

On a related note there is a recent book (The Roaring Thirties, reviewed here ) that claims that the 1930′s were the decade that made future growth possible. The data that supports this aren’t going to be contained in simple numbers like the GDP growth year over year.

Just having you agree with the conclusions from the poll is progress enough. One step at a time…

http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/econom~1.htm

Kangas distinguishes between growth that is a result of re-use of idle capacity and growth that actually causes things like additional capital expenditures. Take a look at economic growth in 1935 and 1936 in the US in one of the tables at the link. This was record growth. But it didn’t mean a lot because this is just making up for the prior downturn. In the immediate wake of NAFTA the peso collapsed and caused a crisis and downturn.

One other point. Every single economist in the poll is working at an American University. What do foreign economists think? I suppose this different perspective could produce different opinions.

But the unanimity here seems to be partly a function of selection bias.

If GDP goes up 10%, profits for large companies go up 20%, and you see the poverty rate go from 20% to 40%, is that a gain?

Because people called Chile a gain, which it was in a sense. Profits went up. Wealthy sectors became much more wealthy. But average caloric consumption went down and of course consumption amongst the poor went down dramatically. Unemployment soared from under 4% under Allende to around 30% under Chicago School direction. Is that a gain? It can be if your goal is profits for the wealthiest investors. Your link doesn’t define gain. So I suppose I’d think they are right if they define the words the way they are often defined amongst elites.