Errors in Palladium's "how Gdp Hides Industrial Decline
Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago
totalhealthoptimization.comOtherstory
skepticalnegative
Debate
20/100
GdpEconomicsIndustrial Decline
Key topics
Gdp
Economics
Industrial Decline
The article critiques Palladium's analysis on how GDP hides industrial decline, pointing out errors in their methodology, and the discussion revolves around the validity of the critique and the implications for economic analysis.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
3h
Peak period
1
3-4h
Avg / period
1
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 6, 2025 at 12:18 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 6, 2025 at 3:36 AM EDT
3h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
1 comments in 3-4h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 6, 2025 at 9:38 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45487604Type: storyLast synced: 11/17/2025, 11:05:57 AM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
But definitely not to be taken seriously when it comes to anything related to economics.
While displaying all the signs of a not-even-superficial understanding of industrial activity. Don't make me laugh.
There's decades of study and first-hand experience that might suffice to correlate theory with reality, then determine first-hand how the statistics fit into the equation. No time like the present to get started.
Most people today wouldn't last two days on a factory floor, but at Totalhealth they've got a zero-day structural error that does seem like a tragic handicap by comparison.
.
Surprisingly then, the very last sentence of the conclusion gets to the crux of the matter: 'his position on manufacturing statistics appears to boil down to “all the numbers should be going up, and none of the numbers should go down.”' If you have a number where sometimes a good thing makes it go up and sometimes a bad thing makes it go up, then that number going up isn't helpful for determining whether things are good or bad.
It is then also perfectly coherent to criticize both value-added and gross output metrics, even though each avoids a problem identified in the other, because neither avoids all problems.
I mean it is good to correct the record on value-added whatever. But let's not miss the forest focusing on one tree: GPD can go up from car crashes, natural disasters -- hell it goes up for totally economically-neutral actions like if I sell a car today, then buy it back for the same price tomorrow. It doesn't account for borrowing aganist the future, it doesnt account for income inequality, environmental degradation, etc. It is simply how much money is swirling around. As a measure for economic prosperity or quality of life, it is truly terrible.