Yes, but the problem is that we're not measuring consumer surpluses very well, which is a fundamental component of how we obtain value as individuals.

The r/g thing is kind of indirect.

1) Whenever you buy something with money - you're making a 'profit' (surplus). You value that thing more than the money - the delta is the profit. Your personal profit.

When companies compete and produce better goods for roughly the same price, we're winning immensely, the company may not make much more money.

This is supposed to measured in inflation, but it's not.

We basically don't measure individual profit, only corporate profit.

2) We also don't measure the value of things for which money is not changed: when my brother's mother in law comes over to babysit - there's not GDP gain. When he pays a babysitter, well that goes to the GDP, but same value created.

So when women came into the workplace en-masse over the last two generations, we saw a much bigger increase in GPD than in reality, because those numbers assumed they were doing 'nothing of economic importance' at home, which is obviously false. If raising children is 'labour' then how the hell were mothers (and stay at home dads, though more rare in the past) not part of the labour market?

This is the tip of the iceberg.

3) 120 years ago, governments were tiny. Now they are huge i.e. 30-50% of the economy. We don't even try to measure the value (let alone surpluses) generated by gov. we just count how much they spend! Think of how much of a massive distortion this is in terms of calculating overall wealth!

The government could cure cancer, put in a $10 pill and the GDP wouldn't budge. Actually, it would go down because we might have less health spending.

Almost all aspects of government have improved quite a lot, but because it's socialized, it might have no bearing on the GDP at all.

A regulation that required companies to stop polluting may add some indirect GDP via new equipment, but the vast surpluses go to us, the consumer/citizen in the form of clean air! How is that measured in our GDP? It isn't!

So all three of these issues are fairly existential to the nature of how we measure value, and each of them is enough to throw everything offside.

They are even more problematic because they point to the existential problem in economics and that is 'how do we measure value'? It's something we used to argue a lot about, but not so much any more (but not because it's settled).

There is a good podcast on the FT by Uni College London Prof Mariana Mazzucatto [1] where she talks about this.

I'm not that old, but I grew up without the internet, and I was close with my grandparents who grew up on a farm without electricity, plumbing, or cars, or radios. They were not particularly poor for their area, and were the first in the area to get plumbing and TV eventually.

The level of increase in surpluses is mind boggling and I don't think we account for it well.

Women can now do mostly as they please.

Most 'heart surgery' was a wickedly complicated and dangerous thing 30 years ago - now it's usually quick and fast, not a big deal. So many more have access to it.

Almost everyone in the west can afford to go on an airplane, but that used to be for the rich.

Almost anyone who scores spectacularly in school can get scholarships (I know it's more complicated than that) but it's true. At least technically, Uni is open to everyone. This is new.

I could go on forever. (As I often do, sorry)

[1] https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/mariana-mazzucato-on-w...