Comments on: Why internet/GDP ratios make no sense http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/19/why-internetgdp-ratios-make-no-sense/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: SteveHamlin http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/19/why-internetgdp-ratios-make-no-sense/comment-page-1/#comment-38132 Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:23:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13335#comment-38132 Felix writes: “you’d never dream of measuring different countries’ electricity-to-GDP ratios.”

Really? And certainly that is wrong with respect to changes in an individual country’s watt/GDP ratio over time.

Elctricity-to-GDP seems to be a widely looked-at metric, particularly with respect to cross-checking Chinese GDP numbers: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=chi na+electrical+consumption+GDP

]]>
By: realist50 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/19/why-internetgdp-ratios-make-no-sense/comment-page-1/#comment-38130 Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:33:40 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13335#comment-38130 Sounds like all sorts of methodology problems here, including another one not mentioned – the numerator and denominator are apples and oranges. GDP is a concept of value-added, while a company’s revenue is not. Using a concrete example, Amazon’s revenue is far greater than its contribution to GDP, as much of the GDP contribution comes from the production and transportation of goods prior to Amazon entering the picture. Roughly speaking, a company’s contribution to GDP is the total of the wages paid to its employees plus its operating profit.

]]>
By: FifthDecade http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/19/why-internetgdp-ratios-make-no-sense/comment-page-1/#comment-38112 Fri, 20 Apr 2012 01:15:23 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13335#comment-38112 ‘it’ being the reasoning.

]]>
By: FifthDecade http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/19/why-internetgdp-ratios-make-no-sense/comment-page-1/#comment-38111 Fri, 20 Apr 2012 01:14:53 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13335#comment-38111 Hold on a minute Felix, I’m not disagreeing with you per se, but just pointing out a couple of points you made that I don’t see any logic to.

First of all, the Facebook valuation generates GDP in the markets, that isn’t ecommerce. The advertising potential is what the valuation is based on, and that can be measured and put into the internet related GDP subset.

Secondly, the main reasons for the rapid adoption of internet commerce are a unified banking system, while the need for convenience and time saving is a motivator more than the cost of housing or fuel prices. You have worked hard to have the facts fit the hypothesis, but I don’t buy it.

]]>