Thread: Gotta love when they forget to flip the coin.

I ran across this article and i have to say they left out the other side of the topic.
Smoking Drags Down Global Economy, Hurts Worker Productivity: Report

"

Smoking costs the world 1 to 2 percent of its gross domestic product each year"

"China is by far the world's largest consumer of cigarettes, with 38 percent of them in 2009, and saw costs due to smoking more than quadruple to $28.9 billion between 2000 and 2008, the authors said in the book."

Ok we get time is lost while smoking and as a byproduct shit doesnt get made. However what about how much money is made buying products that are included in that GDP? Not that im advicating people should smoke but lets be honest about it. In the top 5 countries 145 billion packs of cigarettes are sold annually. That roughly 7 dollars a pack world wide at a total over 1 trillion dollars. Thats just to buy the damn things. Now you have to add accessories, medical costs, shipping, and whatever . Cigarettes bring in far more then they lose from the GDP. Once again im not advocating people should smoke but damn at least be honest in your bullshit story.

I'm not sure I follow you completely. Are you saying that the money the medical industry makes treating smoking-related illness are a positive to GDP?

Cheers,


AetheLove

Originally Posted by AetheLove

I'm not sure I follow you completely. Are you saying that the money the medical industry makes treating smoking-related illness are a positive to GDP?

Cheers,


AetheLove

Yes and no. I know it isnt a product so technically it doesnt count but it is a pretty sizable amount of money rolling thru their accounts.

Actually that made me wonder if health care is included in the GDP and it appears it is.

Yes, medical care (and other services) are included in GDP. It's not so much a measure of products (goods like cars, or spinach) as it is productive activity (that we can measure as money changing hands) to create goods and services.

So the money the health industry earns is part of GDP.

But it's a hard thing to calculate, and even harder to interpret. The common example is breaking windows. If we went around all the time breaking windows, the people who made glass and replaced broken windows would have an income spike. New people would move into that industry, and the net proceeds in that sector would go up. Those things would count towards the GDP measure.

But we would obviously be wasting our productive capacity. Smashing windows destroys value. The resources spent replacing them could be spent doing something else - something that grew our common equity, rather than compensated for our common delinquency.

There is a certain amount of getting sick that is unavoidable. Medical care in those cases is a benefit to society. Sick people get healthy. But (as in the window example) having more of us get sick just to make more work for doctors is idiotic, and a net loss for society.

Health economists have, for years, been calculating the effect of this or that human activity on the economy. It's tricky to do with real precision, but it's not tricky to get a really good estimate on some things - like the costs of smoking.

I agree with you though - there is a flip side to that coin. Smoking is enjoyable. People like it. It's hard on the body, and the long-term costs are real, but you can't argue that people who enjoy it aren't enjoying it.

For everyone who likes it, there is one who thinks it's nasty. So I like that we discourage it (taxes, higher insurance rates). But though I personally don't like cigarette smoke, there is also a part of me that is happy it isn't illegal. I think that'd be even worse.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em,


AetheLove

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Yes, medical care (and other services) are included in GDP. It's not so much a measure of products (goods like cars, or spinach) as it is productive activity (that we can measure as money changing hands) to create goods and services.

So the money the health industry earns is part of GDP.

But it's a hard thing to calculate, and even harder to interpret. The common example is breaking windows. If we went around all the time breaking windows, the people who made glass and replaced broken windows would have an income spike. New people would move into that industry, and the net proceeds in that sector would go up. Those things would count towards the GDP measure.

But we would obviously be wasting our productive capacity. Smashing windows destroys value. The resources spent replacing them could be spent doing something else - something that grew our common equity, rather than compensated for our common delinquency.

There is a certain amount of getting sick that is unavoidable. Medical care in those cases is a benefit to society. Sick people get healthy. But (as in the window example) having more of us get sick just to make more work for doctors is idiotic, and a net loss for society.

Health economists have, for years, been calculating the effect of this or that human activity on the economy. It's tricky to do with real precision, but it's not tricky to get a really good estimate on some things - like the costs of smoking.

I agree with you though - there is a flip side to that coin. Smoking is enjoyable. People like it. It's hard on the body, and the long-term costs are real, but you can't argue that people who enjoy it aren't enjoying it.

For everyone who likes it, there is one who thinks it's nasty. So I like that we discourage it (taxes, higher insurance rates). But though I personally don't like cigarette smoke, there is also a part of me that is happy it isn't illegal. I think that'd be even worse.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em,


AetheLove

See i disagree to a point. A good part of our economy is replacement parts/equipment. Think about it for a second. Would you ever replace your car stereo if it never died? I sure as hell wouldn't. Anyway my point was they failed in proving their point. Yes gdp takes a hit by smoke breaks but without cigarettes we would lose almost a 14th of our gdp. So as far as gdp goes smoking is a good thing. Its the only good thing about smoking other then giving me something to do other then choking a retard out.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Its the only good thing about smoking other then giving me something to do other then choking a retard out.

But you do that anyways....so cigarettes are really failing in their responsibility....

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

I find it absolutely Hilarious that as a civilization we let other third world countries that are coming in to 2nd a and 1st word status repeat treacherous mistakes we've already learned from.

what mistakes?