@HFCAMPO

Matt is that you?

@Alien: I often mention that I have a problem understanding your posts. For the hell of it I ran a Gunning Fog Index on you last post. It was 142 words in 3 sentences for an average of 47 words per sentence. The grade level was 27.1 (A typical Masters degree in the US is grade level 18.0).

I sincerely hope you are not an English teacher.

@Alien: Sorry, you don't get it.

Again you revert to ideology to try to explain... what? I can't follow what you mean.

I tried to be ideology free in showing how using a single metric can sub optimize any effort and will result in unintended, and unwanted consequences.

My hypothesis is that this, or tends to be, universal and would occur regardless of ideology. I am observing action and results without a set of jingoist terminology to lean on.

I used the word "yardstick" and could have used "measurement" and tried to point out that using a SINGLE metric results in distortions. A SINGLE metric is useful, easily understood, but its simplicity hides the prospect for distortion. Think of the nail factory that is rewarded by the weight of the nails of its output. The allocation of resources would be extremely different if the nail factory was rewarded based on the quantity of nails produced.

I do not imply that my yardstick is money. You make that assumption. In fact, the yardstick I have in mind is GDP. In an earlier post I pointed out that GDP is expressed in money but that the value of any particular "money" can vary. A few hours trying to understand GDP, how it is arrived at and how it is expressed in terms of money, can lead to the conclusion the GDP is basically a guess measured in current money values. Further, a GDP number alone can be made so much more interesting when it is compared to, say, the population number that produces the GDP.

You asked, referring to China: "Why did 'they' choose to?"

Honestly, I have no idea "why." Is it because China's preferred yardstick is GDP and all is driven on achieving a China GDP greater than the US GDP?

What is clear over the last two decades is more GDP is preferred by China, and, that as pollution is a byproduct of GDP growth, for some perverse reason, increased pollution has been considered a positive indication of growth.

I think, but I am not sure, maybe, I dunno.

You nasty angry China hating McDonalds eating creepy colonist running dog have just insulted the noble Chinese taxi driver and the culture of this welcoming pristine peace loving land. May the power of the Mighty Matt fall upon you and cleanse you of your sins.

Can you tell I am bored?