Talk:GDP deflator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Formula

  • It seems to me that the formula at the end of the article is inaccurate and potentially misleading. Shouldn't the numerator be the current-price value of the base year total production? With the deflator formula as it is, GDP growth can only be 0%.
    • "Current year GDP/base year GDP" looks like the "nominal" GDP increase from the base year to the current year. - Jerryseinfeld 22:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The formula should be as follows: GDP Deflator = Nominal GDP / Real GDP.

[edit] Language

I don't like the name "deflator", it's a price index like everybody else.--Jerryseinfeld 17:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Firstly, deflator is the technical term used in a variety of literature on the subject, and is the language that technical economists use. As such it is what we should reflect here. Secondly, a deflator is not a price index, and shouldn't be used as such. The Australian national accounts, for instance, publish both a deflator and a chain price index, which behave differently. EcoRat 03:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"The GDP deflator is not based on a fixed market basket of goods and services." -- This sentence is confusing. Should it read "The GDP deflator is based on a market basket of goods and services which is not fixed." --136.2.1.153 18:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I take the point, although I'm not sure that the suggested wording works either. I'll edit it to make more sense. EcoRat 07:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Deflator and price index are the same thing. There are several different methods to compute a price index or deflator, however (Paasche, Laspeyres, Fisher and so on). The statistical office of Germany calls chain indices also deflators. Alex1011 08:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP_deflator

"...the government estimated that real tech spending rose from $446 billion to $557 billion, when nominal spending only increased to $488 billion. That extra $72 billion represents the value the government imagines the improvement in computer quality is worth."

This passage is a little confusing. I could not derive the figure 72. I would appreciate if someone could look though this. Thanks!

You are right. (557-446)-(488-446)=69. The original writer needs to fix it, because there's no telling which number is wrong, though I assume it is the 72. There might be some correction for inflation, and all of the numbers are right, but the correction for inflation was neglected. Something should be fixed there.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/d/p/Talk%7EGDP_deflator_6066.html"