The previous post is Jack Rasmus’ return of fire. Here’s my last word.
Rasmus: “YOU REFERENCE ‘IP PRODUCT’ (COPYRIGHTS, MOVIES, ETC.) AS “THE MAJOR CONCEPTUAL CHANGE” IN THE REVISIONS, PROVIDING ONLY MINOR BOOSTS TO GDP. BUT THAT’S NOT CORRECT. IP PRODUCT RELATED CHANGES ONLY ADDED 0.5% OF THE 3.6% IN 2012 UPWARD REVISIONS. AGAIN, THE BIGGEST FACTOR WAS ‘R&D EXPENSING’, NOT IP PRODUCT INCLUSION.”
R&D is part of the new category, “IP Product.” Is it really too much to expect a self-identified “professor of political economy” (though I hear he’s actually nothing of the sort) to read the news release with the definitions? Here it is, straight from the horse’s mouth (News Release: Gross Domestic Product):
In the NIPA fixed investment tables, a new category of investment, “intellectual property products,” consists of research and development; entertainment, literary, and artistic originals; and software.
Carry on, Jack. I don’t know why anyone published your original piece in the first place, but taste is at least as difficult to account for as national income.