If you could choose your own measure of national output, what would it be? How would you construct it and why would it improve on GDP?

     GDP is a flawed, but the most commonly used measure of national output. One of its disadvantages is double counting of goods, which makes GDP overvalued. Another problem is existence of the underground economy, which is not taken into account and therefore lowers GDP. Another flaw is not being able to account for productivity of some services (e.g. hospitals, schools or charities). At the same time, some ways of measuring GDP include sectors which do not actually produce anything (e.g. property letting). These flaws mean that the value obtained may simply be untrue and not show the actual wealth of a country.

     Any measure of national output intended to replace GDP would have to consider the aforementioned issues. In addition, it should account for “negative” products which could hinder future development (especially pollution). However, such a measure would be very complicated. GDP is fairly simple to calculate and GDP per capita gives a quite accurate picture of country’s development, allowing for comparisons between different states.

Can we separate economics from the political spectrum, and can we isolate it from morality? Should we?

     As a science, economics could exist without politics. Economists do not have to be politicians; their research might be purely theoretical and objective. Politics, however, cannot ever be completely separated from economics. Politicians, whose decisions affect millions of people, must consider economic issues when running their countries. They implement new laws and policies to support economic growth and development. Different political parties’ economic agendas are an important factor in the election campaigns. An unpopular view (or ignorance) on topics such as unemployment, inflation etc. can prevent a politician from being elected.

     Politics and economics become even more intertwined in the times of crises, such as nowadays. Decision-makers are expected to fix economic problems, but at the same time they have to take into account public opinion. An attempt to detach politics from economics is the creation of technocratic governments in two countries most affected by the current eurozone crisis (Italy and Greece). Both are led by economists and consist of specialists rather than politicians. So far the peoples of those countries support technocracy, but how long can an unelected, in fact anti-democratic government last? In addition, any technocratic government still needs backing from the parliament and this depends on political parties, which in turn depends on the voters’ support. To sum up, I think that it is possible for economics to be isolated from politics. However, politics cannot exist without economics, because it is a too important area to be ignored by those in power.

     The question of whether economics can be separated from morality is completely different. Economic knowledge should be used to make the world a better place for people to live. From that, another issue emerges. Is economic growth the way to make us happier? Will policies aimed at development always result in improving people’s lives? If the answer were ‘yes”, then no decision-maker would ever face a dilemma between what is best for the economy and what is best for the people. But what is good for some may be bad for others and politicians have to make a choice. If economics were detached from morality, the purpose of all policies would be to improve growth. Since it is argued that economic growth leads directly to happiness, morality should sometimes stand in the way and remind those in power about their goal – to change people’s lives for better.