Traditional interpretations of economics to describe human performance and human excellence are meaningless and wrong.
The problem with this question is that the meaning of “The Economy” bears little to no meaningful value, and thus its mathematical derivative doesn’t.
For one, because the phrase “The Economy” has many different interpretations, none of them indicative of the value of human performance, with perhaps the worst bestowed upon us by a voodoo religion of economics. Second, because a number is a consequence and not the cause of such performance. Hence it is moot to assign any comparative meaning to its mathematical derivative.
Two “Economies” with equal scores may suggest performing equally but are not. In the same way, two games of soccer with the same score came from two completely different types of gameplay.
To expand on that notion a bit: what are the best metrics to use to describe a game of soccer? The number of goals scored? I don’t think so. Other statistics you could derive from the game, like the number of touches or shots on goal? Or the cross-section of all of them?
The answer, of course, is neither. The quality of the game is determined by those paying to watch the game from the bleachers (wherever they are), and whether those people want to come back for more and participate. The same applies to the workings of an economy.
The quality of an economy is not defined by silly mathematical statistics as its consequence, but by the strength of its renewability at its cause, by how the performance of humans contributes to the sustainability of humanity.
Traditional interpretations of economics to describe the human performance and human excellence are meaningless and wrong. A reason why we must reinvent economics to make it a more relevant playbook to the evolution of humanity before we can assign data points to measure how we track.
