De acordo

Nem sempre concordo com o ponto de vista de Humair Haque, demasiado keinesiano para o meu gosto. Contudo, julgo que salienta um ponto que merece ser trabalhado:
.
"Who, for example, computes the generally accepted measures of industrial age productivity, and places them on the public record? In America, it's the Bureau of Labor Statistics. What the BLS is tasked with is calculating and reporting on labor productivity (and, secondarily, TFP, or black-box technological productivity). Labor productivity, can be defined and measured per capita, in aggregate, in nominal terms, in outputs terms, and much more. The point is that the BLS takes on the (still mammoth) challenge of conceiving and calculating what the economy's productivity is--but that it's definition of productivity is still one at home in the 19th century, and out of place in the 21st: how much industrial output labor can literally produce--literally, widgets per worker-hour.
.
If you accept my notion that it's time to update productivity to encompass not merely how much toxic mass produced junk we churn out, faster--but to reflect whether or not said junk actually makes a difference to how meaningfully well our lives are lived--then perhaps a next-generation BLS's job isn't merely computing labor productivity, but socio-productivity as well--and making the figures public every month, quarter, and year."
.
Haque depois desliza para os temas da economia-hippie-chic... mas o importante é que devemos deixar de pensar em quantidade e velocidade na produção de parafusos e concentrar na originação de valor.
.
Trecho retirado de "Sculpting the Building Blocks of 21st Century Prosperity: Reinventing Productivity"