I thank Benjamin for his comments. I agree with some, disagree with some,
and can't make sense of some.

Redefining Progress began, as its name says, to define terms, especially
national income. Its personnel and goals have changed over the years, and no
doubt its people spit out some econometrics now and then.

Omitting careful definitions, and consistency therewith, predates the reign
of quants, indubitably. Their special sin, though, is the pretense of
accurate, relevant results, based on fictitious, irrelevant data.

Here's what I can't make sense of: 

"Every indicator has a very specific definition, in fact it is so precise
that no-one should, upon reading the statistical practices and manuals,
agree that GDP per capita is income per head as we think of it...
As the definition stands, and the data collection works, it is not the
income of anyone being measured.  Surprised? (I was, and I am working on
that topic at the moment)"

Of course we should talk with each other, but it's hard to talk responsively
with members of a cult who speak in tongues, and change them quarterly
without notice.

I especially agree with three words in Benjamin's penultimate line, even if
I am taking them out of context: "Mason is right". You have to love a
commentator like that!

Mason Gaffney