Our health system is in the process of "upgrading" to Office 2007. The result is a loss in productivity, not a gain. MS Office is the defacto standard among the US workplace and this "upgrade" only slows the end users down as Microsoft completely changed the user interface to one which I find to be much less intuitive. I now spend much of my time looking up things in help trying to figure out how to do things I used to be able to do without even thinking. So, while I agree that organizations are spending on IT, I would argue that if they are spending it on this particular "upgrade" to Office 2007, then this will hurt productivity, not help it. I think the problem in the desktop software industry is that nearly all of the software available already has more features than any one user could ever use. Adding more features and changing the user interface appears to be done only to support the software vendors' goal of generating new sales by forcing the obsolesce of their older software releases and driving up sales of their training programs. For those of you who have not gone through this upgrade yet, I liken it to getting into your car only to find that the gas pedal was moved to the trunk and the brake pedal was moved to the glove box. It really is that bad.

Mr. Baker:
Thank you for your well-reasoned and sane analysis. May I also point out that, because the way that the government now calculates GDP (skewing CPI data), that were GDP calculated as it was in 1975 and 1982, the "growth" of 3Q09 would possibly be reported as -.5% to +1.5%. As I understand the matter, GDP today can be anywhere from -2% to -4% lower were it reported the way that it was pre-1995. Am I correct on this?

It should also be pointed out that in the period 2000-2007, 29% of GDP growth was due to growth in health expenses (this proportion will now even be higher). A high proportion was also due to financial sector expansion, iow multi-billion dollar Wall Street bonuses paid in the last analysis by us hard-working idiots. These kinds of growth are extremely unhealthy. If GDP growth is such a good thing, then why should we want to reduce health care spending? After all, that is our number 1 growth sector.

It would help if progressive economists like Dean would stop using GDP as an affirmative economic indicator altogether. GDP these days is perhaps the most irrational way in which to define economic success and untold damage is caused merely by merely using it.

In addition isn't much of the growth due to cash for clunkers? The media would be wise to determine and mention the effect this very large stimulus had on the overall GDP.

Hospital Administrator wrote, For those of you who have not gone through this upgrade yet, I liken it to getting into your car only to find that the gas pedal was moved to the trunk and the brake pedal was moved to the glove box.

Yep.

In the four quarters following the end of the 74-75 recession growth averaged 6.2 percent. In the four quarters following the 1981-82 recession the economy grew at a 7.5 percent annual rate. In short, given the severity of the downturn, the growth reported in the third quarter was quite weak.

So, the stronger the downturn the stronger the (initial) rebound, all else equal? I agree to some extent with that theory. GDP growth after 1933 rebounded double-digits from what I recall. Employment improved, but was still very bad. Given that we had unprecedented stimulus accompanied by all sorts of forecasts and still only showed 3.5% growth out of the gate in the first quarter of the rebound is not very awe-inspiring. Could this downturn degenerate into something *worse* than the Great Depression? I'm starting to wonder.

sesli sohbet sesli chat Thnx...

It would help if progressive economists like Dean would stop using GDP as an affirmative economic indicator altogether. GDP these days is perhaps the most irrational way in which to define economic success and untold damage is caused merely by merely using it.