Most non-economists and many economists have a wrong idea about what is GDP or Gross

Domestic Product. The reason is the confusing English used by economists. GDP is not the
market value of production of rice, steel, transport and all other goods and services in the
industry. Just ry once again to clear confusionif any from the extract below:
''Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the market value of all final goods and services produced
within a country in a given period. It can be estimated three ways, which in principle should
lead to the same figure. One may sum the value of the output added by every class of
producer in the economy and thus arrive at the total. One may also get that value by
summing the expenditures on that output made by households, firms, the public sector and
foreigners (subtracting what residents buy from abroad). After all, everything that is
produced ends up being bought or stored by someone, and therefore those expenditures
should equal the total value of what is produced. A third way is to sum all producers'
incomes, since wages, profits, rents and taxes are the flipside of the value added in an
economy in a given period."

Whether economists are and non-economists understand the concept of GDP clearly or not,
they say lot of things about GDP as a concept not being useful for most purposes. But when
you ask them why, economists confuses you more so that you give up all efforts to
understand and start believing that you understand. Just try the extract below and see if it
helps you confirm that you understand:
"However, GDP is not a flawless measure, especially when it comes to economic welfare" (do
you know what is economic welfare? check)..
Try more:
"GDP per capita is an average and as such doesn't capture inequality or give a clear picture
of poverty, or assess the impacts of economic activity on the environment. It also does not
consider the value of leisure and longevity. It certainly doesn't serve as a perfect indicator of
the quality of life. ... While a traffic jam may increase GDP as a result of the increased use of
gasoline, it certainly doesn't qualify as an improvement in quality of life." What great
conclusions? GDP by definition was supposed to be total value addition or incomes of all
people: why should it or its per capita derivative measure standard of living or poverty or
inequality?
But you may continue ".... -- there is a problem with the way the government contribution to
GDP -- a significant share in most countries -- is measured everywhere in the world: The
value to users is assumed to equal the producer's cost! It is as if all government activities
were always on the best-practice frontier, and thus an increase (or decrease) in government
expenditures can be taken as an increase (or decrease) in the value added to GDP by the
public sector." There are obviously glaring differences in the efficiency with which
governments spend money on health care, education, roads etc., not only over time in a
country, but also among countries. Therefore, as absenteeism of teachers and health
workers, overruns in costs of building roads, and other aspects are not taken into account,
directly comparing the government part of GDP -- and thus total GDP -- among countries
may be misleading. Generous wage raises in the public sector may even be straightly
counted as increases in productivity." So you realize, Government is the problem with the
GDP?