The subtitle is A Brief But Affectionate History and the author is Diane Coyle (2014).
Another short-ish read on an interesting topic. The history of GDP speaks to its politicized nature. Its current conception evolved in the 1940s as a way for the government to measure national income in a time of depression and war, but also as a way to inflate it over previous definitions by including government spending in its calculus. Regardless of whether it was truly for productive ends.
So, on the one hand, we have the Keynesian/fiscal largesse folks using it to show growth by pushing for government spending. On the other hand, you have the MMT/NGDP Targeting contingent pushing for central bank interventions to create growth, as if the appearance of a higher nominal number (regardless of whether it is all inflation-driven) foretells of good times. And there is some correlation there – higher GDP prints are typically coincident with lower unemployment and better times. But, as the book speaks to, in a very deferential way, what GDP measures is not necessarily what matters most. It struggles with technological innovation, does not handle the service sector very well (certainly overstating the relevance of the financial sector), and therefore can mask bubble phenomena beneath the surface.
But, for now, it is still viewed as the best alternative to measure economies and to provide a basis for comparison across countries.
