GPD is an estimate that relies on most people being rational.

A company that pays contractors to do nothing but dig up holes and fill them back up again will quickly go bankrupt, so most people aren't going to engage in such enterprise.

Just because you found a way to hack the GDP in an online argument doesn't immediately throw its usefulness in the real-world.

Repeatedly digging up the same place is a relatively common real world scenario, such as when multiple utilities need to be installed or repaired on the same stretch of ground.

e.g. repairing a water main, then laying some underground electrical cables, then laying some fiber optic wire.

Due to inefficient coordination, country A may have the same patch of ground dug up and filled three times.

Whereas country B, more efficient, only has to dig once, do all the work, then fill it up once.

So country B records lower GDP but in fact ends up slightly wealthier.

I certainly agree that different countries will not only have different levels of efficiency, but also different accuracies in their GDP measurement.

Shadow economies also exist and comprise different % in different countries.

The example that started this is someone taking care of an elderly person themselves vs working overtime and paying someone to do so. Simply by working overtime for a company, this person created economic value, likely higher than of their own wage. Second, other economic agents received payment in exchange for services, so this also increased our productive output. In both sides of this operation, taxes were paid, and the country is therefore wealthier in both a fiscal and economic sense.

I think the confusion here is because it seems odd that taking care of your parents by yourself is not considered productive unless you exchange money for it. GDP is an imperfect measure, and by definition does not take into account such voluntary/unpaid activities.

I don't see how formalizing and adding money to an informal relationship increases wealth.

The caregiver is doing the same work either way. Where is the wealth increase coming from?

Before we continue our discussion, can you tell me what is your definition of wealth?

I go by the OED standard definition.

Assuming you mean OECD, and that for these purposes we consider money reserves as an asset, then the person doing overtime has no increase in wealth (assuming they paid the same to the caregiver), the caregiver has an increase, every company involved have an increase, and the government also has an increase in wealth. If the person doing overtime is more qualified than the caregiver, then productivity increased as well.

I meant OED as in the Oxford English Dictionary.

The OECD definition seems suspect, an increase in money reserves does not guarantee an increase in wealth when there's been inflation. Do you have a source for it?