Replies

What this article is saying in so many words is that abstracted generalized indices, such as GDP, or CPI, are virtually worthless. They are contrived playthings of pseudo-intellectual economists with an intrinsic desire to gain personal (juvenile) importance through sophistry. If one as an "economic" journalist gets paid to write such criticisms, one can easily make a career, albeit an empty one, from such, for there are no solutions.

The same goes for the "inflation" versus "deflation" argument. A selected algorithm can arrive at either result, say throwing in "housing," throwing out "energy," or whatever, all while the material prosperity, quality of life, and optimistic attitude, of the legitimate US taxpaying citizen is plummeting.

Is it not obvious now that academic economists, ala Obama's regime and planet wide Nobel-level (Krugman), have absolutely no idea what they are talking about?

The United States as "fortress America," could be paradise, not isolationist but conscientious; but the globalists, ala Rockefeller, Soros, and the Jewish world-Left (sinister), will fight to the end for this to not be. They atone for their own Greed through Obama's subversion and other people's money. That's why anti-Sarah.

Think in terms of John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Democratic Senator of WV, a State for which he has NO empathy or connection, serving as infinitely financed, and (Harvard) elitist, majority Senator. God-is-Money has brought us here.

How obvious is it?

Johnny Suntrade, the Suntrade Institute

Good points. I admit I am reluctant to say that all the algorithms are bogus -- but I know they alter the formula for unemployment or inflation (just two examples) from time to time. I think there is real creedence to your point that they have no idea what they're talking about. It really is smoke and mirrors.

I always come back to the same place: Our problems are because government is so big, so impersonal, so corrupt. There's just too much money in it.

If government were small and limited (as it is supposed to be) then it couldn't do as much damage. Then the people making day to day decisions (you and me) would understand problems and be in a position to do something about the problems in front of us. As it is now, Barney Frank solves all my problems (and that's not working out so well).