Replies

Here's a couple of interesting and easy to understand articles from Business Week regarding the BLS and GDP numbers and how they are/aren't calculated. The articles are sourced and quote high level employees of both depts. Make of them what you will - but I did not misunderstand them at all - it must be that you haven't read them. If you choose to read them, I wouldn't at all mind a discussion, I am open to facts at all times.

I took your use of the word "entire" to mean, "entire." Maybe you oversimplified because you were in a hurry. The fact of the matter is the aggregate addition to GDP of those factors you feel should not be added (and neither do I, frankly) does not equal 100% of the total (of the factors). In other words, there are still deductions.

Note that here, Paul Craig Roberts is not discussing the Bush Administration's claims of growth in the past, but rather the assumptions it is making about growth in the future, placing him in the unenviable rhetorical position of deriding an assumption because it is, well, an assumption.

That being said, he does subscribe to the view that GDP and output are overstated (just not here) for the reasons BusinessWeek suggests. He just can't explain himself when someone asks him how much they are overstated . . . which is important, because some economists who have examined his assumptions find no significant impact on the question. In other words, other economists' replies to Roberts' warning about the methodology-problem are basically, "so what? Even if we use your numbers your conclusion is not supported."