Not stated in the article is that whatever GDP figure they come up with, it is OVERSTATED. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in arriving at their FINAL GDP estimates each quarter, ADJUSTS them by the amount of inflation that occurred during the period. For example, if an UNADJUSTED GDP growth figure for a period is at a 3% rate and inflation during the period is measured at a 1% rate, the ADJUSTED (i.e., constant dollar value) GDP growth rate is 2%. However, if the REAL inflation rate for the period would be 4% at an annual rate, the GDP ADJUSTED (again, in constant dollar values) growth rate would be MINUS 1%. In other words the economy would be contracting instead of expanding.
Many folks believe that the BLS is intentionally understating the rate of inflation. This serves the dual purpose of keeping costs down for inflation adjusted expenditures (e.g., Social Security, military retirement payments) plus painting an BOGUS overly optimistic figure for the growth of the economy.
Many folks also believe that the pre-adjustment GDP figures are also falsely measured to appear larger than they actually are as discussed in the article that is the subject of this thread.
In other words, things are substantially WORSE than our government is telling us.
If you back out government spending, things are even worse.
If I understand correctly, government spending is considered part of GDP.
Which is madness, but, there it is.