Somehow CNBC's piece shows (imho) a lot more skill at attracting readers than it does in figuring out economic production. Their thoughts would've been more impressive to me if they'd shown better those errors they said were there --like w/ data sets, comparisons (y'know, math, evidence) and then gone on to show why the errors were there --not just some random outcome that can go elsewhere next time.
Liesman made a big push on it last year. He’s a permabull. I don’t follow the markets as closely as I should but everytime I’ve seen him on CNBC he claims everything is coming up aces and can’t understand the doom and gloom. Typical wall streeter who can’t appreciate how tough things are out on main street.