The GDP calculation is highly dependent on the CPI number - and we all know that’s rigged. If you calculate the CPI nearer it’s true level when groceries and fuel oil/gas are included, the CPI is closer to 10% than 2% and thus the GDP would be negative.
Do you really trust government statistics ? You might want to do some reading about the changes Clinton made to the CPI calculation, and then Bush followed with more.
It’s cooked to the nines.
You know that CPI includes food and fuel.
This is a valid line of argument and I appreciate you sharing it. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying we use different stats today than in the past, this change was implemented by Clinton, and remains in place today. Do you have any links or resources to support this claim so I can save it in my research files?
What about cross-country comparisons. Frequently we see reports of the fastest growing countries. The US, while not in the lead, continues to have strong postive numbers. Have those international observers/reporters started using the new statistical formula? What do other countries use and how are we comparing apples to apples? I realize as to unemployement we use different methods than France for example, when we compare are we comparing what each country reports or using a single methodology so it’s really a fair compairison?
I don’t trust any statistics, but I do trust a standarized language. If we’re using the same methods and definitions, then I am comfortable comparing the present to the past and making a judgment about it. That’s why what you’ve suggested here concerns me. What was the impetus for changing the methods? What are the arguments in support of doing so?
CPI does include oil/food in the GDP calculation.