[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by ASAP

thats why i say show both... one could make the same arguement for unemployment and money supply metrics for the past few years which were also adjusted or shown differently

The numbers you cite are not being changed to get a desired outcome. You need to provide proof of that assertion. Something more than merely repeating "revisions', like it is a bad thing. Or suggesting there is something nefarious about posting preliminaries and updating as more data is acquired.

Putting preliminary numbers out there as soon as possible is a good thing, Making corrections as more data is confirmed and validated is a good thing. Holding back this sort of data for months, to get it absolutely perfect, is not a better solution.

[DrVenture]

IRT, removing government spending from GDP. Have a look.

https://www.cato.org/blog/keep-polit...p-calculations

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/03/gdp...nment-spending

https://apnews.com/article/trump-gdp...4620bfd66923b2

[Artemis]

NO politics - NO crypto investment talks (way too many 'pig butchering scam' criminals roaming internet forums for victims these days)

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by DrVenture

IRT, removing government spending from GDP. Have a look.

https://www.cato.org/blog/keep-politics-out-gdp-calculations

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/03/gdp-trump-musk-government-spending

https://apnews.com/article/trump-gdp-economy-government-spending-lutnick-7414ba1bd441bd4bf64620bfd66923b2

again i say... show both... gdp w and gdp without...

as far as metrics... peoples poor understanding of unemployment and underemployment to show a full picture if what been happening is a prime example... you need to see both to see the whole equation

revisions to employment are completely acceptable if within a few % points..not thousands of jobs... i work in lets say a sector of finance and if i made a revision like that, i'd be cooked...

[Mech Spec]

You seem to be of the notion that one can just "shut off" the government portion of the GDP calculation.

You can not, at least not truthfully, it would be making up the number.

So you would have to find a different metric that only accounts for private businesses. But that is stupid as all get out because you are ignoring a substantial part of the economy.

But all of this comes from the fact that some folks are grooming their news bubbles to be skeptical when gdp tanks. The entire discussion of the past few posts is happening because you were made to believe that gdp is somehow a flawed metric when it actually isnt.

[Mech Spec]

Trying to take government spending out of gdp is like trying to weigh yourself by measuring the weight of every one of your organs and limbs individually, then saying you only weigh 75% of what you actually do because you missed a bunch of your body in the process. Instead of just stepping on a scale.

[DrVenture]

From the top link that I provided - "If the goal were simply to provide access to a metric of “private GDP” that does not include government expenditures, this is easily calculable by simply subtracting government spending from aggregate GDP (as shown in Figure 1). All relevant information for such calculations is already reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the agency responsible for compiling the national accounts. However, Mr. Musk and Mr. Lutnick seem to wish that GDP was not only supplemented with this additional measure but supplanted by it."

So, the issue is not that it is unavailable information, but rather why do neither of them seem not know this? And what is their true rationale here? Excuse my skepticism.

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by Mech Spec

You seem to be of the notion that one can just "shut off" the government portion of the GDP calculation.

You can not, at least not truthfully, it would be making up the number.

So you would have to find a different metric that only accounts for private businesses. But that is stupid as all get out because you are ignoring a substantial part of the economy.

But all of this comes from the fact that some folks are grooming their news bubbles to be skeptical when gdp tanks. The entire discussion of the past few posts is happening because you were made to believe that gdp is somehow a flawed metric when it actually isnt.

Correct, and very evident with just a little research. Apparently rather that Gross Domestic Product, some want Selective Domestic Product to be our benchmark. Which they could easily obtain from data already in the public domain.

It isn't going to matter to anyone who loses a job or pays more at the grocery store or watches their 401K sink, that the GDP numbers are somehow supporting a rosier narrative. Or, more likely, providing cover for flawed policy decisions.

[Mech Spec]

I was trying to edit my post on my phone and I deleted it somehow. Oops.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by DrVenture

Correct, and very evident with just a little research. Apparently rather that Gross Domestic Product, some want Selective Domestic Product to be our benchmark. Which they could easily obtain from data already in the public domain.

It isn't going to matter to anyone who loses a job or pays more at the grocery store or watches their 401K sink, that the GDP numbers are somehow supporting a rosier narrative. Or, more likely, providing cover for flawed policy decisions.

no one is arguing that... at least not from my side...

what i am saying is, report them both in the manner in which inflation is also reported ie core and non core side by side... not have a not so bright populace do their own math (which most cant do anyways)


i could ask why do we exclude core items out of one cpi and not the other? you would say volatility in pricing... i would say the family just getting by gets crushed either way financially and we are back at square one as this is a huge part of their spending