you cite a government source, which ironically is in the hands of the current administration.

When you view a source Tom, take just a second to add in the human nature factor to what you read. The current administration has a vested interest in putting forth information that states its case that it's handling the economy in the best possible fashion. A human wrote that reply and more than likely that human works for someone at the top that would have mud on their face if it was revealed that they were failing in their job to accurately report the GDP, that they were overstating it and giving the impression that things were better than they were.

I thought you'd worked in government before. If so, you possess a real naivety about how bureaucrats function and government reports are created. Bad news is almost never allowed and when it slips through they kill the messenger. I took over a job reporting income and ridership from bus fare collection devices for the City of Phoenix from a woman who died but had held the position for years. She was very well liked and respected by the City higher ups. Well withing a few months I found out why. Instead of reporting the straight raw ridership figures our fareboxes reported, she massaged the data to look exactly as the City desired. I, being brutally honest, stripped out all the fudge factors she applied and low and behold, our ridership dropped considerably. I nearly lost my job. What saved me is that I documented every step, never lied, and proved the case to auditors. Steering committees consumed my life from that point on and I got to watch as the government meddling found ways to hide their incompetency and scapegoat others less prepared than I was.

Now, let's look at the report that site was responding to. It came from Business Week magazine. I've heard many other identical reports from other well respected business leaders. What would be their motivation for overstating the case that the formula was broken? How would they profit from that revelation? There's no real power to be gained from alarming people. A great deal of their readership is composed of very conservative and often wealthy businessmen who might take exception to the fact that the economy was in dire straights and our government was remiss in reporting that accurately. After all, those businessmen are generally supportive of that government. Many helped to get it elected. Putting out an article like that is risky. You may get additional readers because of its shock value but you may lose an equal or greater amount because you're stepping on their turf.

Analyzing the motivations for the differing opinions doesn't guarantee either are more valid but it certainly weighs the relative merit in relying on either one.

This is why, when I see you post a link anymore, I almost never click on it because, even though I know you've spent hours searching for something that supports your views, you never seem to apply that bullshit filter. You have demonstrated that human emotions and our natural territorialism is an unknown quantity in your calculations and yet it has driven history more than any other factor.

In short Tom, you're a victim of fact. It's extremely important in making life decisions but, without an understanding of the emotions that presented the concept and labeled it as "fact", you've truly learned nothing.

Art