• 143 days Could Crypto Overtake Traditional Investment?
  • 148 days Americans Still Quitting Jobs At Record Pace
  • 150 days FinTech Startups Tapping VC Money for ‘Immigrant Banking’
  • 153 days Is The Dollar Too Strong?
  • 153 days Big Tech Disappoints Investors on Earnings Calls
  • 154 days Fear And Celebration On Twitter as Musk Takes The Reins
  • 155 days China Is Quietly Trying To Distance Itself From Russia
  • 156 days Tech and Internet Giants’ Earnings In Focus After Netflix’s Stinker
  • 160 days Crypto Investors Won Big In 2021
  • 160 days The ‘Metaverse’ Economy Could be Worth $13 Trillion By 2030
  • 161 days Food Prices Are Skyrocketing As Putin’s War Persists
  • 163 days Pentagon Resignations Illustrate Our ‘Commercial’ Defense Dilemma
  • 164 days US Banks Shrug off Nearly $15 Billion In Russian Write-Offs
  • 167 days Cannabis Stocks in Holding Pattern Despite Positive Momentum
  • 168 days Is Musk A Bastion Of Free Speech Or Will His Absolutist Stance Backfire?
  • 168 days Two ETFs That Could Hedge Against Extreme Market Volatility
  • 170 days Are NFTs About To Take Over Gaming?
  • 171 days Europe’s Economy Is On The Brink As Putin’s War Escalates
  • 174 days What’s Causing Inflation In The United States?
  • 175 days Intel Joins Russian Exodus as Chip Shortage Digs In
Another Retail Giant Bites The Dust

Another Retail Giant Bites The Dust

Forever 21 filed for Chapter…

Is The Bull Market On Its Last Legs?

Is The Bull Market On Its Last Legs?

This aging bull market may…

  1. Home
  2. Markets
  3. Other

CNBC's Kudlow Needs a Refresher Course in Econ 101

I hate to be so critical of CNBC, especially since they were gracious enough to have me on as a guest on Monday, but when they present such an easy target, I just can't resist. Such was the case yesterday, when Larry Kudlow, host of "Kudlow & Co.," and one of that network's more colorful "economic" commentators, demonstrated his needs to return to Princeton for a refresher course in basic economics. I write this because, yesterday, when commenting on the release of disappointing first quarter GDP numbers, his ridiculous argument in favor of changing the way GDP is calculated, revealed a lack of understanding of what this basic economic statistic is attempting to measure.

Besides further supporting my stagflation warning (the deflator rose at an annual rate of 3.2%,) yesterday's report revealed that first quarter GDP grew at a less than stellar 3.1% rate; its slowest pace in two years, and well below Kudlow's typically far more optimistic forecast. But rather than admitting to being wrong, Kudlow, much like a golfer blaming a poor shot on a defective club, instead attributed the weaker performance to what he perceived to be a flaw in the methodology used to calculate the index. Since imports subtracted 2.19% from GDP, Kudlow proposed adding that value back in. In his words, "imports are not a bad thing" so why subtract them from GDP. As a result of his recalculation, Kudlow argued, with a straight face I might add, that the real growth rate of the U.S. GDP during the first quarter was in fact a far more robust 5.29%

While it may be true that imports per se are not bad, it is also true that they have absolutely nothing to do with GDP which is precisely why their value is subtracted from the calculation in the first place. The concept of GDP is to measure the value of goods and services produced by a nation. Since all goods and services produced are ultimately consumed, the index is calculated by totaling the expenditures made by individuals, corporations, and governments, (I + C + G). However, since goods produced for export are not consumed domestically, the value of exports is, therefore, added to GDP. If this adjustment were not made, the value of such production would go unmeasured. However, since expenditures on imports do not reflect domestic production, the value of imports is therefore subtracted from the calculation. The net result is GDP, or Gross Domestic Product.

So, contrary to Mr. Kudlow's claims, U.S. GDP was not reduced because Americans imported too much, it was reduced because we produced too little. By adding the value of imports back into GDP, what Kudlow, in fact, proposed measuring was something entirely different, perhaps a new indicator which more accurately might be called GDC, or Gross Domestic Consumption. While such a ridiculous concept may in fact seem appropriate given the current state of the highly imbalanced U.S. economy, it should not be confused with GDP, which at least attempts to measure the value of what a nation produces, not what it consumes.

I do agree with Mr. Kudlow on one point. This GDP report does in fact present a distorted measure of the real output of the U.S. economy. By failing to capture the true rate of inflation, the deflator results in GDP being considerably higher than would otherwise be the case were a more honest measure of inflation used. Also, as GDP includes goods and services which do not necessarily reflect higher standards of living, such as excessive legal or medical expenditures, increased outlays necessary to deter rising criminal or terrorist threats, or mere restoration of property damaged by natural disaster, it often exaggerates true economic growth.

In a world where government officials routinely change the way economic statistics are calculated, for the specific purpose of engineering a false sense of prosperity, Kudlow's suggestion seems par for the course. However, such a biased manipulation would be far more "appropriate" were Kudlow still working on the federal payroll, where such propaganda would at least be expected, rather than as a supposedly objective commentator, where unsuspecting viewers might confuse his economic cheerleading with legitimate insight, to the detriment of their financial well being.

Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment