On Friday, April 28, 2017, the workers at the Bureau of Economic Analysis released the advance estimate for the gross domestic product (GDP) of the first quarter of 2017 as take from the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA).

The welfare media of Congress, NPR, reported this:

The U.S. economy grew at just a 0.7 percent annual rate in the first quarter of this year, according to the latest report on the gross domestic product from the Commerce Department. That's below market expectations and indicates the economy grew at the slowest pace in three years.
This "advance" estimate showed the U.S. economy with its slowest growth since the first quarter of 2014. The GDP growth for the fourth quarter of 2016 was 2.1 percent.
Jeffry Bartash of, the subscription-free site of the Wall Street Journal, blamed lackluster new car sales as did many of the Establishment's media. Bartash wrote, "The steep drop-off stemmed from the smallest increase in consumer spending since the end of 2009, largely reflecting fewer sales at car dealers," (see: U.S. ECONOMY BOGS DOWN in FIRST QUARTER with SLOWEST GROWTH in 3 YEARS, GDP SHOWS).

Of course, all of that is fake news, mere fiction. Real GDP is bogus, a false concept. Heed my words:

It's impossible to deflate prices with past inflated prices. 

Yet, that is what the BEA stooges claim they can do and what every egghead Ph.D. teaches. 

I have written in greater detail why this is so in these works:

"Real" GDP is meaningless as well since to calculate it, government statisticians use an average ("the chain") of successive inflated current dollar GDPs to deflate the latest GDP. How is it possible to deflate something inflated by something else already inflated?

Because I calculate from an invariant standard that conforms to scientific knowledge about commercial banking, my measures are accurate and reflect commercial reality. No one else on earth can make this claim. My chart is the only accurate chart on US GDP produced by anyone, the earth over, as are all my GDP charts and every other chart I produce. 

So let's have a look at reality:

In the BEA / Academia / Fake News world, "real" GDP never stops growing upward. Yet, if this were so, why can many between the ages 40 and 80 tell you that what they remember about the times corresponds to my True Dollar™ GDP charts and never to the the BEA / Academia / Fake News world, "real" GDP chart?

On Wednesday, CNN published a work titled This Is the Best News Donald Trump Has Had in a While, which which featured this chart.

Now, as you can see, satisfaction with the economy roughly corresponds to my True Dollars™ GDP rather than "real" GDP of the BEA / Academia / Fake News world.

At Q4, 1993, GDP in True Dollars stood at interim low of $1,429.50 billion. By Q4, 2000, True Dollars GDP had grown 51.6% to $2,167.32 billion. Is it any wonder then that around 50% would have reported satisfaction in 1993 yet by 2000, at least eight in ten claimed to be satisfied with the economy?

Likewise, Q2 2003 GDP in True Dollars stood at $2037.42 billion having shrank -6.0% since Q4 2000. Then, only about half claimed to be satisfied with the economy. By Q4 2007, when peak True Dollars GDP happened, True Dollars GDP had grown 18.6%. Yet, those claiming to be satisfied with the economy had fallen to about a third.

In the BEA / Academia / Fake News world, "real" GDP, has grown 10.1% in the last five years alone. Yet, five years ago, there was near record food stamps collection by Americans and at a level that had become twice the long run average before the 2008 crash.

Yet, as measured by True Dollars, the economy as measured by GDP continues to shrink.

Those who lived in adulthood from the Kennedy years through the Carter years would tell that though the economy had ups and downs, the downs never seemed all that down. In general, the lives of Americans were fairly good from 1960 through 1980, in spite of a couple of OPEC oil shocks. The middle class was vibrant during these years.

Under honest reflection, those who lived in adulthood during the Reagan years would tell you that living was tough between 1981 and 1982, especially with the dizzying interest rates Americans faced. They would tell you how the economy started to come together around Reagan's re-election but by the late 1980s, the economy had head south. Likewise, those who lived during Bush, Sr., would tell you about a languishing economy for most of his one-term.

Those who lived during the Clinton years would tell you about good times and boom times. Times were so good under Clinton that most would have forgotten about the rather slow start during Clinton's first two years, years that nearly cost him his re-election.

The Bush, Jr., years brought house flipping and living off of HELOCs after 9/11. Those were the credit mania years. Americans needed a recession after the Clinton Good Times, but owing to 9/11, Fed Res Wizard of Oz Greenspan thought Americans needed a realty bubble instead.

During the Obama years (Q1 2009 to Q4 2016), the economy shrank -37.9%, from T$1,983.08 billion to T$1,273.10. The shrinkage was inevitable after the greatest credit bubble in the history of mankind, the Greenspan-Bernanke Great Inflation, burst. However, the rather clueless Obama and his inept team pursued one reckless policy act after another.

Here is the True Dollar GDP chart by per capita prime working age (20-54). I have no doubts that on average, men who were in their prime during Q4 1981, Q4 2000 or Q4 2007 would say those were good times and that men were in their prime during Q2 1987 or Q1 1994 would say those were in bad times.

If it were not for #FakeNews and the pernicious effects of peer pressure, those who were in their prime in Q4 2016 would say that Q4 2016 were bad times along with the entire Obama presidency.