The economy didn’t miss. The experts did 35%

By Dan Varroney39%

8/3/2026, 6:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Indoctrination, and Politically Right Leaning Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 23.5% saturation with 189 hits. Analysis detected 982 faulty-reasoning hits from 803 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.9% and a BS Rank of 35% (17,390 of 26,659 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 65.20% of the article peer group.

America has developed a strange economic habit. 
Every sign of weakness becomes a verdict, while every sign of strength becomes a footnote. 
That happened again when second-quarter economic growth came in below expectations and was widely reported as a big miss. 
But the economy did not miss. 
The forecast did. 
The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported in its advance estimate that real gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of 1.5% during the second quarter. 
That estimate will be revised as more complete data become available. 
Beneath the headline, consumer spending increased at a 3.2% rate, private domestic demand grew 3.9%, and business investment in equipment surged 15.2%. 
Those figures reveal two forces required for durable growth beginning to reinforce one another. 
Consumers were generating demand today, while businesses were building the productive capacity needed to support growth tomorrow. 
GDP remains an essential measure of output, but a quarterly headline is not a complete diagnosis of economic direction. 
Trade flows, inventories, and government spending can move the headline substantially. 
Economic direction also depends on what consumers and businesses are doing beneath the aggregate number. 
Imports and lower government spending restrained second-quarter GDP. 
Yet imports are not automatically evidence of weakness. 
Businesses purchased telecommunications equipment, semiconductors, and industrial machinery that can strengthen America’s productive capacity. 
The strength of private demand matters even more. 
Consumer spending represents nearly 70% of the American economy. 
When consumers have greater financial capacity and continue participating, their choices support businesses, workers, and communities nationwide. 
Seasonally adjusted median weekly earnings for full-time workers rose to $1,258 from $1,233 in the first quarter. 
By April 10, the IRS had issued more than $265 billion in refunds, 16% more than at the comparable point last year. 
The average refund increased 11.2% to $3,397. 
Disposable personal income also increased in May and June. 
Those gains do not mean every household feels prosperous. 
Housing remains unaffordable in too many communities. 
Inflation continues to strain family budgets, and elevated energy prices are absorbing money consumers could otherwise spend or save. 
Even with those pressures, many consumers had more money available. 
Higher costs absorbed part of their gains, but did not erase them. 
The Energy Information Administration forecasts that gasoline prices will decline as the year progresses. 
If that forecast holds, households could have greater freedom to decide where their money goes. 
When people earn more and keep more, their decisions ripple through the economy. 
They return to local restaurants, replace postponed purchases, invest in their homes, and pay for services their families need. 
One household’s greater capacity becomes another business’s revenue, another worker’s paycheck, and another entrepreneur’s reason to expand. 
Consumer spending tells us the economy has momentum. 
Business investment tells us that momentum may have staying power. 
The 15.2% increase in equipment investment means businesses were doing more than responding to present demand. 
They were investing in machinery, technology , transportation systems, and information-processing capabilities that can help workers and companies produce more in the future. 
That combination can generate a powerful growth cycle. 
Stronger demand encourages businesses to invest. 
New equipment enables greater production. 
Higher productivity creates room for rising wages, lower costs, stronger profits, and additional investment. 
As the cycle broadens, more households, small businesses, industries, and communities can participate. 
This is the story obscured by the GDP headline. 
Consumers had greater capacity to support present growth, while businesses were adding productive capacity for the future. 
The economy’s demand and production engines were strengthening together. 
Confidence does not always appear first in a survey or forecast. 
Sometimes it appears in the decisions people and businesses make when they are willing to spend, invest, innovate, and build. 
Policymakers must protect and broaden this progress by preserving tax certainty, making investment incentives permanent, further increasing domestic energy production, removing barriers to housing construction, and aligning worker skills with growing industries. 
Together, those conditions can turn today’s momentum into durable growth. 
Washington’s role is not to manufacture confidence through another round of federal spending. 
It is to protect the conditions that allow consumers and businesses to earn, keep, invest, and build. 
MILLIONAIRES GOT 3%, AND WORKING FAMILIES GOT 27%. 
THE LEFT’S TAX NARRATIVE IS DEAD 
America should confront its economic weaknesses honestly. 
But economic honesty cuts both ways. 
It requires recognizing strength as clearly as weakness and refusing to turn every setback into a verdict and every advance into a footnote. 
The second-quarter economy did not miss. 
Consumers expanded demand. 
Businesses expanded productive capacity. 
Together, they strengthened the foundations for future growth. 
That is not a reason to declare victory. 
It is a reason to take the win, build on it, and stop underestimating America’s capacity to grow. 
Dan Varroney is an economic growth strategist, founder and CEO of Potomac Core, and author of Rethinking Economic Growth. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.9%Dan Varroney: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 4.9%Confirmation Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Dan Varroney: 1.3%Washington Examiner: 3.0%Availability Heuristic5.2%This article: 3.7%Dan Varroney: 0.9%Washington Examiner: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic3.7%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Dan Varroney: 2.1%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias5.0%This article: 6.8%Dan Varroney: 4.2%Washington Examiner: 8.0%Framing Effect6.8%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.3%Dan Varroney: 9.7%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Optimism Bias12.3%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Dan Varroney: 2.8%Washington Examiner: 8.8%Negativity Bias5.1%This article: 1.6%Dan Varroney: 1.1%Washington Examiner: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias1.6%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 2.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%Dan Varroney: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Halo Effect1.1%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.4%Dan Varroney: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Recency Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.9%Dan Varroney: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.7%Dan Varroney: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Straw Man0.7%This article: 0.4%Dan Varroney: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 3.7%Appeal to Authority0.4%This article: 3.5%Dan Varroney: 1.3%Washington Examiner: 2.7%False Dilemma3.5%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.2%Dan Varroney: 1.7%Washington Examiner: 8.0%Hasty Generalization3.2%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.0%Dan Varroney: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Bandwagon3.0%This article: 1.0%Dan Varroney: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion1.0%This article: 1.7%Dan Varroney: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Begging the Question1.7%This article: 23.5%Dan Varroney: 5.9%Washington Examiner: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)23.5%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 5.5%Dan Varroney: 1.4%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Composition/Division5.5%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.7%Dan Varroney: 1.2%Washington Examiner: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.7%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.4%Dan Varroney: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 2.0%Unattributed Quote1.4%This article: 1.0%Dan Varroney: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection1.0%This article: 5.9%Dan Varroney: 6.3%Washington Examiner: 10.6%Biased Writer Voice5.9%This article: 11.2%Dan Varroney: 7.4%Washington Examiner: 3.3%Indoctrination11.2%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Dan Varroney: 5.5%Washington Examiner: 4.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

803 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker2.4%attributed speech784writer words
Selected voice

Dan Varroney

0%flagged-word coverage
19 attributed words100% of attributed speech70% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Indoctrination-11.5 ptsWriter: 11.5%Dan Varroney: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -8.7 ptsWriter: 8.7%Dan Varroney: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.0 ptsWriter: 6.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-1.4 ptsWriter: 1.4%Dan Varroney: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.0 ptsWriter: 1.0%Dan Varroney: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.