Am I missing something? It seems like he's saying, "Sure, the most relevant numbers happen to agree with all the experts, but I'm pretty sure both are wrong, because this place looks pretty swell to me. And I'm so sad that nobody takes me seriously that I'll pay $5k just to get a higher profile."
The only evidence he really pushes is the trade balance, but that seems unsurprising to my amateur eyes: if domestic demand is low, then wouldn't imports drop and export industries do better (due to cheaper labor, cheaper materials, cheaper money)?
He's saying that the standard methods of calculating economic statistics don't capture consumer surplus very well.
I've made similar arguments in the past claiming that US growth is also understated. According to official statistics, for example, US real wages have stagnated since the 70's. Yet would anyone be willing to trade in their 2010 basket of consumer goods for a 1970's basket of consumer goods? If real wages truly did not go up, then most people should be indifferent.
The only evidence he really pushes is the trade balance, but that seems unsurprising to my amateur eyes: if domestic demand is low, then wouldn't imports drop and export industries do better (due to cheaper labor, cheaper materials, cheaper money)?