GDP = ($9.8T in 2000, $13.42T in 2006 nominal dollars....that looks like 37% growth, but much of it is just inflated dollars. BEA reports that in 2000 dollars the 2006 GDP is actually $11.3T a more reasonable 15% increase in light of the recession in 2001. But that assumes that the government provided GDP deflator is a correct measure of inflation.) Lets look at the raw numbers to see if the government "fudge factors" seem reasonable.

First the money supply. Just how much money is there?

C    = Currency ($328B in 2000, $750B in 2006)
M1 = C + checkable deposits (instantly available) (1.1T in 2000, 1.4T in 2006)
M2 = M1 + savings + small delay time deposits (4.0T in 2000, 6.7T in 2006....67% growth)
MZM = money with zero maturity = M2 - time deposits + all money market funds
M3 = M2 + large delay time deposits + term repurchase agreements (6.6T in 2000, 10.2T in 2006....54% growth)
L    = M3 + savings bonds + treasury securities + liquid assets

So it looks like the money supply grew by 54% in this seven year time frame.

Inflation was reported at 23% for the same seven year period and real GDP growth was 15%. That is only 15% real growth of the economy vs 31% real growth of the money supply.

That just doesn't add up. There is hidden inflation. Could 3-5% higher inflation than CPI be hiding somewhere in the reporting? (What do you want to bet that most of it is hidden in the run up of housing costs disguised by low interest rates.)