Most economists and media members were downcast after the announcement that GDP grew only 1.6 percent for the third quarter, a number that seemingly confirmed gloomy assumptions about a slowing economy. Looked at more critically, however, the low number suggests a growing economy as well as an investment climate that is more oriented towards the kind of risk-taking necessary for greater economic activity in the future.

GDP measures the total dollar amounts of goods and services produced by people, businesses, property, and governments located in the United States. Government spending grew just 2 percent in the third quarter, and while this lower number weighed on nominal GDP gains, it’s a fallacy to assume that governments can tax the private sector and actually stimulate real growth by giving back what they’ve taken. Lower government spending, if it becomes a trend, will in the near-term subtract from GDP growth, but stimulate real growth over the long-term.

Though the dollar price of gold has risen of late, it is still down 13 percent from highs reached over the summer. Just as a falling dollar can stimulate GDP upward in ways that have nothing to do with growth, a rising dollar can subtract from GDP in the near-term. Inflationary pressures likely added to GDP gains in recent quarters, and while the dollar still needs to strengthen to get us out of inflationary territory, lower GDP numbers that result from a rising currency will likely be priced in a positive way by stocks and bonds.

Business-equipment spending grew 6 percent for the third quarter, rather than the 12 percent predicted by some economists. On the one hand, lower spending here could indicate greater caution on the part of U.S. businesses, but to some degree this is backwards thinking.

In the past, when the activities of old-economy U.S. companies such as GM were a major factor in our economic health, equipment spending probably was a worthwhile indicator. But as Forbes publisher Rich Karlgaard frequently reminds us, there’s a “cheap revolution” occurring among the innovative U.S. companies of tomorrow, and this revolution is impacting business-equipment spending. Karlgaard has cited Google’s use of “cheap computer servers” to create the world’s leading search engine, but with a $140 billion market cap, Google’s success suggests that U.S. companies will continue to do more with less, including less-expensive equipment.

While the housing sector’s demise is to some degree overrated, the downturn subtracted 1.1 percent from the growth rate of GDP last quarter. Yet rather than worrying about this, investors should be celebrating.

Since stocks are riskier than real estate, the returns on the former should by definition be higher than the latter. That real estate has outperformed stocks in recent years speaks to a great deal of risk aversion on the part of investors. The relative safety of property made it an attractive asset class, and any investment shift that liberates capital away from the dead-money sector that is housing towards investment in entrepreneurial activity is something that U.S. stock markets will cheer.

Indeed, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen over 7 percent in the last two months, which belies the conventional wisdom that a housing downturn would take the U.S. economy with it.

Net imports took 0.6 percent off the GDP figure, which only speaks to the questionable nature of the GDP number itself. Trade “deficits” subtract from GDP growth, but the balance of payments, like the balance sheets of companies, has to balance. If we’re importing more than we’re exporting, it’s only because investors from around the world continue to see the U.S. as the best place to park capital. The flipside of a trade deficit is a capital surplus, and so long as the latter lowers the domestic GDP figure, this is all to the good.

Strong GDP numbers in recent years have at times been misleading (and belied by subpar stock market returns), and the apparently weak third-quarter reading was equally deceptive. Lower government spending, a rising dollar, normalized property values, and a capital surplus all drove the nominal number down — but all are bullish in terms of real economic growth.

Conventional wisdom has once again been turned on its head.

– John Tamny is a writer in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at [email protected].