I don't see the official (governmental) statistics of the U.S. as being intentionally misleading. Statistics are by their nature, as any statistician will readily relate, an attempt at a representation of parts of reality that are amenable to being quantified to some extent. They are not meant to be taken to be that reality.

I do agree that the existing economic system has a fundamental problem. I reject the idea that the way to solve that problem is through better knowledge of its outcomes.

We know those outcomes all too well. We know this system is inherently unstable. We know unemployment exists. We know poverty exists. We know taxation exists. We know public debt exists. We know environmental sustainability is an issue.

The best way to approach a solution is to look at the existing economic system as a system. As a system, as related in this article if Stark’s, the existing economy's single most important component is money. Like fuel for a fossil-fired engine, money is necessary for it to function. It is also necessary, as income, for people to acquire the goods and services they need for survival, much less any more.

More technically, as a system this economy is unstable because all of the variables in it are interdependent: each influences and is influenced in turn by all others. That is definitive of a chaotic system, one incapable of achieving a stable equilibrium. (There are other ways of thinking about chaotic systems, but that is sufficient for analysis of the existing economic system.)

My proposed solution is to make money an exogenous variable. That means the amount of money being supplied for the economy would not be influenced by any other economic variable. In my paradigm the amount of money (as currency) would be determined by demographics. The way I propose doing that would make the existing economy stably self-regulating with no unemployment or poverty. The same process could be used to fund all government, from central to local, without taxes or public debt. Sustainability would be increased because total output would be governed, passively but effectively, by demographics--again, with no unemployment or poverty at any level of output.

All of that would be accomplished without imposing any cost on employers, without redistributing anything, without imposing any limit on income/wealth, without any additional environmental regulations (though it does not of itself prohibit them, either), and without requiring people to act any particular way. Most generally, it can be thought of as a kind of permanent 'quantitative easing', but with built-in protections against inflation. (The linked article is a brief ("4 min read") introduction to the idea, with links to more about it, all here in Medium, but none of it behind the paywall.)