cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Honored Advisor

Re: OptionEye.....July 15th

It is a slippery slope------- trying to explain the reasons for the many changes in the formula over the years.  

 

Fuel costs go up and the cost of living goes up.  Excluding it for its cause is nothing but manipulating the outcome of the formula.

No matter how flowered the explanation.  Over and over the formula has been distorted by redefining the "needs" for living.

Equally the rush to include the cost of communication technologies like cell phones and personal computers was driven more by the fact that their costs were coming down rather than actually being a "cost of living"-----

 

It is perceived that "'moving things in and out' to make things look good on paper" because there is just no other explanation for changing the formula.  Probably the only real mistake here is the rush to include expenditures that "raise" the standard of living as part of the "cost of living".

The fact that we ever change the content of the items making up the formula, destroys the ability to compare data from year to year, or decade to decade.  

The fact that our government officials use that data to define inflation(or lack there of)  over time and it's comparative changes, that is what is wrong.  We cannot use an ever changing group of items to make comparisons.

I find it heartening that there are folks out here who are at least willing to notice and ask why.  

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor

Re: OptionEye.....July 15th

A lot of information on Shadowstats website about the comparison of how the inflation numbers are calculated today vs. 1990 or 1980.

In a nutshell, using todays prices but 1990's formula inflation would be about two times what they are reporting.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

0 Kudos