[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think it is that they recently, after 5 decades, decided to change the way they calculate inflation? And is it supposed to be merely coincidence that the new way produces a number 80% lower than the old method, yet is magically numerically close to the old numbers produced by the old method, giving the appearance to the casual observer of continuity in the statistic?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know, you tell me. You are asserting that the change was made to mask "real" inflation. Your only back up for this is an a priori assumption that governments always act in an underhanded way. Of course, when you
start with this assumption then interpret a government action from that point of view, then (surprise!) you conclude that they're acting in an underhanded way. I am asking if you've actually critically analyzed the old CPI methodology, the new CPI methodology, and the government's explanations for the change. If you have, I'd love to hear your
explanation on how the change in methodology is a sham and that you have a better way to measure "real" inflation. Do you have facts and analysis or just assertions?
[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.mises.org/story/2302
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the link Borodog.
Although I find mises.org to be a great resource, this article still suffers from the basic problem of assuming in advance that governments are bad and then concluding that governments are bad. Consider the tone of the article:
"My point is that given the incentives facing government officials, we should be reluctant to put any credence in government statistics."
"The choice of basket items is arbitrary. There is no way to determine which basket accurately measures inflation. Since government officials get to pick the basket, it's safe to assume that they would choose a basket that furthers their interests."
While the article does a good job of pointing out the
risk associated with believing government statistics, it does not make a case that any other measure of inflation is better, or that the lower "core" inflation is worse than the prior estimate. It just assumes that it is worse because, as we all know, governments are bad and so whatever they report is wrong. Hardly convincing.