4 ms·

Inflation is calculated via the Current Consumer Price collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. if he has a problem with the methodology they use, he should

by dvt 7y ago

Inflation is calculated via the Current Consumer Price collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. if he has a problem with the methodology they use, he should talk about that, but as far as (4) is concerned: > 4/ For example, our inflation-adjusted data say car prices have not increased since the mid-1990s. Obviously, that's not remotely true. What economists are saying is that cars have gotten better so the higher sticker price doesn't reflect inflation, it reflects higher quality. Wait, what's not remotely true? That inflation also affects car prices? Is he being serious here? At the very least, can we agree that prices are comparable?

crooked-v 7y ago
The not-remotely-true part is that, because inflation indexes are an average, they are way off when applied to specific categories of goods and services.
henvic 7y ago
Real inflation is really calculated by the amount of currency that is created with no backing (fiat money). The use of a basket of products to calculate something that the government calls inflation (but isn't), doesn't reflect the true lost value of money and only benefits the people who get the inflation money first. If you hold on to your money, you are being basically piled. This is no service for society, but to policymakers and to business dealing with the state.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  No. You are wrong. That is not the definition of "real" inflation. Here's an economy in, say, 1990. It has X amount of money. Here's "the same" economy in 2020, except it has 20% more people, and 20% more produced per worker per year, so it produces 44% more output than it did in 1990. (All numbers made up on the spot for illustration purposes. Your economic growth may vary.) When I say "44% more output", I don't mean measured by dollars; I mean actual amount of stuff produced - cars and steel and food and movies. Now, what should the money supply be in 2020? X? 1.2 X (to account for population growth)? 1.44 X (to account for amount of stuff being produced)? If the money supply is only X (no inflation, by your definition), then things that cost $1 in 1990 would cost $0.69 in 2020. That's... not what most of us consider to be "zero inflation". That's deflation. The normal definition of zero inflation is that the cost of things remains constant, not that the total amount of money remains constant. That's reasonable because most of us get paid in a fixed number of dollars, not in a fixed fraction of the money supply.
  - henvic 7y ago
    No. There are different views about what inflation is, and certainly, monetary inflation is a way more useful measure than price inflation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_inflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_inflation
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      What is your basis for saying "way more useful"? So far, I've got an argument why price inflation is way more useful, and you've got a bare claim. Even the article you linked says "However, there is a general consensus on the importance and responsibility of central banks and monetary authorities in setting public expectations of price inflation and in trying to control it." That is, economists recognize the importance and value of price inflation as a measure, while they are divided on how to consider monetary inflation.
      - henvic 7y ago
        My basis? Quite obvious: if you are okay with inflation, this means that people who saves money end up worst off by subsidizing people who consume. This impacts society a lot, and especially, the poorest people without means that justify investing in the market (be it buying shares in companies, buying gold, or just having something in the bank better than a horrible savings account).
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        I didn't ask what your basis was for opposing inflation. I asked what your basis was for saying that monetary inflation was the "real" inflation, as opposed to price inflation. You didn't answer that. Instead, you gave an answer that says that inflation is bad, which I agree with. But the negative effects you describe are at least as much the symptoms of price inflation as they are of monetary inflation. I've given you a couple of chances to make a case that monetary inflation is the one that matters, and you have provided exactly zero (other than the bare claim that it was so). So I'm going to stick with my position, which is that your claim is wrong.
o_nate 7y ago
Actually it's the BLS that says inflation has not affected car prices. And, yes, he is questioning their methodology.
- pas 7y ago
  Inflation measurement is a hard problem. Some say it's over-estimated: https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2019/08/inflation-and-history.html https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2019/08/inflation-and-his... (More on quality adjustments: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/07/25/measuring-inflation-whats-changed-over-the-past-20-years-what-hasnt/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/07/25/measuring... )
- NovemberWhiskey 7y ago
  Well, it's interesting. If you wanted to buy a BMW with 250hp in 1996 that would run 0-60 in about 5.5s and seat four adults, you were going to be buying an M3 for about $40,000. If you want to do the same thing in 2020, you're going to buy a 330i for almost the exact same money only with a bunch more safety tech, 50% better fuel economy, more luggage space, more passenger space ...
bryanlarsen 7y ago
(Using made up numbers for easy math) The economists are saying that due to additional features/horsepower/fuel economy etc in the base models we're getting the equivalent of 1.5 cars for 27K in 2018 vs getting 1 car for 18K in 1996, so that both 1996 and 2018 dollars buy equivalent amounts of car. OTOH a $18K annual rent in 1996 is now $36K. So in a basket that's half car half rent, the economists calculations say that $18K car and $18K rent in 1996 is equivalent to 18K car + 36K rent in 2018 for 50% inflation. The OP is saying that's bullshit. The car may be 50% better, but you can't buy part of a car. So the equivalent of $18K + $18K in 1996 is now $27K + $36K for 75% inflation.
- NovemberWhiskey 7y ago
  It's hard to do with minivans, because the segment is pretty small. But (assuming a 1996->2019 comparison) if you're looking at sedans, you can often go 'down market' for something that's objectively superior by almost every metric for very similar money. For example, a mid-model Ford Taurus from 1996 (say $19K) is a much worse car than the base-model VW Jetta from 2020 that costs the same money. Slower, worse gas mileage, vastly inferior technology, safety equipment and so on. Also let's not forget a good rate on a car loan in 1996 was 9%.
  - wolco 7y ago
    But you could fix it yourself, gas was cheaper and a taurus is a bigger different car compared to a jetta.
    - fgonzag 7y ago
      A 2000s taurus and a 2020 Jetta are about the same size. Cars have gotten a lot larger.

by dvt 7y ago

crooked-v 7y ago

The not-remotely-true part is that, because inflation indexes are an average, they are way off when applied to specific categories of goods and services.

henvic 7y ago

Real inflation is really calculated by the amount of currency that is created with no backing (fiat money). The use of a basket of products to calculate something that the government calls inflation (but isn't), doesn't reflect the true lost value of money and only benefits the people who get the inflation money first. If you hold on to your money, you are being basically piled. This is no service for society, but to policymakers and to business dealing with the state.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
No. You are wrong. That is not the definition of "real" inflation. Here's an economy in, say, 1990. It has X amount of money. Here's "the same" economy in 2020, except it has 20% more people, and 20% more produced per worker per year, so it produces 44% more output than it did in 1990. (All numbers made up on the spot for illustration purposes. Your economic growth may vary.) When I say "44% more output", I don't mean measured by dollars; I mean actual amount of stuff produced - cars and steel and food and movies. Now, what should the money supply be in 2020? X? 1.2 X (to account for population growth)? 1.44 X (to account for amount of stuff being produced)? If the money supply is only X (no inflation, by your definition), then things that cost $1 in 1990 would cost $0.69 in 2020. That's... not what most of us consider to be "zero inflation". That's deflation. The normal definition of zero inflation is that the cost of things remains constant, not that the total amount of money remains constant. That's reasonable because most of us get paid in a fixed number of dollars, not in a fixed fraction of the money supply.
- henvic 7y ago
  No. There are different views about what inflation is, and certainly, monetary inflation is a way more useful measure than price inflation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_inflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_inflation
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    What is your basis for saying "way more useful"? So far, I've got an argument why price inflation is way more useful, and you've got a bare claim. Even the article you linked says "However, there is a general consensus on the importance and responsibility of central banks and monetary authorities in setting public expectations of price inflation and in trying to control it." That is, economists recognize the importance and value of price inflation as a measure, while they are divided on how to consider monetary inflation.
    - henvic 7y ago
      My basis? Quite obvious: if you are okay with inflation, this means that people who saves money end up worst off by subsidizing people who consume. This impacts society a lot, and especially, the poorest people without means that justify investing in the market (be it buying shares in companies, buying gold, or just having something in the bank better than a horrible savings account).
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        I didn't ask what your basis was for opposing inflation. I asked what your basis was for saying that monetary inflation was the "real" inflation, as opposed to price inflation. You didn't answer that. Instead, you gave an answer that says that inflation is bad, which I agree with. But the negative effects you describe are at least as much the symptoms of price inflation as they are of monetary inflation. I've given you a couple of chances to make a case that monetary inflation is the one that matters, and you have provided exactly zero (other than the bare claim that it was so). So I'm going to stick with my position, which is that your claim is wrong.

o_nate 7y ago

Actually it's the BLS that says inflation has not affected car prices. And, yes, he is questioning their methodology.

pas 7y ago
Inflation measurement is a hard problem. Some say it's over-estimated: https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2019/08/inflation-and-history.html https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2019/08/inflation-and-his... (More on quality adjustments: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/07/25/measuring-inflation-whats-changed-over-the-past-20-years-what-hasnt/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/07/25/measuring... )
NovemberWhiskey 7y ago
Well, it's interesting. If you wanted to buy a BMW with 250hp in 1996 that would run 0-60 in about 5.5s and seat four adults, you were going to be buying an M3 for about $40,000. If you want to do the same thing in 2020, you're going to buy a 330i for almost the exact same money only with a bunch more safety tech, 50% better fuel economy, more luggage space, more passenger space ...

bryanlarsen 7y ago

(Using made up numbers for easy math) The economists are saying that due to additional features/horsepower/fuel economy etc in the base models we're getting the equivalent of 1.5 cars for 27K in 2018 vs getting 1 car for 18K in 1996, so that both 1996 and 2018 dollars buy equivalent amounts of car. OTOH a $18K annual rent in 1996 is now $36K. So in a basket that's half car half rent, the economists calculations say that $18K car and $18K rent in 1996 is equivalent to 18K car + 36K rent in 2018 for 50% inflation. The OP is saying that's bullshit. The car may be 50% better, but you can't buy part of a car. So the equivalent of $18K + $18K in 1996 is now $27K + $36K for 75% inflation.

NovemberWhiskey 7y ago
It's hard to do with minivans, because the segment is pretty small. But (assuming a 1996->2019 comparison) if you're looking at sedans, you can often go 'down market' for something that's objectively superior by almost every metric for very similar money. For example, a mid-model Ford Taurus from 1996 (say $19K) is a much worse car than the base-model VW Jetta from 2020 that costs the same money. Slower, worse gas mileage, vastly inferior technology, safety equipment and so on. Also let's not forget a good rate on a car loan in 1996 was 9%.
- wolco 7y ago
  But you could fix it yourself, gas was cheaper and a taurus is a bigger different car compared to a jetta.
  - fgonzag 7y ago
    A 2000s taurus and a 2020 Jetta are about the same size. Cars have gotten a lot larger.