3 ms·

This is a pretty solid theory to be honest. On top of that the goalposts constantly keep moving. Here is what CPI would look like today without all the changes

This is a pretty solid theory to be honest. On top of that the goalposts constantly keep moving. Here is what CPI would look like today without all the changes to the formula: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

gruez 5y ago
>Here is what CPI would look like today without all the changes to the formula ...which they undid, by adding a constant number? >Responding to prior criticisms made by economist James Hamilton, John Williams explained in a private phone call that Shadowstats does not actually recalculate BLS data, rather, the Shadowstats CPI merely adds a constant to the officially reported numbers.[25] >I’m not going back and recalculating the CPI. All I’m doing is going back to the government’s estimates of what the effect would be and using that as an add factor to the reported statistics.
- luciusdomitius 5y ago
  I don't see how a random person claiming something was shared with them in a phone call with another person, who probably has neither respect nor desire to talk to them is a geniune information. On top of that the person in question does not appear that trustworthy in my eyes. There is a serious possibility that he might be correct, but I would certainly not take it as established. On top of that, they have their methodology described on their website[1] and the charts match that. Here is another random quote from Wikipedia[2]: "Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. Because it can be edited by anyone at any time, any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong" 1. http://www.shadowstats.com/article/no-438-public-comment-on-inflation-measurement http://www.shadowstats.com/article/no-438-public-comment-on-... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_r...
  - gruez 5y ago
    >I don't see how a random person claiming something was shared with them in a phone call with another person, who probably has neither respect nor desire to talk to them is a geniune information. On top of that the person in question does not appear that trustworthy in my eyes. There is a serious possibility that he might be correct, but I would certainly not take it as established. The "random person" is a Professor of Economics at the University of California, San Diego. The "another person" is the owner of the site. >On top of that, they have their methodology described on their website[1] and the charts match that. So are you conceding that it's a constant number being added or not? It sure looks that way according to one of the tables in the page you linked. The "Cumulative Annual Inflation Shortfall" has been ~5.1% for more than a decade. Eyeballing the more recent figures (raw figures are paywalled) seems to confirm this as well.
    - luciusdomitius 5y ago
      Paul Krugman is also a professor of economics and AOC is a graduate. Let's leave it at that. Beside, after having seen the table you should know very well that you're wrong and have some decency.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        You should review the site guidelines about giving the best possible interpretation to others' posts, and avoiding personal attacks. You're out of line here.
anotherman554 5y ago
No, that's a site run by someone who publishes misinformation that appeals to people due to emotional reasoning.
- luciusdomitius 5y ago
  Could you please expand on that? This is a very strong claim with literally zero arguments.
  - anotherman554 5y ago
    (I edited this post to be less confrontational). Sorry, for an argument you can read this forum post: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1025266#p1025266 https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1025266#p10...
    - luciusdomitius 5y ago
      This is incorrect. I am this person and the argument I made by saying "the goalposts are moving" is that the many changes to the calculation methodology are consistently pushing the numbers down. I will also give a very strong example - 7 years ago ECB totally dropped housing costs from their inflation calculations[1]. How is this realistic? I am not reading a phpBB called bogleheads.com, could you please provide some actual arguments to your claim? 1. https://www.reuters.com/business/euro-zone-housing-cost-may-be-adding-more-inflation-than-thought-holzmann-2021-11-05/#:~:text=ECB%20staff%20estimates%20that%20an,0.2%2D0.3%20percentage%20points%20higher https://www.reuters.com/business/euro-zone-housing-cost-may-....
      - anotherman554 5y ago
        I apologize for my tone and edited my post. I'm not going to infringe the copyright of the person at the link by pasting it here. I'm also not going to paraphrase it because I wouldn't be able to add anything by doing so. It's a few paragraphs long, if you want to learn more I invite you to read it. If your argument is that the calculation of CPI has changed, that is not controversial. If it is the information on Shadowstats about how it has changed is real, you may want to read the link I provided.

gruez 5y ago

>Here is what CPI would look like today without all the changes to the formula ...which they undid, by adding a constant number? >Responding to prior criticisms made by economist James Hamilton, John Williams explained in a private phone call that Shadowstats does not actually recalculate BLS data, rather, the Shadowstats CPI merely adds a constant to the officially reported numbers.[25] >I’m not going back and recalculating the CPI. All I’m doing is going back to the government’s estimates of what the effect would be and using that as an add factor to the reported statistics.

luciusdomitius 5y ago
I don't see how a random person claiming something was shared with them in a phone call with another person, who probably has neither respect nor desire to talk to them is a geniune information. On top of that the person in question does not appear that trustworthy in my eyes. There is a serious possibility that he might be correct, but I would certainly not take it as established. On top of that, they have their methodology described on their website[1] and the charts match that. Here is another random quote from Wikipedia[2]: "Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. Because it can be edited by anyone at any time, any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong" 1. http://www.shadowstats.com/article/no-438-public-comment-on-inflation-measurement http://www.shadowstats.com/article/no-438-public-comment-on-... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_r...
- gruez 5y ago
  >I don't see how a random person claiming something was shared with them in a phone call with another person, who probably has neither respect nor desire to talk to them is a geniune information. On top of that the person in question does not appear that trustworthy in my eyes. There is a serious possibility that he might be correct, but I would certainly not take it as established. The "random person" is a Professor of Economics at the University of California, San Diego. The "another person" is the owner of the site. >On top of that, they have their methodology described on their website[1] and the charts match that. So are you conceding that it's a constant number being added or not? It sure looks that way according to one of the tables in the page you linked. The "Cumulative Annual Inflation Shortfall" has been ~5.1% for more than a decade. Eyeballing the more recent figures (raw figures are paywalled) seems to confirm this as well.
  - luciusdomitius 5y ago
    Paul Krugman is also a professor of economics and AOC is a graduate. Let's leave it at that. Beside, after having seen the table you should know very well that you're wrong and have some decency.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      You should review the site guidelines about giving the best possible interpretation to others' posts, and avoiding personal attacks. You're out of line here.

anotherman554 5y ago

No, that's a site run by someone who publishes misinformation that appeals to people due to emotional reasoning.

luciusdomitius 5y ago
Could you please expand on that? This is a very strong claim with literally zero arguments.
- anotherman554 5y ago
  (I edited this post to be less confrontational). Sorry, for an argument you can read this forum post: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1025266#p1025266 https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1025266#p10...
  - luciusdomitius 5y ago
    This is incorrect. I am this person and the argument I made by saying "the goalposts are moving" is that the many changes to the calculation methodology are consistently pushing the numbers down. I will also give a very strong example - 7 years ago ECB totally dropped housing costs from their inflation calculations[1]. How is this realistic? I am not reading a phpBB called bogleheads.com, could you please provide some actual arguments to your claim? 1. https://www.reuters.com/business/euro-zone-housing-cost-may-be-adding-more-inflation-than-thought-holzmann-2021-11-05/#:~:text=ECB%20staff%20estimates%20that%20an,0.2%2D0.3%20percentage%20points%20higher https://www.reuters.com/business/euro-zone-housing-cost-may-....
    - anotherman554 5y ago
      I apologize for my tone and edited my post. I'm not going to infringe the copyright of the person at the link by pasting it here. I'm also not going to paraphrase it because I wouldn't be able to add anything by doing so. It's a few paragraphs long, if you want to learn more I invite you to read it. If your argument is that the calculation of CPI has changed, that is not controversial. If it is the information on Shadowstats about how it has changed is real, you may want to read the link I provided.