>"Does this mean the government or economists are "lying" (his word)?" The way I see it, it is in the government's interest to "lie" about the rate of inflatio

>"Does this mean the government or economists are "lying" (his word)?" The way I see it, it is in the government's interest to "lie" about the rate of inflation because it is advantageous for them to do so. Inflation is used as a tool in monetary and fiscal policy. "Inflating away" debt is a real strategy and policy. "Lie" is a loaded term, and perhaps this is a limitation of our vocabulary. Because inflation has no universal definition or universally accepted measure, economists and statisticians have leeway when they calculate what the rate of inflation is. For the sake of argument, let's assume there is a "real" inflation rate. Having an "official" number lower than the real number means the government saves money on expenses that are indexed against inflation, and they get to repay debt with inflated money. The converse of this is costly for the government, as an official number higher than the real number means they have to spend more than expected. Therefore, it makes sense to me that the government is incentivized to under-report, and that they can do so because of how complex the calculations are. Is it a lie to switch to a different model, one that happens to result in lower official numbers? That's up to your own interpretation.