3 ms·

> No, "we" did not pick it, someone else picked it "on our behalf" With a gun to your back, eh? We can use whatever source of inflation we want. Nobody is sele

> No, "we" did not pick it, someone else picked it "on our behalf" With a gun to your back, eh? We can use whatever source of inflation we want. Nobody is selecting for us. But, as it happens, CPI is the one we've chosen as the default. If we change our minds, we don't have to default to it forevermore. It's up to us. > Are you blaming others for the way you think? I don't think. You do enough of that for all of us. No need for me to duplicate efforts. I relay the state of the world to the thinkers so they don't have to. The efficiency of specialization! > Good enough to satisfy people that want to be satisfied, but not good enough to satisfy all. Which, again, is why we have many sources of inflation. Pick a different one if need be. Indeed, there is good reason why there is more than one. And if inflation isn't the right tool for the job, which is probably the case, use a different economic measure. There are many tools in the toolbox. You don't have to measure distance with temperature. Let's be real, the only reason we talk about inflation at all is because it is shares a relationship with interest rates. Interest rates are what people actually care about here. As principal value declines with inflation that makes borrowing more attractive, thus interest rates need to compensate, thus a change in inflation rate serves as a useful leading indicator of interest rate movement. If it weren't for that, it is doubtful that anyone, economists and statisticians aside, would even know that inflation is a used measure. Beyond interest rates, it doesn't mean much to Average Joe. Average Joe is more worried about things like cost of living. Inflation isn't meant to be useful to Average Joe, though, it is for economists who need to look at much more than Average Joe. Average Joe is free to use it if we wants, but it's funny when he starts complaining that it doesn't work right when misapplied.

mistermann 2y ago
> We can use whatever source of inflation we want. Nobody is selecting for us. But, as it happens, CPI is the one we've chosen as the default. If we change our minds, we don't have to default to it forevermore. It's up to us. a) Who, specifically, is "we" in this context? b) What is your information source for these facts? > Beyond interest rates, it doesn't mean much to Average Joe. What is your information source for the meaning contained within the minds of the average Joe? Please be specific, please at least try to speak truthfully.
- mistermann 2y ago
  How to forcefully remote-terminate the Interest service in a Human 101.
tsimionescu 2y ago
People discuss inflation because everyone from the Economist to Yellen to the President brings up inflation numbers whenever people start feeling their COL increase, or when people demand better state services etc. It is one of the most widely publicized economic indicators, along with GDP, unemployment rate, and foreign debt. But in many of these discussions, it is deliberately being presented as equivalent to COL, which is never addressed separately. So, in reality, for the vast majority of people who learn about these numbers from the media, not economics degrees, "inflation" actually refers to COL, except that the numbers they are given are the ones for what economists call inflation. Given that a word is defined by what the majority of the people using it mean by it, I think inflation in common English is closer in meaning to COL than to the technical economics term inflation. Edit: typos
- mistermann 2y ago
  How to manufacture reality (define and coordinate human beliefs) 101. It is amazing how effective and resilient these techniques are, if one cannot see the layers within layers. Well, it's still amazing even then.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > it is deliberately being presented as equivalent to COL It kind of is. That's what makes it confusing, I suppose. If you buy a house of equal value as compared to 60 years ago, then the amount in dollars you will pay, when adjusted for inflation, will be equivalent to 60 years ago (within some margin of error; inflation is impossible to calculate perfectly). If we live exactly like they did in 1960, then inflation and the change in cost of living are the same thing. But, people expect more today. As mentioned in several comments up-thread, take housing: They are bigger, safer, more energy efficient, more attractive, more comfortable, etc. Alongside that, the married family unit is quickly dying – people are more likely to be single nowadays, so we place more value on being able to live alone. Land is more valuable too. This is particularly noticeable anywhere near agricultural areas, where climate instability and more mouths to feed in the world has made food more valuable, making farmland more valuable, making urban sprawl out into the farmland more expensive. It goes on and on and on. So, even if the dollar was of constant value, you would unquestionably paying more for a house today as compared to in the past. But you're getting more! People are willing to pay more, in constant dollars, because it is worth it. Only on the dollar side are you getting less. The so-called 'hidden tax'. This is what inflation tries to find. If you are a politician speaking to the people, especially on a national scale, this is the only thing in your control, the only thing that is relevant to you. People choosing to buy bigger and better things is not really of your concern. Why shouldn't someone be able to buy something nicer if they want to? > Given that a word is defined by what the majority of the people using it mean by it In the absence of any other definition, that is true. If a speaker defines a word, though, then that new definition takes force while they are speaking. And economists and the President have most definitely provided a specific definition for "inflation". > I think inflation in common English is closer in meaning to COL than to the technical economics term I'm quite sure the most common definition is "that single number they talk about on the news", which is equivalent to CPI, which is most definitely not a cost of living measure.

mistermann 2y ago

> We can use whatever source of inflation we want. Nobody is selecting for us. But, as it happens, CPI is the one we've chosen as the default. If we change our minds, we don't have to default to it forevermore. It's up to us. a) Who, specifically, is "we" in this context? b) What is your information source for these facts? > Beyond interest rates, it doesn't mean much to Average Joe. What is your information source for the meaning contained within the minds of the average Joe? Please be specific, please at least try to speak truthfully.

mistermann 2y ago
How to forcefully remote-terminate the Interest service in a Human 101.

tsimionescu 2y ago

People discuss inflation because everyone from the Economist to Yellen to the President brings up inflation numbers whenever people start feeling their COL increase, or when people demand better state services etc. It is one of the most widely publicized economic indicators, along with GDP, unemployment rate, and foreign debt. But in many of these discussions, it is deliberately being presented as equivalent to COL, which is never addressed separately. So, in reality, for the vast majority of people who learn about these numbers from the media, not economics degrees, "inflation" actually refers to COL, except that the numbers they are given are the ones for what economists call inflation. Given that a word is defined by what the majority of the people using it mean by it, I think inflation in common English is closer in meaning to COL than to the technical economics term inflation. Edit: typos

mistermann 2y ago
How to manufacture reality (define and coordinate human beliefs) 101. It is amazing how effective and resilient these techniques are, if one cannot see the layers within layers. Well, it's still amazing even then.
randomdata 2y ago
> it is deliberately being presented as equivalent to COL It kind of is. That's what makes it confusing, I suppose. If you buy a house of equal value as compared to 60 years ago, then the amount in dollars you will pay, when adjusted for inflation, will be equivalent to 60 years ago (within some margin of error; inflation is impossible to calculate perfectly). If we live exactly like they did in 1960, then inflation and the change in cost of living are the same thing. But, people expect more today. As mentioned in several comments up-thread, take housing: They are bigger, safer, more energy efficient, more attractive, more comfortable, etc. Alongside that, the married family unit is quickly dying – people are more likely to be single nowadays, so we place more value on being able to live alone. Land is more valuable too. This is particularly noticeable anywhere near agricultural areas, where climate instability and more mouths to feed in the world has made food more valuable, making farmland more valuable, making urban sprawl out into the farmland more expensive. It goes on and on and on. So, even if the dollar was of constant value, you would unquestionably paying more for a house today as compared to in the past. But you're getting more! People are willing to pay more, in constant dollars, because it is worth it. Only on the dollar side are you getting less. The so-called 'hidden tax'. This is what inflation tries to find. If you are a politician speaking to the people, especially on a national scale, this is the only thing in your control, the only thing that is relevant to you. People choosing to buy bigger and better things is not really of your concern. Why shouldn't someone be able to buy something nicer if they want to? > Given that a word is defined by what the majority of the people using it mean by it In the absence of any other definition, that is true. If a speaker defines a word, though, then that new definition takes force while they are speaking. And economists and the President have most definitely provided a specific definition for "inflation". > I think inflation in common English is closer in meaning to COL than to the technical economics term I'm quite sure the most common definition is "that single number they talk about on the news", which is equivalent to CPI, which is most definitely not a cost of living measure.