3 ms·
I didn’t get they said the numbers were dodgy or manipulated. Don’t make the typical straw man when discussing inflation that people challenging the current for
by tarsinge 3y ago
I didn’t get they said the numbers were dodgy or manipulated. Don’t make the typical straw man when discussing inflation that people challenging the current formula for CPI are challenging the underlying data and so are conspiracists. The point is the relevance of the indicator. In fact the very article is about a different value if we take an older formula.
- michaelt 3y agoA number can be dodgy and manipulated without being outright fraudulent. And in politics it's rare someone will outright lie - I'm sure you've heard the term "lies, damn lies and statistics". For example, during the pandemic the UK government set itself a target for covid testing, then proudly announced that they'd hit their target - but it turned out they were not counting the number of tests processed in labs but instead the number of test kits sent out by mail regardless of whether they were received, returned, or processed - allowing them to declare success before increasing lab capacity. It's not outright fraudulent, but it's questionable and errs in a politically convenient direction - that's a dodgy number. And as I understand it, the claim in this discussion is that the government changed the definition of inflation, in a way that made the number lower? And that it now doesn't accurately reflect what it purports to reflect? Sounds like dodgy manipulated numbers to me.