Sure. I think that using 'cost of toys' index for inflation and 'cost of living' index not at all is a ridiculous way to go about things. If the majority of pe

Sure. I think that using 'cost of toys' index for inflation and 'cost of living' index not at all is a ridiculous way to go about things. If the majority of people are at income / wealth levels that mean their personal inflation rate is the cost of living index, then the general rate of inflation should be equal to that. It is literally an expression of what money is worth to the people for whom money is anything more than a metagame token. (Compare with median vs mean income. Mean income really doesn't mean much, especially if you exclude the unemployed.) Either that or we really need to reconsider what inflation is used for. The idea of it being used as a sort of way to determine 'real returns' is broken if most of the things people care about are left out of the index or demoted in weighting. Even a wealthy person does not have 0% inflation in the UK. They are probably buying flats in London or similar, which are going up in price all the time. How is that not inflation? Your money buys less... inflation is (should be) a measure of that. Toys really do not make up vast proportions of the expenditure of, well, anyone.