barbarus
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 433
The good news is that clothing and electronics prices are down...
The Fed's inflation gauge isn't realistic, critics say /quote]
No Sh**!......91% of Americans agree, now a few more gurus stepping up to the plate, the march on Washington is coming soon! Felony theives! We want our money back, we want our money back, we want our money back. I'm fed up and I can't take it anymore. I heard Notmuchlonger is setting up a charter.
The real question is whether we are on a cusp of much worse things to come in terms of inflation in the United States. Certainly a falling USD points to rising prices in terms of import goods. I personally have struggled in terms of my investment strategy in trying to figure out whether inflation or deflation is the more likely scenario as a result of the now not so recent financial asset crisis. (I am grateful that I have accumulated decent sized slug of energy stocks since 2002.)
The good news is that clothing and electronics prices are down...
So which is it?
As others have mentioned many times before, the CPI clearly understates the actual rate of inflation experienced by most people.
However, when I look at the chart at the bottom of this article, I wonder how the calculation worked prior to 1983. It appears this calculation results in about 10% average inflation for 1/2001 - 3/2008 - this would mean that overall costs doubled during that period. I'm sure they've increased quite a bit (definitely more than the 20-25% increase in CPI), but I can't imagine they've doubled overall.
that would mean we're buying 40% fewer kwh of electricty, 40% fewer cars, 40% fewer pairs of shoes, 40% fewer cans of Coke, etc. That didn't happen.
It appears this calculation results in about 10% average inflation for 1/2001 - 3/2008 - this would mean that overall costs doubled during that period. I'm sure they've increased quite a bit (definitely more than the 20-25% increase in CPI), but I can't imagine they've doubled overall.
On average, wages have gone up a little faster than the CPI
Chained-dollar measures
BEA also prepares measures of real GDP and its components in a dollar-denominated form, designated "chained (1992) dollar estimates." For GDP and most other series, these estimates are computed by multiplying the 1996 current-dollar value by a corresponding quantity index number and then dividing by 100.
For analyses of changes over time in an aggregate or in a component, the percentage changes calculated from the chained-dollar estimates and from the chain-type quantity indexes are the same; any differences will be small and due to rounding. However, because the relative prices used as weights for any period other than the base period differ from those used for the base period, the chained-dollar values for the detailed GDP components do not necessarily sum to the chained-dollar estimate of GDP or to any intermediate aggregate. A measure of the extent of such differences is provided in most chained-dollar tables by a "residual" line, which indicates the difference between GDP (or an other major aggregate) and the sum of the most detailed components in the table.
For periods close to the base year, when there usually has not been much change in the relative prices that are used as the weights for the chain-type index, the residuals tend to be small, and the chained (1996) dollar estimates can be used to approximate the contributions to growth and to aggregate the detailed estimates.
As one moves further from the base year, the residual tends to become larger, and the chained-dollar estimates become less useful for analyses of contributions to growth. In general, the use of chained-dollar estimates to calculate component shares or component contributions to real growth may be misleading for periods away from the base year. In particular, for components for which relative prices are changing rapidly, these calculations may be misleading even just a few years from the base year.
1.) ... the now familiar construct "me + Warren Buffett in a room have a per capita income of $23 million!!".
Which wages have improved faster than CPI and for what time period? I'm not seeing anyone getting big raises in recent times, say the last 8 years.
Americans may well be buying (let's say..) the same number of kWh -- but they cost 40% more. And what DID happen is that to maintain a roughly equivalent std. of living they are relying on second familiy incomes and (especially recently) going ever more heavily into debt.
See the video I linked to, of a lecture by Elizabeth Warren:
http://www.early-retirement.org/for...er-last-30-years-34575.html?highlight=lecture
Median, CPI-adjusted wage for males has been about flat. The same number for females has been going up slowly. See:
Historical Income Tables - People
If we want to agree that wages have gone up exactly as fast as the CPI, then the point I'm trying to make in post 13 is even stronger.